Why do electric cars have no future

don't be sad, Elon! Tesla is still cool.

We are All accustomed to, but rather we have got used to the idea that electric cars and all electric is significantly safer for the environment than traditional hydrocarbon energy sources. On the one hand, Yes. no bloat, no noise, does not pollute and does not overheat the atmosphere, but not so good as it might seem at first glance. Even if you drive the Tesla, the house is heated by the energy of the earth, and the electricity will be generated using solar panels, you will not be able to leave our children a clean planet. It is not necessary to create illusions.

We have written many times about electric cars and much more time to write about them. They really are of great interest for users. ”Refill” is at times, and even dozens of times cheaper, the dynamics of higher efficiency higher operating costs lower, even governments of many countries (including Russia) supported the purchase and ownership of electric vehicles a variety of benefits. Such benefits could include, for example, and tax cuts for electric vehicles and free use of the highways in Norway, and free Parking in Russia.

Cons of electric cars

The First disadvantage of electric vehicles stems from their advantages. As the fuel not burned, but ”horns” as a trolleybus, on the roof no need to carry a supply of energy. To do this, at the bottom of the car installed a huge battery. A side effect of this solution is a lower center of gravity and more rigid body structure, which is extremely positive effect on handling and safety.

But do not forget that the battery ”it's not only valuable fur”, but harmful chemicals. In addition that the production , should still produce components for the production, including rare earth metals. This is also a very negative impact on the environment. Let me remind you, the extraction of rare earth metals is one of the dirtiest extractive industries.

Now imagine how much you have devices with a battery. Smartphone, tablet, laptop, watch, a couple of ”batteries” at home and all. For simplification say it's about a kilogram of batteries, perhaps half, but not more. So many batteries now uses people. Now let's put at least another 300 kg of batteries for each person who has a car. Will increase consumption in hundreds of times. Thus, it is not necessary to say that not everyone has a car. They will take batteries that will be installed in buses, taxis, carsharing cars and other vehicles. In the end, will get roughly equal distribution.

Now many are thinking seriously about recycling batteries, even the battery of the smartphone carries irreparable harm to the environment, and one AA battery pollute 20 square meters of land. What can we say about the battery of a car or bus, which will weigh hundreds of pounds. For example, the Tesla Model S battery weighs 540 kg and has dimensions of 210х150х15.

As such, an effective procedure for the recycling of batteries, if it does not lead samples, no. In the processing of lead-acid batteries, the efficiency is very high and lost no more than 10 percent of the original product. The course is everything, including plastic, lead and acid, but she is not very economical, as energy to support the work of the whole enterprise with furnaces and other demanding equipment.

Recycling of batteries does not look very eco-friendly. The birds do not sing, flowers bloom.

The Elements of battery electric vehicles and portable electronics can be recycled significantly worse and the useful output is not so high. It also uses a large amount of water even after filtering, but is discharged into the sewer, and energy to support the work of the company.

It turns Out that the electric car is environmentally friendly only at the stage of exploitation? It turns out. Of course, the production vehicle with the internal combustion engine also has a bad production, but the chemistry in this process is substantially less. And to melt it is then much simpler.

In addition, do not forget that electricity in the sockets, too, are not propagated by budding. It is necessary to produce and deliver to the consumer. If you increase consumption to the level of ”electric car in every home” will have to build a new power line, which pollute the nature of electromagnetic radiation. There are downsides to the load on the network of cities, where tens of thousands of cars will be at 19:00 to embark on charging. In this case, however, technology can help savings, or batteries that need to process.

Cons of nuclear energy

For energy production, rising demand has already exceeded the rate of population growth of the planet, you can use a variety of methods. For example, nuclear power, which many people simply adore.

Nuclear power station is often portrayed such «green». Implying that they are safe.

On the one hand, obtaining such energy seems to be very profitable as substances that are needed for this relatively inexpensive and very energy efficient. Just do not forget that production is necessary to spend a lot of money, and for the disposal of radioactive waste is still large. All this leads to the fact that energy alsobecomes free. In addition, the plant itself, equipment, specialists, and security are too much.

But the supplies of fuel for nuclear power plants at current efficiency of their work can be considered inexhaustible. The only problem is that the experience of Chernobyl and Fukushima shows how the threat of the peaceful atom. Of course, there are many mistakes had been made, but they got out just in the time of the accident. Perhaps somewhere there is a more serious flaws, but yet nobody knows them.

the Danger of hydroelectric power

The Most inexpensive way of producing electricity are . This judgment is quite fair. In comparison with nuclear power plants and their operation costs 5-6 times cheaper, and the payback period is 3-4 times higher. It would seem that the problem is solved, but not so simple.

According to experts, hydropower will be able to cover only 20 percent of the needs of mankind, even at this stage of its development. With the growth of consumption, the situation will only get worse. The truth is the effectiveness of the use of this method does not exceed 50 percent. In Russia, this figure stands at 30-40 percent.

So it is possible to produce a lot of energy, but the environmental damage will be very large.

If on the mountain rivers it is still possible to install such plants is relatively no harm to the environment, then the placement of hydropower plants on lowland rivers, the flooding of fertile lands, violation of fish spawning, changes in populations of other river inhabitants and increase the number of blue-green algae, which have very bad impact on water quality.

Also, in the case of rivers which flow through several countries, it will be necessary to resolve the issue with the neighbors who are unlikely to be pleased with the degradation of fisheries and reduction of the amount of water flowing through their territory. In the UN there are even certain restrictions on such activities.

Cons of solar energy

In the case of solar energy, we are again confronted with the need for harmful production. Except that the battery itself already require large production capacities, we are again faced with the necessity of accumulation of energy.

In addition, . Efficiency, in turn, though increased recently, it is still insufficient to fully replace other sources of energy. That is why switch completely to a consumption possible only in the case of small households in Sunny regions. In other cases, it is only a Supplement.

Alternative energy

In addition to receiving energy from the above methods and combustion of fossil fuels, which do not dwell, there are other ways to generate electricity and heat. An example is tidal power and the well-known windmills. Only they are too expensive. For example, wind power has a fairly high efficiency, but costs 300 000 Euro without installing, and install them have a lot. In addition, it requires costly maintenance.

Geothermal power station can turn the Earth into an inexhaustible energy source.

In this sense a very attractive look . Their simplistic design consists of a pipe, in-depth hundreds of meters under the ground. In the deep layers, mainly on the springs, the water or substance in the pipe is heated and flows up. The resulting heat can be used for generators and heating. Looks easy, attractive and inexpensive. The only drawback is not very big efficiency and a limited lifetime due to the large amount of salts and minerals that spoil pipes and equipment.

is it Possible to switch on the electricity?

For several decades scientists are struggling with the problem of transition from non-renewable fossil energy sources to renewable. Stopping them in this way the imperfection of technology. Even at the current level of consumption is not obtained. What can we say about the emergence of electric vehicles, which will require substantially more energy.

Turns out, all is not rosy in this direction? Another disadvantage will be the fact that with the emergence of a large number of cars with electric engines are likely to increase the cost of energy. It will turn into what is now oil. Jump the electricity price will affect the economy of entire countries and monopolists to dictate their terms. So it's not all rosy in the full transition to the electricity. There is this process both pluses and minuses.