IMM wrote:

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


As you may know, I have a little hobby.
Flying electric model aircraft.
Up to tow years ago there was no way
to even approach the power and
energy densities of a tank of fuel. There
is now. And its tipped the balance so that
applied to cars, it comes out damn near
equal overall in terms of power and range
to weight of a tank of petrol and what is
needed to make it turn the wheels..

I can buy all I need to use this
technology NOW.


So, electric cars are "equal" to petrol right now in range and performance.


They CAN be. One allegedly is.


Apart from the zero emissions at point of use (brilliant as cities are
cleaned right up), what else is there to tip the balance? Generating more
electricity (very dirty procedure at present) at power stations is going to
produce more emissions. Cleaning this up is an expensive nightmare, not to
mention the electrical distribution system for re-charging vehicles.



Yes, but the alternatives are worse. At least the potential to generate
electricty from non fossil sources exists: hydrogen cars still need
hydrogen, and have neither the range, nor indeed the possibility to
generate the hydrogen cheaply except by electricity. The battery wins
over the hydrogen car. Period.

Whatever is dirty in a power statin is dirtier in a car. If you can go
froim fuel to power in a car at a certain level ofeffciency, then
certainly you can go from fuel to power, and electricity at least as
efficiently and at least at same level of pollution in a power station.
In fact its possible to do better when the weight limitations of car
engines are removed.


Otherwise we would have to look at biofuels - methanol, biodiesl etc. -
and hope that the economics of production make more sense.

I don;t think they do.






---
--

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.558 / Virus Database: 350 - Release Date: 02/01/2004