Who killed the Electric Car?

phlogistician

08-17-06, 04:40 AM

HA! I've just had a look for electric cars online. Yes, there are some models that offer spectacular performance like the Tesla Roadster, and the Lexus 2054, but at unrealistic, non mass market prices.

At realistic prices, let's compare the G-Wiz at £7,000;

http://www.goingreen.co.uk/store/buynew/

to the Ford Ka, also at £7000;

http://www.ford.co.uk/ie/ka/ka_overview/ka_ka/-/-/-/556590

So, the G-Wiz is pretty useless, isn't it? Two seats, 40 miles range, it's going to get you to the supermarket and back, maybe to work and back, but possibly not both without a recharge in between (of eight frikking hours!)

Also, the G-Wiz is marketed at the London driver, where there is a congestion charge to pay on petrol vehicles, and free parking offered in various places to electric ones. Here you would have to get lucky and work near a place that offered free parking and charging, because unless you have off street parking (In London?) you cannot plug your car into the mains while it stands on the street. I don't have offstreet parking myself. So your car would get charged while you were at work, but would be depleted on your drive home. Not a great way to leave your car for the weekend.

So, anyone want to spend £7000 on a car that can only go 40 odd miles?

Nasor

08-17-06, 01:03 PM

A very important thing for people to keep in mind is that car companies are not oil companies. Car companies are concerned with making as much money as possible. If a company could make a car that got much better gas mileage they would happily build it and steal customers away from their competitors.

spuriousmonkey

08-17-06, 01:16 PM

MetaKron

08-17-06, 08:01 PM

phlogistician

08-18-06, 06:48 AM

It's a 20 mile round trip to work for me, and groceries are on the way.

To make sure you got then and weren't pushing the last hundred yards, you'd have to buy the version that had a 48 mile range, just in case your batteries weren't 100% charged. That's another £1000 on top.

That 7000 pounds isn't all that much to spend on a new vehicle. Around here in this part of America it's all too easy to spend something like that on a crappy used gas guzzler.

I agree, for a car, £7k is cheap. But what you get for £7k is a crappy two seater with a lousy range.

A 40 mile range is damned restrictive. I would think a good backyard engineer could get that much range by fitting a used car with an electric motor and four to six car batteries.

If I only had to travel a short distance to work, and was environmentally conscious, I'd just go buy a 125cc moped for less than £1k. Ridiculous mpg, good range, fast enough, easy to park, cheap, and reliable, and nearly as much carrying capacity as that stupid electric car! For shorter journeys, you could get an electric moped for about £300.

wsionynw

08-18-06, 07:17 PM

The electric car will always be dead until we have batteries/capacitors which meet four criteria:

1. Long range.
2. Quick re-charging...in minutes.
3. Low cost.
4. Low weight.

Depends on where you live and what you use your car for.

MetaKron

08-21-06, 12:54 AM

To make sure you got then and weren't pushing the last hundred yards, you'd have to buy the version that had a 48 mile range, just in case your batteries weren't 100% charged. That's another £1000 on top.

I said a 20 mile ROUND TRIP. That leaves a 20 mile margin.

I think that a 40 mile range can be had with relatively inexpensive technology and can be retrofitted to most used cars. Usually it's the engine and transmission that are worth more than the entire car, either unit. I am also painfully aware that it's hard to make the adaptation, but it needs to be looked at. Why waste used cars anyway?

Nasor

08-21-06, 11:53 AM

A 40 mile range is damned restrictive. I would think a good backyard engineer could get that much range by fitting a used car with an electric motor and four to six car batteries.

You would be surprised. Lead-acid car batteries have an energy density of around 100 kj/kg, which means that if you wanted to run a motor at 20 horsepower for 40 minutes it would take around 360 kg of car batteries. Most modern electric cars use lithium ion batteries, which can get around 750 kj/kg, but are much much more expensive.

It's hard to compete with gasoline, which has an energy density of around 45 megajoules /kg.

A big problem with electric cars is that the only people who are likely to put up with long recharge times and limited ranges - people who don't have to drive far each day - are the very people who are the least impacted by high gas prices. You have to drive a lot before an electric car makes economic sense, and if you have to drive that much then you probably won't be able to tolerate the limited range and long recharge times.

Facial

08-24-06, 01:53 AM

Big Oil is subsidized plentifully by the government. Waging war to protect oil reserves is wholly paid by the government. These reflect the unrealistically low prices we pay in the US compared to the rest of the world. But this would be the ripoff package, b/c of the war part.

It's better for the government to subsidize and finance electrical recharging stations, much like how it built such an extensive freeway system.

Facial

08-24-06, 01:54 AM

Ever seen the EV's shaped like minivans and SUVs? Those have much longer range than just 40 miles.

spuriousmonkey

08-24-06, 03:47 AM

News from India.

http://www.revaindia.com/aboutevs.htm

The REVA

Easy to charge:
It runs on batteries and as compared to other Electric Vehicles has an onboard charger to facilitate easy charging which can be carried out by plugging into any 15 Amp socket at home or work. As simple as charging a mobile phone!

A full battery charge takes less than seven hours and gives a range of * 80km . In quick-charge mode (two-and-a-half hours) 80% charge is attained, good enough for 65km. A full charge consumes just about 9 units of electricity.

http://www.revaindia.com/packingbabe.jpg
The lady isn't an extra

High efficiency and reliability:
It is twice as efficient as a petrol driven vehicle and has an operating cost as low as 40 paise / km.

Low maintenance / easy serviceability:
REVA requires extremely low maintenance because of the minimum number of moving parts.

Nissan:

http://www.evuk.co.uk/hotwires/rawstuff/art9.html
http://www.evuk.co.uk/imgs/nissaltra.jpg

A car like the Nissan Altra EV, in fact. The new sate-of-the-art model has been built to prove electric vehicles can be equally as practical as everyday runarounds. It is as big as a proper car - about the same size as a very tall Primera estate - with four seats and a spacious boot, has a top speed of 75 mph and a 14 seconds 0-60 mph time. Its range is still rather more limited than the average petrol car at around 120 miles, but when it costs only '£1.50' to fill up who's complaining?

This major advance has been made possible by using the battery technology which has seen laptop computers and mobile phones shrink in size. Nissan claims the pack should last at least 100,000 miles of charges before it starts to deteriorate, and even then it will keep going, although performance levels will be less.

The Altra EV is so practical it does not seem like a stereotypical electric vehicle. It behaves more like a normal car which happens to be powered by electricity. It has the performance to keep up with most traffic, a decent range and is easy to drive

swivel

08-24-06, 09:27 AM

Doesn't matter if we all drive electric cars if we are still burning coal and oil in order to provide the electricity to them.

Until we build a few hundred more nulcear power plants, the dream of electric cars is just a dream of passing the buck along, not of saving oil or saving money.

spuriousmonkey

08-24-06, 10:12 AM

It matters because powerplants are more effecient.

swivel

08-24-06, 10:21 AM

It matters because powerplants are more effecient.

It doesn't matter if powerplants are more efficient, they aren't the weak link. The weak link is the electric cars, which are not effecient. Batteries lose too much energy from heat, especially for the cars and trucks that will be operated in cold climates. The waste is in the storage and transmission of the electricity, even within households.

All of this waste must be made up with more coal and oil being burned, which means more oil and coal being transported.

People have done the math on this, and it doesn't work out well at all. Unless we build more nuclear plants, and figure out a good plan for handling that waste, we will eventually hit a wall.

spuriousmonkey

08-24-06, 10:26 AM

Don't start making up stuff.

See other posts. They are efficient.

or else see this:
http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml

swivel

08-24-06, 10:47 AM

spuriousmonkey

08-24-06, 11:09 AM

I don't give a shit about cars. I use the bicycle and public transport.

Cars are silly.

spuriousmonkey

08-24-06, 11:21 AM

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/electric_car.html

Dumb site

http://www.culturechange.org/issue9/electriccarsno.html

Dumb personal opinion.

Walter L. Wagner

08-24-06, 02:20 PM

Check out the Tesla car. It gets 250 miles per battery charge ($3 of electricity at standard rates). It has a warmer to keep the batteries warm in cold climates.

The real draw-back is the 3 hour full-charge time from drained to fully-charged. BUT, it does 0 to 60 in under six seconds! Great little electric motor, two speed transmission.

I expect that if we can develop good capacitors, we might see batteries replaced by them. They should charge in minutes, not hours. This would change the entire equation of motor vehicles, bypassing Hydrogen, Biodiesel, Ethanol, Coal-to-Diesel, and the other alternatives to gasoline we're experimenting with.

Facial

08-25-06, 12:03 AM

Even knowledgable environmentalists and conservationists fear the move to electric cars.
That's an interesting remark. Are there links?

Spurious is right: power plants are more efficient. Using larger turbines maximizes efficiency - newer ones achieve around 70-80%. According to flunch electrical transmission losses still amount to more than 95% storage-to-motion efficiency, compared to the estimated 30-40% range for petrol. This has enormous implications.

Battery waste has a good recycling program. In the long run, the switch to electric will save energy and money given the proper environment (no blood for oil, corporate pay-packs, tax-breaks, suppression of environmental laws, etc.).

Then, in the far future, all the oil saved can be spent for space travel and space colonization to prevent our asses from being fried.

Facial

08-25-06, 12:11 AM

I expect that if we can develop good capacitors, we might see batteries replaced by them. They should charge in minutes, not hours. This would change the entire equation of motor vehicles, bypassing Hydrogen, Biodiesel, Ethanol, Coal-to-Diesel, and the other alternatives to gasoline we're experimenting with.

They've started using Korean-made supercapacitors to power some buses. It's interesting technology.

The main advantage to supercapacitors in the future would be their cheapness, given better mass-production capabilities and advancements in nanotechnology. The basic truth still remains, however, that the highest sp. energy density wrt weight is found in batteries - supercapacitors are lie somewhere in between lead acid and lithium ion batteries for their weight - perhaps something comparable to a regular alkaline battery, if not too much under. There are other battery technologies, elaborated on printed literature and Wikipedia, that exceed lithium ion technology nowadays, which itself marks the ceiling yet to be reached for today's highest nanotech supercapacitors in terms of J/kg.

My point is that in general, batteries have greater energy densities than capacitors for a given level of technology. But in the future, the cheaper cost of supercapacitors may make them competitive.

q0101

08-25-06, 02:42 PM

http://www.manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/electric_car.html

http://www.culturechange.org/issue9/electriccarsno.html

I can post links as well.

I'm not making stuff up, you just haven't thought the issue through, or from both sides. No offense meant. Do some more reading. Even knowledgable environmentalists and conservationalists fear the move to electric cars. It will most likely lead to more coal burned in the U.S. which is worse for the environment than oil.

I know you guys mean well, but you are making the same sort of mistakes that have been made in the past. You are rushing off for what seems to be a cure, when what you will really do is make things worse.

You’re forgetting about the fact that the federal government in the U.S.A is not taking the necessary steps to eliminate the use of coal as source of electricity. All of the electricity in the U.S.A could be generated from environmental friendly methods (solar panels, wind turbines, hydro electricity) along with the existing nuclear power plants. 90% of the new cars on the roads in 2006 could be powered by hydrogen fuel cells, lithium ion batteries, a gasoline / ethanol combination, and of course a gasoline / lithium ion combination. Unfortunately the powers that be do not want to create an oil free environmentally friendly society in the near future.

If a Democrat is elected to be president in the fall of 2007, he or she will have the power to make some major environmental changes. (I don’t think it is going to happen) The Democrats could begin by implementing a plan to make sure that at least 50% of the houses in the country have solar panels on their roofs by 2010. The federal and state governments could pay anywhere from 50% – 100% of the installation costs depending on the income of the homeowners. Most of the solar panels that exist today can reduce a person’s monthly electricity bill by 10% – 100 % depending on the season, their location, and of course the amount of energy that is used by the occupants of the house.

An article about new solar panels that are cheaper and more efficient.

http://www.relocalize.net/node/2442

The federal government could also give more tax incentives to businesses that invest in environmentally friendly ways of generating energy.

http://www.ifenergy.com/50226711/sunlight_not_just_for_drying_clothes.php

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/07/farming_the_sun.php

I would also like the democrats to force automotive companies to make more new cars that are powered by lithium ion batteries and other environmentally friendly methods. I think new rules should be implemented that would force U.S citizens to pay a tax for some cars that are not fuel-efficient. (5% - 10% of the car's value) For example, the tax exemption for sedans could be cars that have an average of 30 miles per gallon or better. The tax exemption for SUV’s could be an average of 20 miles per gallon or better. Tax incentives could also be given to people that purchase cars that are powered by lithium ion batteries or hydrogen fuel cells. The federal government could compensate any financial losses that the automotive companies might have by reducing or eliminating their taxes for a couple of years.

A link for those of you that think all electric cars are too slow.

Scroll down to Zero-emissions, plenty of horsepower and Electricity and the Eliica.

http://www.discoverychannel.ca/on_tv/car_video_list/index.shtml

swivel

08-25-06, 05:02 PM

q0101, you are making this a Democrat/Republican issue?

The way I see it, the environmentalists have destroyed our ability to make eco-friendly power. They are the ones that equated nuclear power plants with "Nukes", and why we haven't built a new nuclear reactor in decades. I blame those morons, who are more worried about halting consumerism and production than they are about the environment.

These are the morons that put up huge wind farms that slaughter bald eagles, and endangered species. They have no understanding of the principles involved, just reactionary, ideological, and politicized rhetoric.

That's why one of the founders of Greenpeace left the movement, he saw a bunch of dumb hippies that wanted to smoke pot, listen to rock and roll, and go on marches. He didn't see anyone with an understanding of the issues. He helped start the movement of "conservationists" to separate themselves from the "environmentalists". And Al Gore has now stepped up as one of the leading thinkers and proponents of this movement. They understand that you can't stop progress and technology and consumerism, you just have to figure out how to make it as green as possible.

And the solutions should come from the private sector, not the inneficient government. All of your points and links make it seem like the big government and our tax dollars should sort this out. That's insane. The private sector can do more with less, and that is where the solutions should come from.

I bet you didn't know that our environment is much cleaner today than it was just 30 years ago, and much, much cleaner than it was 100 years ago. We have been able to increase productivity, and clean up the environment at the same time. All it took was an awareness of the damage we were doing, and public outcry. Now the heads of big corporations, like Ford, CARE about the environment. They care about the PR and increased sales that come from going Green as well. That is why BP has their current advertising push. If you support their cause, buy Ford and BP, the beauty of capitalism.

But don't hold your breath waiting for a Democrat to come into office and magically make the situation better. They get lobbied by the same people.

Facial

08-25-06, 07:05 PM

These are the morons that put up huge wind farms that slaughter bald eagles, and endangered species.

How many cases are we talking of here?
(btw bald eagles are not exactly 'endangered')

Facial

08-25-06, 07:25 PM

I honestly do not know whether a corporation has any sense of morality. However, I can only guess at what they want to do - to maximize profits.

The beauty of capitalism is what swivel describes. However, that must assume the ideal political environment, a laissez-faire style government free of restrictions. The last time that condition was arguably best satisfied was before the Progressive Era of the first few decades of the 1900s, in the late 19th century, during the time of the railroad trusts and sweatshops. As swivel comments, this was probably one of the most polluted times in US history, but only in terms of visual pollution. The other 'peak' would occur sometime around the late 1980's and early 1990's, epitomized by the air quality in Los Angeles and the Exxon Valdez sexfight. Carbon dioxide and methane production, which are invisible, continue to rise in the present day.

swivel

08-25-06, 08:35 PM

How many cases are we talking of here?
(btw bald eagles are not exactly 'endangered')

Hmmm. :bugeye: Perhaps that is why I said "bald eagles, AND endangered species".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm

"tens of thousands"

There have been some studies done in other countries, like Denmark, that find no dead birds around their turbines. These make me laugh. Nobody is saying that all turbines kill birds. Especially not the turbines that exist where birds don't live!

Billy T

08-25-06, 09:19 PM

...There have been some studies done in other countries, like Denmark, that find no dead birds around their turbines. These make me laugh....Should not laugh as it is basically true that windows kill thousand of times more birds than wind turbines do on a per square meter basis. This is because birds are very sensitive to air currents - some can find very weak air currents and soar on them for hours. All wind machine create great drastic changes in the air currents both up-stream and down-stream from the machine. Even a blind bird can easily avoid them. Even humans, who are much less sensitive to the changes in air currents, can tell where the wind machine is with their eyes closed as amoung the changes that the the machnes make in air currents etc is what we call sound or noise.

If a bird is killed, it is probably because he was very sick or genetically defective in the normal ability of birds to sense air currents. If a genetic defect, then a true bird lover should rejoice that wind machines may be able to selectively remove genetic defects from the bird's gene pool.

Of course any true bird lover has already painted all his windows black. :cool:

swivel

08-26-06, 08:14 AM

I wonder if that is because there are billions of times more glass structures and radio towers than there are wind generators? These are red herrings brought up by environmentalists that want it both ways.

I think the good Senator Kennedy is on the correct side of this one, as usual.

And my windows have a trough full of bird seed on them, so they know to halt flight and take a bite, not bite it in full flight. ;)

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3403/crw7497no6.jpg

Billy T

08-26-06, 03:42 PM

I wonder if that is because there are billions of times more glass structures and radio towers than there are wind generators? ...Read my post again, more carefully. I said "per square meter" or some such phrase. And I am refering to the area of the clear glass surface of the window and the area "swept" by the turning blades, if you do not understand "per square meter." Window are usually at least 1000 times more lethal to birds PER SQ. METER. (Yours with feeder may be only slightly more deadly per square meter as not all birds have been there before (In fact all have a "first time" visit and may fly into the glass during it.)

I ran a wind mill test for US Coast guard on a beach with many sea gulls, and in several years not one was found dead below the wind mill. I shaired your concern until I understood why wind machines essentially never kill any, as the more extensive and systematic Danish study someone cited early also found to be the case.
----------------------
I do not know about radio tower bird kill rate, but strongly believe if they kill some it will only be on windless days and then a distracted or very stupid bird or one with poor eyesight. I held a First Class FCC commercial transmitter engineer license (at age 14 - probably the youngest in US to ever have held one) and was employed by Radio WCHS. Once I did find a dead bird near one of the three towers, which allowed WCHS to radiate a directional pattern and use more power. I think it flew into one of the guy wires, but am not sure. Birds can fly thru a thicket of branches - this BTW is one of the reasons why I think many advanced creatures do make a Real time simulation* of reality as if one know anything about synaptic delay times, flying fast thru a thicket by only processing the retinal impulses to slightly later have a 3D representation of the external world would seem to be impossible.
-----------------------------
*for more on my mental "real time simulation" theory read my paper on consciousness, free will, determinism, quantum mechanics, etc. Start about one display page down at bold text: Genuine Free Will is Possible in post:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1031482#post1031482

("Genuine Free Will is Possible" paper explains how it can be consistent with physics.)

------------------------------------
*My position is not the standard cognitive science one - quite the contrary, but it has great "explanatory powers" in many different areas of psychology, medicine, even anthropology (specifically, providing a new explanation for the "Out of Africa" event), etc.

It is a "mental mechanism" that one would expect Darwinian evolution to produce. I particularly like it as, although it does not demonstrate free will is anything more than a very universal illusion, it does show how it can be real and yet consistent with the laws of physics that govern everything, including our brain processes.

Walter L. Wagner

08-26-06, 04:09 PM

As the price of solar panels continues to drop, I believe the future will find more electric vehicles with solar panels to charge them up. Perhaps people will routinely have two cars, one charging and one in use, where now they might have only one.

DaleSpam

08-26-06, 04:11 PM

Q: Who killed the electric car?
A: The consumers.

-Dale

swivel

08-26-06, 06:04 PM

Q: Who killed the electric car?
A: The consumers.

-Dale

Spot-on.

Facial

08-26-06, 07:28 PM

Hmmm. :bugeye: Perhaps that is why I said "bald eagles, AND endangered species".

Thought it was a misspelling of 'an' from 'and'. Turns out that it's a grammar mistake.

Facial

08-26-06, 07:29 PM

http://img168.imageshack.us/img168/3403/crw7497no6.jpg

This is a good thing.

apeweek

08-26-06, 07:35 PM

The weak link is the electric cars, which are not effecient. Batteries lose too much energy from heat, especially for the cars and trucks that will be operated in cold climates. The waste is in the storage and transmission of the electricity, even within households.

Nothing is more efficient than an EV. Electric motors are 95% efficient.

The electric grid is 95% efficient (far more efficient than sending fuel by TRUCK to a gas station near you).

Battery storage is 88% efficient.

Thanks to the wide powerband, regerative braking and transmissionless design of most EVs, most of that power gets right to the road. An ICE car starts out with a 25% efficient engine, and after losses to idling, braking and time spent running outside of it's most efficient powerband, maybe 10% of the energy is actually utilized.

References: I have used at least two sources for each point, and government, corporate, or university sources whenever possible.
-----------------------------------
Electric motor efficiency
-----------------------------------

Public Service of New Hampshire
Http://www.psnh.com/Business/SmallBusiness/Motor.asp
Chart showing that 25+ horsepower electric motors have efficiencies between 90 and 96%

---------------------------------------
Transmission line efficiency
---------------------------------------
Paper: 'Economic and engineering constraints on the restructuring of the electric power industry'
http://public.lanl.gov/u106527/ELISIMS/Econ_paper.pdf
(points out that the industry standard is 95% efficiency)

From greenhouse to green house
http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/renewable_energy/csp_sections/csp_transport.htm
(figure given is 3% transmission loss per 1000 km.)

News story about utility overcharging. Figure given is 3% transmission loss (97% efficient)
http://www.pur.com/pubs/790.cfm

http://climatetechnology.gov/library/2003/tech-options/tech-options-1-3-2.pdf
Says transmission losses in 1995 were 7.2% (92.8 efficient)

--------------------------
Battery efficiency
--------------------------
Lithium-Ion Batteries:
Linear Technology
http://www.national.com/appinfo/power/files/swcap_eet.pdf.
Paper says 88% efficient (over the usable charge-discharge range)

Lead-Acid Batteries:
Arizona Wind and Sun
http://www.windsun.com/Batteries/Battery_FAQ.htm
"Typical efficiency in a lead-acid battery is 85-95%.

-----------------------------------------------------
Gas engine efficiency
-----------------------------------------------------
Everything2.Com
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=internal%20combustion%20engine

Argonne national laboratory
http://www.anl.gov/Media_Center/News/2006/news060622.htm

MetaKron

08-26-06, 07:49 PM

Whatever generating technology is used some thought should be given to the idea of using waste heat to warm the batteries if they are below the optimum temperature for charging. There is a nasty curve of charging inefficiency when battery temperatures approach the freezing point.

Facial

08-26-06, 07:49 PM

The larger the battery, the less heat produced (less internal resistance) and thus a better EMF transmission.

Electric cars are a better for the environment than petrol cars, when the advantages are weighed with disadvantages. They are also better for health reasons.

MetaKron

08-26-06, 08:29 PM

In low voltage generating setups the inefficiency of the rectifiers can cause some inefficiencies too, and some significant ones. Two silicon rectifiers in series in a 15 volt charging circuit can cut about 10 percent of the efficiency. That's like another 30 cents per gallon for your gas. There is such a thing as a perfect rectifier where a circuit switches power MOSFET transistors cutting the losses to nearly zero. That's one of the reasons why the hybrid cars favor high voltage systems too.

Nasor

08-28-06, 10:31 AM

Check out the Tesla car. It gets 250 miles per battery charge ($3 of electricity at standard rates). It has a warmer to keep the batteries warm in cold climates.

The real draw-back is the 3 hour full-charge time from drained to fully-charged. BUT, it does 0 to 60 in under six seconds!
I would say that the real drawback is the fact that it costs over $100k.

It's actually a very clever idea for marketing an electric car - since it's going to cost many tens of thousands of dollars more than a regular car, package it as a sports car. Then you're competing against other cars that are already stupidly overpriced, so it's much more competitive.

Walter L. Wagner

08-28-06, 12:48 PM

That's true, it does have a nasty price tag. They are competing against other sports cars, porsche, ferrari, lamborghini, vector, and the like, so in that market, they may find a niche.

The high cost, however, is due to the need to recoup their factory and tooling costs. If it were in LARGE scale production, the cost would certainly be about the same, or a little less, as for an ICE. Most of the cost for conventional cars is for the body, chassis, electric windows, sound-system, seats, dash, air-bags, and all the other things to make a car other than the engine. Actually, the electric motor should, under mass production, cost quite a bit less than an ICE motor. Likewise, the transmission is somewhat less expensive. The addition of braking regeneration (to recover braking energy losses) should pay for itself in the long run due to the amount of energy saved. The batteries currently are about $20,000 of the cost, but that too should come down with mass production. If replaced by capacitors, they might cost far less.

Hey, maybe I should get a job as a PR guy at Tesla!

Carcano

08-30-06, 06:48 PM

Here are some great pics of the Tesla launch demo:
http://news.com.com/2300-11386_3-6096355-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg

So I'm wondering how much money a typical commuter would save over a ten year period, paying one cent per mile for electricity?

Right now they'd be paying $13,400 every ten years at current gas prices.

DaleSpam

08-30-06, 07:35 PM

So I'm wondering how much money a typical commuter would save over a ten year period, paying one cent per mile for electricity?Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

-Dale

Carcano

08-31-06, 05:19 PM

The Future of Cars is Electric
by Martin Eberhard
CEO of Tesla

published Wednesday, August 16th, 2006

Not too long from now, most cars will be electric. Why? Two reasons: because electric cars are far more efficient than any other kind of car, and because they are the ultimate multi-fuel cars. Sound bold, maybe crazy? Read on.

The May 2006 issue of Popular Mechanics magazine got it right in its typical easy-to-understand way. The article was about biofuel, but they compared many technologies in the centerfold sidebar: gasoline, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, compressed natural gas, hydrogen fuel cells, and, of course, electric cars. They compared the cost of a cross-country drive for each of the cars, all of similar size. The benchmark drive cost is $212 in a Honda Civic. The VW Diesel Golf came close at $230. E85 ethanol (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) came in at $425; methanol cost $619; the hydrogen fuel cell drive cost a whopping $804! Compressed Natural Gas looked pretty good at $110. And the electric car? $60. And the article wasn’t even about electric cars…

Cost per mile is a reasonable approximation of energy consumption. (I set about doing a direct energy consumption comparison in our white paper, but money is a whole lot easier to understand.)

The neat thing about electricity is that pretty much any burnable fuel can be converted to electricity efficiently. Sure, there are quite a few inefficient old power plants from the ‘50s still running, but modern, readily-available technology means that even coal can be gasified and burnt cleanly and very efficiently in a combined cycle plant. This is nice to know, considering that we are sitting on an enormous reserve of coal. If there ever was an OCEC (Organization of Coal Exporting Countries), we’d be Saudi Arabia, so to speak.

General Electric makes an advanced, combined-cycle natural gas generator called the H-System Generator that measures in at 60% efficiency. This plant could easily burn “biogas” produced from biomass (corn or switchgrass, take your pick). If we powered our electric cars this way, the same acreage of fuel crop would transport an electric car four times as many miles than if we made ethanol out of the stuff and burnt it in a piston engine car. Should we decide to allow our cars’ fuel to compete for cropland with food, this difference matters!

But the true beauty becomes apparent when you realize that we can make electricity in so many different ways. I’m putting solar panels on the roof of my house to power my car. Many people have pointed out that nuclear power produces no greenhouse gasses. The shot of the Tesla Roadster in the movie, Who Killed the Electric Car, was taken at Altamont Pass, right in front of a huge windmill farm. We don’t need to decide now which is the “right” technology. Indeed, the answer will likely be a mix of these, combined with some amount of fossil fuels, depending on where in the world we are generating power.

Note, by the way, that we can put a million solar panels on our roofs, we can cover the coastlines with windmills, we can invent amazing tide-powered generators, or clean nuclear power plants, and we will not reduce our dependence on oil by one drop unless we can use that electricity to power cars. Why? Because we don’t use oil to make electricity, so all those cool electric generating technologies do not offset our oil consumption. The fact is that the vast majority of our oil consumption is used for transportation. Trains, planes, and automobiles, folks.

So what’s wrong with electric cars? Why not switch over today? Quite a few of you have nailed it in your comments to this blog already: recharge time. Even with a Tesla Roadster, you would need to stop for a couple of hours on a trip from LA to SF. Even the longest-range EV is not suitable for long road trips quite yet.

You all have proposed several solutions: quick-charging, battery pack swapping, and a gasoline (or whatever) powered auxiliary generator. Though appealing, each of these ideas has very significant technical problems that I will not attempt to lay out here. But there is another alternative suggested by some of you: simply increase the driving range enough. We can’t do it today: 250 miles range was hard enough! But the capacity of batteries – particularly lithium ion type batteries – has increased steadily by about 8% per year for the last couple of decades. All indications are that this will continue into the future, doubling in capacity every ten years. (And there are hints of breakthrough technologies that might speed things up for us.)

Think about it. If your car can go – say – 500 miles on a charge, who cares about stopping for a charge? A 500 mile drive is about 10 hours’ solid driving – more than enough for even a serious road trip. (I know: some of you will talk about crazy trips like I used to take, making it from Chicago to San Luis Obispo in 42 hours flat, but you’ve got to admit that this kind of drive is way down the pointy end of the bell curve!)

Do you remember when your cellphone wouldn’t last through the day? I do. In those days, we were acutely aware of the charge time because we had to recharge while driving in our cars or at work. I remember plugging in to get a bit of charge for my phone in a VC’s conference room while I was pitching a startup idea! But today I bet most of you have no idea how long your phone takes to charge. Is it 3 hours? 4 hours? Who cares? You come home, plug it in, and forget about it. In the morning, you unplug it and go. We just don’t need to charge up during the day so charge time isn’t an issue.

Electric cars will be the same. Once the driving range is enough to make it through the day, we will only ever charge while we sleep. The Tesla Roadster is like that already for most of us, except when we want to take a long road trip. With a 500 mile range, even road trips are covered.

And that means charging stations, like gas stations, are soon to be as obsolete as cigarette lighter chargers for our phones. We will need a charger in our garages, at hotels, and at campgrounds. And that’s it. Nice side business for Hyatt Hotels and KOA, by the way…

spidergoat

08-31-06, 05:28 PM

Roman

08-31-06, 05:58 PM

And what's the cost of one of these electric cars? What's the maintenance cost?

Maast

08-31-06, 06:01 PM

The market for EV is limited because when most people (like me) lay down more than $500 US for a vehicle we want it to do everything: 5 day road trips, 300+ mile range, refuel in mins, etc, basically they want all the _flexibility_ of a gas or diesel car/truck.

Now the fact that the majority of trips are less than 30 miles and total use during the day is less than 50 miles is irrelevant, people want the ability to go long distance whenever they want to and refuel in the middle of Nebraska (for example) if they need to.

So, until an electric car can go 300+ miles, be recharged in mins, and at a reasonable cost, people just will not buy one. I wouldn't

DaleSpam

09-01-06, 01:44 PM

There will be electric cars, but it's no solution to the energy crisis we will be facing in the near future. We have been so brainwashed by the automobile industry and culture, that it's hard to think outside this paradigm. Car culture has created an unsustainable pattern of development called suburbia which has no future.I disagree. I think that the advancements in communications bandwidth makes suburbs still viable even under increased energy prices. Although the "remote employee" work arrangment is not yet typical, it is becoming much more common.

I think it is more likely for cars to disappear than suburbs. The problem is that cars have gotten Americans used to being able to go wherever they want whenever they want without worrying about schedules other than their own. Any serious alternative to the car will have to address that reality and match that capability.

-Dale

spidergoat

09-01-06, 02:03 PM

You can't send vegetables by e-mail or go to the doctor using fiber optics.

DaleSpam

09-01-06, 02:44 PM

You can't send vegetables by e-mail or go to the doctor using fiber optics.Vegetables are much cheaper to ship than people, and there is a lot of research in telemedicine right now.

I am not saying that everything can be done remotely, but you were specifically discussing suburbs as being impossible in a future with high energy costs. In terms of energy consumption the main problem with suburbs is not the location of grocery stores and doctors, but the location of work. Remote employment can dramatically reduce that for a potentially large number of suburban employees.

I do agree that it is difficult to think outside the automobile paradigm. I also agree that the automobile is fundamentally problematic and, ideally, should be eliminated. I just don't think that implies the end of suburbia.

-Dale

apeweek

09-01-06, 06:34 PM

And what's the cost of one of these electric cars? What's the maintenance cost?

I can show you an electric car for any price you can name. I drive a (very old) EV that I bought off eBay for $2000. The lead-acid batteries in my car limit the range to about 50 miles, so I don't think my car has the value a modern EV would have. But I still use it every day to commute to work. Aside from the money I invested to fix the car up when I got it, maintenance is virtually nil. Electric motors need no regular maintenance (only one moving part.) The major cost is battery replacement. My pack of 16 lead-acid batteries costs about $800, and can last me up to 8 years, if I take good care of it. That's $100 per year, about what I would otherwise spend on oil changes. More modern cars powered by NIMH or Li-Ion packs don't even have this expense: they have batteries that can last 100,000 miles or longer.

A few interesting inexpensive EVs are:

- the ZAP, for $10,000. Unfortunately it tops out at 40mph.
- The NMG from Myers Motors. It does freeway speeds, but looks pretty funny. It costs $25,000
- The Miles XS200. This car, a Chinese import, won't be available until next year, but it presents an unmatched value proposition: a 200 mile range, 80mph top speed, and a price of $28500.

Walter L. Wagner

09-01-06, 07:22 PM

I'll be buying stock in electric car companies.

Carcano

09-01-06, 07:27 PM

I can show you an electric car for any price you can name. I drive a (very old) EV that I bought off eBay for $2000. The lead-acid batteries in my car limit the range to about 50 miles, so I don't think my car has the value a modern EV would have. But I still use it every day to commute to work. Aside from the money I invested to fix the car up when I got it, maintenance is virtually nil. Electric motors need no regular maintenance (only one moving part.) The major cost is battery replacement. My pack of 16 lead-acid batteries costs about $800, and can last me up to 8 years, if I take good care of it. That's $100 per year, about what I would otherwise spend on oil changes. More modern cars powered by NIMH or Li-Ion packs don't even have this expense: they have batteries that can last 100,000 miles or longer.
Great post AW!
What do you make of Martin Everhard's little essay up top...middle of this page?

apeweek

09-01-06, 08:10 PM

Great post AW!
What do you make of Martin Everhard's little essay up top...middle of this page?

Yes, I had read that. I think the next few years could be exciting for EVs. I have never been aware of so many advanced battery projects going on at once.

There's a curious set of common assumptions about electric cars that will gradually fade. We have never seen a serious attempt at marketing such a car. I hope we do soon.

Whatever motive the Detroit car companies have had for playing along with the oily people, I hope they wake up soon. The presence of ANY old halfway practical EV on the market will cause gas prices to plummet. Then they can sell SUVs and pickups again.

Facial

09-01-06, 09:17 PM

.
I do agree that it is difficult to think outside the automobile paradigm. I also agree that the automobile is fundamentally problematic and, ideally, should be eliminated. I just don't think that implies the end of suburbia.

I agree. In my opinion, replacing gas cars with electric ones may contribute as a solution rather than a drawback.

Walter L. Wagner

09-01-06, 10:00 PM

The change will likely be gradual, with people acquiring a 'third' car that is electric (they already typically have a first and second), which would be used for most purposes, and the gas car for long trips. As this progression continues, the price will come down, batteries will improve, and the gas car will be relegated to the 'third' category, with the two primary cars being electric. Wait and see!

DaleSpam

09-02-06, 04:47 PM

I agree. In my opinion, replacing gas cars with electric ones may contribute as a solution rather than a drawback.It would certainly help with some problems associated with cars, but not all. The environmental impact would definitely be better since you can put much better emissions controls on e.g. a coal burning power plant than you can on a gasoline burning vehicle (and some domestic electricity is already "green"). It would also help on the national security front since the US is self-sufficient in coal but not in petroeum.

In the US it wouldn't really help with overall energy consumption (in other countries it might) because it is pretty much the same overall efficiency if you go coal > thermal > kinetic > electrical > chemical > electrical > kinetic or if you go gasoline > thermal > kinetic. It would not help with car-crash injuries and fatalities. It would also not help with urban sprawl, commuting, traffic congestion, or other quality of life concerns. It would also not change the development, maintainence, and repair of roads or the widespread pavement and consequent water flow and environmental impact of modern automobile infrastructure.

I think an electric car is a fine step as soon as someone can produce an economically viable one. Personally, I have thought about getting a plug-in hybrid for commuting when they become available at reasonable prices. But the electric car is not escaping the "car paradigm", it is just an incremental improvement.

-Dale

MetaKron

09-02-06, 09:50 PM

Actually, side by side testing shows that electrical conserves fuel in spite of the longer chain between the primary source and the energy use. This is because fuel-based engines are far more efficient at an optimum constant RPM and electric motors waste no energy at stoplights. I suspect that in-town these days it's more like half of your gas is wasted just waiting at stoplights, which are much longer these days and spaced closer together.

The other good thing about electric is that it is possible to roll your own.

The only way to escape the "car paradigm" is to live close to work. No matter what, most people are still going to have to drive places. Lower population density and better mass transit would help too.

Eventually we are just going to have to have better power sources.

DaleSpam

09-02-06, 10:16 PM

The only way to escape the "car paradigm" is to live close to work. No matter what, most people are still going to have to drive places.I think Personal Rapid Transit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit) is a much better paradigm. And it would not require everyone to live near work.

-Dale

swivel

09-03-06, 08:05 AM

I think Personal Rapid Transit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit) is a much better paradigm. And it would not require everyone to live near work.

-Dale

Except that we can't use the PRT system to BUILD the PRT system.

DaleSpam

09-03-06, 08:44 AM

Except that we can't use the PRT system to BUILD the PRT system.Huh?

-Dale

Carcano

09-04-06, 02:52 AM

Heres another interesting entry to the field. This converted Mini Cooper is different in that its one of the first cars to have in-wheel electric motors, plus a unique system whereby the small gas engine only regenerates the battery, without assisting directly to the wheels.

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6104/

It really only needs to go 50 miles on a charge, with a max range of 500 miles in hybrid mode, and with a top speed of 100mph.

Massive overkill in a small package!

MetaKron

09-04-06, 05:36 AM

Hybrids in general use the fuel-based engine to regenerate the battery and that engine is not mechanically connected to the wheels.

All of the fancy stuff sounds really great until you realize that the it's very expensive and complex for the gas mileage. Conversion kits can take an old clunker and deliver about the same gas mileage for a few thousand dollars and your local mechanic can still understand what's under the hood, plus there are no dangerous high voltages under the hood that require a licensed electrician to handle. It may be true that in spite of Edison's experiments in the humane killing of humans that AC is just as deadly as DC, but there isn't any good reason in my book why a person should find his hand frozen to a terminal with smoke pouring out of his ears because he needed to tighten a loose nut somewhere. These voltages tend to leak through old insulators. The car will have to be either overhauled or recycled just to prevent it from becoming a grave danger to its users and mechanics in a rather short time.

It's a lot like the space station. There was no reason on or off of Earth for them to wire the solar panels in series outside the station, which made the station tend to charge itself to potentially lethal voltages that could discharge between an astronaut and the space surrounding the station, producing a sort of lightning that could kill the astronaut.

Anyway, the only thing worse than a cheap disposable car is an expensive disposable car. It would be progress if people could own safe fuel-efficient hybrids that cost a modest amount of money, as retrofits to older gasoline vehicles, having them repainted and worn parts replaced as needed, and anyone with a moderate amount of technical knowledge could replace the batteries without dying. And those batteries would cost less than a hundred US dollars each and last five years or more.

Don't get me wrong. High technology has its well-deserved places in the marketplace, although the high voltages under the hood should be banned. They will kill more people than dogs do each year when they are popular. Lithium battery technology needs the funding and people who can afford the higher-powered fancier electrics deserve to be able to buy them, but we still need the workhorse cars. We also still need to be able to repair our cars.

Nasor

09-04-06, 12:34 PM

Hybrids in general use the fuel-based engine to regenerate the battery and that engine is not mechanically connected to the wheels.

I believe you're wrong about this. In most hybrids the gasoline engine is mechanically connected to the wheels. The electric motor powers the car at low speeds or at times when little power is required, but the engine kicks in to power the wheels directly if you need to accelerate quickly or go up a hill. In most hybrids if you go much above 40 mph you'll be powering the car completely from the gasoline engine.

Carcano

09-04-06, 02:33 PM

I believe you're wrong about this. In most hybrids the gasoline engine is mechanically connected to the wheels.
All of them do really. This is the first I've heard where the gas engine is only used for recharging. This means that the ICE can be very tiny and run at an optimal speed.

MetaKron

09-04-06, 02:51 PM

I believe you're wrong about this. In most hybrids the gasoline engine is mechanically connected to the wheels. The electric motor powers the car at low speeds or at times when little power is required, but the engine kicks in to power the wheels directly if you need to accelerate quickly or go up a hill. In most hybrids if you go much above 40 mph you'll be powering the car completely from the gasoline engine.

Show me one example of this. There is no advantage to such a setup and I know of no cars that are like that.

apeweek

09-04-06, 03:09 PM

Show me one example of this. There is no advantage to such a setup and I know of no cars that are like that.

You are correct that there is no advantage to the parallel hybrid versus the serial hybrid. Nonetheless that is exactly what we are being sold.

The reason probably has a lot to do with the NIMH battery licensing. Hybrids need NIMH batteries (because lead-acids aren't up to the task, and Li-Ions haven't been ready for this until very recently.)

The NIMH battery patents were controlled by GM, and those batteries were used in both the EV1 and Toyota's RAV4 EV. After those cars were crushed, the patents were sold to Chevron/Texaco, who proceeded to sue Panasonic and Toyota to get the Toyota EV off the road.

Details of the resulting settlement have never been made public, but it is widely acknowledged that the licensing agreements for the NIMH battery technology prohibit their use in EVs, and any other car that derives less than 50% of its power from gasoline. This has been the stumbling block for plug-in hybrids, EVs, and serial hybrids (since all of these variations are basically EVs.)

The NIMH patent story:

http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=51&blogid=104

Carcano

09-04-06, 05:18 PM

The NIMH patent story:
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=51&blogid=104

Ok so, does this mean that all nickel battery producers in the world have to operate under license from Cobasys? Until 2015?

DaleSpam

09-04-06, 09:57 PM

Show me one example of this. There is no advantage to such a setup and I know of no cars that are like that.According to my understanding the Prius has a single mechanical coupling for the wheels, motor, generator, and engine. I'm not sure how it works.

-Dale

apeweek

09-04-06, 10:28 PM

Ok so, does this mean that all nickel battery producers in the world have to operate under license from Cobasys? Until 2015?

Yes, and Cobasys is very agressive protecting those patents.

MetaKron

09-04-06, 10:36 PM

OK, Apeweek, your link talks about the pluggable hybrid, not some kind of parallel hybrid. The pluggable hybrid would give the user significant range on a fully charged set of batteries. Why a company exists that forbids the production of NiMH batteries for use for propulsion is probably explained by something that has to do with rituals for bringing demons from Hell to the surface of the Earth to serve as CEOs of large corporations because this just isn't right. Same bastards would dictate to me all sorts of things that I could do with my own property. They are totally evil.

phlogistician

09-05-06, 04:26 AM

I
- The NMG from Myers Motors. It does freeway speeds, but looks pretty funny. It costs $25,000

Oh boy, $25,000 for a frikking pram?

http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/images/nmg_yellow_1.jpg

Or, for a mere £3,995+VAT you could have one of these;

http://www.qpod.co.uk/images/sporty1.jpg

I'd rather have the latter, running on methanol or biodiesel if I was forced to be environmentally friendly.

apeweek

09-05-06, 09:12 AM

...Why a company exists that forbids the production of NiMH batteries for use for propulsion is probably explained by something that has to do with rituals for bringing demons from Hell to the surface of the Earth to serve as CEOs of large corporations because this just isn't right.

Interesting development in this story: A company named Electro Energy has been promoting a forthcoming propulsion NIMH battery - and the speculation is that they will be sued out of existence as soon as they put it on the market - but there's something interesting about their product.

The patent-based prohibitions on propulsion batteries, as I understand it, focus on the amp-hour ratings of the batteries. The Toyota RAV4 EV, for instance, used 95ah batteries which have now disappeared from the market, replaced by batteries less than 10ah in size. Normally, for an EV, you would connect a number of high-AH batteries in series to get the high voltage you need for propulsion. But that's not the only way to do it.

Electro Automotive has developed a unique method of creating high-voltage batteries. So to propel your vehicle, you would take a number of low-AH batteries which are already at a high voltage, and instead of connecting them in series, you would connect them in parallel to get the AH rating you need.

This is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps this is a way to get around the licensing restrictions on NIMH batteries.

Here's a link: http://www.electroenergyinc.com/products.html#Bipolar%20Li

swivel

09-05-06, 09:16 AM

I think it would be cool if we could go back to these:

http://img472.imageshack.us/img472/9646/horsesalegc9.jpg

I would look sooooo cool in chaps and a duster.

apeweek

09-05-06, 09:19 AM

Oh boy, $25,000 for a frikking pram?

You know, I agree with you, it doesn't appeal to me much either.

If I were buying tomorrow, I'd buy a vehicle conversion. This guy, for instance, takes old cars with good bodies (which I'm sure he gets for next to nothing), rips out the ICE and electrifies them for very reasonable prices:

http://grassrootsev.com/convert.htm

The drawback is the old battery technology. It will still be a couple more years for newer tech batteries to become widely available at the hobbyist level.

phlogistician

09-05-06, 10:12 AM

. The Toyota RAV4 EV, for instance, used 95ah batteries which have now disappeared from the market, replaced by batteries less than 10ah in size.

I bought an 85Ah battery only six weeks ago, and 115Ah are easily available.

apeweek

09-05-06, 10:19 AM

I bought an 85Ah battery only six weeks ago, and 115Ah are easily available.

Where did you buy an 85ah NIMH battery?

Billy T

09-05-06, 12:41 PM

I think it would be cool if we could go back to these:
{picture of horse}

Not only is Brazil far ahead of US in use of alcohol fuel but also in the use of these "direct grass-powered" transport systems. (As sugar cane is a grass, our alcohol powered cars are "indirect grass-powered" transport systems.)

Both direct and indirect systems are widely used in all but the largest cities. Even there, a few of the direct-powered version still circulate.

Nasor

09-05-06, 02:21 PM

Show me one example of this. There is no advantage to such a setup and I know of no cars that are like that.

The Toyota Prius, Ford Escape, Honda Civic hybrid, and Honda Insight are all parallel hybrids.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/45188/article.html
To explore how a hybrid works, however, we first have to distinguish between the two major ways automakers use gas-electric hybrids.

The first type can propel itself using only the electric motor at very low speeds. The electric motor also has the ability to kick in and help out the gasoline engine when more power is needed, such as when passing or climbing a steep grade. The Toyota Prius and the Ford Escape Hybrid fall into this category.

The second type uses the electric motor only to assist the gasoline engine when it needs extra boost, again during brisk acceleration or when going up a hill. The Civic Hybrid and Honda Insight fall into the second category.

Here's another page for you:
http://www.weather.com/activities/driving/greenvehicle/hevhow.html

In current production hybrids both the engine and the electric motor are connected to the wheels by the same transmission. With the assistance of the electric motor the engine can be smaller.

Here is some information on how the drive trains of the Prius and Insight work to allow the motor and engine to power the car in parallel.
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car1.htm

The Honda Insight is a simplified parallel hybrid. It has an electric motor coupled to the engine at the spot where the flywheel usually goes. Honda calls this system "Integrated Motor Assist." ...The electric motor on the Insight helps in several ways. It can:
* Assist the gasoline engine, providing extra power while the car is accelerating or climbing a hill
* Provide some regenerative braking to capture energy during braking
* Start the engine, eliminating the need for a starter.
...
One of the main goals of the Toyota Prius is to improve emissions in urban driving. To accomplish this, Toyota has designed a parallel hybrid powertrain."

Carcano

09-05-06, 07:17 PM

This is pure speculation on my part, but perhaps this is a way to get around the licensing restrictions on NIMH batteries.

Here's a link: http://www.electroenergyinc.com/products.html#Bipolar%20Li
So far they don't seem to have any commercial application up and running. Have they partnered with any auto company?

apeweek

09-05-06, 07:44 PM

So far they don't seem to have any commercial application up and running. Have they partnered with any auto company?

Well, it appears that Electro Energy is partnering with Altair Nanotechnology - developer of an advanced nonotechnology-based version of the li-ion battery.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/altairnano_and_.html
http://www.altairnano.com/

In turn, Altair Nano is partnering with Phoenix Motorcars to build vehicles.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/index.blog?entry_id=1515444
http://phoenixmotorcars.com

phlogistician

09-06-06, 06:05 AM

Where did you buy an 85ah NIMH battery?

Google 'leisure battery' and you'll find many and various stockists of large capacity batteries. They are used for powering appliances in motorhomes, RV's and boats.

I'm not sure what current they can consistently sustain, but I'm sure the numbers are out there somewhere.

apeweek

09-06-06, 07:17 AM

Google 'leisure battery' and you'll find many and various stockists of large capacity batteries. They are used for powering appliances in motorhomes, RV's and boats.

I'm not sure what current they can consistently sustain, but I'm sure the numbers are out there somewhere.

Of course large capacity batteries are on the market. I drive an EV with 18 of them. (Lead-acid.)

The issue is high-AH NIMH batteries, which Cobasys doesn't allow to be sold for EV use. Some large NIMH batteries are available, and are used in hybrids. But Cobasys won't allow any licensee to cut a deal with an EV manufacturer for NIMHs.

phlogistician

09-06-06, 08:30 AM

Of course large capacity batteries are on the market. I drive an EV with 18 of them. (Lead-acid.)

The issue is high-AH NIMH batteries,

Ah, the paragraph where you said the large capacity batteries for the Rav4 had disappeared, you didn't specify they were NIMH.

You can buy 25Ah NIMH though, but afaik the chemistry of NIMH makes it hard to make them any bigger, and they don't work well in parallel, plus large arrays of them require very careful charging, so they are a pain the arse.

LiPo might be the future, ...

apeweek

09-06-06, 09:34 AM

Ah, the paragraph where you said the large capacity batteries for the Rav4 had disappeared, you didn't specify they were NIMH.

You can buy 25Ah NIMH though, but afaik the chemistry of NIMH makes it hard to make them any bigger, and they don't work well in parallel, plus large arrays of them require very careful charging, so they are a pain the arse.

LiPo might be the future, ...

Well, it's not the chemistry of NIMH that limits battery size; it's the patent holders. Some of the existing RAV4 EVs on the road have NIMH battery packs with over 100,000 miles already - so clearly the batteries work fine, and a few high-AH NIMHS are still made for hybrids.

LiPo has its own issues; there is no absolutely perfect battery. But I agree that lithium batteries and supercapacitors are the place to look now.

MetaKron

09-06-06, 05:06 PM

These batteries that aren't allowed to be sold for use in electric cars, can any citizen buy them? They can't control what a private citizen does with his 110 amp-hour battery, I don't think anyway.

apeweek

09-06-06, 06:48 PM

These batteries that aren't allowed to be sold for use in electric cars, can any citizen buy them? They can't control what a private citizen does with his 110 amp-hour battery, I don't think anyway.

Not cost-effective. You could possibly get appropriate NIMHs from a car dealership, by posing as a hybrid owner. But expect the price to be outrageous, especially if you were able to buy enough of them to power an EV.

The whole idea behind advanced battery technologies is to be able to increase your driving range at an affordable price. If I spend more on batteries than I would on 20 years worth of gasoline, there's not much point.

apeweek

09-10-06, 08:47 AM

Interesting development this week, here's a new website - this is evidently another Chinese EV manufacturer (the poorly constructed English on the site is the giveaway) offering electric vehicles AND serial hybrids for sale. He has several models, all of which do freeway speeds, have ranges over 100 miles, and have price tags well under $10,000. In hybrid mode, they have ranges closer to 300 miles.

http://www.fevehicle.com/services.html

Reading the website, he seems to believe he will have no problem meeting certification to run on US roads (I wish I was as optimistic.)

From the battery pictures I see, he appears to be running the cars on the same Chinese 'Thunder Sky' lithium batteries we've talked about here before.

I know the reaction this will get from some of us here, but if nothing else, this should at least demonstrate that electric vehicles can indeed be made at affordable prices.

Carcano

09-11-06, 11:20 AM

What are those^^^ cars...pure electrics, hybrids?
Couldn't make heads or tails out of the text.

Do they have a US distributor?

apeweek

09-11-06, 11:52 AM

What are those^^^ cars...pure electrics, hybrids?
Couldn't make heads or tails out of the text.

Do they have a US distributor?

They are EVs, with a generator option (which would make them serial hybrids.)

Unlike the present crop of hybrids some of us drive, the electric drive is primary. The optional gas engine just charges the batteries. Since it's optional, it's probably removable, for when you don't need it.

As to the low prices, I think these are very simple EVs, no regenerative braking, for instance. Also, I was wrong about the Li-Ion batteries, they apparently use lead-acid batteries.

As to distribution, my guess is he's fishing for someone to help him sell cars here.

Someone should tell him to hire copywriters and web designers too.

Carcano

09-11-06, 12:16 PM

Someone should tell him to hire copywriters and web designers too.
Right! Shouldn't be too hard to find ONE person who can type out their specs in decent english.

Removable gas generators sound like a great idea!

Carcano

01-07-07, 04:03 AM

You heard it here first people!

We were talking about this a few months ago, no? And apparently GM was listening!

They have just unveiled their concept for the most sensible of all hybrid designs - a 'series hybrid' with a small gas engine generating electricity at an optimal rpm for re-charging the battery.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/6693/1/

Facial

01-07-07, 04:14 AM

ScottMana

01-13-07, 05:19 AM

The US has the ability to support 87% of the current popultion possessing an electric car.

It funny that that it would be stated that the electric car can not support all the needs of people with examples like "you can't drive from one city to another". How many people drive between cities? Its not that I don't think there are plenty of them, its that most don't.

The demand for these cars are high! With so much demand its like a vacuum. Their is little the car companies need to do to sell them. So we know right there that someone has to be stopping them. You have all this "drive" or people going out of their way to get them, that it creates something like a huge wave. So it takes something rather powerful to stand in front of that wave and take the full brunt of the force and win.

IMO these cars are not important. We could all be doing alot more important things then worring about electric cars. But because someone is working so hard to keep these from getting into consumer hands we have to stop for a moment and demand that this get put right. I could care less about someone making alot of money selling "power" to the world. But when that means that lives on this planet are in danger because of it, we need a new source of power.

Its no wounder realy big oil guys live in a nuclear fallout bunkers. They are afraid of the world's population. I have no intention of harming anyone, but deep down these guys knows that they deserve the kind of rath that only a nuclear bunker can protect them from. This is not a treat, just an observation.

Billy T

01-13-07, 12:56 PM

...someone is working so hard to keep these {electric cars} from getting into consumer hands we have to stop for a moment and demand that this get put right....The current administration is very much obligated to the oil sellers (especially Saudi Arabian Royal family) and oil industry. The electric car can be powered by domestic sources and that would reduce oil imports. For quite a few years "hydrogen power" was the mantra of the oil industry as it would only increase oil demand. The public finally has understood, despite billions the oil industry spent on TV and in other adds etc that hydrogen is not an energy source, in fact economically producing it with currently available commercial technology requires more energy from oil than is produced.

The oil industry appears to have given up on the "hydrogen diversion" and now is throwing its full weight (joined now also by the agri-industry) behind alcohol from corn. They have paid for many studies that show a small net decrease in oil consumption is "possible." (Not about to be so easily exposed this time as they were with the "hydrogen diversion" of the publicly attention from the dependent position the oil companies held the public.)

All independent university studies refute this result, with the exception of a couple universities in the corn belt and Indiana, where many of the new alcohol production facilities are being built (near confluence of many rail lines to reduce shipment distance to major markets). - See the Cornell UCLA studies etc. They show alcohol from corn grown in Iowa requires about 1.1 units of oil energy for each unit of alcohol energy produced. These studies also show that if it comes from sugar cane grown in Brazil then there is an energy gain between 6 and 8 times (alcohol energy out divided by system oil energy input) but the political connections to current administration are so strong that Brazil's alcohol is not allowed to compete. (Tariffs, quotas, domestic corn subsidies*, even a direct payment to US alcohol producers of $0.54 per gallon produced, making it very profitable with tax dollars, even if foolish)

More details in my thread "How DUMB can US voters be?" I will try to dig it up as it has been absent for months.
---------------------------
*By far the largest of all. Almost equal to the total of ALL other farm subsidies!

Carcano

01-23-07, 06:53 PM

Battery Breakthrough?

A Texas company says it can make a new ultracapacitor power system to replace the electrochemical batteries in everything from cars to laptops.

A secretive Texas startup developing what some are calling a "game changing" energy-storage technology broke its silence this week. It announced that it has reached two production milestones and is on track to ship systems this year for use in electric vehicles.

EEStor's ambitious goal, according to patent documents, is to "replace the electrochemical battery" in almost every application, from hybrid-electric and pure-electric vehicles to laptop computers to utility-scale electricity storage.

The company boldly claims that its system, a kind of battery-ultracapacitor hybrid based on barium-titanate powders, will dramatically outperform the best lithium-ion batteries on the market in terms of energy density, price, charge time, and safety. Pound for pound, it will also pack 10 times the punch of lead-acid batteries at half the cost and without the need for toxic materials or chemicals, according to the company.

The implications are enormous and, for many, unbelievable. Such a breakthrough has the potential to radically transform a transportation sector already flirting with an electric renaissance, improve the performance of intermittent energy sources such as wind and sun, and increase the efficiency and stability of power grids--all while fulfilling an oil-addicted America's quest for energy security.

The breakthrough could also pose a threat to next-generation lithium-ion makers such as Watertown, MA-based A123Systems, which is working on a plug-in hybrid storage system for General Motors, and Reno, NV-based Altair Nanotechnologies, a supplier to all-electric vehicle maker Phoenix Motorcars.

"I get a little skeptical when somebody thinks they've got a silver bullet for every application, because that's just not consistent with reality," says Andrew Burke, an expert on energy systems for transportation at University of California at Davis.

That said, Burke hopes to be proved wrong. "If [the] technology turns out to be better than I think, that doesn't make me sad: it makes me happy."

Richard Weir, EEStor's cofounder and chief executive, says he would prefer to keep a low profile and let the results of his company's innovation speak for themselves. "We're well on our way to doing everything we said," Weir told Technology Review in a rare interview. He has also worked as an electrical engineer at computing giant IBM and at Michigan-based automotive-systems leader TRW.

Much like capacitors, ultracapacitors store energy in an electrical field between two closely spaced conductors, or plates. When voltage is applied, an electric charge builds up on each plate.

Ultracapacitors have many advantages over traditional electrochemical batteries. Unlike batteries, "ultracaps" can completely absorb and release a charge at high rates and in a virtually endless cycle with little degradation.

Where they're weak, however, is with energy storage. Compared with lithium-ion batteries, high-end ultracapacitors on the market today store 25 times less energy per pound.

This is why ultracapacitors, with their ability to release quick jolts of electricity and to absorb this energy just as fast, are ideal today as a complement to batteries or fuel cells in electric-drive vehicles. The power burst that ultracaps provide can assist with stop-start acceleration, and the energy is more efficiently recaptured through regenerative braking--an area in which ultracap maker Maxwell Technologies has seen significant results...

More on Page 2-3:
http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/page1/

Lord Hillyer

01-24-07, 01:05 AM

The electric car was the last living descendant of Jesus Christ.

draqon

01-24-07, 01:41 AM

noone killed the electric car. The only feasible solution to storage of power: hydrogen fuel cells...from say nuclear reactos going electrolysis on water...well the technology is way too costly and financially unfeasible when there is CO2 polluting money making oil around.

Carcano

01-25-07, 08:34 PM

EEStor innovations finally hit CNN:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/09/15/technology/disruptors_eestor.biz2/index.htm

Gentlemen, stop your engines!

EEStor's new automotive power source could eliminate the need for the combustion engine - and for oil.

The Innovation: A ceramic power source for electric cars that could blow away the combustion engine

The Disrupted: Oil companies and carmakers that don't climb aboard

Forget hybrids and hydrogen-powered vehicles. EEStor, a stealth company in Cedar Park, Texas, is working on an "energy storage" device that could finally give the internal combustion engine a run for its money -- and begin saving us from our oil addiction. "To call it a battery discredits it," says Ian Clifford, the CEO of Toronto-based electric car company Feel Good Cars, which plans to incorporate EEStor's technology in vehicles by 2008.

EEStor's device is not technically a battery because no chemicals are involved. In fact, it contains no hazardous materials whatsoever. Yet it acts like a battery in that it stores electricity. If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity. At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $60 or more; the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 45 cents a gallon.

And we mean power a car. "A four-passenger sedan will drive like a Ferrari," Clifford predicts. In contrast, his first electric car, the Zenn, which debuted in August and is powered by a more conventional battery, can't go much faster than a moped and takes hours to charge.

The cost of the engine itself depends on how much energy it can store; an EEStor-powered engine with a range roughly equivalent to that of a gasoline-powered car would cost about $5,200. That's a slight premium over the cost of the gas engine and the other parts the device would replace -- the gas tank, exhaust system, and drivetrain. But getting rid of the need to buy gas should more than make up for the extra cost of an EEStor-powered car.

EEStor is tight-lipped about its device and how it manages to pack such a punch. According to a patent issued in April, the device is made of a ceramic powder coated with aluminum oxide and glass. A bank of these ceramic batteries could be used at "electrical energy stations" where people on the road could charge up.

EEStor is backed by VC firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, and the company's founders are engineers Richard Weir and Carl Nelson. CEO Weir, a former IBM-er, won't comment, but his son, Tom, an EEStor VP, acknowledges, "That is pretty much why we are here today, to compete with the internal combustion engine." He also hints that his engine technology is not just for the small passenger vehicles that Clifford is aiming at, but could easily replace the 300-horsepower brutes in today's SUVs. That would make it appealing to automakers like GM and Ford, who are seeing sales of their gas-guzzling SUVs and pickup trucks begin to tank because of exorbitant fuel prices.

Nasor

01-31-07, 02:14 PM

If it works as it's supposed to, it will charge up in five minutes and provide enough energy to drive 500 miles on about $9 worth of electricity. At today's gas prices, covering that distance can cost $60 or more; the EEStor device would power a car for the equivalent of about 45 cents a gallon.

Hmm...ok, let's do some math.

Electricity is aroud 10 cents/ kw hour, so $9 worth of electricity would be about 400 MJ of energy. If you transfer that much electricity in 5 minutes, you will be drawing around 1.3 MW of power from...where exactly? No one would want to come within 100 feet of your charging station.

That's about the energy of 3 gallons of gasoline...pretty amazing if you can go 500 miles with that.

spidergoat

01-31-07, 03:07 PM

Another interesting idea I heard of are flow batteries, where once a battery is charged, the fluid can be drained off, stored, and replaced with fresh electrolyte, giving the battery a capacity limited only by the total amount of fluid.

Nasor

01-31-07, 03:24 PM

spidergoat

01-31-07, 03:32 PM

Flow batteries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_Battery) are also distinguished from fuel cells by the fact that the chemical reaction involved is often reversible, i.e. they are generally of the secondary battery type and so they can be recharged without replacing the electroactive material.

But yes, it is a type of fuel cell.

spidergoat

01-31-07, 05:28 PM

It doesn't matter anyway. The electric car will not save us.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Kunstler.html

MetaKron

01-31-07, 10:41 PM

It doesn't matter anyway. The electric car will not save us.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Kunstler.html

Only intelligence on our part would have saved us. That is why we are so thoroughly screwed.

ScottMana

02-01-07, 12:08 AM

It doesn't matter anyway. The electric car will not save us.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Kunstler.html

I think you are right. I think this is a step in a beter direction but we have alot more to go before we have it all under control.

The electric car is not a big deal. But it is a turning point. And even more important, I feel that we have taken a path with fossil fuels that is fine and all but it is reaching an end. It works on a smaller scale but not on the larger. It is however connected to one of the next big issues we need to face as a race. Thus it has the old trying to keep it in place and those who can think in terms of a future trying to move on. It can not be left as is.

cosmictraveler

02-01-07, 12:26 PM

Because of ........BMW has cars that...
Run on water
Emit water vapor at the tailpipe
Fill automatically with robots
Use hydrogen made from sunlight

...and they have been at it for over 30 years!

http://www.bmwworld.com/hydrogen/

Billy T

02-01-07, 01:39 PM

Instead of the tread's question, "Who killed the electric bus?" is more important. Rather than private cars, there is hope the EU, via it better developed public transport system, can survive the coming oil shortage. It is too late for the US.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Kunstler.html

This link does not state anything I have not been posted here for more than a year.. Sometimes, pointing out that the excess of "suburban infrastructure" (as I have always called it) found only in the US is why the US will collapse more extremely than the EU in a few decades at most.

To quote from the link above:
"...We invested most of our late twentieth-century wealth in a living arrangement with no future. American suburbia represents the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world. The far-flung housing subdivisions, commercial highway strips, big-box stores, and all the other furnishings and accessories of extreme car dependence will function poorly, if at all, in an oil-scarce future. Period. "

scorpius

02-03-07, 11:57 AM

Q: Who killed the electric car?
A: The consumers.

no way,
all the people who leased the one from GM liked it and some wanted to even buy it,but GM refused.why?
could be that car manufacturers are influenced by the Big Oil corporations?
electrics can work ,but who will pay for our roads maintanance?
if you dont buy gas or diesel you are not paying taxes ,;) ;)
heres some interesting electric cars sites
www.acpropulsion.com
www.mrsharkey.com/ev.htm
and some electric dragsters
www.nedra.com
or how about car powered by compressed air
www.theaircar.com

Carcano

02-06-07, 05:40 PM

Electricity is aroud 10 cents/ kw hour, so $9 worth of electricity would be about 400 MJ of energy. If you transfer that much electricity in 5 minutes, you will be drawing around 1.3 MW of power from...where exactly?
The EEStor batteries use a very high voltage recharging system, which obviously requires a special station. Home charging would happen far slower I reckon.

Zap has now come out with a similiar fast charging concept car in partnership with Lotus.
http://www.gizmag.com/go/6780/

"In a marriage seemingly well matched, electric automobile pioneer ZAP has chosen Lotus Engineering’s platform and body structure design as the basis for the development of the high performance electric ZAP-X. The car is based on the advanced APX concept car and will be shown for the first time at the North American Dealers Association exhibition which opens tomorrow (February 3).

A combination of the lightweight aluminium vehicle architecture, a new efficient drive and advanced battery management systems is intended to enable a range of up to 350 miles between charges, with a rapid 10-minute recharging time. An auxiliary power unit is planned to support longer distance journeys. The good news for sports enthusiasts is the performance courtesy of a killer power-to- weight ratio. - four in-hub electric motors, deliver 161 bhp apiece, which add together for 644 horsepower in all wheel drive mode, and capable of powering the ZAP-X to a top speed of 155mph.

Steve Schneider, CEO of ZAP, said: “Lotus Engineering's APX technology demonstrator vehicle is a perfect fit for our plans to introduce a full product portfolio of electric cars. Due to the initial design by Lotus, our cost and time to production will be significantly reduced. We believe that the ZAP-X will become the most advanced, most practical and most appealing flagship electric vehicle to date and will revolutionize the industry providing the driver with the enjoyment of a sports car and the practicality of an SUV.”

Mike Kimberley, CEO of Group Lotus plc, said: “Lotus Engineering’s APX is a world-class innovative concept and was developed to showcase real solutions to new challenges facing the automotive industry. So it’s very satisfying that ZAP’s proposed new model will make use of a great deal of the APX concept’s advanced body structure and chassis technology. The bringing together of these next-generation vehicle technologies represents another significant step forward for automotive technology.”

The APX showcases Lotus Engineering’s Versatile Vehicle Architecture technology, combining lightweight aluminium vehicle architecture with exceptionally strong and stiff structural rigidity, as well as lower manufacturing investment requirements. Having first been shown to the world at the Geneva motor show in 2006, the APX concept has won the 2006 European Aluminium Awards in the “Transport and Automotive” category.

The innovative placement of the power train leaves the space previously occupied by the conventional engine and drive train for additional battery capacity and amenities, making it a very consumer-oriented electric car concept. These design features will give the ZAP-X crossover the structural strength, and potentially storage and range that no electric vehicle has yet achieved publicly."

spidergoat

02-06-07, 05:58 PM

Instead of the tread's question, "Who killed the electric bus?" is more important. Rather than private cars, there is hope the EU, via it better developed public transport system, can survive the coming oil shortage. It is too late for the US.

Electric bus...would that be... a trolley? They still make them. Portland has a couple.

scorpius

02-06-07, 06:45 PM

Electric bus...would that be... a trolley? They still make them. Portland has a couple.
Ive heard that most big cities are getting hybrids, like these www.isecorp.com

Nasor

02-07-07, 02:30 PM

The EEStor batteries use a very high voltage recharging system, which obviously requires a special station.
Even with a "special charging station" those numbers seem borderline impossible.

Carcano

04-26-07, 01:51 AM

Even with a "special charging station" those numbers seem borderline impossible.
One of the leading nanotech battery companies Altairnano recently came out with more specific info on the chargeing issues:

"Nanotech company Altairnano has a lot to be charged up about these days. And while the company's battery promises unusually high performance, it doesn't get all the respect it deserves, said CEO Alan Gotcher.

"I know there are skeptics," Gotcher told Inside Greentech in an interview.

The dubious wonder how Altairnano - a relatively small public company operating out of offices, labs and manufacturing facilities in Reno, Nevada and with prototyping and design operations in Anderson, Indiana - could be producing a battery that could power an electric vehicle hundreds of miles, charge in 10 minutes, and have a service life of 20 years or more, as the company claims.

The secret, according to Gotcher, is nanotechnology, and Altairnano's selection of nano-structured lithium titanate as a framework for its battery, branded NanoSafe™. Because the storage compartments are so small, the battery can store a lot of lithium ions. And the titanate material used in the nanostructures enhances battery cycle life, and gives it an extraordinary service life, he said.

"The nano titanate is a zero-strain material, which means that when the lithium inserts and exits the crystal lattice, there's no strain, no deformation of a conventional battery."

That robustness has been shown to yield more than 20,000 cycles with little performance degradation, Gotcher said. In contrast, other rechargeable battery technologies typically have a lifetime of 3-7 years. Further, Altairnano says its batteries have been tested under extreme conditions, including an operating temperature range of -50 to plus 71 degrees Celsius.

To naysayers who claim it's impossible to put hundreds of kilowatts into a battery safely in under ten minutes, Gotcher said proof was already on display.

"We have these battery packs in vehicles. We're demonstrating we can do this rapidly. Some people had concerns about heat buildup. We have low resistance in our battery pack, so there is minimal heat generation. And because the charging mechanism in our battery system is endothermic, it absorbs heat when it charges. We get minimal heat during this rapid charge system."

Altairnano is planning different types of charging stations. The battery pack can be charged at low voltage over long times, or charged at higher voltages quicker, Gotcher said. In a 10 minute or less charge, at least 480 volts at several hundred amps will be required, transferring 210 kW/h of energy to the battery pack.

"We envisio