"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:49:15 +0000, Nick Finnigan wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

If we take an average of 50% power station efficiency, 90% transmission
efficiency and 80% charge efficiency (these are realistic figures,
according to experience and what data I could find) and apply that to
the
figure of 217wh per mile, we get 36% overall losses...so 602Wh per mile
is
what the power station has to BURN to get the car doing its stuff.That,
applied to diesel at 10KWh per liter gives us an overall 'fuel
consumption'
of 62mpg...on an economy run. So overallI reckon there is nothing to
choose.

Until you want to heat the car, and have more than two people in it.

Same aplies to any car. You don;t need more than 500w or so to heat a car.

Cars contain absolutely no thermal insulation, because engines have masses
of surplus heat. Once heating the car is draining energy away, then a layer
of insulation be fitted to the inner side of the panels.

Heating it for an hour is thes ame fuel used as travelling two miles.


Its on-street pollution would be zero,

No, it wouldn't be.


Why not?

Why aren't peole doing it?

Because there are no advantages over similar cars with IC engines.

At least you have that partly right. There is no overall cost benefit to
the user at this point, because the cost saved in diesel tax is used up in
the capital cost of batteries.

But you obviously didn't want to read what I write carefully, merely offer
snide comments.

And snide comments they were.