Electric Golf Carts Are Becoming Neighborhood Cars

[johnnymk]

No link. This was emailed to me



Speaking of green activities, an increasing number of people are learning that electric golf carts are a great way to get around their neighborhoods without using any gasoline. The electric carts are fun to drive and they will go as much as 30 miles on an overnight charge.

Golf cars owe their existence to Neighborhood Electric Vehicle (NEV) standards that were quietly approved by Congress in 1998. The legislation went largely unnoticed until it was recently clarified -and publicized- by the Department of Transportation. Under the NEV rules, golf carts only need lights, turn signals, windshields, and related safety features to be used in towns. The little vehicles must also have controllers which prevent them from going faster than 25 mph. However, many controllers have been known to mysteriously fail after the little cars are purchased.

The trend in golf car styling is to spoof so-called "real cars." There is a mini-Hummer, a Mercedes Bents, a Rolls Royal and several variations of roadsters and famous race cars. But the most popular golf cars have a Calypso look complete with fringed tops and wild colors.

A good way to learn more about golf cars is to log onto http://www.gemcar.com, the website for the leading manufacturer, Global Electric Motorcars, a division of Daimler-Chrysler. Additional golf cars from a variety of makers can be seen at http://www.golfcars4u.com/streetlegal.htm.

Whichever way you go, a nice NEV will set you back from $5,000 to $9,000. That's not a lot to pay for a sporty little vehicle that can replace a much more expensive "gasser" for many urban trips.

[Cubsfan]

I only live a mile from work, so I'd love to have something like this or a Segway. However, it would take me many, many years to make up for the cost of the thing in gas.

(Yes, I know I should just ride my bike :) )

[mechmike0034]

And how is the electricity produced to charge the batteries in these vehicles?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Sources_of_Electricity_in_the_US_2005_New.png/800px-Sources_of_Electricity_in_the_US_2005_New.png
Sources of Electricity in the US 2005

Most electricity today is generated by burning fossil fuels. How "green" is that?

[cheapie]

sure. they still take some energy. but i'll bet they're far more efficient than taking an SUV down the road a couple miles to get coffee, a beer, pick the kids up from school, etc.

[InfiniteNothing]

Coal is indeed the major concern but there are some mitigating factors.
1)That is the present US output. Having the comon medium of electricity makes the source of the power flexible. That is, if everyone drove an electric car, switching fuel sources would not require everyone to buy the latest and greatest new technology. You just have to swap in a new power plant.
2) Coal is getting cleaner and cleaner as technology progresses.
3) The efficiency of producing energy on a large scale is much much much greater. That means that there will be much less greenhouse gas pollution.
4) The flexibility I was talking about in 1 also applies to foriegn oil dependence. If things go bad in the middle east, we don't have to get dragged in.

[JaQnAbOx]

Coal is indeed the major concern but there are some mitigating factors.
1)That is the present US output. Having the comon medium of electricity makes the source of the power flexible. That is, if everyone drove an electric car, switching fuel sources would not require everyone to buy the latest and greatest new technology. You just have to swap in a new power plant.
2) Coal is getting cleaner and cleaner as technology progresses.
3) The efficiency of producing energy on a large scale is much much much greater. That means that there will be much less greenhouse gas pollution.
4) The flexibility I was talking about in 1 also applies to foriegn oil dependence. If things go bad in the middle east, we don't have to get dragged in.

Also…
Controlling and regulating emissions from a point source (power plant) is a lot easier and “greener” than trying to regulate hundreds of cars driving on the road. It is more efficient to regulate the power plant and make sure that their equipment is functioning properly rather than looking after every car to make sure it is properly tuned etc.

It is also possible to place power plants where the emissions do not impact an immediate population. For example you can have the power plant off shore or in a desolate location where the emissions can have the chance to disperse (dilution is the solution to pollution).

[Houdini]

Coal is indeed the major concern but there are some mitigating factors.
1)That is the present US output. Having the comon medium of electricity makes the source of the power flexible. That is, if everyone drove an electric car, switching fuel sources would not require everyone to buy the latest and greatest new technology. You just have to swap in a new power plant.


Problem is, too many in government are against building new power plants, and too many people are scared of nuclear power (no new plants in how long?)



2) Coal is getting cleaner and cleaner as technology progresses.

Yep. And we have plenty of it. Still, it emits the dreaded CO2, etc.



3) The efficiency of producing energy on a large scale is much much much greater. That means that there will be much less greenhouse gas pollution.

I was thinking about this as well. How much more efficient would it really be though?

I like electric things. You'd still probably get laughed off the street in most places using a Segway, unless you have a disability that makes using one very convenient. But nice, quiet, clean, automated transportation is cool.

Still, I'm one of those global warming pseudoskeptics, or rather, I'm skeptical of the percent contributions of various causes, and what, if anything, should be done, as the earth has never had a "right" temperature. Methinks the sun has more of an effect than anything, as other planets near us have also been heating up around the same timeframe. And I don't trust thermometers from 100+ years ago to have enough precision to compare to what we can measure today, and even today, you can't measure the temp of the entire planet easily. For all we know, a little warming may be good for the planet.

Still, it looks like those little carts would be fun to drive. But, like the old saying regarding other things, fun to ride, but you might not want to be seen in one. :)

Oh, and regarding the other post, yes, the solution to pollution is dilution. But moving pollution doesn't decrease the greenhouse gases that are of concern. In most of America, having a coal plant or a gazillion cars wouldn't make much of an impact on surrounding areas. Certain areas like L.A., however, will be harmed due to simple geography and hence poor air circulation.

[InfiniteNothing]

Also…
Controlling and regulating emissions from a point source (power plant) is a lot easier and “greener” than trying to regulate hundreds of cars driving on the road. It is more efficient to regulate the power plant and make sure that their equipment is functioning properly rather than looking after every car to make sure it is properly tuned etc.

It is also possible to place power plants where the emissions do not impact an immediate population. For example you can have the power plant off shore or in a desolate location where the emissions can have the chance to disperse (dilution is the solution to pollution).

Those are great points. Theoretically, if you really wanted to cut back on CO2 you could have sodium hydroxide scrubbers to capture and sequester the CO2 emissions off a power plant. Much easier than everyone strapping a scrubber to their car.

[InfiniteNothing]

Problem is, too many in government are against building new power plants, and too many people are scared of nuclear power (no new plants in how long?)


Yep. And we have plenty of it. Still, it emits the dreaded CO2, etc.


I was thinking about this as well. How much more efficient would it really be though?

I like electric things. You'd still probably get laughed off the street in most places using a Segway, unless you have a disability that makes using one very convenient. But nice, quiet, clean, automated transportation is cool.

Still, I'm one of those global warming pseudoskeptics, or rather, I'm skeptical of the percent contributions of various causes, and what, if anything, should be done, as the earth has never had a "right" temperature. Methinks the sun has more of an effect than anything, as other planets near us have also been heating up around the same timeframe. And I don't trust thermometers from 100+ years ago to have enough precision to compare to what we can measure today, and even today, you can't measure the temp of the entire planet easily. For all we know, a little warming may be good for the planet.

Still, it looks like those little carts would be fun to drive. But, like the old saying regarding other things, fun to ride, but you might not want to be seen in one. :)

Oh, and regarding the other post, yes, the solution to pollution is dilution. But moving pollution doesn't decrease the greenhouse gases that are of concern. In most of America, having a coal plant or a gazillion cars wouldn't make much of an impact on surrounding areas. Certain areas like L.A., however, will be harmed due to simple geography and hence poor air circulation.

How much more efficient?
Lets do the math.

GEM has 6 140 AH batteries at 12 V each = 10kWH, 3.6E6 J/kWH. and divide by 30 mi range = 1209 kJ/mi

Compare to a small car 35 MPG @ 120,000 kJ/gal = 3428 kJ/mi.

That efficiency also makes electric vehicles cheaper to operate. Lets say $0.13/kWH: GEM is ~$0.04/mile compared to $0.09/mile given 35 mpg at $3.00/gal)

Here's the San Diego fuel mix 2005:
52 Natural Gas 25 Nuclear 9 Coal 8 Renewable 6% other
Here's projected 2012:
53% Natural Gas, 14% Nuclear, and 14% Renewable

2017 goal is 20% Renewable

[mechmike0034]

Coal is indeed the major concern but there are some mitigating factors.

1)That is the present US output. Having the comon medium of electricity makes the source of the power flexible. That is, if everyone drove an electric car, switching fuel sources would not require everyone to buy the latest and greatest new technology. You just have to swap in a new power plant.

With all due respect, that's a pretty big "if"... If I were thinner, younger and better looking I'd get laid more often.


2) Coal is getting cleaner and cleaner as technology progresses.

Scrubbers are getting better, but we ain't there yet...


3) The efficiency of producing energy on a large scale is much much much greater. That means that there will be much less greenhouse gas pollution.

Again, WADR, I'll believe it when I see it. Remember the First Law of Thermodynamics...


4) The flexibility I was talking about in 1 also applies to foriegn oil dependence. If things go bad in the middle east, we don't have to get dragged in.

OK - but I'm still questioning the original marketing fluff that John posted. That was my original intent. Not to question him - to question the first marketing fluff statement that inferred that "green" meant not using gasoline...

[mechmike0034]

Also…
Controlling and regulating emissions from a point source (power plant) is a lot easier and “greener” than trying to regulate hundreds of cars driving on the road. It is more efficient to regulate the power plant and make sure that their equipment is functioning properly rather than looking after every car to make sure it is properly tuned etc.

Since the 1996 model year they're already being managed. Every car and light truck sold in this country beginning with the '96 model year self-tests its on-board emissions control systems.



It is also possible to place power plants where the emissions do not impact an immediate population. For example you can have the power plant off shore or in a desolate location where the emissions can have the chance to disperse (dilution is the solution to pollution).

Move the coal-fired power plants farther away so that we have to ship the coal fuel greater distances to them (via diesel powered trains, trucks or ships)...?

[Airencracken]

Also you have to take transmission loss into account. That reduces the efficiency of an electric car drastically.

I still say a decentralized approach to electricity is the best idea. We have how many square meters of rooftop in this country? Cover it all with solar panels and put a windmill in everyone's back yard. We obviously care about how much things cost much more than how green they are. I'm sure that we could erect quite a few solar panels for the ~$450 billion cost of the war in Iraq.

[Houdini]

Also you have to take transmission loss into account. That reduces the efficiency of an electric car drastically.

I still say a decentralized approach to electricity is the best idea. We have how many square meters of rooftop in this country? Cover it all with solar panels and put a windmill in everyone's back yard. We obviously care about how much things cost much more than how green they are. I'm sure that we could erect quite a few solar panels for the ~$450 billion cost of the war in Iraq.

I guess it's because "cost" can be easily measured and calculated. "Greenness" is kind of ephemeral.

Windmills kinda suck, especially because wind isn't reliable or predictable, or even prevalent to a significant amount in many parts of the country. Sure, big fields of them exist, but even they aren't that good.

I'm all for solar power though. As well as geothermal. Good old fashioned heat/light energy that will never ever go away.

I'd also like to exploit gravity. Use the moon for tide flows and rises and falls. Why not?

H <---still working on that damn tide mill. If only he didn't have a full-time job and an internet addiction...

[Kevster]

Windmills kinda suck, especially because wind isn't reliable or predictable, or even prevalent to a significant amount in many parts of the country. Sure, big fields of them exist, but even they aren't that good.

You haven't been to the Altamont Pass, have you? :heh: The wind there is VERY predictable (hence the HUGE field of windmills there!)



I'm all for solar power though. As well as geothermal. Good old fashioned heat/light energy that will never ever go away.

We have those here in California as well.



I'd also like to exploit gravity. Use the moon for tide flows and rises and falls. Why not?
They're working on that - those systems are just a few years away. Too bad the Moon moves 3.8 centimeters from the earth every year due to tidal forces and tidal friction.



H <---still working on that damn tide mill. If only he didn't have a full-time job and an internet addiction...

:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

I know the feeling! If I didn;t have to work full-time I'd be well on my way to building my solar panel field.

[InfiniteNothing]

With all due respect, that's a pretty big "if"... If I were thinner, younger and better looking I'd get laid more often.

Scrubbers are getting better, but we ain't there yet...


Again, WADR, I'll believe it when I see it. Remember the First Law of Thermodynamics...

OK - but I'm still questioning the original marketing fluff that John posted. That was my original intent. Not to question him - to question the first marketing fluff statement that inferred that "green" meant not using gasoline...

First law is fine but there is so much wasted heat in a gas car. I think efficiency is around %25. Power plants are much more efficient because they don't have to rely on the Otto cycle. I've shown the calcs comparing their energy use and thus their greenhouse profile. I think I've shown how cities like SD are improving their energy portfolio through the years.

When I mentioned coal improvements, I was talking about coal gasification. That is rather clean. Coal is most popular (I think) in less urban areas where they don't do as much harm. SD for example uses natural gas for most of its energy.

[Houdini]

First law is fine but there is so much wasted heat in a gas car. I think efficiency is around %25. Power plants are much more efficient because they don't have to rely on the Otto cycle. I've shown the calcs comparing their energy use and thus their greenhouse profile. I think I've shown how cities like SD are improving their energy portfolio through the years.

When I mentioned coal improvements, I was talking about coal gasification. That is rather clean. Coal is most popular (I think) in less urban areas where they don't do as much harm. SD for example uses natural gas for most of its energy.

Thanks for the calcs, IN. To be fair, for all the anti-CO2 people out there, burning natural gas = methane, that's about all you get. Plus water.

[InfiniteNothing]

You mean burning natural gas = burning methane. Yes, burning natural gas puts out CO2 but in an urban area, that's better, at least in the short run, than putting out particulate matter or SO3. Also compared to gasoline, there's about half as much CO2 since the carbon to hydrogen ratio is 1:4 instead of nearly 1:2

[Napoleon54]

The draw back to doing electric everything is that it adds multiple energy conversion steps to the equation. With a gasoline engine in your car, the fuel (which stores chemical energy) is burned to directly produce mechanical motion (kinetic energy) and propel the vehicle. Chemical energy --> kinetic energy. Compare that to an electric car: the fuel (chemical energy) is burned to turn a turbine (kinetic energy) which generates electricity (electrical energy), which is then used to charge a battery (back to chemical energy), then the battery powers an electrical motor to FINALLY reproduce the original mechanical motion. Chemical energy --> kinetic energy --> electricity --> chemical energy --> kinetic energy. Each step of that elaborate chain of events results in a loss of energy. Converting energy from one form to another is highly inefficient. I'd like to see a study describing how efficient an electric car really is when you account for the whole chain all the way back to the original fuel source.

[InfiniteNothing]

All the electric steps are very efficient. Perhaps ~90%. That's why the electric engine doesn't heat up nearly as much as the gas motor. I don't even think you need water cooling like you do with a gas motor.

The biggest loss is always the chemical to kinetic to whatever and it's not too dificult to beat a gas motor at ~25%

http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm

[Napoleon54]

All the electric steps are very efficient. Perhaps ~90%. That's why the electric engine doesn't heat up nearly as much as the gas motor. I don't even think you need water cooling like you do with a gas motor.

The biggest loss is always the chemical to kinetic to whatever and it's not too dificult to beat a gas motor at ~25%

http://www.howstuffworks.com/fuel-cell4.htm

D'oh. Kinetic is what I meant, not potential. I fixed.

Intereting article, thanks for the reading. I knew something like that had to exist but was too lazy to look for it.

Something the article mentioned that is very important is the source of the electricity. Is it from a coal or gas plant, or nuclear or hydroelectric or wind? If it's from a coal plant then it looks like the actual emissions and energy efficiency of electric isn't any better than a gas. But as technology and infrastructure continues to develop to use nuclear or renewables in place of the combustion of fossil fuels, then that's when electrical becomes the wiser choice.

[Napoleon54]

There's another (minor) point I omitted earlier for sake of simplicity, but I feel compelled to mention it now. A combustion engine doesn't strictly do chemical --> kinetic. It does fuel (chemical) --> heat (kinetic) --> motion (kinetic). The fuel is burned to produce heat and gasses, which causes expansion, which pushes a piston or turbine (or boils water to produce steam which pushes a turbine, depending on the setup of the electrical plant). In other words, the fuel doesn't directly push the piston; there's the intermediary kinetic step of heat/ expansion.

[Houdini]

You mean burning natural gas = burning methane. Yes, burning natural gas puts out CO2 but in an urban area, that's better, at least in the short run, than putting out particulate matter or SO3. Also compared to gasoline, there's about half as much CO2 since the carbon to hydrogen ratio is 1:4 instead of nearly 1:2

Yeah, that's what I meant. Natural gas is methane. Just phrased it funny.

But compared to gasoline, with combustion, each molecule of CH4 produces a lot less energy than octane, so a larger volume of CH4 would be necessary, no? And that may offset the CO2 factors, no?

[JaQnAbOx]

Since the 1996 model year they're already being managed. Every car and light truck sold in this country beginning with the '96 model year self-tests its on-board emissions control systems.




Move the coal-fired power plants farther away so that we have to ship the coal fuel greater distances to them (via diesel powered trains, trucks or ships)...?
yes all cars mfg after 1996 do self monitor, but it is still easier to catch one modified/non-tuned/faulty etc. powerplant. There are still plenty of 1996 cars/trucks out there.

you can also move closer to the source of the coal - less shipping.