I wish to educate the dreamers, that electric vehicles (EVs from now on) can replace combustion engine cars for mass transportation in the future. Just to make sure, we are NOT talking about hybrids, but fully battery powered cars.
EVs have limited usage, mostly because of range and difficulty to charge. Their range hasn't really improved in 100 years! Oh yes, there is the price issue too, they are not cheap!!

Sure, they can be used for small range city dwelling, but if green people are dreaming that in the future millions will be buzzing around in EVs, well, they have a rude awakenings coming.
Not to mention that battery power will not drive heavy trucks or machinery. I will also mention that since the electricity does come from coal burning power stations, the enviromental footprint is also very high for EVs, so there is no overall saving for Mother Earth.

One can dream that one drives into an eelectric charging station and charges in 5 minutes, then be able to drive 300+ miles, but it is just not happening...

Maybe we should go to Mars instead... Don't get me wrong, I would love to speed down the highway by 100 MPH quietly in my cool electric car, but I also live in reality, and a reality check is long time due for dreamers....

Any takers????

Oh yes, since I am a lazy bastard, I will base my knowledge mostly on this article:

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6480#more

You are very strongly advised to read it (it is interesting) and try to come up with arguments against facts in the article before you wish to be buried by me...

And "we will improve in the future more" kind of arguments will not be accepted, unless similar improvements can be presented based on the previous years.

I will summarize what the reasons are against EVs:

1. Price.
2. Range.
3. Difficulty to charge. (it has to be quick and widely aviable)

Unless 2 of these 3 problems can be solved, they won't be a real competition/replacement for combustion engine cars. And we are going to expect the same or at least similar size, safety, and features (yes, heat and AC too) in an EV. After all we don't want to drive a golfcart....

I'm kind of on your side here, but with a caveat, .... many car journeys are quite short, under four miles, in 25% of cases iirc. I think therefore there could be a place for electric vehicles in urban environments, where amenities aren't far away, and where lowering emissions would help air quality.

So, I'd word your argument that electric cars cannot completely replace conventionally powered vehicles at present, or indeed, the near future.

The new Leaf ...

http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2010/01/27/463539.1-lg.jpg

features
zero tailpipe emissions
100% electric – no gasoline required
high response synchronous AC motor 80kW
range –100 miles/charge based upon US EPA LA4 City cycle2
speeds up to 90 mph
5 passengers, 5 doors
Nissan Navigation System
Nissan Connection powered by CARWINGS

mechanical
80 kW AC synchronous electric motor
24 kWh lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery
3.3 kW onboard charger
Emissions – Zero Emissions Vehicle (ZEV)
Power-assisted vented front disc/rear disc brakes
"Coasting" regenerative brakes
4-wheel Anti-lock Braking System (ABS)
Electronic Brake force Distribution (EBD) and Brake Assist (BA)
Electronic parking brake
Front and rear stabilizer bars
Vehicle speed-sensitive power-assisted steering
Portable Trickle Charge Cable (120V/EVSE) 3
Tire repair kit
exterior
16" alloy wheels
P205/55R16 tires
LED headlights
Dual power outside mirrors
Chrome door handles
Aerodynamic under body
cover and rear diffuser
Rear spoiler

interior
Nissan Navigation System
Nissan Connection powered by CARWINGS – allowing for remote connection to vehicle Monitor battery state of charge/charging status
Start charging event
Turn on Automatic Temperature Control (ATC) system
Digital meter cluster
Trip computer (instant/average energy consumption, driving time driving range and outside temperature)
Palm-shift drive selector
Cruise control with steering wheel-mounted controls

seating
5-passenger seating capacity
6-way manual adjustable driver's seat
4-way manual front-passenger's seat
60/40–split fold-down rear seatbacks

Nissan Intelligent Key® with Push Button Ignition
Bluetooth® Hands-free Phone System
Auto-dimming rearview mirror
Automatic Temperature Control (ATC)
Power door locks with auto-locking feature
Power windows with driver's window one-touch auto up/down
Variable intermittent windshield wipers
Intermittent rear window wiper with washer
Rear window defroster with timer
Dual sun visors
Illuminated glove compartment
Front door map pockets
Cup holders (2)
Bottle holders (2)
12-volt DC power outlet
Tilt steering column
Height-adjustable 3-point front seat belts
audio
AM/FM/CD audio system with MP3/WMA CD playback capability
XM® Satellite Radio 4
Auxiliary audio input jack 5
USB connection port for iPod® interface and other compatible devices 6
6 speakers
safety and security
Nissan Advanced Air Bag System with dual-stage supplemental front air bags with seat-belt and occupant-classification sensors 6
Driver and front-passenger seat-mounted side-impact supplemental air bags 6
Roof-mounted curtain side-impact supplemental air bags for front- and rear-seat outboard occupant head protection 6
Vehicle Dynamic Control (VDC) 7 with Traction Control System (TCS)
Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS)
Nissan Vehicle Immobilizer System
Vehicle Security System


28,000.00 US price tag

>range –100 miles/charge based upon US EPA LA4 City cycle2

I would like to see this thing making 100 miles on the highway with 4 adult passengers doing 60 MHP at least. 2 things kill the battery most, speeding up often and maintaining high speed.

I didn't see the charging time, but I assume it is at least 4 hours. Again, this is not really a car but a city commuting vehicle...

Oh yeah, you can buy a similar small car for 18-20K, or even less...What is the cost per mile, not counting the purchase price? Here is a quick cost for the average car:

annual average miles: 8000
average miles per gallon: 25
average gas usage annually: 320 gallons
cost $4 per gallon: 1280$

Not let's assume the cost of the electricity annually is 280$ for the EV. Then because the 10K extra price it takes 10 years to make it as cheap as a normal car...Here I am assuming everything else (repair and such) are the same....

I will also mention that since the electricity does come from coal burning power stations, the enviromental footprint is also very high for EVs, so there is no overall saving for Mother Earth.

I would take the position in favor of the electric car, so long as there is a basic ground rule that we don't talk about where the electricity comes from. That expands the debate too far out in order to discuss it in a practical amount of time. It is also a wedge that is commonly used by anti-green energy proponents.

If you talk about a solution that could solve the power grid (getting electricity to your home), a lot of anti-green people will immediately point out that you can't run cars off of it. If you go the other way, and talk about solutions to run cars, they shift it over and talk about where you'll get the electricity from. The 2 problems are two entirely separate problems, which demand two entirely separate solutions. Oil is an effective answer to both right now, but when we shift away from oil, we probably won't be able to find another "one size fits all" solution..... and why should we try? Why not employ multiple methods? For the power grid, the best solutions are things like solar, wind, tidal, and nuclear power --- all things you can't put in a car. But, if it's a battery powered car, then you can put solar, wind, tidal, or nuclear energy into your car.

As for the rest of the topic, I'll wait until we're actually debating to discuss things like longevity, range, and potential for technological improvement. There's actually a very good chance I will lose, but this is definitely an important issue that is worthy of discussion.

i dont want to influence the debate but syzygy is far too pessimistic.

we could set up magnetic highways instead, that way we dont really have to change the current infrastracture that uses various of fuels. For long distance we would set up maglev-like highways which would have an individual base for every vehicle. A vehicle would enter on this base and it would use energy from the maglev-like highway to zip it long distance to any destination, than the vehicle uses its own engine and gets off. We could have train like station but for cars going long destination.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/440546219_0cbd65c652.jpg?v=0http://farm1.static.flickr.com/207/481662680_786ae19a06.jpg

i think that one way to alleviate the long charge time is to set up stations where you just drop the vehicle off and pick up a fully charged one. I dont think it would be so bad to limit speeds to 30mph anyway.

i was watching a youtube video on the Tesla and o-60 it passed the gas powered lotus (which it is based off of) like it was standing still.

you can just have a slot in all the cars for large power cell batteries whatever they are. Changing cars would be too hard to handle of an infrastracture, too long.

i think that one way to alleviate the long charge time is to set up stations where you just drop the vehicle off and pick up a fully charged one. I dont think it would be so bad to limit speeds to 30mph anyway.

are you kidding me? :bugeye: From past century to this one and next one ahead of us the speeds at which we travel have increased as demand for speed is going up. 30mphs is snail speed. First we traveled by horses and carriages, than we traveled by steam cars, than cars with gasoline...it lets us go faster.

i was watching a youtube video on the Tesla and o-60 it passed the gas powered lotus (which it is based off of) like it was standing still.

Electric cars do really well on zero-to-60 type tests because an electric motor generates its maximum torque when it is stalled. In the higher speeds is where they start to falter. (Even that might not be a problem if they actually gave them gearboxes, but a lot of them have single gear transmissions.)




you can just have a slot in all the cars for large power cell batteries whatever they are. Changing cars would be too hard to handle of an infrastracture, too long.

Yeah. Infrastructure is important. Battery swaps are probably about the limit of what we can do for quick charging. Either that, or maybe using the regenerative brakes most of them are equipped with. (Attach something to the wheels and then spin them really fast and hard with the brakes engaged...... ?)

I wish to educate the dreamers, that electric vehicles (EVs from now on) can replace combustion engine cars for mass transportation in the future. Just to make sure, we are NOT talking about hybrids, but fully battery powered cars.
EVs have limited usage, mostly because of range and difficulty to charge. Their range hasn't really improved in 100 years! Oh yes, there is the price issue too, they are not cheap!!

Sure, they can be used for small range city dwelling, but if green people are dreaming that in the future millions will be buzzing around in EVs, well, they have a rude awakenings coming.
Not to mention that battery power will not drive heavy trucks or machinery. I will also mention that since the electricity does come from coal burning power stations, the enviromental footprint is also very high for EVs, so there is no overall saving for Mother Earth.

One can dream that one drives into an eelectric charging station and charges in 5 minutes, then be able to drive 300+ miles, but it is just not happening...

Maybe we should go to Mars instead... Don't get me wrong, I would love to speed down the highway by 100 MPH quietly in my cool electric car, but I also live in reality, and a reality check is long time due for dreamers....

Any takers????

I wouldn't want to argue with you, you're right! Electric cars can be made for sure, but will not be practical except for a few rich people unless and until we solve the problem of clean sustainable energy.

Either that, or maybe using the regenerative brakes most of them are equipped with. (Attach something to the wheels and then spin them really fast and hard with the brakes engaged...... ?)

Interesting. How about something attached to the tires for kinetic energy?

I wouldn't want to argue with you, you're right! Electric cars can be made for sure, but will not be practical except for a few rich people unless and until we solve the problem of clean sustainable energy.

All we have to do for that is go nuclear, or use solar/wind in a way where your battery charger is programmed to do most of its charging when the sun is shining and/or the wind is blowing. (A massive network of batteries soaking up the generated energy is exactly what is needed in order to make those two power types practical. )



Interesting. How about something attached to the tires for kinetic energy?

I'm not sure what you mean. Regenerative braking means that the brakes are designed to generate electricity whenever you engage them. The reason this works is that you're trying to slow down anyway, so you might as well convert the kinetic energy of motion into electricity instead of just heat. (Heat being what normal brakes convert it into.)

In order to use those brakes as a battery charger, some external machine would have to force the tire to spin while the brake is engaged. But.... there's no reason we couldn't do that, and it might be faster than plugging a wire into a power outlet, depending on how much current that power outlet is able to sustain.

This thread is deteriorating fast. This thread is not discussion, specially getting offtopic like Dragon's. Anyhow I don't think there will be a debate so I just mention that today I bought a cordless handheld vacuum and it takes 20 hours to charge it first.

20 hours!!! Where is the battery technology when I need it???

I would take the position in favor of the electric car, so long as there is a basic ground rule that we don't talk about where the electricity comes from.

If nobody else is willing to argue for the EVs, I can give this concession... Although I would like to note that we want to look at the full picture....

An extra point I would like to make about the advertised range:

"100 miles = upper limit

In fact, the range of the Nissan Leaf or the Mitsubishi i-MiEV may be far worse than that of the 1908 Fritchle. The range of the latter was (officially) recorded during an 1800 mile (2,900 km) race over a period of 21 driving days in the winter of 1908. The stock vehicle was driven in varied weather, terrain and road conditions (often bad and muddy roads). The average range on a single charge was 90 miles, the maximum range recorded was 108 miles. (sources: 1 / 2 ).

The range of the Mitsibushi i-MiEV and the Nissan Leaf was tested in a very different manner. On rollers instead of on actual roads, and in a protected environment, but that's not all. Both manufacturers advertise the US "EPA city" range, a test that supposes a 22 minutes drive cycle at an average speed of 19.59 mph (31.5 km/h), including one acceleration to 40 mph (64 km/h) during no more than 100 seconds."

I'm not sure what you mean. Regenerative braking means that the brakes are designed to generate electricity whenever you engage them. The reason this works is that you're trying to slow down anyway, so you might as well convert the kinetic energy of motion into electricity instead of just heat. (Heat being what normal brakes convert it into.)

In order to use those brakes as a battery charger, some external machine would have to force the tire to spin while the brake is engaged. But.... there's no reason we couldn't do that, and it might be faster than plugging a wire into a power outlet, depending on how much current that power outlet is able to sustain.

I was just wondering if it is feasible to suppose that having generators (of some kind) attached to the wheels, rims, axle or driveshaft can be used to supply kinetic energy to the batteries. Here we have two ideas, the breaks and the energy from the naturally present rotation of the contact points to the movement of the vehicle itself. TBH, i dont know how the break idea would work, though i kind of understand the concept.

I still say the best solution is to just bring a vehicle in to trade for another fully charged one at stations like the gas stations we have now. Which is the best idea because this will have many benefits, like not ever having to clean your own car, but humans are very possessive. My interest in cars, aside from practical purpose, subsided soon after around 18 years old so i wouldnt mind that at all.

If nobody else is willing to argue for the EVs, I can give this concession... Although I would like to note that we want to look at the full picture....

Nah, that's being too gracious. The cost both fiscal and environmental of the electricity must be taken into account.

There are zero emissions benefits to going electric if the electricity is produced by burning fossil fuels, and the cost of setting up nuclear power stations must then be factored if we want to remove emissions from the equation, but then that gets factored into the comparison.

Also, the environmental cost of producing the elements used in the batteries must be considered.

We aren't playing 'Top Trumps', and selecting one superlative here, we are trying to be balanced.

Something that already exists is not a dream. But I take it that your premise is that it is a dream to consider it a solution to some of the technology problems in our oil addicted society.

Obviously the bias one has on the subject, one way or the other, is engendered by the education one has been exposed to (http://blogdredd.blogspot.com/2010/05/clean-up-is-only-done-at-bank.html) which sets the basis for one's cognition.

Since 1973 and the oil embargo with those long lines at U.S. gas stations, the mantra of BP (big petroleum) has been "it can't be done overnight", which was just repeated by Senator Kerry when he revealed his new energy legislation a few days ago.

With the education we have in this nation, coupled with the severe addiction to oil, "overnight" currently means 30-40 years or longer.

Addicts are commonly overcome with "we can't" which replaces their pre-addiction attitude of "we can".

This is looking like a debate about psychology rather than a debate about technical ability to produce (http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-way-out-of-here.html) a new technical reality.

This is looking like a debate about psychology rather than a debate about technical ability to produce (http://ecocosmology.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-way-out-of-here.html) a new technical reality.

No, it's a debate based on the facts that electric cars lack range, performance, cannot be easily replenished, and cost more than an equivalent petrol car.

Electric cars are not useful for anything other than urban, or short distance trips at the moment.

If oilprices finally go up to painful level, I can see Evs gaining popularity if they are sligthly modified:

1. Get ride of the unneccesery electronics. Only radio, no electric windows either. AC in the North and heat in the South can also be spared.
2. Space can be given up for bigger battery. It might even be a 2 seater, if the range goes up to 200+ miles.

Unless improvements are made, people's attitude towards driving needs to change to make EVs marketabel...

Somewhere I read that hybrids also cut down on 75-90% oilconsumption, so that is the real solution without giving up comfort and safety

As long as the prices of EV's can compete I think they will do well and grow.Also EV's are basically in their infancy and as they grow so will their range.Lastly from reading articles here and there it looks like the US will be in last place for adopting EV's on a grand scale of the developed countries.The US is such an oil and gas nation whom will have great difficulty breaking it's addiction.Somewhere just yesterday I read the US is in 18th place as far as EV's,Solar,Wind,Wave etc go.The almost 1 trillion spent on the oil wars thus far could have bought a lot of renewable energy or even government replacement EV's.Sadly all the US has left for number one place is the Military.

Also EV's are basically in their infancy and as they grow so will their range.

If 120 years is infancy for you....

Also we already established that their range DIDN'T grow in 100 years.

Efficient EV's will obviously not be invented by you anyway. Alchemists had been trying to turn common metals into gold for hundreds of years. Does that mean we will never be able to turn a common metal like copper into gold? No it just happens to be a far more complex task than these alchemists could have imagined. The more we learn about nuclear reactions the closer we come to figuring out how to transmute elements in that manner. That analogy is a terrible one because nuclear chemistry like this involves such a great deal of energy but what I'm saying is its all a matter of knowledge. It would be unwise to assume that we will not accomplish something in the future simply because we do not currently have the knowledge to accomplish it.

If 120 years is infancy for you....

Also we already established that their range DIDN'T grow in 100 years.

Being around for 100 yrs and many firms working thru R&D is two differant things.EV's have been ignored until fairly recently.Now that we have a need and a growing market,good things will happen.

The Nissan Leaf takes 8 hours to fully charge at home on a 220v circuit.

I just found an updated article on the quick charge option: the charger lists for $16,200 for the standard model, $19,000 for a model with a cooling unit (if you live in a warm climate) and $17,000 for a heated unit (if you live in a cold climate). I'm guessing that since I would need a heated & cooled unit, I'm looking at over $19,000. The charger will take the battery from 0 to 80% in 30 minutes. One major drawback: it needs 480v to operate, so it won't really be available to the homeowner.

I have several battery operated power tools. I think they are great. But they do have their drawbacks:

You need to have more than one battery. Having only one battery is useless.

As the battery dies down, the tools loose torque. They still run, just not as powerful.

If the battery completely drains under stress/use, you have to have a cool down period before you shove it in the charger. That means you need more than 2 batteries.

Batteries seem to go bad for absolutely no reason. One week it works fine, the next it will no longer take a charge.

Batteries don't like the extreme heat or extreme cold. Hell, some winter mornings my truck starts pretty rough because it is so cold. I can only imagine what that cold will do to a battery powered car.


I'd think about buying an electric car, but I wouldn't give a battery powered car a second look.

A side note: Back in 2006, Jesse James, and the crew on Monster Garage built a battery powered dragster using only tool batteries. They used 384 28v lithium-ion batteries. Technically, it was 2005, but the show aired in 2006.

http://www.milwaukeetool.com/NewsAndMedia/PressReleases/Details.aspx?PublicationId=948

http://www.delsonproducts.com/monster-v28.htm

If oilprices finally go up to painful level, I can see Evs gaining popularity if they are sligthly modified:

1. Get ride of the unnecessary electronics. Only radio, no electric windows either. AC in the North and heat in the South can also be spared.

AC requirements would require about .5-1.5KW, that nothing compared to the acceleration and driving needs. Also electric motors and batteries do produce waste heat which could be used for heating a car.



2. Space can be given up for bigger battery. It might even be a 2 seater, if the range goes up to 200+ miles.

the Tesla S model has tons of extra space (front trunk, 5 people + 2 reverse back seats) even in the 300 mile version and is design to compete with equally priced ($50-$75k) luxury cars. Once battery production ramps up cheaper cars with more capabilities become possible.



Unless improvements are made, people's attitude towards driving needs to change to make EVs marketabel...

or oil prices skyrocket, or it just becomes fashionable as many hybrids did.


Somewhere I read that hybrids also cut down on 75-90% oilconsumption, so that is the real solution without giving up comfort and safety

That impossible if all cars where hybrids it would reduced consumption by 15-30%, think about it if a Toyota highlander normally gets 16 mpg and its hybrid gets 20 mpg thats only a 20% improvement in mileage.

Honda Civic hybrid gets 40-48 mpg, so that is a 50-65% savings over a car with 20 mpg. Honda Insight gets 55-65. So yes, it is way more than 20% savings:

http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/

Also mentioning luxury EVs is ridiculous, because the whole point is to make them cheap, economic and enviromental friendly. So let's not compare to 60+ K luxury cars...

And again, do we really need 6 CD changer? Or electric windows? Or DVD players in the beackseat? We did just fine without them for 100 years... I grew up without AC, sure it is nice but if the oil based society comes to an end, I can do without it.

But heating is a necessity and that does take lots of power...

P.S.: Once battery production ramps up, the price of the noble metal in it will go up too...As mentioned earlier, the Chinese have already stopped exporting it...

Being around for 100 yrs and many firms working thru R&D is two differant things.EV's have been ignored until fairly recently.Now that we have a need and a growing market,good things will happen.

I know, just like this:

"The consensus among EV proponents and major battery manufacturers is that a high-energy, high power-density battery - a true breakthrough in electrochemistry - could be accomplished in just 5 years" (Machine Design, 1974).

No, it's a debate based on the facts that electric cars lack range, performance, cannot be easily replenished, and cost more than an equivalent petrol car. The performance issue is settled - you can get very good performance from an electric car.

They should be more reliable - a gas car has very complex electronics on top of its power supply.

The cost issue is partly mass production, partly intrinsic - the intrinsic part is vulnerable to technological improvements, the mass production part is available at any time.

The range will always be a problem, probably, but that's partly infrastructure as well (battery swaps, or fuel cell swaps). Range is not critical for most cars actually on the streets now.

The idea that electric power would not work for trucks, machinery, etc, is nonsense - its been powering train engines and forklifts and such things for many years. It would be ideal for buses, delivery vans, and other vehicles that start and stop a lot, have basically short ranges, idle a lot, and park at a central location.

If 120 years is infancy for you....

Also we already established that their range DIDN'T grow in 100 years.

The cars they are using them in today are much heavier and have many more demands including more lighting. I think the early ones you are referring to are the open air buggy type. Dashboard lights alone are a few watts and add in the extra weight so it isnt an accurate comparison.

The cars they are using them in today are much heavier and ...

The reasons were already discussed. The bottomline still hasn't changed, for comfort and safety we gave up range...

It is the same with gasoline cars, the T-Ford's mileage was 20 mpg, pretty much the same as the average car's today... No improvement there either....

The idea that electric power would not work for trucks, machinery, etc, is nonsense - its been powering train engines and forklifts and such things for many years.

Holy shit, there is a magic word that you missed: PORTABLE (as a battery)

You can not have battery powered heavy machinery as we speak (or in the near future). Unless you are dreaming of a city with electric lines all over the street to get continuous power, but that is again science fiction, not reality...

And about the range, just let's think about cars being used as business (taxis, delivery vans,etc.) They all drive more than 100 miles in an 8 hour shift... So throw battery power out of the window for them too...

You can not have battery powered heavy machinery as we speak (or in the near future). Or fuel cell? As long as you're sure - - - seems like an ideal solution for a city bus.

This thing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilo_class_submarine is pretty heavy at 3000 tons submerged, with a 400 mile range on battery power.



And about the range, just let's think about cars being used as business (taxis, delivery vans,etc.) They all drive more than 100 miles in an 8 hour shift.. No they don't.

Unless you are dreaming of a city with electric lines all over the street to get continuous power, but that is again science fiction, not reality...

? That's been a reality in countless cities for a century now. There is no shortage of metro light rail systems that are so powered, both above ground and below.

syzygys "logic" is entirely based on the ridiculous assumption that battery technology will not improve. History shows that when a new technology is first introduced commercially, it is expensive and poor in quality compared to later models. Think of the first personal computers!

Lithium batteries are the subject of massive research efforts, and new generation products will be way better than existing ones.

For example : take recharge times. Currently it may take 8 hours to recharge a personal electric vehicle. But recharge times are getting better.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/a-rapidrecharge-lithium-battery

I quote :

"Fast charging is of interest to some plug-in vehicle makers. For example, using Altair Nanotechnologies’ battery technology, Phoenix Motorcars has built a 160-kilometer-range electric car that can be fully charged in just 10 minutes"

Of course, this requires special high voltage rechargers. However, why should not special recharge stations install the proper equipment?

Take range. Again, research is working on this.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lithium-air-electric-car-battery

I quote :

"At Argonne National Laboratory and elsewhere, researchers are just beginning to crack the basic science behind a promising technology: lithium-air batteries. If their theories are right, these batteries will have five to 10 times the energy of lithium-ion batteries, the big battery pack that's powering the first wave of electric-drive cars."

Even in terms of existing technology, syzygys is skating on pretty thin ice with his arguments. The Tesla (admittedly expensive) can achieve 300 km on a single charge, and has unbelievable acceleration and top speed.

And for simple family cars? Statistics show that 80% of all car trips are less than 50kms. Mostly commuting and shopping. Since lots of families have two cars, that creates a massive market for a short range electric car.

Recharging primary problem is not the batteries its the electric lines to the batteries, Most homes do not have 480V or 600V needed for high speed recharging.

Kilo_class_submarine is pretty heavy at 3000 tons submerged, with a 400 mile range on battery power.

With the incredible speed of:

Endurance
400 nautical miles (700 km) at 3 knots (6 km/h) submerged

Not to mention it is way easier to move weight in water than on dry land, so try again...

syzygys "logic" is entirely based on the ridiculous assumption that battery technology will not improve.

Not really, but how do you know that improvement isn't a curvature like improvement in let's say high jump? That most of the improvement has already happened?

The juice got 7 times stronger for the same weight in 100 years. Unless something completely new technology gets used, it is safe to say that there might be 20-30% improvement in the next 20 years..


History shows that when a new technology is first introduced commercially, it is expensive and poor in quality compared to later models.

true but we already had newer battery technology in the last 10-15 years.


But recharge times are getting better.

Well, my handheld cordless vacumm takes 20 hours...


Of course, this requires special high voltage rechargers. However, why should not special recharge stations install the proper equipment?

I am not against it, the car industry is.


If their theories are right, these batteries will have five to 10 times the energy of lithium-ion batteries, the big battery pack that's powering the first wave of electric-drive cars."[

As I mentioned above, when new technology is introduced...


Even in terms of existing technology, syzygys is skating on pretty thin ice with his arguments. The Tesla (admittedly expensive) can achieve 300 km on a single charge, and has unbelievable acceleration and top speed.

I thought I already killed this incredible stupid argument:

1. The Tesla has a twice as big battery thus duh, its range is bigger.
2. Fast acceleration kills the battery faster. It is not desired...
3. Super top speed is not desired either. 70 mph is just fine, you can drive with that on the highway...


Mostly commuting and shopping.

That's why I called Evs commuting carts. Now what about all those professional cars driven in city traffic all day? Taxi, delivery,etc?

I also mentioned already families with 2 cars, one could be electric. But if both cars are used then the savings gets to be way less....

There are already cities that have mass transport systems based on autonomous electrical buses.

So? We are discussing CARS not Buses...


Most people already live in cities, and that trend looks set to continue long into the future.

Depends on your definition of city, but anyway, your argument seems to be that people will/should use mass transportation. It is rather irrelevant because again, we are discussing electric cars.


Sure it will, and long has.

Example of heavy machinery? A forklift really isn't that heavy...


By "live in reality" you mean to say "can't afford the Tesla Roadster?" This stuff is already on the market, right now.

You really don't get it. I was talking about average cars. Most average car even the cheapest ones can do 90-100 mph. When the average electric car can do the same for 2-3 hours without killing the battery, then you have something....

You really don't get it. I was talking about average cars. Most average car even the cheapest ones can do 90-100 mph. When the average electric car can do the same for 2-3 hours without killing the battery, then you have something....

You are still looking at this from a gasoline power perspective and throwing out your own strawmen. Normal driving is not 90-100mph and even the difference in time you save for going 10-20mph faster is nothing to be concerned with. Most people speed because they wait for the last second to go someplace. IF max speeds were reduced, as an example to 40mph, there would be fewer accidents and the batteries would last longer.

I took a look at Lithium battery powered cars:

"A second prototype was built in August 2003, powered by 6,800 lightweight lithium-ion cells, similar to those that make up the battery packs of laptop computers, giving it a 300 miles (480 km) range. Lighter than the original version by 700 pounds (320 kg), the 2003 edition goes from 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds. The single gear ratio limits the car's maximum speed to just over 140 miles per hour (230 km/h) at 13,000 rpm with proper gearing, though it has never been tested at greater than 105 miles per hour (169 km/h). The base price of the car was USD $220,000."

Can we see the problem here? The base price!!! It had a nice range of 300 miles, but the price kills it as a solution for the masses. Now if you can make it for 30-40K, we are in business!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzero

Here is an interesting read about the EV1 made by GM. The automaker basicly sabotaged its own product. But also the bottomline is that they were able to make an EV more than 10 years ago with 100-140 miles range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

So where is the battery improvement in the last 10 years??

"In GM's view, the EV1 was not a failure, but the program was doomed when the expected breakthroughs in battery technology did not take place within the anticipated timeline.."

P.S.: The car was only offered as a lease, but users liked it a lot. GM promptly crashed most of them at the end of the lease.

So? We are discussing CARS not Buses...

Your OP spoke in terms of "electric vehicles for mass transportation" and so that is the category I'm going to adhere to. Your weak-suck attempts at evasion do not impress.


Example of heavy machinery? A forklift really isn't that heavy...

Define "heavy machinery" if you expect a response after trying to move the goal posts like that. I'd love to see a definition that excludes both forklifts and submarines.



Most average car even the cheapest ones can do 90-100 mph. When the average electric car can do the same for 2-3 hours without killing the battery, then you have something....

The Tesla Roadster can drive comparable speeds and ranges to a conventional gasoline car. Feel free to learn the basic Wikipedia info about a subject before attempting to school others on it, in the future.

You have to try much harder if you want to be taken seriously...


Your OP spoke in terms of "electric vehicles for mass transportation" and so that is the category I'm going to adhere to. Your weak-suck attempts at evasion do not impress.

Read the TITLE of the thread again. Your lack of logic doesn't impress. You are on thin ice getting on my Ignore list...


Define "heavy machinery"

Fair enough, 10T... Submarines are NOT on dry land. Hell, I can push 2-3T floating by swimming. I couldn't do that the weight being on the road without wheels.. :)

10 T on dry land. That probably excludes submarines and forklifts. :)


The Tesla Roadster can drive comparable speeds and ranges to a conventional gasoline car.

Who cares? It is prohibitively expensive!!! And again, we are trying to make here an average car for the average user, not a sports car...

Holy crap, you guys are really not getting it...


Normal driving is not 90-100mph.

I know. That was just given because Quadro keeps bringing up the Tesla.
I never said there is no EV going that fast. I just stated I would like to cruise with an average EV with a decent speed.
Again, I am not again EVs, as long as they kind of can keep up with gasoline cars in price, range and room (and features too). But that also means that I expect an EV under 30K, be able to go at least 200 miles without charge, taking 4 adults at least and go with 60-70 mph for 3 hours.

When you have one like that, I am buying...

Just a comment about price. Over ten years ago I had a look at a really dinky little device. It was a DVD player with built in screen, and a small battery pack. At the time I was doing a lot of travelling by plane and the idea of carrying a means of viewing movies was enormously attractive, till I saw the price tag. Over $ 3,000 !

Today, improved versions of the same thing are available for less than $ 150.

This pattern has been repeated so many time I could draw up quite a long list. I am confident that it will apply to electric cars also. Sure, the first cabs off the rank are expensive. That is always the case. I predict that, within a few years, electric vehicles will cost less than petrol driven equivalents.

At the same time, the technology will improve. I pointed out in my earlier post that lithium batteries already exist in the laboratory that recharge very quickly and which have much greater range. Within 10 years, these will appear in electric cars.

Fossil fuels are rapidly disappearing. Within 1 to 3 decades, they will become prohibitively expensive. The options are to go to liquid fuel sourced from coal, which is an excellent way to warm the planet; or we can use biofuels, hydrogen gas (currently not practical), or go to electric vehicles.

Of all those options, we are closest to a practical electric vehicle. Indeed, such vehicles are already on the road. The Reva, a primitive form, has been in use in India for almost a decade.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REVA_Electric_Car_Company

In spite of anything syzygys says, the electric car revolution has already started. Within 20 years, it will be extremely common - possibly the dominant personal vehicle.

I am not so sure batteries lasting that long with the present methods are going to do that. Straight battery power alone is always going to be an issue, but tbh i don't know much about the battery technology these cars use.

I think they need to go beyond just battery power and look at overall engineering. For one think poisonous fumes are eliminated so heat generated can be use inside the vehicle. Kinetic energy, utilizing the length of the drive shaft or rims is supplemental power, but this needs to be stored, obviously since the car is not always moving.

You have to try much harder if you want to be taken seriously...

I pity anyone who worries about being taken seriously by Syzygys.



You are on thin ice getting on my Ignore list...

I couldn't care less about your Ignore list.


Submarines are NOT on dry land.

So what?



Hell, I can push 2-3T floating by swimming. I couldn't do that the weight being on the road without wheels..

Is there something to prevent electric machinery from employing wheels?



10 T on dry land.

There are standard production electric forklifts that can lift in excess of 20 tons.



Who cares? It is prohibitively expensive!!! And again, we are trying to make here an average car for the average user, not a sports car...

Lots of people where I live drive cars that are more expensive than the Tesla Roadster, and which exhibit vastly higher fuel and upkeep costs to boot.

And, again, you asserted earlier that no such electric car exists, not that it costs more than you'd like to pay.

Further to the issue of cost -
The Reva sells in india for the equivalent of $US 6,000.
It has a running cost (cost of electricity) of $US 0-01 per kilometre. Petrol driven cars are about $US 0-10 to $US 0-20 per km. in fuel cost. Thus, any claim that electric vehicles have to be too expensive are clearly wrong.

The main drawback is that this is a small car with limited range, and limited speed, designed as a commuter vehicle. Small and nippy, and easy to park. However, for its own purpose, it is an excellent vehicle.

The limited range is mostly due to the fact that it is lead acid battery operated. Later models use lithium technology and have a much greater range.

You could say that, between the Reva and the Tesla, both ends of the market are already catered for. With the new vehicles coming (Nissan Leaf. GM Volt etc) the central part of the market is about to be catered to.

I couldn't care less about your Ignore list.

Then you don't mind if I will just ignore your input from now on. Seriously, you don't get simple points.

Traveling in/on water takes fucking way LESS energy than traveling on dry land. So your bringing up submarines is irrelevant.

And finally I never said there was no EV with 100 mph. Practice reading comprehension.

Well, I guess see you when you are ready, in a few months....

In spite of anything syzygys says, the electric car revolution has already started. Within 20 years, it will be extremely common - possibly the dominant personal vehicle.

You do realize that EVs have been around for 120+ years? So not exactly a brand new revolution... :)

The app. price for the EV1 was around 80-100K, so we can say that comparable price dropped 70% in 10 or so years. (the current EVs are around 30K) The question is if we can keep this type of improvement price drop up? My guess is that not. But I will be happy with a 20-25K EV if it has better range...

What could be a real selling point for EVs is the so called true cost to own, which is the longer term upkeep divided by the driven miles... I think today a smaller gasoline car's true cost is about 30-50 cents per mile in a 3-5 years period.

Traveling in/on water takes fucking way LESS energy than traveling on dry land.
How do you work that out?
Water is far denser than air and causes far more drag and friction.

syzygys

You are correct in saying the ev is 120 years old. However, this is a new revolution. It is driven partly by need - the recognition of the value of zero emissions, and the recognition that fossil fuels are becoming scarcer - and partly driven by new technology. The first ev's were hardly practical by today's standards. We now have most of the technology to make a fully practical family electric car. And what technology we do not have is rapidly being developed.

I have already shown that new lithium battery technology will permit rapid recharge, and also longer range.

Electric motors are now powerful enough, and compact enough to fit into a car wheel. We are in a position (almost) to make the 'skateboard' car. That is : build a basic platform with motors and electric steering, plus assorted controls in the wheels, all on a standard platform.

Then, to finish the car, we drop the top on, along with the battery module. The final stage bolted on could be a sedan, a wagon, a pick up, a van or other. All to fit onto the basic 'skateboard'. This will bring manufacturing costs way down.

As I pointed out, modern electric cars are already being sold. They are 'imperfect' as is any new technology. However, like other forms of new technology, the perfecting process is under way. See this post in ten years!

Here is another interesting read. It looks like EV advocates needs better LEGAL departments, not labs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies

"Whether or not Toyota wanted to continue production, it was unlikely to be able to do so because the EV-95 battery was no longer available. Chevron had inherited control of the worldwide patent rights for the NiMH EV-95 battery when it merged with Texaco, which had purchased them from General Motors. Chevron's unit won a USD 30,000,000 settlement from Toyota and Panasonic, and the production line for the large NiMH batteries was closed down and dismantled. This case was settled in the ICC International Court of Arbitration, and not publicised due to a gag order placed on all parties involved.Only smaller NiMH batteries, incapable of powering an electric vehicle or plugging in, are currently allowed by Chevron-Texaco."

--------------------


The RAV4 EV by Toyota in 2002 was actually better than today's EVs, 120-150 miles range with the then new large NiMH battery. The working temperature range was also much wider than batteries from other companies. The oilcompanies succesfully killed it, by taking a controlling interest in the inventing company...

Now imagine if the US government for state security reasons would take over Cobasys, the holder of the patent of the battery and would start to produce and sell it at a decent even profitable price, instead of invading oil rich countries... Yes, one can only dream...

However, this is a new revolution.

As Lithium batteries go yes. But it looks like we already had a few decent EVs 8-10 years ago with quite decent or at least better range than today. Both GM's EV1 and Toyota's RAV4 EV were very much loved by the users, and the later one wasn't even very expensive, about 30-35K...

So as I mentioned in my above post, it is more legal (and maybe government) action that is needed not just technological improvements...

How do you work that out?
Water is far denser than air and causes far more drag and friction.

Except that relative slow but large vehicles have a road resistance, not airresistance. Why do you think the biggest carrying vehicle is a boat?

I think generally boat shipping cost is the cheapest (well, no roads needed,) compared to air or dry land. But anyhow that is for another thread.

But anyhow here is the website for government action against Chevron for the battery patent:

http://www.twocentspermile.com/

Except that relative slow but large vehicles have a road resistance
Largely negligible compared to water resistance.


Why do you think the biggest carrying vehicle is a boat?
Because vehicles that large wouldn't fit on a road. :rolleyes:

Look at power-to-weight-ratios for top speed: land vehicles require less power for a given speed/ size.

I thought I already killed this incredible stupid argument:

1. The Tesla has a twice as big battery thus duh, its range is bigger.
2. Fast acceleration kills the battery faster. It is not desired...
3. Super top speed is not desired either. 70 mph is just fine, you can drive with that on the highway...

.

So..... why don't we just give all the EV's a battery as large as the Tesla's battery? Is there some fundamental law that says EV's must have small batteries?


I took a look at Lithium battery powered cars:

"A second prototype was built in August 2003, powered by 6,800 lightweight lithium-ion cells, similar to those that make up the battery packs of laptop computers, giving it a 300 miles (480 km) range. Lighter than the original version by 700 pounds (320 kg), the 2003 edition goes from 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds. The single gear ratio limits the car's maximum speed to just over 140 miles per hour (230 km/h) at 13,000 rpm with proper gearing, though it has never been tested at greater than 105 miles per hour (169 km/h). The base price of the car was USD $220,000."

Can we see the problem here? The base price!!! It had a nice range of 300 miles, but the price kills it as a solution for the masses. Now if you can make it for 30-40K, we are in business!


Cell phones used to be prohibitively expensive once upon a time as well.

New technologies are always initially introduced to the market as luxury items, and priced accordingly, because manufacturers need to recuperate all the money they've invested in setting up brand new factories, hiring engineers to generate brand new designs, and paying for access to all the patents they need to pay royalties for. After they've recuperated those costs, however, the price goes down quite a lot.

My bet is that, if the Tesla has a successful enough run, we'll start seeing cheaper cars that are exactly identical to it in about 10 years.

So..... why don't we just give all the EV's a battery as large as the Tesla's battery? Is there some fundamental law that says EV's must have small batteries?

I guess not. Well, the bulkiness of the car might bring down the airresistance ratio. And it adds weight, but yes they could put bigger batteries in smaller cars too.


My bet is that, if the Tesla has a successful enough run, we'll start seeing cheaper cars that are exactly identical to it in about 10 years.

I agree with everything you said and yes, 10 years seems to be doable. Which brings it to my original point, that not RIGHT now...

EVs are like Linux, every year is going to be theirs. :)

Look at power-to-weight-ratios for top speed: land vehicles require less power for a given speed/ size.

You don't mind solving this for me?

"Students will be given the following math question:
One boat can carry cargo equivalent to 5-6 trains, or 500-600 train cars. Each train car
holds the equivalent to 3 semi truckloads. 1800 semis = 1 boat. Boats get 45-50 gallons per
mile.
1. Determine the miles per gallon of a ship.
2. If a truck could get 10 mpg, how does the gas mileage compare between semis and
ships?
3. Which is more economically feasible?"

---------------------------------------

Furthermore:

Transportation Modes: An Overview

Maritime transportation (Concept 4). Because of the physical properties of water conferring buoyancy and limited friction, maritime transportation is the most effective mode to move large quantities of cargo over long distances.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch3en/conc3en/ch3c1en.html

Are we good now?

You don't mind solving this for me?
"Students will be given the following math question:
One boat can carry cargo equivalent to 5-6 trains, or 500-600 train cars. Each train car holds the equivalent to 3 semi truckloads. 1800 semis = 1 boat. Boats get 45-50 gallons per mile.
1. Determine the miles per gallon of a ship.
2. If a truck could get 10 mpg, how does the gas mileage compare between semis and ships?
3. Which is more economically feasible?"
At what speed?
Bearing in mind your call for 70 mph...
At what fuel consumption?
How often do we pack that many people into one vehicle on land?
Specious question.
How about: why can we get 70 mph from a moped of 50 cc engine capacity yet for a water-borne vehicle (jet ski) to approach that speed it requires 400+ cc?
How about a sport jetski (http://www.topspeed.com/boats/jet-ski/ke2678.html) that requires a 1500 cc 255 HP engine and does ~ 70 mph yet a Suzuki GSX-R 1000 with 160 HP will do ~200 mph?

Do try to keep your contentions straight: you first claimed that water travel requires less energy and now you're comparing slow-speed efficiency.
Apples and oranges.

Dywyddyr, what do you think of post 49 and using the rotation of the drive shaft or rims?

Dywyddyr, what do you think of post 49 and using the rotation of the drive shaft or rims?
This bit?

Kinetic energy, utilizing the length of the drive shaft or rims is supplemental power, but this needs to be stored, obviously since the car is not always moving.
Nice idea but taking power off the rotating components causes friction and would slow down the shaft/ wheels, and the whole point is get them rotating as efficiently as possible.
Regenerative power recovery may well cost more than it's worth in losses and increased heating, not mention the extra weight of equipment required to convert that rotation into energy and then store it.

Seriously dude, you are offtopic and incorrect. I thought it was common sense and public knowledge that water transportation was the most cost effective...



Apples and oranges.

Exactly. That's why it was stupid for Quadro to bring up submarines... :)

Now if you can't focus on the topic, I will be just ignoring you as I do with Quadro...

Seriously dude, you are offtopic and incorrect. I thought it was common sense and public knowledge that water transportation was the most cost effective...
Changing the goal posts again.
Is that because you can't refute the point that water transport requires more power than land transport?
You originally claimed it used less energy.


Now if you can't focus on the topic, I will be just ignoring you as I do with Quadro...
Go ahead, but as long you make stupid comments I'll correct them.

I will give you one last chance with a homework:

You have 10000 T of cargo to be transported from NYC to Miami. You can use ship, truck or plane. Which is the cheapest way?

Let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

I will give you one last chance with a homework:
You have 10000 T of cargo to be transported from NYC to Miami. You can use ship, truck or plane. Which is the cheapest way?
Let me help you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation

Funny you should give that link:

Concorde the supersonic transport managed about 17 miles to the gallon per passenger

Cunard state that their liner, the RMS Queen Elizabeth 2, travels 49.5 feet per imperial gallon of diesel oil (3.32 m/L or 41.2 ft/US gal), and that it has a passenger capacity of 1777.[26] Thus carrying 1777 passengers we can calculate an efficiency of 16.7 passenger-miles per imperial gallon
So Concorde and the QE2 are both ~ 17 passenger miles per gallon.

A trial of a Colorado Railcar double-deck DMU hauling two Bombardier Bi-level coaches found fuel consumption to be 128 US gallons (480 l; 107 imp gal) for 144 miles (232 km), or 1.125 mpg-US (209.1 L/100 km; 1.351 mpg-imp). The DMU has 92 seats, the coaches typically have 162 seats, for a total of 416 seats. With all seats filled the efficiency would be 468 passenger-miles per US gallon
So train is ~28 times better.

A diesel bus commuter service in Santa Barbara, CA, USA found average diesel bus efficiency of 6.0 mpg-US (39 L/100 km; 7.2 mpg-imp) (using MCI 102DL3 buses). With all 55 seats filled this equates to 330 passenger-mpg, with 70% filled the efficiency would be 231 passenger-mpg
And a bus is ~ 14 times better.

Now tell me again about

Traveling in/on water takes fucking way LESS energy than traveling on dry land.

Just to make you happy and get back on track, I will buy a personal electric train when they are on sale for my transportation.
Can you make the same math for CARGO instead of per person? I thought in your homework the cargo was 10000 T not passengers...

Damn, I can put moderators on Ignore, what a pity!

Now let me tell you about transporting/traveling on water compared to dry land:

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch8en/conc8en/ch8c2en.html

"Freight transportation is dominated by rail and shipping, the two most energy efficient modes. Coastal and inland waterways provide an energy efficient method of transporting passengers and cargoes. A tow boat moving a typical 15-barges tow holds the equivalent of 225 rail car loads or 870 truck loads. The grounds for favoring coastal and inland navigation are also based on lower energy consumption rates of shipping and the general overall smaller externalities of water transportation. The United States Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council has measured the distance that one ton of cargo can be moved with 3.785 liters of fuel. A tow boat operating on the inland waterways can move one ton of barge cargo 857 kilometers. The same amount of fuel will move one ton of rail cargo 337 kilometers or one ton of highway cargo 98 kilometers."

Are we really good now? A boat is 120% more efficient/economical than train and 8.5 times than trucks....

So my statement that water transportation is way more efficient and economical than on dry land still stands as correct... :)

P.S.: Further obvious, irrelevant and offtopic discussions of water and train transportations will be ignored.

I see you didn't look at the chart at the bottom of the page on the link you posted...
Well done.

Then you don't mind if I will just ignore your input from now on.

You promise?

Alternatively, you could just stop debating like an insecure high school underclassman, and you wouldn't be subjected to inputs that cause such dissonance in you.

Water provides more friction then air+rails, no doubt about it, plus a propeller is not as efficient as a drive shaft to a wheel. airplanes loose efficiency despite the lack of ground friction because so much energy is "wasted" keeping the plane in the air, a 250 ton 747 must move the equivalent of 250 tons of straight air down in order to fly ever second.

Now what about all those professional cars driven in city traffic all day? Taxi, delivery,etc? Electric power is ideal for most of them - low mileage, lots of idle time, starting and stopping frequently - that's where the regenerative braking and lack of power consumption while stopped are most advantageous.


Kilo_class_submarine is pretty heavy at 3000 tons submerged, with a 400 mile range on battery power.
”
With the incredible speed of:

Endurance
400 nautical miles (700 km) at 3 knots (6 km/h) submerged

Not to mention it is way easier to move weight in water than on dry land, so try again... You seemed to be under the misapprehension that battery power was incapable of powering heavy vehicles. That was a significant counterexample. The battery powered switch engines in your local rail yard provide another.

Water resistance is much greater, and increases much more rapidly with speed, than rolling and air resistance, so the speed comparison is irrelevant. The 400k range would be much longer, not shorter, on dry land.

2. Fast acceleration kills the battery faster. It is not desired...
3. Super top speed is not desired either. The argument was that performance suffered from switching to electric power. The Tesla counters that.


Are we really good now? A boat is 120% more efficient/economical than train and 8.5 times than trucks....

So my statement that water transportation is way more efficient and economical than on dry land still stands as correct.. You are now ignoring the factor you found most important in the initial post on this issue - the speed.

Trucks allowed to travel 10 mph steadily without starting and stopping and idling would be quite a bit more efficient than current trucking - quite possibly getting into ship territory or even better. A train would certainly be far more efficient than a ship, under such parameters of operation.

The point is that anything capable of moving 3000 tons 400k through water is more than capable of handling ordinary weight or size of cargo on land.

Re water versus land transport.

I support syzygys here.

It is not a simple equation. Resistance to movement through water varies enormously depending on various factors. However, a large ship travelling at or below displacement speed will expend less energy per tonne kilometre for its cargo than any land vehicle.

If the vessel is a small planing boat, such as a jet ski, the equations are very different.

Strangely, the most efficient in terms of energy per tonne kilometre is a submarine. This is because the drag at the air/water interface for a floating vessel is greater than the drag of a fully submerged vessel. Some submarines are capable of amazing feats, though finding out exactly what is almost impossible, since these are military secrets. Certainly military submarines are capable of more than 70 knots, while expending relatively little energy for their size and speed.

People, keep focus and stop the stupidity specially if it was already answered:


Electric power is ideal for most of them - low mileage,

For a taxi? The average NYC cab traveled 141 miles per shift in 1990:

http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf

So today's EVs wouldn't make through one shift, since that miles increased since 1990..


You seemed to be under the misapprehension that battery power was incapable of powering heavy vehicles. That was a significant counterexample.

My hairy ass. On dry land. Haven't I just proved that it is way more energy efficient to move heavy shit in water, thus it is easier to do so for batteries too??? Bringing up submarines is stupid...

Where is my electric truck when I need it? oh wait, there is no such a thing...


The point is that anything capable of moving 3000 tons 400k through water is more than capable of handling ordinary weight or size of cargo on land.

So where is my electric TRUCK??? Did you steal it??? :)

Re water versus land transport.

I support syzygys here.

Well, thanks but I think simple logic, facts and knowing 6th grade physics should be fine for my support. :)

Anyhow, I kind of moved on so unless we can get back to electric cars (for by the way I provided better support than the advocates), I am not interested in passenger average, speed factors and such...

The real question is how low the Li-ion battery's price can come down, before another oil company buys the patent rights... :eek:

With the NiMH batteries there hasn't been any improvement in the last 8 years....(and they were actually quite decent back then)

Hey, I did find an electric truck! It isn't an 18 wheeler and has several limitations (price 3 times of diesel truck, 100 miles range,speed) but it is a truck:

http://blogs.forbes.com/energysource/2010/05/13/special-delivery-via-electric-truck/

And also proves my point of batteries not carrying heavy shit on dry land for very far....

"Navistar's new electric truck, called eStar, which is being unveiled today. When Navistar surveyed customers like utilities and package and snack delivery companies it found that 82% had daily routes less than 100 miles. Enter eStar, which can go 100 miles on a charge. Its battery is an 80 kilowatt-hour lithium ion battery made by A123 Systems that powers a 70-kilowatt motor (that translates to a pretty puny 93 horsepower). A full recharge takes eight hours. Top speed: 50 mph.

The thing isn't cheap, at least for now. It will cost $150,000, compared with $50,000 or so for a similar sized truck. "

The real question is how low the Li-ion battery's price can come down, before another oil company buys the patent rights...

With the NiMH batteries there hasn't been any improvement in the last 8 years....(and they were actually quite decent back then)


Really, if oil companies are buying up the rights, it can only be motivated by some kind of collusion. Otherwise, why would any one oil company bear the full financial brunt alone for keeping a tech off the market, when all the oil companies stand to lose together? At the very least, it's a predatory business tactic. But, nobody in the government is going to take action unless the public is sufficiently outraged to force their hand.

So, the problem starts and ends with public support.



I agree with everything you said and yes, 10 years seems to be doable. Which brings it to my original point, that not RIGHT now...


True, but the Tesla has to have a successful run, or the 10 year thing will never happen.



EVs are like Linux, every year is going to be theirs. :)

Lol. I think that got thirty straight seconds of laughter out of me. Poor Linux. :( Poor EV's. :(

I kind of like the reference to electric truck posted by syzygys.

I quote :

" More than half of the truck's cost is the battery, in part because A123 basically hand builds each one now, and Terblanche expects that cost to come down dramatically. A123 is building a battery factory in Michigan with the help of a $249 million manufacturing grant from the Department of Energy. When that gets up and running, as early as later this year, Navistar expects battery prices to fall and, with it, the cost of the truck."

Which is what I have been saying all along. We can expect evs to be exactly the same as computers, flat screen TVs, and all other electrical goods. They will begin expensive, and over time, will become cheaper and better.

The time scale I project is 10 to 20 years. At the end of that time, evs will quite likely outnumber petrol and diesel vehicles on the road.

And also proves my point of batteries not carrying heavy shit on dry land for very far....

Even as it renders that point irrelevant:


When Navistar surveyed customers like utilities and package and snack delivery companies it found that 82% had daily routes less than 100 miles.

I.e., trucks don't need to carry heavy shit on land for very far at a go, mostly.

I think the transition is going to be hybrids for a good 10-20 years and when the peak oil curve will obviously go down, the EVs can take over. I forgot which hybrid it was but it gets 70 mpg, that is pretty damn good, even with 5-6 bucks per gallon.

Going back to Toyota's RAV4, some of them are still running and have 150K miles on it with the same battery. Again, this is since 2002, so there was decent production back then, just the carmakers killed it. That was an SUV with a large cargo space, not like this small European golfcarts.
There was one on Ebay for 65K:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/09/toyota_rav4_ev.php

Haven't I just proved that it is way more energy efficient to move heavy shit in water, thus it is easier to do so for batteries too??? No, you haven't. Compare equivalent distances with equivalent parameters of operation (speed, starting and stopping, up and down hill, etc) - I'll bet any amount of money you want that over flat ground at steady and equal speeds a train is more efficient than a ship at moving weight.

And the electric switch engines running around my local rail yard have no problem moving boxcars full of heavy stuff.

You are playing games with your criteria - first it's speed, than efficiency ignoring speed, then it's range, then it's price, make up your mind.

Electric power is ideal for most of them - low mileage,
”
For a taxi? The average NYC cab traveled 141 miles per shift in 1990: Electric power is well suited for what you mentioned - most delivery vehicles and vans etc - because the advantages of no power consumption at idle and regenerative braking and the like are greatest in the common circumstances of such use.

Seriously dude, you are offtopic and incorrect. I thought it was common sense and public knowledge that water transportation was the most cost effective...
Common sense and public knowledge apparently disagrees with you, to include posters on this forum.

I think the transition is going to be hybrids for a good 10-20 years and when the peak oil curve will obviously go down, the EVs can take over. I forgot which hybrid it was but it gets 70 mpg, that is pretty damn good, even with 5-6 bucks per gallon.


Hybrids are probably a good transition, as long as they remain popular enough to fuel research into better and better batteries. Certainly technologies centered on reliability and longer battery life will improve over time. (Maybe not capacity, though, since you don't need it as much on a hybrid.)



Re water versus land transport.

I support syzygys here.

It is not a simple equation. Resistance to movement through water varies enormously depending on various factors. However, a large ship travelling at or below displacement speed will expend less energy per tonne kilometre for its cargo than any land vehicle.

If the vessel is a small planing boat, such as a jet ski, the equations are very different.

Strangely, the most efficient in terms of energy per tonne kilometre is a submarine. This is because the drag at the air/water interface for a floating vessel is greater than the drag of a fully submerged vessel. Some submarines are capable of amazing feats, though finding out exactly what is almost impossible, since these are military secrets. Certainly military submarines are capable of more than 70 knots, while expending relatively little energy for their size and speed.

I also agree. Water has more drag because of its greater viscosity, but it also has an advantage air doesn't: it's non-compressible.

When a car drives in normal air, it creates a vacuum behind it, and an area of compressed air in front of it. Resisting those two forces is not easy. It would be like continually pushing against a spring. The uncompressibility of water makes these effects meaningless.

Common sense and public knowledge apparently disagrees with you,

...and you had a couple of examples in your post. Oh wait, you didn't. :eek:

Opinions are like ass holes, next time try to be constructive, instead of just throwing off a soundbite...


No, you haven't.

I understand you didn't get it, but that doesn't mean I haven't proved it. Also what is this electric switch engine shit? Weren't we clear on the PORTABLE battery concept?? That's what we are talking about...Unless you are talking about battery powered train...

Anyhow, try to move on...



You are playing games with your criteria - first it's speed, than efficiency ignoring speed, then it's range, then it's price,

It underlines the limitation of battery power in vehicles. We want to have it all, with EVs it is either or....

Syzygy, the problem with the thread is the use of the term 'pipedream'. People hundreds of years ago would have said the same about cars today, or say for example the difference between a 1930 automobile and a 1960. Huge difference there.

Even cell phones or thumb drives.

Electricity is gonna be a problem to produce from conventional sources...so...

Is there a reason the fuel-cell car has been overlooked in this thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCX_Clarity

The only issue here is the production of the hydrogen.
It is still technically an EV.
It has a range of 280 miles or so and takes about 2 minutes to "fill up" at a service station that is equipped to supply the fuel.

Yes - as an immediate answer to the situation it is lacking the infrastructure. But I wouldn't overlook it as a possible answer.

To Sarkus

It appears that syzygys is starting to admit that the battery operated electric car may have a future in a decade or two, which I am willing to go along with.

However, the hydrogen fuel cell operated vehicle is likely to be further down the road. More likely 2 to 4 decades. There are major practical difficulties is manufacturing hydrogen gas in an environmentally acceptable way, and in both delivering it and storing it. Long term, I agree with you. It has great potential. But it is a lot further away than the simple battery operated electric car.

Another issue that does not seem to have been much discussed in this thread is that of electricity supply. Whether hydrogen fuel call or lithium battery, to power a whole new generation of personal vehicles will require a lot of electricity, with a lot more distribution capacity and a lot of new electricity generating plants - that will need to be non-carbon emitting. That is, probably wind or nuclear power.

Is there a reason the fuel-cell car has been overlooked in this thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCX_Clarity

The only issue here is the production of the hydrogen.
It is still technically an EV.
It has a range of 280 miles or so and takes about 2 minutes to "fill up" at a service station that is equipped to supply the fuel.

Yes - as an immediate answer to the situation it is lacking the infrastructure. But I wouldn't overlook it as a possible answer.

because
- They cost far more then even battery powered cars, the price needs to be dropped by nearly 1/50 to be competitive, while today electric cars of equivalent range are being built at prices between 1.5-4 times greater then economy gas cars and and equal prices to luxury cars of those classes.

- They are less efficient: Making hydrogen from water (75%) efficiency, PEM fuel cells at best 50% efficient, total 37%, Batteries typically get totally efficiencies of 80-90%. Efficiency can be greatly improve upfront by using natural gas to make hydrogen but then your just using a fossil fuel input and even worse you could just run a car straight off natural gas instead for much cheaper and four times greater volumetric density.

- They present infrastructure challenges even greater then electric cars: The need for mass hydrogen production, hydrogen pipelines, hydrogen storage. Electric cars charging at night off of off-peak power could replace 80% of the small car market without a single new power needed, we have the power today for electrified personal transport, and we don't have anything near ready for a hydrogen economy.

I feel the long term greatest potential is not in hydrogen but in metal-air flow cells a hybrid of battery and fuel cell if you will. Energy can be stored in a inert/fire resistant zinc microparticles or aluminum nanoparticle organic past with very high energy densities, the metal paste would be pumped into alkaline fuel cells not needed expensive catalysis like hydrogen fuel cells, the metal paste would be oxidize into a metal oxide paste and pump into a storage badder in the fuel tank. The flow cell can be charged at home like at battery by running the cell backwards or fast fueled like gasoline at a "gas" station by pumping in fresh paste into the fuel tank while simultaneously pumping out waste paste, the paste then can be re-charged at the "gas" station or shipped to a centralized re-charging plant. Metal-air cells have the advantages of hydrogen (High energy density, rapid re-fueling, low toxicity) with the advantages of batteries (home recharging, low fire hazard)

Is there a reason the fuel-cell car has been overlooked in this thread?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCX_Clarity

The only issue here is the production of the hydrogen.
It is still technically an EV.
It has a range of 280 miles or so and takes about 2 minutes to "fill up" at a service station that is equipped to supply the fuel.

Yes - as an immediate answer to the situation it is lacking the infrastructure. But I wouldn't overlook it as a possible answer.

My understanding of the problem is that efficient hydrogen-to-electricity converters always require platinum as the catalyst. It only needs a small amount, so at today's platinum prices one could probably afford it, but if the technology were mass produced....... there's no way to increase platinum production to meet demand, so the price per ounce would sky rocket.

(Because platinum is like any other rare Earth element: it's impossible to produce, only mine, and only when you're lucky enough to find it.)

Syzygy, the problem with the thread is the use of the term 'pipedream'.

You have a point but:

1. It is a catchy title.
2. Until EVs can compete with gasoline cars in EVERY regard, they ARE a pipe dream...

It appears that syzygys is starting to admit that the battery operated electric car may have a future in a decade or two,

I guess it is my bad. I reread the first post and I missed the word "near" in the very first sentence. :)

Sometimes I like to start a thread early when I don't have all the info and keep collecting the information as we go along. :rolleyes:

I wonder how a worldwide epidemic whipping out a decent % of the population would throw back the development of the EVs? Suddenly humankind would get a few decades more before we need to switch....

I understand you didn't get it, but that doesn't mean I haven't proved it. Of course. It's you having failed to compare equivalent operating parameters that means you have failed to prove it. There's a reason so many canal systems of England and the US were essentially abandoned after railroads went in parallel to them.

Also what is this electric switch engine shit? Weren't we clear on the PORTABLE battery concept?? That's what we are talking about...Unless you are talking about battery powered train.. There are several kinds of battery powered train or track vehicles operating here and there, including in rail yards as switch engines (more common in Europe, they tell me), in mines and large factories, and so forth.

Your claim was that powering heavy machinery was beyond the capabilities of batteries.

You are playing games with your criteria - first it's speed, than efficiency ignoring speed, then it's range, then it's price,
”
It underlines the limitation of battery power in vehicles. The limitations of battery power are well known. What needs better argument is the assertion that a power source superior in four categories is eliminated by its inferiority in a fifth, with the fifth category chosen from the five according to circumstance.

We want to have it all, with EVs it is either or.... It is either/or with gasoline engines, as well - you sacrifice reliability and durability and ease of maintenance and operating expense and even accelleration etc, you endure noise and other pollution (from the gas stations, etc, as well),

there are always tradeoffs.

That is, probably wind or nuclear power. Thermal solar, with DC transmission lines, is ideal for charging batteries or fuel cells.

You have a point but:
2. Until EVs can compete with gasoline cars in EVERY regard, they ARE a pipe dream...

That like saying diesel is a pipe dream, motorcycles are pipe dreams, scooters are pipe dreams, etc, etc, in short your just making a false dilemma to cover your fail.

That like saying diesel is a pipe dream, motorcycles are pipe dreams, scooters are pipe dreams, etc, etc, in short your just making a false dilemma to cover your fail.

You are an idiot, here I will prove it:

1. Diesel can compete in EVERY regards with gasoline, so really bad example.

2. Bike and scooters are completely different category, so there is a built in advantage/disadvantage already. But other then that, they can aslo compete with gasoline cars, so again, really bad example...

I don't think I failed, but I would rather fail then to stay incorrect. I am a big enough man to acknowledge when I am wrong. :rolleyes:

b;ah-blah-blah and other incoherent nonsense

I apologize but you lost the right to be taken seriously, so I don't read your posts from now on. No hard feelings, I hope...:cool:

So let's summarize where we got:

I was correct that EVs' range didn't really improve in the last 100 years, because we gave up the technological improvements of battery technology for more features. What is more sad that although we had at least 2 very promising EVs 8-12 years ago (EV 1 and RAV4) even during that last 8 years range hasn't improved, thus today's EVs get the exact same range than the electric cars of GM and Toyota using the same NiMH battery.
The battery industry did find a new technology, the Li-ion battery, what could be a break through, if the price can be brought down to acceptable level for mass production... But until that a fully competitive electric car is going to be a pipe dream...

You are an idiot, here I will prove it:

1. Diesel can compete in EVERY regards with gasoline, so really bad example.

Except in engine price, engine miniaturization, NOx pollution, sound pollution, start performance, etc, etc, tell me then if diesel can compete in every regard was is gasoline more popular in most places. Everything has pros and cons and its just a matter of when and where pros/con ratio of one thing overrides the other, as gas prices rise the con of paying for gas becomes greater then the cons of limited range and long recharge times for EVs, as pollution standard become more stringent the pros of zero emission override the pros of longer range and fast fueling times. EVs will become the majority small transport vehicle in some places when and where oil and pollution prices get high enough, and those areas will enlarge as the price of manufacture EV gets more and more competitive with manufacturing gasoline vehicles. Just as diesel is the majority fuel in come countries because of low population standards and properly adjusted fuel prices.



2. Bike and scooters are completely different category, so there is a built in advantage/disadvantage already. But other then that, they can aslo compete with gasoline cars, so again, really bad example...

So can electric cars so your relativistic fallacy does not fly.



I don't think I failed, but I would rather fail then to stay incorrect. I am a big enough man to acknowledge when I am wrong. :rolleyes:

Then you would have apologies several pages ago.

I apologize but you lost the right to be taken seriously, so I don't read your posts from now on. No hard feelings, I hope...:cool:

So let's summarize where we got:

I was correct that EVs' range didn't really improve in the last 100 years, because we gave up the technological improvements of battery technology for more features. What is more sad that although we had at least 2 very promising EVs 8-12 years ago (EV 1 and RAV4) even during that last 8 years range hasn't improved, thus today's EVs get the exact same range than the electric cars of GM and Toyota using the same NiMH battery.
The battery industry did find a new technology, the Li-ion battery, what could be a break through, if the price can be brought down to acceptable level for mass production...

You really can't use initial price as an indicator of a product's potential viability. Final price, on the other hand, is a great indicator. If the final price has no chance of ever being low, then we might as well give up on the idea right now. Tesla Motors's accomplishments are really interesting. They've got everything a gasoline car would have, aside from price.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors

Now here's the real question: If li-ion tech batteries enable 300 mile range for a family sedan right now, ...... what are the odds that maybe another battery tech might exceed that limit even? If it does, wouldn't that mean that electric had actually reached the point of being superior to gasoline, rather than just matching it?


But until that a fully competitive electric car is going to be a pipe dream...

I think the reason people object to the use of the term "pipe dream" is because most pipe dreams have no potential to be fullfilled regardless of what time frame you put them in.

If you mean that people are expecting this transition to be easier than it's going to be, then I'd say "pipe dream" is a perfectly accurate term. Moving to electric isn't going to happen without a deliberate and concerted effort.

You have a point but:

1. It is a catchy title.
2. Until EVs can compete with gasoline cars in EVERY regard, they ARE a pipe dream...

Technically they should not have to compete in every regard. They can limit the speed to 50mph top speed for consumer vehicles.

You really can't use initial price as an indicator of a product's potential viability.

I don't think I did. I mean I never said the price wasn't going to drop.

Now after reading about the Tesla Model S, the base model for 57K doesn't really get any better range and it is still 2 years away:

"Production for the retail market is expected to begin in late 2012, with a base price of $57,400. The base model will have a range of 160 miles (260 km) when fully charged, and a 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) acceleration of 5.6 seconds. There will also be larger battery packs available with ranges of 230 and 300 miles (370 and 480 km).(The prices for the larger battery packs have not been announced yet.) Normal charging times will be 3 to 5 hours, depending on the battery capacity, and a 45-minute QuickCharge will be possible when connected to a 480 V outlet. In addition, a battery swap will be possible in less than five minutes."

Now Toyota's RAV4 had 100-120 range, so bottomline is we got a 30% range improvement in 10 years with the better battery.


Now here's the real question: If li-ion tech batteries enable 300 mile range for a family sedan right now,

Well, as the Wiki quote above shows, with only more batteries, but multiplying batteries ALWAYS extended range, so adding batteries isn't really an improvement.


...... what are the odds that maybe another battery tech might exceed that limit even?

This is a sci-fi question, trying to guess where technology will lead. I am sure there will be another technology that is even better, but again when and at what price.

Mind you, we can also tinker with gasoline (and hybrid) cars and can make them super efficient, extending their range to 5-800 miles. But for the average user a 300 miles range EV would be good enough I guess...


If it does, wouldn't that mean that electric had actually reached the point of being superior to gasoline, rather than just matching it?

Just by range alone no, see my reason above.

Now we just have to sit back and wait what they come up with...

P.S.: An idea occured to me. Instead of buying the base model Tesla S for 60K one is better of buying TWO other EVs for 30K each. Their range together is 200 miles, better then Model S' 160...

Technically they should not have to compete in every regard. They can limit the speed to 50mph top speed for consumer vehicles.

I guess that is true. Also they could limit the max. driven miles per day for every car. :)

So I guess the basic argument here is that if we limit gasoline cars by LAW, then EVs can be competitive...

What if, and this is a big if, but what if in the distant future (50-100 years) We had hundreds of orbital solar satellites, collecting power from the sun, which is far more efficient than what solar panels down here can achieve, what with the atmosphere and whatnot. But what if we had dozens, if not hundreds of them, collecting energy, and beaming that energy down directly to cars via microwaves?

ht
tp://sci
ence.nas
a.go
v/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23mar_1/


(Had to break up the URL. apologies)

I want to see the data on these battery operated cars dealing with range vs age. That is, if the battery powered car can travel 100 miles on a single charge straight off the production floor, what will that range be on its one year anniversary? On its 2,3,4 & 5 year anniversary?

I'd expect to see a 20% drop every single year and the battery not lasting beyond year 5.


And orbital solar satellites beaming power to cars...so many problems with that I'm not even sure where to begin.

Motorcycles/scooters are pretty much commuter vehicles. They carry 1-2 passengers. They aren't designed for inclement weather. You don't exactly go grocery shopping on a motorcycle. I looked into buying a motorcycle when gas spiked above $4 per gallon. I would have had to drive that thing every single day back & forth to work for 5 years to recoup the money in gas savings. I'm not about to drive a motorcycle in the snow or in the rain. For a little bit more money, I could have bought a Hyundai with better mileage. The Hyundai, I could drive in all weather AND I could go grocery shopping.

I buy the extended warranty when offered on any electronic products I buy that comes with a rechargeable battery. That way, when that battery dies and no longer holds a charge, they will replace it for free. And, that battery always costs more than buying the item it is in brand new. I can't think of a single item I own, with a rechargeable battery in it, that has a battery over 5 years old.

I don't think I did. I mean I never said the price wasn't going to drop.

Now after reading about the Tesla Model S, the base model for 57K doesn't really get any better range and it is still 2 years away:

"Production for the retail market is expected to begin in late 2012, with a base price of $57,400. The base model will have a range of 160 miles (260 km) when fully charged, and a 0 to 60 mph (0 to 97 km/h) acceleration of 5.6 seconds. There will also be larger battery packs available with ranges of 230 and 300 miles (370 and 480 km).(The prices for the larger battery packs have not been announced yet.) Normal charging times will be 3 to 5 hours, depending on the battery capacity, and a 45-minute QuickCharge will be possible when connected to a 480 V outlet. In addition, a battery swap will be possible in less than five minutes."

Now Toyota's RAV4 had 100-120 range, so bottomline is we got a 30% range improvement in 10 years with the better battery.


There's no reason to look at the base model instead of the high end model. If you wait long enough, the high end will eventually become standard.

A 64-bit, 2ghz, quad core CPU today costs about the same as a 32-bit, 100 mhz, single core CPU used to cost in 1995. In that context, improving something does not necessarily make it more expensive in the long run. In the short run, the faster CPU always costs more, of course.




Mind you, we can also tinker with gasoline (and hybrid) cars and can make them super efficient, extending their range to 5-800 miles. But for the average user a 300 miles range EV would be good enough I guess...



True, but with gasoline, it's an efficiency problem. Most modern combustion engines convert about 20-30% of the energy in the gasoline into motion, and of course, the highest you can get in theory is 100% (but you'll never reach that.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_efficiency

I don't know that battery storage problems have any theoretical limit at all. I'm sure something must put a cap on it, but if not then one of these days a jump could happen that makes electric so far superior to gasoline that nobody wants to buy gasoline cars anymore. If I were an auto-mobile manufacturer, I would want to hedge that bet by putting at least one foot in electric.




P.S.: An idea occured to me. Instead of buying the base model Tesla S for 60K one is better of buying TWO other EVs for 30K each. Their range together is 200 miles, better then Model S' 160...

If someone finds a way to make the cars cheap enough.... that might not be so bad. Maybe leave one car parked at work, and one parked at home, and switch them between commutes?

Another suggestion that has been made, is that battery packs remain the property of the manufacturers, and users pay rental. This allows a vehicle that is doing a long journey to simply swap uncharged packs for fully charged ones - a 5 minute undertaking.

Setting up the stations for changing packs is no more difficult than setting up recharge stations, or gas refuelling stations, for that matter.

There's no reason to look at the base model instead of the high end model. If you wait long enough, the high end will eventually become standard.

I look at the base model because:

1. We are trying to solve mass replacement of the cars, not just for the wealthy.
2. To wait for the high end to come down in price can add another 2-5+ years to the solution.

Also, transportation doesn't need to be fancy. When the economy downturn gets severe, people should be happy to be able to move from point A to B, not caring about the features of the vehicle. It doesn't need to be as primitive as certain cheap Indian cars today, but about the same features like today's 15-20K sedan's...

Your computer analogy is good for something else:

A 5 years old decent machine can do just fine and there is not necessery a need for an upgrade. What most people use computers for, the older machines can do just dandy. The analogy was in cars when we started to add DVD players and such, sure it is fine when you have kids, but really, that is not a major concern when it comes to buying a car.

Now this Tesla base model isn't really going to be in mass production, it will be still like a novelty item...

syzygys

Let me ask you a blunt question.

Would you agree that ev's are likely to become practical as family cars given a 10 to 20 year period of development?

If you answer yes, I have no argument with you. Electric cars in the near future will be essentially gimmicks, and expensive gimmicks, but given time will develop into practical family cars.

Do you agree?

I want to see the data on these battery operated cars dealing with range vs age.

I read somewhere that it was 20% drop after 5 years for NiMH.

I was reading about Li-ion and there are problems there too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-ion_battery

Disadvantages

Shelf life

Charging forms deposits inside the electrolyte that inhibit ion transport. Over time, the cell's capacity diminishes. The increase in internal resistance reduces the cell's ability to deliver current. This problem is more pronounced in high-current applications. The decrease means that older batteries do not charge as much as new ones (charging time required decreases proportionally).
High charge levels and elevated temperatures (whether from charging or ambient air) hasten capacity loss.Charging heat is caused by the carbon anode (typically replaced with lithium titanate which drastically reduces damage from charging, including expansion and other factors.
A unit that is full most of the time at 25 °C (77 °F) irreversibly loses approximately 20% capacity per year. Poor ventilation may increase temperatures, further shortening battery life. Loss rates vary by temperature: 6% loss at 0 °C (32 °F), 20% at 25 °C (77 °F), and 35% at 40 °C (104 °F). When stored at 40%–60% charge level, the capacity loss is reduced to 2%, 4%, and 15%, respectively.

Internal resistance

The internal resistance of lithium-ion batteries is high compared to other rechargeable chemistries such as nickel-metal hydride and nickel-cadmium. Internal resistance increases with both cycling and age. Rising internal resistance causes the voltage at the terminals to drop under load, which reduces the maximum current draw. Eventually increasing resistance means that the battery can no longer operate for an adequate period.
High drain applications such as power tools may require the battery to supply a current that would drain the battery in 4 minutes if sustained (e.g. 22.5 A for a battery with a capacity of 1.5 A·h). Lower-power devices such as MP3 players may draw low enough currents to run for 10 hours (e.g. 150 mA for a battery with a capacity of 1,500 mA·h). With similar technology, the MP3 player's battery lasts longer since it can tolerate higher internal resistance. To power larger devices, such as electric cars, connecting many small batteries in a parallel circuit is more efficient than connecting a single large battery.

Safety requirements

Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs,[citation needed] and can be dangerous if mistreated. They may suffer thermal runaway and cell rupture if overheated or overcharged. In extreme cases, these effects may be described as "explosive." Furthermore, overdischarge can irreversibly damage battery. To reduce these risks, batteries generally contain a small circuit that shuts down when the battery moves outside the safe range of 3–4.2 V. When stored for long periods, however, the small current drawn by the protection circuitry itself may drain the battery. Normal chargers are then ineffective.

So I guess the basic argument here is that if we limit gasoline cars by LAW, then EVs can be competitive...

I meant limiting the EV's to 50mph and was going to put that at 40mph but 50 is easier to sell.;)

Actually 40mph may have many benefits. One is cutting traffic fatalities down to almost zero. Another good idea is to have one design for everyone, but this is not as bad as it sounds.

syzygys

Let me ask you a blunt question.

Would you agree that ev's are likely to become practical as family cars given a 10 to 20 year period of development?

Sure. They are practical right now for family useage as long as you don't intend to leave the city.
But commercially they aren't practical yet. If I have a business to run I don't want to add the extra problem of watching the mile range so my fleet can make it through the shift...

I meant limiting the EV's to 50mph and was going to put that at 40mph but 50 is easier to sell.

Well, one reason why EVs have to match the ICE cars is safety. If you want to enter the highway, you have to speed up and maintain the same speed as the others are traveling with. Otherwise you can get run over or slow down the flow of traffic.

Now certain people argue that allover the max. speed should be limited, I thought that's what you were saying. It could come to that if the economy downturn is severe. Imagine a recession going on for 2 decades with 8-10 bucks gas prices.

I am afraid if we get to that, EVs are going to be our smallest problems because society will not change piecefully. Actually asking if we are willing to (or able to) give up our way of living is a good question. When you get used to the good life it is hard to implement restrictions, see Greece today....

I look at the base model because:

1. We are trying to solve mass replacement of the cars, not just for the wealthy.
2. To wait for the high end to come down in price can add another 2-5+ years to the solution.
.

But the high end version is the one we want to see manufacturers re-tooling their factories to build. If we buy the low end version, then they'll retool around that one instead.

Mostly I'm worried about the battery. Li-ions need to see mass production if their price is ever going to drop. The larger the scale they're produced on, the cheaper they'll get.

We can stop worrying!
Scientist at last have designed a car that can run on water. The only slight drawback is that the water has to come from the Gulf of Mexico.

Navistar announced it had begun production of the FIRST Class 2c-3, 2-ton, medium-duty commercial electric truck in the U.S. — the eStar. It’s also the same vehicle that FedEx has announced it will be testing for fleet use in LA this year.It has a range of 100 miles, an 80 kWh battery pack, can carry up to 4,400 pounds and has a gross vehicle weight rating of 12,100 pounds. For use in an urban or semi-urban environment, a 100 mile range on a 2-ton delivery truck is pretty much all you’d need for an 8 hour day.Navistar expects to sell tons of the estar.And of course others will follow in getting into this huge untapped market.

http://tinyurl.com/27h6cjp

http://media.navistar.com/index.php?s=43&item=402

I read somewhere that it was 20% drop after 5 years for NiMH.

I was reading about Li-ion and there are problems there too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li-ion_battery

Disadvantages

Shelf life

Charging forms deposits inside the electrolyte that inhibit ion transport. Over time, the cell's capacity diminishes. The increase in internal resistance reduces the cell's ability to deliver current. This problem is more pronounced in high-current applications. The decrease means that older batteries do not charge as much as new ones (charging time required decreases proportionally).
High charge levels and elevated temperatures (whether from charging or ambient air) hasten capacity loss.Charging heat is caused by the carbon anode (typically replaced with lithium titanate which drastically reduces damage from charging, including expansion and other factors.
A unit that is full most of the time at 25 °C (77 °F) irreversibly loses approximately 20% capacity per year. Poor ventilation may increase temperatures, further shortening battery life. Loss rates vary by temperature: 6% loss at 0 °C (32 °F), 20% at 25 °C (77 °F), and 35% at 40 °C (104 °F). When stored at 40%–60% charge level, the capacity loss is reduced to 2%, 4%, and 15%, respectively.

Internal resistance

The internal resistance of lithium-ion batteries is high compared to other rechargeable chemistries such as nickel-metal hydride and nickel-cadmium. Internal resistance increases with both cycling and age. Rising internal resistance causes the voltage at the terminals to drop under load, which reduces the maximum current draw. Eventually increasing resistance means that the battery can no longer operate for an adequate period.
High drain applications such as power tools may require the battery to supply a current that would drain the battery in 4 minutes if sustained (e.g. 22.5 A for a battery with a capacity of 1.5 A·h). Lower-power devices such as MP3 players may draw low enough currents to run for 10 hours (e.g. 150 mA for a battery with a capacity of 1,500 mA·h). With similar technology, the MP3 player's battery lasts longer since it can tolerate higher internal resistance. To power larger devices, such as electric cars, connecting many small batteries in a parallel circuit is more efficient than connecting a single large battery.

Safety requirements

Li-ion batteries are not as durable as nickel metal hydride or nickel-cadmium designs,[citation needed] and can be dangerous if mistreated. They may suffer thermal runaway and cell rupture if overheated or overcharged. In extreme cases, these effects may be described as "explosive." Furthermore, overdischarge can irreversibly damage battery. To reduce these risks, batteries generally contain a small circuit that shuts down when the battery moves outside the safe range of 3–4.2 V. When stored for long periods, however, the small current drawn by the protection circuitry itself may drain the battery. Normal chargers are then ineffective.

Seriously, do some more reading. Problems with shelf-life, internal resistance & safety have been overcome with technologies like Lithium Iron phosphate batteries. This has been the case for years. Lithium Iron Phosphate batteries currently have a slightly lower energy density however there is some serious R&D going on in the industry that looks set to quickly overcome this issue. But the future is going to be all about super powerful super light weight carbon nanotube batteries where we're talking about 100 times the energy density of current technologies. It's some way off, certainly, but there's still going to be very significant advances in the meantime.

Pipe dreams? No. Technology and economy of scale. The technology is literally on our doorstep and necessity is what's going to drive the price down. I personally think you've been talking to too many free energy tree hugging fruitcakes and it's jaded you so much that you are unable to appreciate a legitimate reality.

Seriously, do some more reading.

Why? Here you are telling me all the info we need.


Lithium Iron phosphate batteries. This has been the case for years.

Really? Then how come the EVs of yesterday STILL beat today's EVs? Or at least match them? Basicly no noticable improvement, range is still 100 miles...


there is some serious R&D going on in the industry that looks set to quickly overcome this issue.

1. If they have been around for years, why the need for improvement?
2. That's what we have been hearing since 1974...


But the future is going to be all about super powerful super light weight carbon nanotube batteries

1. If the Li-ion phosphate is so good, why do we need another technology? Hint: it isn't so good.
2. I know, and humans will live up to 200 years.


where we're talking about 100 times the energy density of current technologies. It's some way off,

I am not saying it will never happen, just that it is STILL a pipedream. Once you have an EV that can cross America with 4 people under 40 hours, then we are talking...


certainly, but there's still going to be very significant advances in the meantime.

I can hardly wait...


The technology is literally on our doorstep and...

...this year is going to be Linux's.... :)

P.S.: Why in this thread everybody is talking about the future's big expectations instead of what we already have???

Really? Then how come the EVs of yesterday STILL beat today's EVs? Or at least match them? Basicly no noticable improvement, range is still 100 miles...

This is completely untrue. EV's from the early 1900's had a range of 30-40 miles and a top speed of 15-20 mph. In the 1950's, the Henney Kilowatt EV had a range of 40 miles and a top speed of 40 mph. In the 1970's the Enfield E8000ECC EV had a range of 50-90 miles and a top speed of 70-80 mph. In the late 1990's the General Motors EV1 Gen II running on NiMH batteries had a range of 100-140 miles and an artificially limited top speed of 80 mph. And I'm not just cherry picking examples here. This is properly indicative of the trend.

In the last decade we've seen a large number of new EV's produced, arguably the most impressive of which is the Tesla Roadster with a range of 245 miles and an electronically limited top speed of 125 mph. Now, obviously the average driver is not going to see close to a range of 245 miles. Under the most aggressive stop/start driving conditions you're going to see a lot less than that. Less again if you consider that with an average charge cycle you're generally only working with 80% of the capacity. But there is no doubt that it has a significantly greater range than any production EV that has come before it. It did after all set the record for this class of vehicle by travelling 311 miles on a single charge.

But aside from all this, anyone who understands batteries and electric motors will tell you that capacity and efficiency respectively have always been improving, and will continue to improve. EV's are, of course, all about batteries and electric motors.


P.S.: Why in this thread everybody is talking about the future's big expectations instead of what we already have???

Maybe because:


I wish to educate the dreamers, that electric vehicles (EVs from now on) can replace combustion engine cars for mass transportation in the future. Just to make sure, we are NOT talking about hybrids, but fully battery powered cars.
EVs have limited usage, mostly because of range and difficulty to charge. Their range hasn't really improved in 100 years!

This is completely untrue.

Sure it is. We had EVs with 100 miles range 100 years ago. But by yesterday I meant this decade. As you mentioned the EV1, it already had 100 miles range, so in the last 8-10 years I don;t see any improvement. And that was with the old battery, not with the Li-ion...


late 1990's the General Motors EV1 Gen II running on NiMH batteries had a range of 100-140 miles and an artificially limited top speed of 80 mph.

Exactly. How it is worse than EVs what you can buy today? It isn't!! Thus there was no practical improvement!


In the last decade we've seen a large number of new EV's produced, arguably the most impressive of which is the Tesla Roadster

Holy Fuck! If somebody once more brings the Tesla up I will start to shot people!!! One more time for the dull:

1. Its battery's size is twice as big as the other Evs, thus of course, the range is twice bigger. Fucking DUH!
2. It is prohibitingly EXPENSIVE!! Everyone can make a good car for lots of money, we are talking about a solution for the masses...
3. It is a 2 seats sportscar, try to fit in it 5 people.
4. It isn't even mass produced (1000 so far) it is a niche market...


But there is no doubt that it has a significantly greater range than any production EV that has come before it.

Its battery alone costs 30K dollars, the same price what other mass produced EVs cost. If you put 5 EVs' batteries on a truck, you will get a 500 miles range too...

And for the last time, sure batteries improved (juice power 7 times in 100 years) but cars have more features, thus the juice needed for other things then just to move the car...

Bottomline for the last time: in the last decade mass produced EVs haven't improved anything compared to GM;s EV1 and Toyota's RAV4.

It is quite possible that the speed of improvement in technology actually slowing, just like in sport records, until something revolutionary new comes..

Holy Fuck! If somebody once more brings the Tesla up I will start to shot people!!! One more time for the dull:

1. Its battery's size is twice as big as the other Evs, thus of course, the range is twice bigger. Fucking DUH!
2. It is prohibitingly EXPENSIVE!! Everyone can make a good car for lots of money, we are talking about a solution for the masses...
3. It is a 2 seats sportscar, try to fit in it 5 people.
4. It isn't even mass produced (1000 per year) it is a niche market...

None of your objections to the Tesla matter, in this discussion. The reason people keep bringing it up is that it contradicts some of your other assertions about EVs.

Of course it is a sports car, and high performance sports cars are a niche market, and hand built niche market cars are expensive. But the technology it employs, and even better stuff, is available right now for mass produced commuter vehicles, and it beats the current crop of IC cars in several important respects.

For example, the oil change I have scheduled for tomorrow morning would be gone the way of the manual choke and starting ether on cold mornings. Probably need a new air filter, and the mechanical friction brakes sound funny.

The oily mess and exhaust fumes, mechanical fragility, poor dollar mileage, and constant maintenance demands of this outdated setup are probably tolerated from habit - people are used to this shit. That doesn't make it superior.

I'm enjoying this thread very much.

None of your objections to the Tesla matter, in this discussion. The reason people keep bringing it up is that it contradicts some of your other assertions about EVs.

Of course it is a sports car, and high performance sports cars are a niche market, and hand built niche market cars are expensive. But the technology it employs, and even better stuff, is available right now for mass produced commuter vehicles, and it beats the current crop of IC cars in several important respects.

For example, the oil change I have scheduled for tomorrow morning would be gone the way of the manual choke and starting ether on cold mornings. Probably need a new air filter, and the mechanical friction brakes sound funny.

The oily mess and exhaust fumes, mechanical fragility, poor dollar mileage, and constant maintenance demands of this outdated setup are probably tolerated from habit - people are used to this shit. That doesn't make it superior.

Did you see where Tesla and Toyota are forming a joint venture? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37358614/ns/business-us_business I think some very good things could come from this.

Sure it is. We had EVs with 100 miles range 100 years ago.

No we didn't.


But by yesterday I meant this decade. As you mentioned the EV1, it already had 100 miles range, so in the last 8-10 years I don;t see any improvement. And that was with the old battery, not with the Li-ion...

The Tesla Roadster is a huge improvement. Did you hear that? TESLA ROADSTER. This EV is going to remain in this thread no matter how much you don't want it to. So get over it.


One more time for the dull:

1. Its battery's size is twice as big as the other Evs, thus of course, the range is twice bigger. Fucking DUH!

It's bigger because it can be bigger. It can be bigger because it's lighter. It's lighter because it uses lithium ion cells. It's quite a bit more impressive than simply slapping in twice the number of NiMH cells, which you couldn't do because they'd add far too much weight to the car. Energy density is kinda the whole point.


And for the last time, sure batteries improved (juice power 7 times in 100 years) but cars have more features, thus the juice needed for other things then just to move the car...

The "juice" that is needed to power everything else in an EV is so negligible compared to what is required to turn the wheels that this simply doesn't factor into the discussion in any significant way at all.


Bottomline for the last time: in the last decade mass produced EVs haven't improved anything compared to GM;s EV1 and Toyota's RAV4.

The "bottom line" is that technology is improving. We can see that when we look at the TESLA ROADSTER. It shows us what to expect from the mass produced EV's of tomorrow.


It is quite possible that the speed of improvement in technology actually slowing, just like in sport records, until something revolutionary new comes..

Interesting what you said there.

Sure it is. We had EVs with 100 miles range 100 years ago.


No we didn't.

I've decided to hammer this home right now rather than wait for you to pull something like the 100-mile Fritchle Electric out of your hat. A truly impressive EV for it's day, but it simply doesn't compare to anything modern. I mean seriously, if we're going to define range as the maximum distance an EV can travel over level terrain at a relatively slow speed, then we have EV's today that have a range of 600+ miles. They are not production vehicles of course, but so what? It's not like any serious R&D went into it. The record of 623.76 miles set recently was in a Daihatsu Mira gas to EV conversion, using a 74 kilowatt-hour lithium ion battery.

You see, if you're going to say that the Fritchle Electric has a range of 100 miles, then you are required to concede that the Tesla Roadster has a range of 313 miles and that we do indeed have EV's with a range of over 600 miles. But the Fritchle Electric wouldn't have anything close to a 100 mile range if it was driven on today's roads, in today's conditions, by today's drivers, nor would any other EV of it's era. But guess what? Today's EV's do, and more.

None of your objections to the Tesla matter

Haven't we established that you understand shit in this thread?

[shot down]

No we didn't.

You might want to click on the link in the second post and educate yourself. Yes, there were EVs before 1910 that were able to go 100 miles. They didn't go fast,. but that wasn't the point... Since you are lazy:

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Fritchleelectric.jpg


The Tesla Roadster is a huge improvement. Did you hear that?

nah-nah-nah, can't hear you. What did you say? If we put Li-ion battery into the Toyota RAV4 and specially if we double the size than it could go 300 miles? Simply genius!!!

I will do the math for you. If you buy 3 30K cars instead of one 100K car, you triple the range!!! Would you believe it???? ;)


It's bigger because it can be bigger.

Still doesn't fit 2 parents, grandma with 2 kids and 3 suitcases!!! The horror!!!


The "bottom line" is that technology is improving.

I agree. I already ordered an EV for my not-yet-born great grand kids... By the time they are driving age, there is going to be something on the market for them. :)

Oh speaking of the Tes... oh I can't mention it, anyhow, they will stop making it in 2011 and the newer version won't be aviable until 2013, thus there will be no production in 2012. Maybe they are betting on the world ending...

There you have your niche sports car. It won't even be made for a full year. Now let's get back to this thread in 2013, shall we???

Oh I got it!!! You guys are saying that in the future everyone will be buzzing around in sexy, very expensive, 2 seater sports cars!!! Will it come with a red head or a blonde?

I guess I am finally justified. It IS a pipedream... :)

P.S.: The only reason you guys keep bringing up the Tes.... (I can't say it), because right now there is NOTHING on the market that is cheap, mass produced, practical and a real improvement over the EVs of 10 years ago...Period...

You might want to click on the link in the second post and educate yourself. Yes, there were EVs before 1910 that were able to go 100 miles. They didn't go fast,. but that wasn't the point... Since you are lazy:

I think you missed the part where I mentioned the 100-mile Fritchle Electric before you did.

Aside from all that, I've decided that you're an idiot. A direct consequence of this is that I am not going to be able to bring myself to waste any more time responding to your posts.

I think you missed the part where I mentioned the 100-mile Fritchle Electric before you did.

Oh, so you contradicted yourself? I guess you didn't have a point then...


Aside from all that, I've decided that you're an idiot.

People who are unable to argue against facts presented by me often feel the same way, so it is kind of a given and understood. Don't feel so bad about yourself.

On the other hand I came to similar conclusion about yourself, because you haven't been able to present a decent argument for EVs of today.

Maybe we will get back to the topic in the next 10-15 years, when EVs WON'T be pipedreams anymore... ;)

Until then, here is MY prefered EV:

http://www.manandhisbaby.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/back-to-the-future.jpeg

It only uses 1.7 Gigawatts

P.S.: Why in this thread everybody is talking about the future's big expectations instead of what we already have???

As long they're realistic expectations, the future is the only basis this decision should be made on. Indeed it is the only basis that any economic decision should ever be made on.




Holy Fuck! If somebody once more brings the Tesla up I will start to shot people!!! One more time for the dull:

1. Its battery's size is twice as big as the other Evs, thus of course, the range is twice bigger. Fucking DUH!
2. It is prohibitingly EXPENSIVE!! Everyone can make a good car for lots of money, we are talking about a solution for the masses...
3. It is a 2 seats sportscar, try to fit in it 5 people.
4. It isn't even mass produced (1000 so far) it is a niche market...


1) - Nothing prevents other cars from doubling their battery sizes. Setting a "battery can only be size x" ground rule just seems kind of ridiculous to me. Maybe we should assume from the outset that all viable EV's will be minivans (in order to have a big enough chassis to support a very large battery.)

2) - This is because it is being made by hand instead of mass produced. In a large scale production scenario, that price would certainly drop, and drop by a lot.

3) - I guess we'll just have to wait until they come out with their Model S, and see what it can do then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors#Model_S

4) - Is there a reason to doubt that it is capable of being mass produced, or that mass producing it would be beyond current technology?

First, I would like to thank Kororoti, he is the only one who makes fairly decent arguments and doesn't live in a dream future.


As long they're realistic expectations, the future is the only basis this decision should be made on.

Alright, bringing up Tes.... is NOT realistic for the purpose of this thread.


1) - Nothing prevents other cars from doubling their battery sizes.

Actually, some things do. It is like saying, hey we could put a 250 HP motor into a Geo Metro. It can be done, it is just not practical nor economical. So things that prevents doubling the battery are:

1. Practicality. Cars are designed for certain size, purpose, costumers. Messing with the battery results with a different car. If the car was designed for citycommuters who drive less than 100 miles a day, there is no point in having a bigger battery.
2. Price. Battery is the biggest cost in EVs. If you double that, well, you rise the price enormously, and not necessery make the car more desired.
3. Size. The average car is fairly the same size. Costumers might don't want to have a pick up where all the backspace is occupied by a huge battery.
We want room for 4-5 adults with luggages and still keep the same size.
4. Economy. Increased battery size increases weight, what might not be desirable...


2) - This is because it is being made by hand instead of mass produced. In a large scale production scenario, that price would certainly drop, and drop by a lot.

Might be or might be not.What if price only drops by 30%, a 70K sportscar is still overpriced for the masses. hell even at 50K it is too expensive.
You can buy a very decent gasoline car under 20K. I think EVs for the masses shouldn't cost more than 30K...



3) - I guess we'll just have to wait until they come out with their Model S, and see what it can do then.

Even after the taxrebate it will still cost 50K, too much....


4) - Is there a reason to doubt that it is capable of being mass produced, or that mass producing it would be beyond current technology?

Ask the same about Ferraris and Lambourghinis. There is a reason they are not mass produced. First, it wasn't made for the masses, second, quality, third, well you got the picture...

So why don't we just forget about the Tes.... and you try to convince me about other new EVs why I should love them instead of the RAV4????

My next new car: Nissan Leaf (http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/index#/leaf-electric-car/index)

Actually, some things do. It is like saying, hey we could put a 250 HP motor into a Geo Metro. It can be done, it is just not practical nor economical On the other hand, your argument against using the Tesla, as a counterexample to basically every assertion you've made here, is that because Humvees have big engines and get lousy gas mileage, Geo Metros cannot be built.

And this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F never existed.

http://eestorbatteries.com/index.html

Unfortunatelly, it is just hype, no practical product behind it....

i LOOKED AT THE SPECS FOR THE LEAF. i COULDN'T FIND ANY INFO ON HOW MANY KwH WERE REQUIRED TO FULLY CHARGE.
aNY IDEAS?

8 hours to charge at 220/240 volts at 40 amps is 76.8kWh which is double the battery capacity of 42kWh, but utilizing the full 40 amps rating is not actually possible. Their numbers are very rough estimates, for example trickle charging at 110/120V at 20 amps in 20 hours or 48kWh our 6kWh over the battery capacity.


http://eestorbatteries.com/index.html

Unfortunatelly, it is just hype, no practical product behind it....

Again we disagree: that is not hype, that is a complete and total scam!

@Spud Emporer Nissan has committed to the 100-mile range goal with customary or better acceleration like today. Because electric vehicle development can evolve more than the old drivetrain, cooling, and emissions- saddled cars, I expect Leaf will do better than 100 mph range, and of course that's without the little fuel-cell power-supply/cargo trailer is for out of town. In a pinch, you can rent the smallest Uhaul trailer, and rent an 6-kW portable generator you can find, throw in a boat fuel tank, and pollutey like it's 1999. The Leaf will keep getting extended range as batteries and fuel cells evolve. The car will still be practical (& moreso than any smoker) in at least 100 years.


the Leaf's front-mounted electric motor delivers 80 kW (107 horsepower) and a healthy 280 Nm of torque (208 pound-feet), and it promises brisk and silent off-the-line power, with acceleration from a stop comparable to that of the company's Infiniti G35. And as Nakamura-san noted, the Leaf has a top speed of over 140 km/h (87 mph).http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/01/2010-nissan-leaf-electric-car-in-person-in-depth-and-u-s-b/


48 lithium ion modules (each laptop-sized module is comprised of four magazine-sized cells) offers a number of charging strategies. To yield a full charge, a 200-volt, single-phase AC charger takes less than eight hours, and topping off the battery from a 100 volt single-phase standard home wall outlet will take somewhere around twice that time, so prospective Leafmakers would do well to get 220 volt hookup like their clothes dryer uses out in their garage.

The Leaf is finally a comparable EV to the RAV4. Although the comparison still prefers the Toyota. I have been planning a full comparison just got lazy a bit. If I have to choose today between those 2, I would still go with the RAV4... Now mind you, it came out a good 12 years earlier, and it is still better.

Range: both around 100 miles, no improvement there

Size: the RAV4 is an SUV, more comfortable with more cargo then the Nissan

Battery: the Nissan has the new Li-Ion 24 kW·h/90 kW, RAV4 NiMH 27 kWh

Charging: RAV4 5 hours, Leaf 20 and 8 hours or 30 minutes

Price: Leaf 32K, RAV4 N/A it was said to cost 80K for Toyota

It is hard to say how much the RAV4 would cost today, I am guessing under 40K. Some of those cars still running fine with 150K miles under their belts. If the newer NiMH battery were aviable (that Exxon so nicely took out of circulation) it would have a cheaper and better but non-Li-ion battery.

So what is the bottomline here? That 12 years of technological improvements didn't exactly result in a huge difference between 2 comparable EVs...

So where is the beef? Where is the revolutionary breakthrough? I believe in it when I drive it....

"In October 2009, ECD Ovonics announced that their next-generation NiMH batteries will provide specific energy and power that are comparable to those of lithium ion batteries at a cost that is significantly lower than the cost of lithium ion batteries."

P.S.: Somebody used computers as an analogy earlier for rapid improvement. I do remember my computer from 1998, sir, it can not be compared to the cheapest notebook of today....

The point is the electric cars of 100 years past are competitive today. If you put LiPos in a 1910 electric car, you can go 100 miles, drive it around town, etc. You can put a fuel cell in it and drive it between major cities (but bring goggles).

Batteries have evolved. Electric and methanol/hydrogen fuel-cell car is coming for all of us.

The point is the electric cars of 100 years past are competitive today. If you put LiPos in a 1910 electric car, you can go 100 miles,

And that is the sad thing. You can actually go 400-700 miles, since that's how much the juice power improved...But that also means the power we gained by battery improvement got all used up by speed, weight and other features...

I forgot if I mentioned yet, but if energy gets to be rare/expensive, we are going to have a society breakdown nice Mad Max style, so for those times, gasoline cars are more useful. Imagine Mad Max hooking up to a generator his electric car. :)

I'm trying to say that electric cars, boats, trains have always been all around us. Now that we can package a few kilowatt-hours (undreamed of in 1910) into a small car, things are going to change.

Now that we can collect power with these (http://www.best-solar-energy.com/solar-energy/solar-power-plant-which-provides-energy-even-at-night/) if we have sunshine, these if rain (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Zotloterer_Gravitational_Vortex_Power_Pl ant) and make it into portable energy with and upgraded one of these (http://www.whispergen.com/) and charge these (http://industry.bnet.com/auto/10005172/battery-maker-dow-kokams-goal-300-mile-range-for-evs/). It's all here.

I'm trying to say that electric cars, boats, trains have always been all around us. Now that we can package a few kilowatt-hours (undreamed of in 1910) into a small car, things are going to change.

..and the point of this whole thread is, that it is still FUTURE tense. (and the last 10 years saw no practical improvement)

Remember, this is the year of Linux! :)

and Ubuntu! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubuntu_%28philosophy%29) :peace:

This is a good article about battery cost. The business tipping point is said to be $350 per kWh and we are currently around $1000. They think we will reach it in 5-10 years.

Let's repeat it, 5-10 years.

http://www.hybridcars.com/economics/electric-car-battery-costs-dont-believe-them-27915.html

Now as long as the hybrids are more viable than EVs, automakers don't have the incentive to put too much energy and money into R&D...

How about this, we have more electric cars today then any other time in history and the rate of electric car market growth today is very rapidly. Might as well as told us in 2000 that hybrid cars would never take off.

I just mowed my lawn with a battery-powered mower, as I've been doing for a couple of years. It's already easier and more pleasant to move beyond the petroleum daze.

How about this, we have more electric cars today then any other time in history

Well, since we have at least 10 times more people than 100 years ago, this means very little.

But for a challenge I raise your city commuting electric golfcart device with:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tata_Nano

This is hardly a car, just a dirt cheap commuting device for the masses, but:

1. Its price is only 10% of today's EVs. It is less than $3000. It is so cheap, that one can buy a new one in every 3-4 years, thus changing major components is a non-issue...

2. Its range is 2-3 times bigger, 240 miles on highway...(61 mpg on highway, 52 in city with a 4 gallon tank)

Sure, they gave up lots of safety and comfort, but we are talking about a solution for the masses. Maybe that is the way, giving up certain features. Somebody earlier suggested speed limit for city driving as a way of helping EVs. Well, why can't we help the Nano the same way??? Rush hour traffic is seldom bigger than 30 MPH anyway....

And when oil prices go up several times it will be worthless.

I think this thread has reached its 'use by' date. Syzygys is no longer insisting that evs will never be practical - just that it is a decade or three till they become as common or more common than fossil fuel propelled cars. This, to me, is a realistic approach.

I think we have demonstrated that electric cars are not a pipe dream, and syzygys has demonstrated that it will not happen, except on a small scale for some years to come.

Can we all agree on that?

No, I expect sales of new electromotive cars will outstrip the sales of new smokers (ICE (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWH/is_5_113/ai_75477854/) cars) in less than a decade.

And when oil prices go up several times it will be worthless.

Really? Let's do the math! Let's say oilprice triple at $9 a gallon. Mind you at this point the American economy would come to a scratching halt, but let's just assume this won't happen.

Let's say the commuter drives 25-25 miles a day, car is useful for 5 years, after that you will need to spend major expenses like a new battery and such.

So 50 miles a day for 5 times 250 times. 62500 miles That costs 62500/50=1250 gallon x 9$ = 11250$ for gas. Let's throw in 1000$ for oilchanges and the price of car of $3000.

That is 15250$ which is exactly HALF of the current EVs' prices...

So you tell me a low cost, low mileage gasoline car is not competitive with current EVs. :)

I understand your frustration, it is basicly impossible to compete a cheap Indian or Chinese made small, economic car. I would bet Americans also could make a cheapo 8K car, but there is not much profit in doing so...

No, I expect sales of new electromotive cars will outstrip the sales of new smokers (ICE (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FWH/is_5_113/ai_75477854/) cars) in less than a decade.

I will bet you on that. Unless you can force automakers somehow to abandon ICEs, they will make hybrids first, then cheapo small cars and when everything else failed, they will start to make EVs in the millions.

Mind you right now NOBODY is making them in huge quantities. I am sorry, but making 30K cars a year is not huge by any measure.

Oh yeah, just to piss off EF and throw in a little history, there were 32K electric cars 100 years ago. I seriously doubt we have 320K nowadays. If we adjust for population, there were actually MORE EVs 100 years ago then now! ;)

Oh, analysts predict between 2-10% EV marketshare in 2020, fairly far away from 51%:

http://gas2.org/2010/05/14/so-how-many-electric-cars-will-there-be-in-2020-analysts-are-all-over-the-place/

I would bet Americans also could make a cheapo 8K car, but there is not much profit in doing so...

Out of curiosity I looked up the currently cheapest American ICE:

It is the Chevrolet Aveo
MSRP: $10,235 - $12,020
Fuel Economy: 34 mpg Hwy/24 mpg City

So running the above math again, it uses 2500 gallons in 5 years, what costs 22500 $ ($9 per gallon) throwing in the cost of the car and oilchanges we get pretty much the same price as today's EVs.

Thus the bottomline is, gasprice has to triple (mind you that is not the same as oilprice) so the EV would be the same overall cost as the cheapest American car...(I know I simplified it a bit, but you get the picture)

One could make the Mad Max argument, that you will get economic halt and social unrest before the EVs take over...

I will bet you on that.

OK if it hasn't happened (electromotive parity over gas diesel and hybrid cars combined) then show me this post and I'll by you 1 KwH on 02-02, 2020. But if it has happened, then you owe me for the market monetary equivalent of a KwH. Deal?

Well, suddenly you threw in hybrids too, but sure for fun, deal...

By the way one thing that brought down oilprices from $140 per barrel was that the world simply couldn't pay that much for gas, otherwise known as demand destruction.
It could and probably will happen again, that as gas prices increase, the demand's drop for it will limit the price going above a certain level. It will reach a certain equilibrium where cars will be used only for the absolute necessities, like work and food transfer...
But that will also slow down the spread of EVs...

I threw out hybrids (from my side) because I expect they will all be considered smoker junk too in 10 years- anything with a tailpipe belching stuff we can't breathe or drink. I'm keeping fuel cells on my side of the bet, because they are in effect chemical batteries, charged with sustainably-produced pressurized gas. If you want to rule out CO emitters, I'll have to extend the bet. But simply that a majority of private (not public, that's too soon/easy) ground transportation will be electromotive by 2020, that's my bet with you.

If you have a lawn, buy a cordless electric mower and you will understand how much less a PITA it is, and how much cheaper, to just plug in torquey workhorse things instead of filling them up with pricey, smelly, hazardous, toxic liquid gasoline. It's a no-brainer now, and in 10 years... well, "duh".

The question is not whether electric cars will ever become common, standard vehicles on the road.

The more interesting question is: if not, why not. They have several important advantages over IC vehicles (and even over theoretical EC hybrids, an ideal employment of Stirling cycle engines), and if these advantages cannot find their market, that's worth asking about.

Want to buy a Leaf or eMini in the first run? Can't- the market is completely sold out. Many people understand that batteries and performance are going to be highly upgradable over time, without need for changing the motor-generator wheel hubs and controllers. What other major mechanics to build and maintain (besides basic suspension and collision protection) are there? Not much at all, and much less to build and maintain than in a smoker. There will be at least 100,000 PEVs on the road in 2 years, and something highly exponential after that.

Really? Let's do the math! Let's say oilprice triple at $9 a gallon. Mind you at this point the American economy would come to a scratching halt, but let's just assume this won't happen.

The US is relatively resilient. Though the last oil shortages were only temporary they results in something worse then high gas prices: no gas at all, so compare a gas powered car that often does not have fuel to drive around at all, verse and electric that won't be hindered by oil shortage (assume its not in Hawaii)



Let's say the commuter drives 25-25 miles a day, car is useful for 5 years, after that you will need to spend major expenses like a new battery and such.

The batteries will last longer that that, A123 batteries have regularly past over 10,000 full recharge cycle with little ware, that would come to decades long of service in a car.



So 50 miles a day for 5 times 250 times. 62500 miles That costs 62500/50=1250 gallon x 9$ = 11250$ for gas. Let's throw in 1000$ for oilchanges and the price of car of $3000.

This is not fucking india, you can't get a $3000 dollar car here, The Nano is expected to be sold in the USA at $8k.



That is 15250$ which is exactly HALF of the current EVs' prices...

Let recalculate assume cars by the same class, like a Tesla Model S vs BMW luxury sadan of the same upfront price tag. Or are you going to tell me luxury cars are a pipe dream as well?



So you tell me a low cost, low mileage gasoline car is not competitive with current EVs. :)

by being a completely different class of vehicle. If I want a truck i'm not getting a mini, if I want a pollution free vehicle that not at the whim of Arabs, oil prices and oil reserves I'll get an electric car, Its just like how the 1970's oil embarges causes a drop in car sizes, modern eo-friendly, energy independent desires and real fears of peak oil make electric cars viable car option of their own class.


I understand your frustration, it is basicly impossible to compete a cheap Indian or Chinese made small, economic car. I would bet Americans also could make a cheapo 8K car, but there is not much profit in doing so...

Oh it very possible to compete, take for example the Smart Car mini which sells for $12K by your logic everyone would be buying them up, but not so because its a mini.

If you have a lawn, buy a cordless electric mower .

I have a corded electric, because I don't like the smell of the gas and mess with the dirty liquids. :)


Want to buy a Leaf or eMini in the first run? Can't- the market is completely sold out.

Or in other words, production is still insufficient in its first phase, not up to demand.


There will be at least 100,000 PEVs on the road in 2 years, and something highly exponential after that.

I think there are 100 million cars just in the US, so 100K is what?, like 1/10th of 1%....

Running up mass production is much harder then you think... Also did we solve the problem of battery material? Didn't somebody say something about rare metals from China???

Though the last oil shortages were only temporary

Could be, but high enough prices usually destroy demand and shortages.


The batteries will last longer that that, A123 batteries have regularly past over 10,000 full recharge cycle with little ware, that would come to decades long of service in a car.

Are we in dreamland again? I did notice you using future tense.Tesla guarantees the battery for 7 years only and one can opt for a prepay of $ 12K now for a future battery pack. Oh, when it isn't convenient, then I shouldn't mention Tesla I guess. :)

Also batteries don't like extreme weather, I want to see their performances in the Michigan winter and in the Texas summer.


This is not fucking india, you can't get a $3000 dollar car here, The Nano is expected to be sold in the USA at $8k.

Really? I am sure they could sell them for cheaper, or buyers could get a taxbreak. If EVs can get a 7K taxbreak (paid by you and me) why can't cheap car buyers get the same??? By the way did you miss my other post? You can buy the cheapest sedan for 10K today, and if they strip it down, it could sell for 8K-9K, without being a different class,like the nano.


by being a completely different class of vehicle.

Oh really? NOW you finally understand why I was bitching about the Tesla when you guys where comparing it to a normal sedan. So if you had the right to bring that up (you didn't) then I can bring up completely different class cheapo cars. That's how the game is played. :)

So I take you didn't really have anything against my math??? And the Nano still beats the Smart Car by being able to travel actually long distances....

A short linkdump:

Zap! (http://www.zapworld.com/electric-vehicles/electric-cars/zap-alias) if my next cardentity isn't a leaf it might be an alias

EV World (http://www.evworld.com/index.cfm) politically charged

Autoblog Green (http://green.autoblog.com/) obsessive

All Cars Electric (http://www.allcarselectric.com/) "The 2011 Nissan Leaf is a Mac.The 2011 Chevy Volt is a PC."

Solar Car & Tractor (http://www.solarcarandtractor.com/Home.html) Git'r Done: "We will either take control of harsh realism [of excess population] or the laws of nature and math will cruelly do it for us. Extensive, honest education will be required to publicly pursue this taboo subject. " -Electrifying! I give it f-f-f-f-five jolts. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5CdqV0WDac) So exciting that I celebrated, even enabled my webcam for lesser minds to admire:

http://www.mjyoung.net/imgsrc/doc.jpg

Electric Cars: a Guide (http://www.hybridcars.com/electric-car) (just another geeky link)

>The 2011 Nissan Leaf is a Mac.

This is true. Very small marketshare with overpaying geeks for brandname hype.

Zap isn't really a car. There are motorcycles with 3 wheels, so...

From your 2nd link:

"If German Chancellor Andrea Merkel has her way, there will be one million electric cars on her country's road within 10 years; and I guessing she's hoping they will be German-made, and not Chinese. ..... Especially since 1 million EVs represents just 1/45th of the number of registered vehicles on Germany's roads today. That's certainly better than the 1/250th called for in President Obama's One Million Plug In Car's goal by 2015."

Not exactly 50% I guess....

"One couple that seems to have pretty much overcome any anxiety they may have had about electrics are my friends, Paul and Zan Scott of Santa Monica. Co-founders of Plug In America, they have been driving a Toyota RAV4 EV for years now. I've ridden with both of them all around West LA and between their solar-powered charger at home and a number of still-working Magnachargers around Santa Monica, they seem to get around quite easily."

No comment, just showing that when something is a good design, it is a good design...

/whimper (deep sigh, listening to the soft whir of my G5).

well, I have a dream it's not really so unreasonable (how 'bout u?)

Aptera (http://www.aptera.com/love.php)

The latest from Tesla's founder, Elon Musk:

"The founder of Tesla Motors, the electric car company, said in a court filing connected with his divorce case that he ran out of cash late last year. According to the filing, and reported by VentureBeat, Musk has been living off personal loans from friends since October 2009 (he's spending $200,000 a month). Tesla itself is dealing with cash flow problems - the company has been drawing down on a $465-million loan from the Department of Energy. His finances were not always so strained. In other documents filed in the divorce case, Musk reportedly made $9,551,753 in 2008 and an average of $17.2 million a year from 2005 to 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2008, he also had extensive holdings in venture capital and private equity partnerships,"

Tesla is planning an IPO where they hope to rise another 100 million.

"Tesla itself is dealing with cash flow problems - the company has been drawing down on a $465-million loan from the Department of Energy. Tesla lost almost $30 million in the first quarter, not all that surprising since the company largely remains in its start-up phase. The obvious answer, for Musk as well as the company, is to go public (Musk owns a third of the business), but that could take time. Meanwhile, the company has agreed to pay $42 million to buy the NUMMI plant in Fremont (Toyota has promised to buy $50 million in stock once the IPO goes through)."

http://www.laobserved.com/biz/2010/06/elon_musk_is_broke.php

Could be, but high enough prices usually destroy demand and shortages.

To extend of course, but if prices and supply fluctuate fast enough, which is a prediction outcome of peak oil with violent swings in pricing and supply, complete shortages will occur. As seen in the oil crisises of the 70's and 80's though for completely different reasons (Americas oil peak and arab oil embargos)



Are we in dreamland again? I did notice you using future tense.Tesla guarantees the battery for 7 years only and one can opt for a prepay of $ 12K now for a future battery pack. Oh, when it isn't convenient, then I shouldn't mention Tesla I guess. :)

Your average gas powered car is only warranted 5 years or less so I don't see the point. Nissan and Tesla Claim with proper usage the batteries will last long unfortunately we will have the wait and see and A123 batteries and being installed in hybrids and EV kits today.



Also batteries don't like extreme weather, I want to see their performances in the Michigan winter and in the Texas summer.

That why they have a temperature control system for their batteries. They have done multiple years to testing in extreme climates you can go to there website to see for your self.



Really? I am sure they could sell them for cheaper, or buyers could get a taxbreak. If EVs can get a 7K taxbreak (paid by you and me) why can't cheap car buyers get the same???

Because its a cheap car, generally you don't get tax breaks on cheap things. EV get tax breaks because they enhance energy independence and reduce pollution.



By the way did you miss my other post? You can buy the cheapest sedan for 10K today, and if they strip it down, it could sell for 8K-9K, without being a different class,like the nano.


Yeah in India, not in the USA.



Oh really? NOW you finally understand why I was bitching about the Tesla when you guys where comparing it to a normal sedan. So if you had the right to bring that up (you didn't) then I can bring up completely different class cheapo cars. That's how the game is played. :)

I been speaking of the Tesla as competent against hot rod since the beginning, the working model is to compete with cars of the same price and performance class until battery prices drop from mass production, and thus dropping to lower price classes. So far the model is working, the Roadster has been a big hit, now they have made enough to begin selling luxary sedan EVs, GM has put all they got behind a EREV (the Chevrolet Volt), Nissan putting in a E, Toyota and honda are also entering also extend the battery capacities of their hybrids and making them plug in hybrids. This representing a different strategy inserting bigger and bigger batteries into gas powered cars until the gas engine is useless. I'll quote Bob Lutz a higher chairmen at GM on this:

"All the geniuses here at General Motors kept saying lithium-ion technology is 10 years away, and Toyota agreed with us -- and boom, along comes Tesla. So I said, 'How come some tiny little California startup, run by guys who know nothing about the car business, can do this, and we can't?' That was the crowbar that helped break up the log jam."

The car companies are moving to marketing EVs, we have been seeing the evolution as battery prices and capacity per price increased over the last decade of first hybrids and now pHEV and EREV and the EV opening on the high end car market. The EV market is real not a pipe dream, even if it was to remain limited to high end vehicles of decade, hot rods and luxary sedans are not real products not pipe dreams.


So I take you didn't really have anything against my math??? And the Nano still beats the Smart Car by being able to travel actually long distances....

Your math does not take into account the market realities of pricing in other countries or demand for minis.

Your average gas powered car is only warranted 5 years or less so

I picked the 5 years arbitrary, because most cars shouldn't have any major expenses for at least 5 years. After that all kind of costs can muddy the picture.


Nissan and Tesla Claim with proper usage the batteries will last long

We shall see. Tesla also claims a 20% effectiveness drop after 5 years.


They have done multiple years to testing in extreme climates you can go to there website to see for your self.

You know what kind of testing I like? Thousands of costumers driving them and their feedback... So far only the RAV4 passed the test of TIME...


Because its a cheap car, generally you don't get tax breaks on cheap things.

The government can decide to give taxbreaks to anything they like. If mass transportation will depend from the suburbia to the workplace on it, they could and will give taxbreaks to cheapos...


Yeah in India, not in the USA.

The Chevy Aveo is selling in the USA. Are you saying US costumers wouldn't buy stripped down cars? My guess is that driving culture is going to change in the coming years. If your job depends on getting to the workplace in a cheap way, you will drive a cheapo...


now they have made enough to begin selling luxary sedan EVs,

Contrary to your missbelief, Tesla isn't a profitable company yet.


along comes Tesla. So I said, 'How come some tiny little California startup, run by guys who know nothing about the car business, can do this, and we can't?'

This little business is using a pretty decent 465 million low interest loan.


The car companies are moving to marketing EVs,

One reason for that is California's zero emission law, that requires every carmaker selling cars in CA to sell a certain % of it with zero emission. I have just read about BMW's EV, they only do it to comply with the law, not to make millions of it...

I picked the 5 years arbitrary, because most cars shouldn't have any major expenses for at least 5 years. After that all kind of costs can muddy the picture.

Exactly, and EV are actually less prone to this lacking a complex transmission and high wear engine, the only question mark is the battery life.



The government can decide to give taxbreaks to anything they like. If mass transportation will depend from the suburbia to the workplace on it, they could and will give taxbreaks to cheapos...

There is no political motive for cheapos, maybe if you market it as low fuel usage cars you might have a chance.




The Chevy Aveo is selling in the USA. Are you saying US costumers wouldn't buy stripped down cars? My guess is that driving culture is going to change in the coming years. If your job depends on getting to the workplace in a cheap way, you will drive a cheapo...

No I'm saying the markets are non-competive, EV and mini can live together. By the same logic bicycles and public transport will also increase. After the 70's oil crisis we sa and usually situation of both small and large cars selling well, many needed more then just cheap transport they need to move 5-7 people around, they needed cargo capacity, minis as a class of car could not do that, but EV can do much more, heck even city package delivery (http://www.brighterenergy.org/7051/news/transport/fedex-unveils-electric-delivery-truck-for-evaluation/)




Contrary to your missbelief, Tesla isn't a profitable company yet.

Never said they were, only that they garden enough interested to shack up the business and to gain financial support for the next lowest class of car below hot rods.




This little business is using a pretty decent 465 million low interest loan.

What your point, GM almost went bankrupt.




One reason for that is California's zero emission law, that requires every carmaker selling cars in CA to sell a certain % of it with zero emission. I have just read about BMW's EV, they only do it to comply with the law, not to make millions of it...

Did you see "who killed the electric car" they basically circumnavigate the law, but the laws did inspired hybrids which have been profitable and are now moving into plug in hybrids.

They are making a sequel called The revenge of the electric car. Due at the end of this year or so...

My point with the 465 million loan was that it wasn't just a small family business, it needed massive capital injection to get off of the ground.

Now if we get to the point that it is either social unrest or cheap transportation, the government who owns GM anyway, can just order them to make cheapos and cost won't even be an issue, the government can just back them forever.

I am going to look at the ingredients of the batteries, because this Chinese source intrigues me....

Are we sure we have the resources to make let's say 10 million batteries? There is a slight difference between making 10K and 10 million cars a year...

Excellent, Smysysygys: Revenge of the Electric Car (http://revengeoftheelectriccar.com/)

mu

wa
haha




What needs to change (http://www.csmonitor.com/Money/2010/0510/Can-electric-cars-break-out-of-niche-status-in-US-China-market/%28page%29/2) is merely perception, and that perception will change faster than the ability to deliver the cars.

"Oblivious to Germany's dreams of becoming the leader of the EV market and to the US' push for a quick electrification, China is planning a more covert approach with the aim of reaching
the same goal.
According to a study conducted by Pike Research, China will become within the next five years the leader of what is expected to be an 8 billion market: battery manufacturing. The outlook is China will account for 53 percent of the world's battery sales."

" The findings were, to say the least, impressive: 4.7 million charge points installed worldwide from now and until the year 2015. In parallel, there will be around 3.1 million EVs on the road by the same year."

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/china-to-become-ev-battery-market-leader-21011.html

The oposition to EVs are business related and because they have the government in their pockets, it is mostly political and legal not technological. That has been my point since a few pages ago.

The RAV4 has showed that they could make a fairly decent EV back in 1998. So why basicly no improvement in 10+ years? Because it isn't in the interest of big oil. Carmakers eventually could switch to make just EVs, but right now they are too much mixed up with big oil, thus they are not pushing for changes as much as they could.

Another reason is how they make money, not just by selling cars, but spare parts and services. When you don't have an ICE, it doesn't need to be serviced, that is not going to make profits for Big Auto.
They are well aware of peak oil and that eventually they need to change, but they still have the power to influence policy and they will make it not so easy. So that's why you get the hybrids first and maybe 10-15 years later the fully electric ones...

About making cheap cars: It has to do with profit ratio. making a 50K car isn't much more complicated than making a 10K car, but they can make 5-8 times more profit on it, so they get way more profit for little extra hassle. Now imagine if it is a dirt cheap car. Again, the hassle making it is quite a lot but the profit would be minimal. So they are not really interested in making those, but that doesn't mean they can not if they wanted to...

The oposition to EVs are business related and because they have the government in their pockets, it is mostly political and legal not technological. That has been my point since a few pages ago.

The RAV4 has showed that they could make a fairly decent EV back in 1998. So why basicly no improvement in 10+ years? Because it isn't in the interest of big oil. Carmakers eventually could switch to make just EVs, but right now they are too much mixed up with big oil, thus they are not pushing for changes as much as they could.

Another reason is how they make money, not just by selling cars, but spare parts and services. When you don't have an ICE, it doesn't need to be serviced, that is not going to make profits for Big Auto.
They are well aware of peak oil and that eventually they need to change, but they still have the power to influence policy and they will amke it not so easy. So that's why you get the hybrids first and maybe 10-15 years later the fully electric ones...

Great conspiracy theory but the economics of if make for hybrids one of the few practical ways for mass producing batteries, increase research and development and bring down battery prices. So it does not matter if even the 5 jewish bankers that control the world from their space-station behind the moon choose hybrids or not, it was the best option available.

How I love that dream... "kill them all!" I scream. Ah, yes...

/ok kidding, I'm so not a Jewish Banker. Weren't we talking about cars, or girls, or something?

Great conspiracy theory

Thanks, also known as FACTS. I thought you did see the Who killed the electric car?, you read the Chevron buying (and supressing) the battery patents post and you use common business sense...Maybe I was wrong...

You tell me why an oil company needs to own a battery making patent, but not really letting it to be used.... Any good reasons???

P.S.: Sometimes a conspiracy can be just business sense. Hey, they want to be in business or what....

but the economics of if make for hybrids one of the few practical ways for mass producing batteries, increase research and development and bring down battery prices.

The battery for a hybrid doesn't need to be as powerful and as big as for an EV, so they can be perfectly happy with batteries of yesterday and today and don't need to try to make them so much better.
Again, their goal here is still to keep the ICE part of the car. Imagine if there was suddenly a super-duper battery on the market that could take a sedan with 5 adults to 300 miles and recharge in 30 mins or less and it would be just as cheap as an engine?

Who the hell would buy ICEs anymore???? The car makers are evil, not idiots. :)

The battery for a hybrid doesn't need to be as powerful and as big as for an EV, so they can be perfectly happy with batteries of yesterday and today and don't need to try to make them so much better.

That the who point, they bring up battery production for larger batteries, hence why plug in hyrbids are entering the market now, as more and more hybrids a purchase the bigger the batteries get and the more the engine is phased out.



Again, their goal here is still to keep the ICE part of the car. Imagine if there was suddenly a super-duper battery on the market that could take a sedan with 5 adults to 300 miles and recharge in 30 mins or less and it would be just as cheap as an engine?

Who the hell would buy ICEs anymore???? The car makers are evil, not idiots. :)

Such a technology or manufacturing is simply not here yet, to achieve that high price EV and hybrids are needed to open up the market, bring in money for manufacture more and larger batteries and money for investing in the technology, Existing battery technologies like A123 or nanosafe could achieve those goals if manufacturing was capable and certainly with investment metal air flow cells could produce a cheap, very high energy density battery that can be recharged/refueled rapidly. Car companies aren't evil, their just companies, they are driven by profit and financial stability which means once they are tool for a specific product it really hard to change. Thankfully interest in "green" energy and the instability of oil has made marketplaces demands on car companies to get into the EV market a must.

I'm green with angry (trust me it's not easy) and I know a lot of people who are just starting to feel that way too. For many USis there's a hole in the bottom of the sea (so to speak) that is terrorizing us; vital opportunity for practice at switching our collective thinking with some efficiency.

That the who point, they bring up battery production for larger batteries, hence why plug in hyrbids are entering the market now, as more and more hybrids a purchase the bigger the batteries get and the more the engine is phased out.

Hybrids are a natural in-between technology until (if ever) we have strong enough batteries. But I am not sure a carmaker is really interested in making just EVs.

As I stated earlier, much of their profit comes from services and parts. Hell, just changing the oil cost more at the brand service than at Jiffy Lube.
Now let's suppose a an auto CEO would honestly answer the question, do you really think he would say yes, I want to make purely electric cars? The ones that don't need no service for 5 + years??? Where is the money in that?


Car companies aren't evil, their just companies, they are driven by profit and financial stability

There is profit and there is profit. You tell me why Toyota killed the RAV4 when it was a huge success? Not to mention they SHREDDED most of them when the leases were begging for the option of letting them buy it.

The same happened to GM's EV1. They literally destroyed the fleet, leaving a few for museums and such.

There is competition and there is dirty competition. Not car example but read how Microsoft usually destroys its competitors (a la Netscape)

The carmakers are eventually in a lose-lose situation. Peak oil means that they HAVE TO switch no matter how they don't want to, the question is just
how soon and how fast. Thus we have hybrids for probably 2 decades....

The car makers are evil, not idiots. The car makers are likely to be Chinese, Indian, Brazilian, etc.

Less wedded to the IC engine, even for hybrids.

Hybrids are a natural in-between technology until (if ever) we have strong enough batteries. But I am not sure a carmaker is really interested in making just EVs.

They will be.



As I stated earlier, much of their profit comes from services and parts. Hell, just changing the oil cost more at the brand service than at Jiffy Lube.

They will just have to switch to extended payment plans, which makes since considering the battery prices.



Now let's suppose a an auto CEO would honestly answer the question, do you really think he would say yes, I want to make purely electric cars? The ones that don't need no service for 5 + years??? Where is the money in that?

Good questions maybe you should ask Tesla, Zap and the such about their strategy.




There is profit and there is profit. You tell me why Toyota killed the RAV4 when it was a huge success?

Same reason for the EV1, not wanting to retool and pay for upscaling, market demand at the time for SUV, a then belief the interest in EV was viable for larger market.



The carmakers are eventually in a lose-lose situation. Peak oil means that they HAVE TO switch no matter how they don't want to, the question is just
how soon and how fast. Thus we have hybrids for probably 2 decades....

I have nothing against Hybrids for the time being, but EV will be gaining larger market share at rapid rates every year from now on. When they will be a majority share I don't know, but a pipe dream is not a product with growing market share.

Reading up on batteries. Lithium as a commodity will be a huge issue for US carmakers, since the raw material can be found in Latin America and China. Also the computer market is sucking up a very decent % of the aviable lithium, so I don't see the price of the material dropping or being wildly aviable in the future.

Now here is an improvement for lead-acid batteries for hybrids:

"(CSIRO) has developed a hybrid car battery that costs 70 percent less all while charging faster, providing 50 percent more power and recharging more times, increasing the life of battery by 300 percent. CSIRO's so called UltraBattery combines technologies of the capacitor and a regular lead-acid battery to make a better battery."

"The batteries have undergone testing in a Honda Insight for the last year in the UK and just passed 100,000 miles. "...."it is 17kg heavier and that creates a fuel consumption penalty of 2.8 percent. But it is about one quarter of the cost, so you save around $2000 on the cost of building the car."

http://green.autoblog.com/2008/01/20/csiros-ultrabattery-to-cut-cost-of-hybrid-battery-by-2-000-in/

A 2K cost savings for giving up a bit on fuel economy is pretty good...

This link is a good intro for recent improvement and issues with Li-ion batteries:

http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.com/2008/11/13/battery-economics-and-history/

They will be.

I just love when you throw out unsupported opinions about the future. So why and when they are going to be interested in making EVs?


but EV will be gaining larger market share at rapid rates every year from now on.

Sure. But gaining even a 1000 times gain from 0.001% is still really nothing in absolute numbers or overall marketshare...

Cars are a pipe dream in the future. Only the rich will still have them, forget how they are powered, probably by vegetable oil. And the roads will fall into disrepair.

The American public is being confronted with the bad news that their addiction will soon come to an end. It's like finding out you have cancer. We have gone through denial and anger, now we are in the bargaining phase, (how can we run our unsustainable way of life on something other than oil?). Next will come depression and finally acceptance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%BCbler-Ross_model

Nah- we've always liked going places, often in coping with the (partially self-correcting) problem of overpopulation, and we always will. All that needs be depressed is human birthrates. Further declining procreation will make for a much happier and energy-abundant home planet, and we'll still use fossil resources in all the ways more valuable and lasting than as fuel.

We will use trains.

-and the longer trains will carry and quick-charge our electric cars, scooters, small flying machines and such.

But yes, I am looking forward to more public and social transportation, in the cities and countryside. I don't see it as an either-or dilemma, especially as the rolling smokers go the way of the dinosaur.

Aside: Lange (http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/news/news.html) is already building a few of my flying dreams now. There are many of us who rejoice so much in personal freedom of mobility, and I trust there will always be ever more exciting experiences of that kind. I hope to have a personal aircraft powered by its own (solar) hangar someday.

I just love when you throw out unsupported opinions about the future. So why and when they are going to be interested in making EVs?

Oh so I didn't quote A senior head of GM just a few posts ago?



Sure. But gaining even a 1000 times gain from 0.001% is still really nothing in absolute numbers or overall marketshare...

3% of the market by 2015 is some rapid growth! (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20HJ20091203)

We will use trains.

The cost of installing that much rail verse just staying with roads and more efficent and electric cars is in the latters favor, but certainly high speed rail between major cities does have an advantages.

High speed rail is an expensive fantasy. Existing right of ways cannot accomodate high speeds, but they do exist and can easily be updated for passenger service. We used to have an excellent rail system in the US, with lines going to even small towns. Those lines still exist.

Why not roads? They require constant maintenance with asphalt, an oil based product. We will not be able to afford to continue maintaining roads for cars that people cannot afford to drive. The use of the auto has also warped our communities into unliveable sprawl, a way of life that cannot be sustained and was perhaps the worst investment in history.

There are many of us who rejoice so much in personal freedom of mobility, and I trust there will always be ever more exciting experiences of that kind. I hope to have a personal aircraft powered by its own (solar) hangar someday.

Your wishes and hopes are running into the brick wall of reality, also called peak oil. What's wrong with the bicycle?

High speed rail is an expensive fantasy. Existing right of ways cannot accomodate high speeds, but they do exist and can easily be updated for passenger service. We used to have an excellent rail system in the US, with lines going to even small towns. Those lines still exist.

Those lines are now too busy moving freight to move people in a timely manner, the only way trains for passengers will take off is if they are faster then cars, as in Europe and Japan passanger lines and cargo lines are strictly separated.



Why not roads? They require constant maintenance with asphalt, an oil based product.


Or pyrolysis biomass and other bio-products, thus making a carbon sink.



We will not be able to afford to continue maintaining roads for cars that people cannot afford to drive. The use of the auto has also warped our communities into unliveable sprawl, a way of life that cannot be sustained and was perhaps the worst investment in history.

And you think steel tracks are cheaper, easier to maintain and more energy efficient?

Those lines are now too busy moving freight to move people in a timely manner, the only way trains for passengers will take off is if they are faster then cars, as in Europe and Japan passanger lines and cargo lines are strictly separated.
Nope, the problem is that Americans are in love with cars. I'm suggesting we capitalize on our existing rail lines to create an infrastructure as good as Europe. Or at least as good as we had in the 1920's. It wouldn't take that much investment, everything is pretty much there already.


Or pyrolysis biomass and other bio-products, thus making a carbon sink.
LOL. As if we have the luxury to grow crops only to drive on them.


And you think steel tracks are cheaper, easier to maintain and more energy efficient?
It's a proven fact.

Oh so I didn't quote A senior head of GM just a few posts ago?

I don't remember, did you??? He could have said it for the PR... Actions are better than words...


3% of the market by 2015 is some rapid growth! (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20HJ20091203)

You said EV, hybrids are not EV and there won't be anything like 3% probably not even by 2020...

Nope, the problem is that Americans are in love with cars.

I am in love with cars. It takes me EVERYWHERE, whenever I want, I don't have to schedule it or share it with other people. It is also called convenience...

You have to pry the steering wheel out of my cold dead hands... :)

I don't remember, did you??? He could have said it for the PR... Actions are better than words...

Yeah that why he turned the Chevy Volt from concept car to production car, production began in march, and should be on the sale lots by the end of this year.
This is inherently different from the false start of the late 90's early 2000's of the EV1 and REV4. They defeated the regulatory pressure to produce EVs then, this time they are producing EV due to primarily market demand. GM more so does not have the money to create a false line of cars as they did before in fact GM is now gambling its future on the Volt.


You said EV, hybrids are not EV

Plug in hybrids and range extended EV represent a gray area as they are EVs only with generators for extended range operation beyond the limitations of todays high price batteries. As mentioned before as battery performance increases and prices decrease the battery capacity in these cars is increasing from hybirds to plug-in hybirds to EREV to EV while at the same time high end EVs are working there way down the market, these market strategies are observable today and have garnered a be it tiny but existing section of the market, thus not a pipedream, Fusion is a pipedream, not EVs.


and there won't be anything like 3% probably not even by 2020...

I just love when you throw out unsupported opinions about the future.

Your wishes and hopes are running into the brick wall of reality, also called peak oil. What's wrong with the bicycle?

I like my bicycle- it's a nice ride to the airport. But my bike doesn't fly well. I love my airplanes because I can get to the ocean, and another country in an hour, and at the hour of my choosing. I can survey my home ground, and know each and every field and glen below me, and marvel as the recognition of familiar and lovely home grows outward beyond the horizon melting into astounding varieties of terrain. On a bike I can't carve a big barrel roll around the moon, wheeling through a starry-night sky, because my bike doesn't have a playful ET (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpgU3Ck6h3c) in its basket. Nor does my car have flubber (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uIum2T6_RI) under the bonnet. But I have all sorts of real fantastic fun in airplanes, far exceeding mere echoes of wonder in words or pictures or movies.

On summer days I've slipped down into fresh-mowed fields far from my own nest. I've tucked under the wing for a nap, feeling as at home anywhere beneath the freewheeling sky as any free-traveling bird. In winter I draw gigantic :) or :peace: symbols on the perfect blank canvas of snow-covered Adirondack lakes, using my airplane's skis as stylus, and knowing that some traveler cooped up in an airliner, or an astronaut, a satellite-image analysts, and other googlers of earth may glimpse what I've had to say with my airplane. I've switched on the "smoke" (would prefer non-petroleum smoke) to draw a big heart in the summer sky. When it hangs there long enough that I climb away to admire my great ridiculous skymoticon, I've torn back down through the middle to draw an arrow for anybody or nobody watching. A bike is nice, but you just can't do these fabulous things on a bike. I could never trade a decent flying machine for a bicycle, nor could I trade these privileges for a seat on a lumbering train or airliner. I will never concede that the limits of human exuberance and expression (or mobility, or gratitude, compassion and responsibility) are being overwhelmed or restricted by any "energy crisis". On the contrary:

I look forward to continuing and further exploring such freedom without fossil fuels, and I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation. The notion that personal mobility needs to be reduced for us to find our sustainable place as a species is to me a form of hopelessness and dangerous resignation. Throughout the petroleum era we've been harnessing energy in dirty ways, consuming it wastefully. Like at the frazzled end of any out-of-control party, it's time to clean up, and since the damage has been ginormous, now it's obviously time for us to figure out how to have our fun more responsibly. But it certainly doesn't mean our fun is done, or that we've had more than our share of it. We're just doing it wrong, that's all.

Some people want for all of us to reduce our expectations. I think that's bullshit, and a vestige of superstitions about what the fates will allow. We were fated to be born and to die, but everything in between is entirely up to us. So I refuse to forsake the freedom to move about the planet in very personal ways. I insist on earning and developing my means, privileges, and skills of mobility with ever more dedication and exuberance for as long as I physically and mentally can. I have confidence in human abilities to adapt- clean up, and thrive, and not only from an emotional standpoint:

We are genetically programmed to adapt and thrive, and that is the self-reinforcing theme of the miracle of living, struggling, failing, adapting, laughing, and advancing intelligence and consciousness. We will continue to develop more resilience and balance as we develop our technologies and our mentalities and there is no point in allowing ourselves to be stunted by regressive notions like Luddism. The ecological and financial challenges before us are no more insurmountable than the threats to our existence that we have struggled mightily against since before we were even self-aware. Our destiny is not to become the befouler of nature, and snuff ourselves out in our own filth. Our destiny is to join with nature in a far-distant Big Bang of supreme consciousness, and if we succeed as Humans, we'll magnificently represent our home and ancestry at the very end of time.

We're not going to get there on bicycles. Is petroleum power sustainable? No. Is unrestricted human population growth sustainable? No. Are there alternatives? Yes. Is human progress, in living happier and more fulfilling lives in the future sustainable? Call me a dreamer, but this I believe is not only possible, but already written in our DNA.

Syzygys loves cars, and will no doubt enjoy some very cool EVs in the future, as will I. It's because humans just really love to "go", just like dolphins leaping for joy riding our bow-waves, or dogs eagerly probing the wind outside the window of a speeding car or airplane (KoKo my lab-mutt companion prefers 60 knots or less for putting her face into the slipstream, and she barks exultantly at the echoing barks from below, experimenting in her dog way with sonar altimetry when I shut off the engine to glide). With my dog and other flying students, I've met hawks and eagles soaring high above their hunting altitudes, where it's obvious that these beings soar for the fun of it, too. When & if dogs, dolphins, and eagles ever evolve the technology to experience even more freedom and joy of motion than they already do, I know from looking into their laughing eyes that they certainly won't pass up the chance. Neither will we.

Years from now, I hope to still promote and maintain a particular "upward" mobility, with more success than ever- that is, to watch landscapes scrolling underneath, while leaving few traces of passage behind- maybe a soft wake and some water vapor. Sharing in exuberant cross-country adventures by air, we'll leave less evidence of our passage than on bicycle or car. Flying fuel-cell powered airplanes, we'll swim confidently and in good con-science in our great ocean of air. As more dream-machines become reality, we'll travel the surface, and under the seas as balanced beings who belong to this playground planet and to the stars out beyond.

Good times aren't really over for us. We're reaching a stage in our development when we'll stop behaving like selfish, messy, even maladjusted and destructive teenagers. We'll clean up our stupendous mess, because like responsible grown-ups we're learning that it's what we must do. We'll do what is necessary to ensure ourselves, ensure our companion beings, and ensure our environment the maximum of sustainable fun and fulfillment imaginable, and we're bound to exceed the best expectations of those among us who are presently suffering the worst effects of a sickening petroleum-party hangover.

Deep breath. Take in a future ride; feel it; be in it, and look all around. We can make all this happen. The answer is (has always been) at our System's center. Here comes the sun, always pouring out abundant energy in perfect form for life bountiful. Under its sustaining light we really can shape our real gifts by our own real hands, and take to the road, to the sky, and to the undiscovered universes beyond, just like we always really wanted: Free. (really)

http://www.lange-aviation.com/img/products/antares_20e/img_antares_20E_4.jpg

What is that thing?

Antares 20E (http://www.lange-aviation.com/htm/english/products/antares_20e/antares_20E.html)

The image was a little too large, so I'll post a smaller version.

That's pretty rad.

Last year I read about a DARPA project to develop these big solar powered aircraft that would be able to stay airborne for years. They would be able to replace the functions of satellites as radio repeaters and intelligence gatherers, but with greater flexibility and for less money. One design was a large blimp but the other was a gigantic fixed wing like NASA's Helios.

Found a link: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/DARPAs-Vulture-What-Goes-Up-Neednt-Come-Down-04852/

Yep, the tech is here now for solar drones to stay aloft indefinitely in summer; for manned sailplanes to take flight powered only by the sun on their hangar rooftops. And the technology is here right now for EVs to take to the highways using sustainable energy. Soon, our motion will require no foul-burning lotions. We're going to love our new Electra-glides and they will be much more fun and sexy than our primitive smokers (sorry, Harley).

I am in love with cars. It takes me EVERYWHERE, whenever I want, I don't have to schedule it or share it with other people. It is also called convenience...

You have to pry the steering wheel out of my cold dead hands... :)
Unfortunately, that is the viewpoint of many Americans, even some who consider themselves green (and bought a prius or something). It's only convenient because we structured our communities so that they are unwalkable. This wasn't always the case, the small towns that conservatives love are disappearing, their stores boarded up because some big box outlet filled with Chinese products was allowed to undermine them. The really bad thing is that automobile dependence creates living situations that do not inspire the human soul. Sprawl creates depression. And poor people are forced to spend a huge part of their income on their cars.


Those lines are now too busy moving freight to move people in a timely manner, the only way trains for passengers will take off is if they are faster then cars, as in Europe and Japan passenger lines and cargo lines are strictly separated.



...



And you think steel tracks are cheaper, easier to maintain and more energy efficient?
If it makes it easier for you, just think of train cars as the original electric car, one that doesn't need a battery.


...personal airplanes....
Not practical transportation for the masses and therefore not relevant to this conversation.





I look forward to continuing and further exploring such freedom without fossil fuels, and I don't think it's an unrealistic expectation. The notion that personal mobility needs to be reduced for us to find our sustainable place as a species is to me a form of hopelessness and dangerous resignation. Throughout the petroleum era we've been harnessing energy in dirty ways, consuming it wastefully. Like at the frazzled end of any out-of-control party, it's time to clean up, and since the damage has been ginormous, now it's obviously time for us to figure out how to have our fun more responsibly. But it certainly doesn't mean our fun is done, or that we've had more than our share of it. We're just doing it wrong, that's all.
We will be forced to use fossil fuels more efficiently, but at the same time, it is unrealistic to expect to run the Happy Motoring way of life will continue. It's an anachronism. That will become self-evident in the near future. If we wanted, for instance, to be free from foreign oil, we would need to reduce our consumption to 1970s levels.


Some people want for all of us to reduce our expectations. I think that's bullshit, and a vestige of superstitions about what the fates will allow. We were fated to be born and to die, but everything in between is entirely up to us.
It's not a matter of what we want. This is the situation. You can sleepwalk into the future wearing blinders, or you can prepare for it. We as a nation are not preparing for it. We haven't even accepted reality. I hear it all the time, even among "progressives", that all we need is motherfucking electric cars, then we won't have to really change a thing except what product we buy. It's delusional.


So I refuse to forsake the freedom to move about the planet in very personal ways. I insist on earning and developing my means, privileges, and skills of mobility with ever more dedication and exuberance for as long as I physically and mentally can. I have confidence in human abilities to adapt- clean up, and thrive, and not only from an emotional standpoint:
Of course, you have legs. The arrogance that billions of people can continue to drive around anywhere at whim is a product of 50 years of cheap oil. You have never known a time when our society was not growing industrially, and pumping out a huge variety of personal vehicles. You don't realize that this was an anomaly.


We are genetically programmed to adapt and thrive, and that is the self-reinforcing theme of the miracle of living, struggling, failing, adapting, laughing, and advancing intelligence and consciousness. We will continue to develop more resilience and balance as we develop our technologies and our mentalities and there is no point in allowing ourselves to be stunted by regressive notions like Luddism. The ecological and financial challenges before us are no more insurmountable than the threats to our existence that we have struggled mightily against since before we were even self-aware. Our destiny is not to become the befouler of nature, and snuff ourselves out in our own filth. Our destiny is to join with nature in a far-distant Big Bang of supreme consciousness, and if we succeed as Humans, we'll magnificently represent our home and ancestry at the very end of time.
Yeah, we are great, but there is a difference between technology and energy. In the future, energy will be harder to come by, less convenient to use. The need for greater efficiency will require consolidation of transportation needs. Personal pods will be a luxury for the rich.


Is petroleum power sustainable? No. Is unrestricted human population growth sustainable? No. Are there alternatives? Yes. Is human progress, in living happier and more fulfilling lives in the future sustainable? Call me a dreamer, but this I believe is not only possible, but already written in our DNA.
We ARE going to get there on bicycles. Or maybe sailing craft. The personal sailboad is quite realistic.



Deep breath. Take in a future ride; feel it; be in it. We can make all this happen. Because here comes the sun, like always, giving us life. We really can take real controls, and really fly just like we always really wanted- Free. (really)
Being smarter about energy means using it sparingly. The techno-Utopia you envision might come about in a hundred years or so, but we are in for a long harsh time before that. The ending of the way of life Americans are used to will mean political turmoil all over the world. It means economic collapse (no more solar factories). It means a mad rush to take over the last remaining supplies in the Middle East (already begun). It means possible war between the major powers, with all it's subsequent ecological destruction. It means no more globalism, no more 3,000 mile supply chain, no more advanced materials available for personal use. It means more people will need to be involved in farming food locally. It means most of the service jobs that exist now will be gone. It's not a pretty picture. I hope it doesn't happen, but all sign point to peak oil being the precursor to a long difficult time for us.

http://www.petroholicsanonymous.org

I realize it's not very organized yet (the above link is dead for example) and it seems almost beyond our willpower- but we're all going to understand the imperative to kick the habit soon, and we're going to make changes. What won't change after petroleum is that we'll still enjoy and value freedom very much. All we really have to do is stop considering fossil fuels an irreplaceable source of energy, because that assumption is a dirty lie. Even the most prominent liars among us will be taking this to heart sooner rather than later.


Saying that America is addicted (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_Storm) to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program. It’s not enough to identify the challenge – we have to meet it.

Yes, We Can, Mr. President: Lead, or get out of the blessed way.

I would like to ask contributors to try to stay on the EV vs. hybrid vs. cheapo gas debate line. That is what the thread is about... (I know because I started it)

In this thread I am really not interested in flying solar planes and such. If you guys want to discuss similar technologies, start a new thread. Thanks.


Yeah that why he turned the Chevy Volt

Excuse me??? The Volt is a plug-in HYBRID and I thought we are talking about EVs. When did any big automaker say they want to make fully EVs (that is electric vehicle) by the millions??? I guess never...

Sorry, S- That is a reasonable request on your part. I've become very air-travel biased, and I keep recalling that aeronautical technology has often payed dividends in automotive tech: The demands of power & strength / weight in skyfaring have long produced technologies that also excel on the ground. Car culture has long had lofty aeronautical inspirations, both practical and aesthetic.

I've made my point I think, that since we're now energetically learning to fly on batteries, we can certainly expect that we'll manage also to trundle around on the surface like ants (that's what it looks like from above) busily applying the same tech we can fly with to a more limited use (as if only the Queen and her suitors are worthy of flying over and beyond the Colony and its busy designated paths).

So I'll respect your wishes Syzygys, and try hard to plant all my feet on the ground, and to devote my further contributions here exclusively to pondering ground-bound EVs that shall never sprout wings. I'll beg your pardon if I pan my eyes upward again, when we tangle antennae in heavy and short-sighted traffic. My wings are tucked, but I'm happy to visit because it's a fine thread you've made here.

We had electric cars in 1887! (http://www.trolleystop.com/trolleycar.htm)

The hand-wringing over battery technology is fucking retarted. I don't have much hope for a nation that can't even reproduce the advanced transportation technologies we enjoyed in the 19th century.

Forget about peak oil, welcome peak Lithium! :

http://www.hybridcars.com/hybrid-batteries/swapping-peak-oil-peak-lithium-25219.html

I would like to see data where the increased supply of Lithium is going to come. China has already stopped exporting it, and I think they had half of the raw material...

P.S.: Spidey, don't take it hard but your posts really don't add anything to the discussions...

The hand-wringing over battery technology is fucking retarted. I don't have much hope for a nation that can't even reproduce the advanced transportation technologies we enjoyed in the 19th century.

In the late 19th and early 20th century there was, for a time, a great demand for electrical transportation. It seemed like that was going to be the future until internal combustion engines came along. But can you imagine the EV's we'd have on the roads today if that hadn't happened? If every R&D dollar spent by every car manufacturer for the last 100 years had been poured into designing more efficient and more driveable EV's? Of course we probably would have destroyed the planet just as badly trying to generate enough electricity to keep all those batteries charged, but it would certainly have been interesting to see.

What some people don't seem to remember, or fail to appreciate, is the true significance of the role that demand plays in the development of certain technologies. In the early 1900's, production of EV's almost completely stopped once everyone realized that the current technology couldn't compete with IC engines. And until recently, no-one has really been playing with it in any significant way. What has been produced since then is a bunch of vehicles that have borrowed important core technologies that were originally developed for other applications. Even so, these vehicles have been more drivable and, despite the profoundly incorrect statements of others, have a significantly greater real-world usable range between charges.

Well, things are about the start changing. Demand is now clearly on our door-step. And I just know that those last two statements are going to have you cynical people who are obsessed with painting a bleak picture of our future rolling your eyes. But seriously, get a clue. Discussions are taking place, deals are being made and money is being invested. There exists now something that resembles the beginning of a sense of urgency that's never been there before. The only truly valid point of contention in this thread is when we'll see the first truly competitive EV come off the production line.

In the late 19th and early 20th century there was, for a time, a great demand for electrical transportation. It seemed like that was going to be the future until internal combustion engines came along.
It was a better alternative even after cars started to come out. The fact is there is profit in the personal car, and the investments in infrastructure required to outfit places with electric trolleys could easily be dismissed by manipulative politicans as increasing taxes. Ironic, since now we are forced to pay 15-20 thousand on average for a personal car.




But can you imagine the EV's we'd have on the roads today if that hadn't happened?
No! Electric trains do not automatically lead to electric cars. Electric trains encourage a specific kind of urban planning that make cars unnecessary.



If every R&D dollar spent by every car manufacturer for the last 100 years had been poured into designing more efficient and more driveable EV's?
It would still be a mistake. The mistake is the personal car, no matter what it's run on. The problem is it creates and encourages sprawl, a way of life that is damaging and depressing.



What some people don't seem to remember, or fail to appreciate, is the true significance of the role that demand plays in the development of certain technologies. In the early 1900's, production of EV's almost completely stopped once everyone realized that the current technology couldn't compete with IC engines.
It was a false choice. Of course in 1900 internal combustion was better than EVs. But electric trains don't need batteries.


Well, things are about the start changing. Demand is now clearly on our door-step.
We don't have to give in to every unreasonable demand on the part of the consumer. They also demand jet-packs, but it wouldn't be good for society. The car hasn't been good for society. It has made us fat and weak.



And I just know that those last two statements are going to have you cynical people who are obsessed with painting a bleak picture of our future rolling your eyes.
I'm not cynical, I'm hopeful for the future, a future without cars will be a better world. But the oil is running out, so let this be a word to the wise. The Earth is not made of a creamy nougat center of oil. Or lithium, or plutonium.



But seriously, get a clue. Discussions are taking place, deals are being made and money is being invested. There exists now something that resembles the beginning of a sense of urgency that's never been there before. The only truly valid point of contention in this thread is when we'll see the first truly competitive EV come off the production line.
Yeah, it's basically a huge cocksuck. As a country we are in denial. Even if they work, they only encourage a destructive way of life. They destroy community.

The Earth is not made of a creamy nougat center of oil. Or lithium, or plutonium.

Thank godness for that. And also for the Sun's composition, which encompasses a perfectly-situated fusion reactor more than adequate for all our energy needs (at least until we're interstellar). It's also cause for rejoicing and optimism that we can convert solar energy into many highly-portable potentials using a widening variety of available, affordable, renewable, and recyclable materials. And I should mention cars. All our cars can be powered by a solar-derived, decentralized "cloud" structured power network.

Theoretically yes. Practically it is far from ready to replace oil in the time frame in which oil depletion will cause a widespread economic downturn.

Practically, liquid petroleum came to late too replace coal without a hitch. But what's great about renewable energy is that the gold-mines and oil-wells are in them thar intellectual and societal hills. Everybody's got 'em, but proactive policy and innovation is going to put its champions farther ahead of the economy 8-ball than you can Sheikh Yerbouti at.

Solutions are all the more profitable, the higher the demand. The demand for non-petroleum energy is a very solid basis for investment. Of course you can bet on depression or even a new dark age if that's what you see, but given the choice (and I think we have it) I'm confident about what the markets will choose.

We have, as of now, no renewable energy source, nor combination
of sources, that can scale up quickly enough, or provide anywhere
near to the energy equivalent of oil, to avoid a severe, worldwide
energy shortage. (http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm)

The Psychology of Previous Investment (http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/181)

Necessity is the Mother of Invention.

-Plato (http://thinkexist.com/quotation/necessity-who_is_the_mother_of_invention/11767.html)

The personal automobile is not a necessity.

Well, just don't say that about my airplanes future EVs because I'll really get up in arms. Mobility and freedom are human necessities. Car culture as exemplified in the USA through the past Century does not define all car cultures, technologies, and markets for the next. We did it big, fast, and dirty. Now we're going to (or someone is going to) re-invent personal transportation.

The technology may be irrelevent if the economy cannot support their purchase.

That's true, and obviously we don't know if the global economy is recovering or not. I expect that once we seriously begin a deliberate transition from petroleum-based to sustainably-based energy, that the engines motors of industry and consumer confidence will spin up like we've never seen before. We're all affraid, and we should be. But as we start feeling more in control again, we'll become confident again. Overconfident? Possibly- but we're getting better at recognizing the symptoms of that as well.

I'm not talking about our present downturn, that's just a small precursor of what's to come as oil becomes progressively more expensive.

If we can't adapt, you're right. If it turns out we can, everybody wins.

If we started 30 years ago, we would have had a chance. Even now, subsidies for installing solar panels are drying up.

Spidey, again, I appreciate you trying to hijack the thread, but kindly fuck off...

This thread is not about "cars are not necessery" and other bullshit, if you wish to discuss that, start your OWN thread.

Clear now???

You fuck off, it's about whether or not the widespread use of electric cars is a realistic proposition.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4022/4688765818_258692162e.jpg

Look dumbfuck, just start your thread and I promise I will visit it and poop on it every 3 days. Deal?

Nobody gives a shit about your whining about the past abd that trolleys or horseback riding are better than cars. Go live with the Amish....

I'm talking about the subject, OK? There are numerous sociological, cultural, and psychological implications about this effort.

Now in the maintime, I got evidence why EVs based on Li-ion battery are PIPEDREAM. There ir simply not enough Lithium to go around. So we either go back to the well tested NiMH battery of RAV4 or we have to invent something completely new.

http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1180&first=6240&end=6239

"They showed that you need 1.4 kg of lithium carbonate per kilowatt hour of battery. So, that's just the starting point for field calculations; and even if you double that, the energy density in the future, it is still not a pretty picture.

"If you took all the lithium carbonate that we are producing today and put it into small plug-in hybrid battery, an 8 kWh battery (HEV20), you could produce about six million cars, which is one-third of United States sales each year, and ten percent of annual global sales," Tahil said, noting that all current lithium production is currently allocated to other applications.

"So you've got to find new production. There's about 75,000 (metric) tons of lithium carbonate being produced in the world today, and there new deposits coming on stream right now, which by 2010 will raise production to 150,000 tons. So, we're going to have double the lithium carbonate in (three) years time, but that's being driven by demand for consumer electronics where you have at least 20 percent growth rates for laptop computers and mobile phones. Massive demand from the developing world. So, we're going to need more lithium carbonate production on top."

Here is what I don't get? If this ZEBRA battery is cheaper to produce and better performing that the Li-Ion, then why don't we have it instead of Li-ion??

-------------------------------

If Not Lithium, What Then?
Meridian International Research researched the various battery technologies for electric vehicles in 2005 and of all the chemistries it analyzed, sodium nickel chloride and zinc air stood out, Tahil said. The first option, sodium nickel chloride was developed in the 1980s and is known as the ZEBRA battery. He characterizes it as relatively cheap and proven technology with a potential cost in mass production of $150/kWh compared to $350/kWh for lithium ion.

"It has half to a third the nickel content of nickel metal hydride. It has high cycle life. It can be recycled for the stainless steel industry by simply melting it down... just through it into a smelter... use for making stainless steel."

The ZEBRA-class battery also doesn't require the same level of thermal-runaway protection that lithium does. "The sodium nickel chloride is fail-safe in overcharge and over-discharge. It tolerates cell failures, so that performance degrades, but there is no safety issue, which there still is with lithium ion.

"And the headline figure is, of course, with sodium nickel chloride is you have 120Wh/kg in a finished battery pack with its control electronics today, in a finished package, off-the-shelf. The ion phosphate and lithium manganate cathodes are still only at 80 to 90 watt hours per kilo just at cell level and less when you add on the [control] electronics."

Tahil observed that in 1998 Mercedes was about to launch an A-Class sedan powered by the ZEBRA battery (which still performs equal to and better than the fuel cell version) when the program was killed as Daimler merged with Chrysler. In place of the ZEBRA A-Class electric car, Chrysler built a couple hundred EPIC electric mini-van for the California MOU period in the late 90's and early 2000 period, then killed the program when the courts ruled again the state.

"If you took the A-Class today with the battery... improvements since then you'd have a car with a 180-mile all-electric range."

-----------------

OK, this could be the reason:

"the chief drawback of zinc-air is its short cycle life, comparable to a conventional lead-acid battery at upwards of 500 cycles." It might be necessery to replace the battery once a year in a car...

P.S.: This info is from the same article posted earlier:

http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1182&first=10865&end=10864

The comment section is also very informative...

Lithium is dissolved in the oceans of the world to a total of 230 billion tonnes. Research is under way in finding economic ways to extract it.
http://www.journalarchive.jst.go.jp/english/jnlabstract_en.php?cdjournal=jnst1964&cdvol=17&noissue=12&startpage=922

Total land sources of Lithium run to only 13 million tonnes.
http://www.ioes.saga-u.ac.jp/ioes-study/li/lithium/occurence.html

So obviously we are about to run out.

Not!

Lithium is dissolved in the oceans of the world

So is gold. Do you see any goldextractor from the sea???


Research is under way in finding economic ways to extract it.

Again you are dreaming about the future, with no practical results to back it up.

I could post a similar "some people live up to 120, research is under way to find a way to copy them" dreamfest and I wouldn't even be wrong. :)

Syzygys

Please try to keep up.
Lithium is present at 230 billion tonnes in the oceans. Gold is only 20 million tonnes. Quite different. Lithium is potentially extractable. Not so for such minute amounts of gold.

Mind you, gold is present on the ocean floor in potentially commercial quantities.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-02/nsae-tdo021706.php

Lithium is potentially extractable. [/url]

Potentially, yes, economically, most likely no.

Right now we are trying to reach the 350$/kWh tipping point for battery Lithium. If the ocean extraction is possible but results in a 1500$/kWh battery, that isn't gonna help us much, is it?

In this thread I would prefer to avoid "there is research into it" and "this will happen in the future" kind of sentimens... Hard facts, now that I like....

Hard to say what the final cost will be, considering the ever growing need for desalination the price will drop alot, not to mention the existence of far more efficient and less materialistically demanding battery chemistry like metal air batteries.

syzygys said

"In this thread I would prefer to avoid "there is research into it" and "this will happen in the future" kind of sentimens... Hard facts, now that I like.... "

But this whole thread is about what will happen in the future. As such, you cannot deny predictive type information.

If you look at the history of humanity over the past couple hundred years, you will see as a repeated theme, research into something or other, followed by its introduction into society, with revolutionary effects. As such, we are entirely entitled to point out current research and its likely impact in the future.

Sure but the projection into the future should be based on reality.

For example if the Li-ion battery can not be made by the millions (after all that would be the eventual goal) or too expensive, I don't see the problem switching back to the NiMH battery. If the RAV4 was already able to do 100 miles 10 years ago, with slight improvement it could go up to 150, which isn't that bad...

Maybe there will be 2 type of cars, EVs for commuter city buzzing and hybrids for long distance travel.

Why don't we run electric lines above the roads, and equip all cars with metal contacts?

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4688655147_a8a7a91d31.jpg
Ve hav ze technology!

Currently, researchers are concentrating on the Lithium battery. I am not expert in that field, but the researchers are, so I am prepared to accept that they know what they are doing, and Lithium is a better bet than NiMH.

Lithium is not in short supply. Just that the traditional Lithium carbonate ore is limited. Lots of other options exist, and will be exploited. Extraction from the ocean is the option which, in theory, is least limited. I suspect it is only a matter of time before we have an efficient and cost effective means of tapping this source.

Let's also not forget the promise of H2 battery systems (http://www.nucellsys.com/index.dhtml/374c11670c1b3137322t/-/enEN/-/CS/-/Produkte_Technologien) (fuel cells).

Lest we engage in any hand-wringing here over a future scarcity of platinum catalyst, I'll also mention pre-emptively that we shall overcome in this challenge too: There has been considerable progress in reducing (http://www.azonano.com/news.asp?NewsID=17618) and even eliminating (http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/02/platinum-free-f.html) the need for Pt in fuel cells.

On lithium: Simbol Lithium Mining (http://www.portfolio.com/companies-executives/2010/05/18/startup-simbol-mines-for-lithium-to-make-electric-car-batteries)

I suspect it is only a matter of time before we have an efficient and cost effective means of tapping this source.

Just like curing the common cold. Oh wait...

There you go again, with your futuristic hopes, not based on anything realistic...

Now this is realistic: (from Hypewaders)

Simbol Lithium Mining

Scientists have actually come up with a concept car that runs completely on water! Unfortunately it can't be any kind of water, like from the tap, it has to be from the Gulf.


:roflmao:

Finally we got to know the real reason for invading Afghanistan:

"Afghanistan is sitting on mineral resources worth $1 trillion and could become one of the world’s most important mining centres, the Pentagon announced yesterday, as it tried to drum up foreign investment and wean the country off the opium trade.

A Pentagon memo predicted that the country could become the “Saudi Arabia of lithium” — a metal that is a key raw material in the manufacture of batteries for laptops and mobile phones."

Although they could be lying:

"The Pentagon estimate was questioned by geologists and mining experts, who said that it was based on old and incomplete data and did not take into account security and infrastructure problems.

Two senior geologists working in Afghanistan also said that they were unaware of any proven deposits of lithium."

"Reinventing the Automobile" is a pertinent recently-published book about personal urban mobility for the 21st century, by William J Mitchell, Chris Borroni-Bird and Lawrence D Burns. It sets out four main ideas:


- "Base the underlying design principles on electric-drive and wireless communications rather than the internal combustion engine and stand-alone operation

- Develop the Mobility Internet for sharing traffic and travel data

- Integrate electric-drive vehicles with smart electric grids that use clean, renewable energy sources

- Establish dynamically priced markets for electricity, road space, parking space, and shared-use vehicles."


The pictures are of vehicles that look like pods. They make the Smart car look large and would seem unlikely to persuade fat bankers to abandon their Mercs, but that's doubtless not the target market.

Ideas,good intentions are worthless without being able to answer: HOW???

I googled the title just now and found the book's text came on screen in pdf format.

...again, I am not terribly interested in general ideas, unless there is a practical description (that actually works!) how to achieve them...

I can make up good ideas like: let's get ride of poverty, or annihilate HIV, but they are worthless without a workable and economic plan...

We need to downsize everything, increase efficiency, lighten cars until they weigh less than 500 lbs and separate them from truck and heavy vehicle traffic. The cars of the future will be more like this:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1247/4730807184_11ae5109f1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/46302583@N02/4730807184/sizes/m/)

...again, I am not terribly interested in general ideas, unless there is a practical description (that actually works!) how to achieve them...

I can make up good ideas like: let's get ride of poverty, or annihilate HIV, but they are worthless without a workable and economic plan...

It is a frustrating business but presumably the Research Vice-President of General Motors (to 2009), and GM's present Director of Advanced Technology Vehicle Concepts, who wrote this book, addressed the "how". They're not numptyheads. They are in active collaboration with the Chinese, a race not noted for timewasting. This is what people commercially are doing on the ground. Say 'Talk to the hand' by all means. I'm not parti pris. Pack a thermos for your long wait for retail perfection. What will you read in the meantime?

What will you read in the meantime?

General McCrystal's memoirs...

Getting back to topic, yesterday I was reading a Car magazine. The new Volt is going to be able to carry 5 people, thus giving up a little range, but on pure battery it can still go 32 miles and 300 miles with ICE....

Best electric vehicle available now:

http://www.optibike.com/