![]() |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 11831190)
I get the impression that if car companies hadn't been forced by regulation to improve fuel efficiency, they probably wouldn't have bothered. |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11831205)
Sooner or later someone is going to realize that setting entirely unattainable efficiency goals is daft, and leads to cheating (whether permitted, such as "buying credits", or not, a la Volkswagen), rather than an actual increase in efficiency.
|
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by mrken30
(Post 11831208)
Entirely true especially at $2 / gallon. But if someone can pay $60,000 for a truck I'm sure they can pay for the fuel. How much auto debt do American have? over $1 trillion I believe.
|
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 11831104)
If Toyota believed in EVs, then it would not have bothered with hybrids. Hybrids are an acknowledgement that battery power alone is inadequate.
....
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11831205)
....
Sooner or later someone is going to realize that setting entirely unattainable efficiency goals is daft, and leads to cheating (whether permitted, such as "buying credits", or not, a la Volkswagen), rather than an actual increase in efficiency. |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Bahtatboy
(Post 11829886)
Jumping in here late and haven't read most of the posts, so tell me to bugger off if the following has already been covered.
Had a look over the Tesla S when I was in UK last. 300+ mile range, 20 mins for 1/2 a charge at Tesla's charging stations (free of charge, for life, for Tesla S owners - admittedly not many of those (the charging stations) in UK, especially north of London), several hours at home for a full charge (costs about £5), in standard trim does 0-60mph in under 6 secs (and 2.9 secs with the Insane Acceleration Kit), and looks extremely cool to boot. Very tempted. Looking forward to their cheaper and smaller 4x4 / crossover coming out later this year. Tesla is fine for most peoples' daily commute, shopping etc. That 20 mins for a half charge is still rather long. |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11830014)
You dryer and water heater run on 2x120v, which isn't quite the same as 240v (the actual voltages vary slightly anyway, usually 110v-120v).
|
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Boomhauer
(Post 11831521)
Only time I've seen Teslas is when I drive through Chicago. Lots of wealthy folks there and electric cars are more efficient than IC engine cars for stop-n-go traffic .
Tesla is fine for most peoples' daily commute, shopping etc. That 20 mins for a half charge is still rather long. The 20 mins is fine if you can just roll up, park and plug, and have a coffee while you wait (and if the journey is well-planned, which apparently Tesla has put a lot of effort into by way of its iPad-sized dedicated satnav, then a break after a couple of hundred miles is a good idea anyway). The main drag I would see is if you're in a queue to use the charging dock. However, with a range of 300 miles it'd still work for most people, with perhaps some inconvenience which, again for most people, would be an acceptable quid pro quo for free energy. I'm still wondering what the catch it. |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 11831415)
Toyota could believe completely in EVs but also be realistic that the way to get there is through hybrid designs in the near term until battery technology advances.
Toyota's actions make it clear that any improvements to the battery that may have the potential to make EVs feasible won't be coming from them. Hybrids exist because battery technology by itself is not well suited to mass adoption; Toyota combines gasoline engines and electric motors so that they complement each other. Automakers have tended to steer clear from EVs because of the power storage problem. The German, US federal and California governments are all pushing the matter, so the automakers are now making mostly gratuitous efforts to comply. But at the end of the day, a battery is a vat of chemicals, so it isn't like a tank of fuel -- those chemicals will degrade and recharging a battery will probably never be as fast as is putting liquid inside of a tank. |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Bahtatboy
(Post 11831648)
I'm still wondering what the catch is.
|
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11829881)
They still do, don't they? Don't the nuclear powered ships, including the US aircraft carriers, use the reactor to make steam to run a generator?
|
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Rickyk
(Post 11831830)
The way diesel train locomotives work and the way many of the big (400t) mining trucks work.
Most, the vast majority, of diesel trains use the engine to run a generator, and the electricity generated is used to power electric motors. ..... But we covered that already above. It wouldn't surprise me that big mining trucks use a similar system. It would however surprise me if those trucks ran on nuclear power! :rolleyes: |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11831838)
What? :confused: You think diesel trains run on nuclear power? .... Or on steam running a turbine generator? :unsure:
Most, the vast majority, of diesel trains use the engine to run a generator, and the electricity generated is used to power electric motors. ..... But we covered that already above. It wouldn't surprise me that big mining trucks use a similar system. It would however surprise me if those trucks ran on nuclear power! :rolleyes: |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Rickyk
(Post 11831848)
diesel locomotives run on diesel. The reason these large diesel motors use electric generators and electric motors is the complexity and hence cost of the transmission is too high. Cat have developed mechanical drive transmissions for large mining trucks because they are more efficient than electric drives
Combining your confusing wording with the fact that you quoted a post I made about nuclear powered steam turbines for warships, but then proceeded to talk about diesel electric locomotives and quarry trucks with mechanical transmission, it is inevitable that what you have written is hard to make sense of even IF the reader already knows how these machines are powered. |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Pulaski
(Post 11831853)
I know how they run, and that mechanical drive is more efficient, and lighter to boot, and perhaps you do too, but your phrasing is confusing.
Combining your confusing wording with the fact that you quoted a post I made about nuclear powered steam turbines for warships, but then proceeded to talk about diesel electric locomotives and quarry trucks with mechanical transmission, it is inevitable that what you have written is hard to make sense of even IF the reader already knows how these machines are powered. |
Re: Nissan Leaf
Originally Posted by Owen778
(Post 11831872)
Honestly, it didn't seem confusing to me. He meant they also make steam to power a generator, not that we have nuclear-powered trains.
So you actually proved my point, that what Rickyk wrote was confusing (didn't convey what is actually true). :thumbsup: Nuclear powered vessels need the steam to convert heat energy into rotational energy by means of a turbine generator. Diesel engines have a crank shaft that produces rotational energy, so it can be connected directly to an alternator to generate AC power. As RickyK said himself, quarry trucks use a mechanical transmission. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 9:05 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.