Who killed the Electric Car?

Although there's truth to that, you're ignoring some rather obvious facts. First, it was THE best solution at the time, they had no idea what it eventually lead to, AND there was absolutely no reason to spend any money at all on advancing battery technology during the greater part of that entire period.

Hindsight is always better but it's not a license for belittling the efforts of people so long ago.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Only for a very brief period, and the ICE cars at the time were far worst than they are now.

Even the advanced Doble steam engine was miles ahead of the ICE as far back as 1925.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Then why did it not become the dominate engine? There has to be more to it than just that. Reliability? Simplicity of manufacturing and upkeep? What?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not if you wanted to ensure that our cities would be smog and noise plagued for an entire century...no.

 

Once again, just a useless comment based on hindsight.

 

It could be that gas was cheaper than electricity at the time, or was more widely available in rural areas. The changeover to an AC current power grid may also be a factor as the batteries could only be charged with DC current.

An electric car is far simpler and easier to maintain than any ICE configuration. Edison was keen on making his nickel iron battery the dominant energy source for cars, and was selling them as early as 1903.

 

No, its the dominant reason why our cities centers are more or less unlivable in many parts of North America...no hindsight required.

 

Went completely over your head, didn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

My point is that ONLY by hindsight can one see that to be true. Foresight at the time didn't even offer a hint of it. People of that era thought the wind would blow away anything put in the air, weren't aware of the photochemicals produced in the exhaust and no one had ANY idea about the thermal inversions which can keep "bad air" trapped in various locations.

Therefore, it's very presumptuous of you to try and blame those people for leading up to problems that they could not have possibly understood. THAT'S what I'm trying to get across to you.

 

No, there were laws passed on urban air pollution in England for example as far back as 1875. And it was no mystery to engineers that combustion under pressure within an ICE engine yields far more pollutants than the alternatives.

 

Ho-hum, this is getting boring.

OK, show us some proof of those pollution laws and while you're at it, provide evidence of when the problems with thermal inversions and photochemicals were discovered.

 

Right...the notion that early ICE engineers somehow didnt know their engines were incredibly polluting and noisy really isnt even worth condemning.

 

Quit trying to sidestep - I'd really like to see proof of your statements if you have any. Dodging the issue gains you no credibility.

 

Well you dont need me for that.

If you were really interested in the question you'd just type the phrase...

"history of air pollution"

...into Google and access the first entry that comes up.

 

Finally an answer to the thread's question (Condensed by Billy T****) from current issue of the Economist:

At the beginning of 1906 there were only 230 motor buses in London. They were widely reviled for their evil smells and noise. At any one time a quarter of them were off the road for repairs. In 1907 The Economist predicted “the triumph of the horse”. The future of public-transport technology was up for grabs.

In April 1906 the London Electrobus Company floated stock. The electrobus ... could travel 60km (38 miles) on one charge. So at lunchtime the buses went to a garage in Victoria and drove up a ramp. The batteries, slung under the electrobus, were lowered onto a trolley and replaced with fresh ones. It all took three minutes. ...

First day the flotation raised £120,000 and the share offer was on course to be fully subscribed. But the next day some awkward questions surfaced. The firm was buying rights to a patent for £20,000 ($15m, in today's money). But the patent had nothing to do with battery buses. It was a scam. The mastermind was Edward Lehwess, a serial con-artist with a taste for fast cars and expensive champagne. Lehwess had set up a network of front companies to siphon off its funds. For example:

The London Electrobus Company paid the Electric Vehicle Company over £31,000 in advance for 50 buses. Only 20 were ever delivered. The buses were hugely overpriced. Eventually the London Electrobus Company went into liquidation. Even then the scams continued. Lehwess bought eight buses for £800 from the liquidators and sold them to Brighton for £3,500—a mark-up of 340%—where they ran for another six years.* At the time, the life of a motor bus was measured in months.

Whether the fraud was truly a tipping point for electric vehicles is, of course, impossible to say. But it is a commonplace of innovation—from railway gauges to semiconductors to software—that the “best” technology is not always the most successful. Once an industry standard has been established, it is hard to displace. If Lehwess had not pulled the scam, modern cities might be a lot cleaner.
------------------------
*Note these electricbuses actually worked (much better than the IC engine buses of that era.) Modern con-artists do not bother with that - they just have good PR, video presentations and "scientists" "confirming" they really are getting energy for free (out of salt water**, the Earth's magnetic or electric field, etc.)

**If you have unlimited fresh water there actually is enormous energy in concentrated salt water (strong brine)***. In principle, about the same as the solar energy, which would have concentrated the salt water from the sea! Unfortunately no one has been able to use the osmotic presure and flow to get this energy in any practical device, but a salt water motor (with string dipping in and out of both salt and fresh water in loop around wheels) will run as the tension in one part of the sting is greater than in the other.

***More on "enormous" - Oil is often found under old salt domes. If full of water in saturation equlibrium with the salt instead, there is more energy in that salt brine than in the oil! (You need nearly infinite suppy of fresh water to get it out and there is, as yet, no practical way to do this.

**** Full article at:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9719105

PS
I tried to find the thread about a "car that runs on salt-water" ("burning salt water" etc.) - That scam has earlier "grandfather" in this one. If you know where it is, please post link there to this post.

 

Yes, I agree with it.

 

Another quick charging improvement on lithium batteries...this time from Subaru:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/8281/

"Bucking the industry trend towards Hydrogen fuel cells, Subaru has released a vastly improved second cut at a plug-in a battery-electric commuter car. The 65-kilowatt, 5-seater G4e’s new high energy-density lithium-ion batteries give it a 200km range from a charge (more than double the previous R1e’s range) and using a quick-charger it can be topped up to 80% in only 15 minutes. The new Subaru’s stats make it an instantly viable commuter, while underlining the exciting potential this fledgling sector will offer.

With 40 units of Subaru’s older EV R1e battery-electric vehicle already out and being evaluated by TEPCO’s regional sales team and local government officials, Subaru has announced the arrival of an updated 5-door version with more than twice the range thanks to advances in lithium-ion battery technology.

The G4e (which apparently stands for “Good 4 Earth”) has a 65kw maintenance-free electric motor. The aerodynamically-efficient exterior helps to get the most from the battery pack, which is located under the floor of the vehicle to keep a low, stable center of gravity.

Range and charging times are the current bugbears of plug-in battery-electric vehicles, and Subaru has taken a strong step forward in this area. Using a new high-capacity vanadium battery material, they are able to load two to three times more lithium ions onto the positive battery terminal, resulting in an energy density about double what was possible on the previous model.

A normal full charge requires nothing more than a power point and takes around 8 hours to reach full capacity, which will deliver around 200km of normal driving. Subaru has also developed a quick-charger that would allow the battery to be brought up to 80% charge in around 15 minutes. The company envisages that such quick-chargers could be easily located in carparks outside supermarkets and other public facilities. Either way, energy per mile is a lot cheaper than gasoline – as low as a tenth of the price if using off-peak overnight rates.

With snappy looks that stick it straight in the middle of the compact car segment, the G4e doesn’t have the outrageous looks of many concept cars – this is encouraging, as it shows the company might be looking seriously at a production version not too far down the track. And as battery technology seems to be advancing at a rate of knots, and these concepts already look more than viable for the majority of commuters, we wonder how long until something like it does hit the showroom of a major manufacturer."

 

That's an awesome concept. Can't wait to buy one! I've been talking about these new Lithium batteries in my EV vehicles thread. Light EVs will be the first to take advantage of these, but they will filter into the car industry soon enough. They are still very expensive.

 

That seems like a very important approach to the "recharge" problem. The power handeling limits of the ordidinary house make quick full recharges impossible. To have the capacity for doing full recharge in 10 or 15 minutes is very expensive add on to to your electric bill (capital cost, not the energy).

This concept of many users of the same recharge capital at grocery store etc. with the car owner not losing any time or needing to know anything makes the cost to each users feasible. (Just pay the man, less than the gas would cost after your shoping is done.) At present, most electric cars are like everyone buying their own gas station pump if fast "fill up" is required. I.e. not economical for many unless never in need of a fast "fill up."

Also it generates an new business, which puts up the capital for the recharger, rather than the car owner. Further more, Recharger will be easily re-locatable to some other public placewith hiogh power capacity service, if the first location is not profitable. These facts are very important for the economic viability of the electric car to be a serious challange to the IC engine. Someone at Subru has their head screwed on correctly.

 

Ironically, there is a solution to the fast charge thing if you have money to throw at it. Charge the battery from another battery. It will take some creativity and some electronics, but it can be done. Charge the at home battery at the 8 hour rate, then charge the car battery from it at the 15 minute or so rate.

Before anyone makes the objection, yes I am extremely aware that charging one battery from another requires that the first battery's voltage be boosted. I can draw schematics for that. I've even thought of keeping an auxiliary battery in my car so that I can charge the main battery from the auxiliary battery if for some reason the main battery gets drained, which means boost the 12 volts to 14 or so. Either that, or just possibly the at home battery could have another cell.

Also, the at-home batteries might be able to be a cheaper technology. I have no clear idea which one to use.

 

First electric motors are not cheap.
Second Batteries are not cheap.
Third if the electric motor goes out it must be replaced.
Fourth if the battery goes out it must be replaced
Fifth = Expensive