 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Electric cars
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Electric cars From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:07 AM I notice that it is being reported in the media that electric cars are not considered to be a viable option yet. To be an option for me they would have to have a range of at least 300 miles (minimum daily travel to and from work for me is about 110 miles) and would also need to be 4 wheel drive with a ground clearance of at least 7 inches to cope with my lane in winter. Also, how much do we gain in terms of fossil fuels used up to produce the electricirty to re-charge them, considering the losses in converting from one form of energy to another? At least I could use power from a wind turbine on windy days! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Bobert Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:16 AM I believe that when gasoline gets back to $4 or $5 a gallon then folks will do some rethinking... Face it, we are addicted to our life style... I mean, yeah, there perhaps is a place for the internally combustible 4WDs but I can see families moving toward one electric/ one gas... The average commute in the US is less than 20 miles... That means that there is a need... Plus, this idea of cimmuti9ng 100 miles a day is an outdated model for how we should live... The future is in planning live/work/play communities to relieve *US* of our dependence on foreign oil... As for the energy it takes to create enough electricity to recharge these cars??? I've read that it's less than the energy it takes to push a gas powered car "x" number of miles... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:18 AM I don't want to live near to where my work is and I can't seem to convince them that I can work from home, even though I only need to meet anyone else about once a month! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:15 AM Certainly to date the lack of luggage space in a Toyota Prius means it is not viable for many people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Charmion Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:30 AM My mechanic says that the prospect of handling the batteries in a Toyota Prius scare him -- the minimum safety equipment includes gauntlets like you would use for handling fissionable material, and something like a welder's mask. And then what do you do with it when it's dead? The battery in an ordinary car, which is just big enough to power the starter, is already a toxic hazard; imagine the poisonous gunk in a battery big enough to power the entire car! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 06 Jan 11 - 12:21 PM If only battery technology had kept pace with computer technology, one AA size battery would take you round the world! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Jan 11 - 01:56 PM The reports also said that completelt electric cars are too expensive for the average person and will remain so for some years top come. Moreover, most of our electricity comes from coal-fired plants. Disruption of Australian coal-mining by floods has caused an increase in coal prices, which have been rising in any case for the past two years. Gasoline at $4-5 per gallon would cause people to rethink options? Nonsense. Canadians are used to that price range, and most Europeans would consider $5 dollar gasoline reasonable. Truckers are hurt, but the problem in the U. S. and Canada is the poor status of railroad transit; too much of our commercial transit is on highways. Improvement of railroads would take 20 years. In the western U. S. and Canada, people are used to long distance travel; to get from Calgary city centre to the next city centre (Edmonton) is some 300 miles; no electric car today can do that. Even travel from the northern limit of Calgary to the southern limit and back exceeds the capacity of pure electric cars. As noted in a post above, even the hybrid Prius is hard put to carry the kids, and their hockey or ski equipment, and is useless if a trip to the cabin or ski run in the mountains is contemplated. I'll stick with my handy, comfortable, all-purpose SUV and, like most people here, don't worry overmuch about gasoline prices. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:01 PM Wrong. Q. The distance is under 200 miles. I hope you don`t like this post; I wasn`t too fond of yours on the copyright thread, either.
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Charmion Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:04 PM In my family, we've been driving four-cylinder VW diesel cars since 1978. The price of diesel runs only a few cents a litre less than gasoline these days (it used to be half), but modern diesel cars can't be beat for cleanliness and fuel efficiency. Also, they start in any weather unless -- of course -- they're completely dead. It will be a fair few years before we see an electric car that will displace our diesel Golf in my affections. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Jan 11 - 02:43 PM OK, 200 miles from Edmonton to Calgary. Still too far, and keeping to the 100-110 km limit requires a lot of energy. Hmmm, 999 = 666 upside down? Never trust a guest. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:03 PM The point isn't to suddenly switch from gasoline to electric for most standard vehicles... it is to provide alternatives for certain uses! There are ways to generate electricity that are cleaner and places to go that are well within 200-300 miles. Why not envision 'more' use of electric vehicles for daily, urban use and renting gas/diesel vehicles for heavy duty and long distance use occasionally? *I* will likely never use one, as I am not likely to be driving in 20 years and cannot afford one at current prices, but 98% of MY driving would suit an electric just fine. Whether and when there will be 'charging stations' or 'battery exchange stations' every 50-75 miles in the future is unclear... but why not? There are many choices that will be made for us in the future about just how much fossil fuel we can find & use, so we'd best keep at the process of working out the alternatives. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:24 PM All the stuff aside, there is a fortune to be made in this. Figure extension cords at even ten cents a foot. At three hundred miles and there being lots of feet in a mile--a word to the wise: BUY STOCK NOW! OK, Joe, I`ll put it to rest. Q is a great researcher and a smart cookie. Q, I apologize. Pax. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Little Robyn Date: 06 Jan 11 - 03:50 PM Forget extension cords - invest in solar batteries and little wind turbine thingies to attach to your car, so you can charge up as you drive. I have a small solar battery sitting on the dashboard - not enough to drive a battery-powered car but enough to stop the battery going dead when I need it. Robyn |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: bobad Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:12 PM Tesla Model S 480 km per charge. Tesla Roadster 394 km per charge. http://www.teslamotors.com/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: GUEST,999 Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:28 PM You folks are doing some serious damage to my stock options. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:29 PM You won't fit many guitars in one of those, but I can get at least 4 plus 5 people in a Volvo estate. Plus mandolin, two bodhrans and songbooks. And street amp if needed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Bobert Date: 06 Jan 11 - 04:37 PM Q, As for electric cars demand not going up when gas hits $4 a gallon??? Last time it did the Toyota Prius sold out across the country and if you wanted to order one it was a 6 month long wait... I know... I was one of those people who went looking fir one... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:20 PM Didn't bother anyone in Canada. Used to $4 plus per gallon (approx.; actually 4 litres here). Wouldn't bother Europeans either. The Chevrolet Volt, scheduled to be marketed nationwide late summer, is list priced at $40,200 base. Gov't incentive a $7500 tax credit. (Tesla roadster good for 200 miles, but costs over $100,000). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Bobert Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:30 PM Bothered USers, Q... Big time!!! BTW, the Tesla is awesome... 0 to 60 in 6 seconds or so... But realistically, the US is behind the Chinese in battery research and development and needs to get on the ball... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 11 - 05:43 PM "...list priced at $40,200 base..." The first TV I bought was in 1953, using money my brother & I saved from our paper route. It was a B&W table model RCA, with only 2 channels available. It cost $350, and my parents couldn't afford one. I would imagine that something will eventually happen to the price of electric cars... IF we see the light and do the research and make more of them. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: saulgoldie Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:10 PM The fact that electric cars are seen by some as a panacea is not surprising. But they shouldn't be. People have to ask the right questions. 1) Where does the electricity come from? It comes from power plants. 2) How do power plants get their energy? In the US, most get it from burning coal. (Eech!) 3) How can people who do not live in single family homes (most people, or at least an awful lot of them) with the capability of charging them at home charge them? They don't. 4) Why is it seen as "normal" or "necessary" for everyone to take 2,000 pounds of metal, rubber and glass with them wherever they go? It isn't. 5) For many people (most?) there are two ways to get around. What are they? Your right leg and your left leg. USE THEM! 6) Whyinthehell aren't we spending more on ways to get more people around in fewer vehicles with more people per vehicle? The oil and auto corporate interests squash such public expenditure efforts whenever and wherever they happen. 7) Why do we need to travel five, ten, twenty thousand miles (or more, much more) in a year? We don't. I maintain that electric cars are "soma" for people who want an easy answer to transportation problems and choose not to ask the tough questions. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:23 PM Gasoline prices in Vancouver, British Columbia- $1.19/litre. 3.8 litres to 1 American gallon. One US gallon in Vancouver = $4.52. Calgary, $0.99 to $1.04/litre for regular One U. S. gallon $3.80 to $3.95. Cheap! Of course regardless of country, most of the cost is tax. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Bill D Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:29 PM Those are good points, saulgoldie... *I* do not claim that "electric cars are ... a panacea ", merely that we 'could' easily have more of them. There are alternate ways to generate electricity...including solar, tidal, nuclear, and as noted, by the car itself as it runs. I predict...(not necessarily approve)... that there WILL be more nuclear plants at some point.... and that solar, even in small applications, will grow a lot. It is hard to really predict details of the future in this complex, overcrowded world, but limits WILL be reached...and in places it will not be pretty or fun. As long as corporate interests can see continued profits in coal and oil, those will be with us....we can only hope that the $$$$$ will be invested toward the day when fuel is $12 a gallon...or more. There are electric vehicles running around every day in some places ...mail trucks...etc. ...but if I were a betting man, I'd but stock in some really innovative bicycle companies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Jan 11 - 06:32 PM Calgary, average commute to work, 8 miles. Pretty long walk. Public transit expansion is governed by aldermen in Calgary. The people vote with their cars. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:22 PM Figure extension cords at even ten cents a foot.... Current price in my area for an extension cord possibly adequate to charge an EV at reasonable rates is now at least $1.48 per foot if you shop around a bit. That does NOT INCLUDE the $300(+?) "SAE/ANSI Standard Connector" on the vehicle end. (I believe the EU has agreed to the connector standard, but would have to search to confirm.) If you want an extension cord that really meets the specifications for charging you can double that "per foot" price. It may also be noted that in the US diesel fuel is now significantly more expensive (per gallon) than all but the most exotic grades of gasoline. The advantage of EVs is that electricity can (for now mostly theoretically) be produced from a variety of sources, so the broader use of it potentially can permit reductions in the use of whatever fuel is considered most evil at any given time. While many people could use EVs effectively, there are a lot of us who require performance that cannot be obtained with the existing ones, and liquid fueled vehicles are our only possible choice, for now and for the foreseeable future. Those outside the US and Canad and not in large metropoliitan areas here have little concept of the distances considered "normal" here. "Anybody can do it because I can" is NOT A VALID ARGUMENT. Extremely little "press" is given to battery hazards, but a look at the number of 3 pound Li-Ion batteries that "spontaneously self distruct" regardless of who made them gives me little inclination to want to sit on top of 1800 pounds of them every time I go to market - for now at least - - but I suppose that's sort of a personal thing. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: saulgoldie Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:28 PM UPS (I think I read somewhere) started with two bicyclists and a horse-drawn carriage. A cyclist represents the most efficient travel with regard to calories burned of ANY moving creature on earth, from snails to panthers. If you think cycling is impractical, you should visit Amsterdam. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Bobert Date: 06 Jan 11 - 07:36 PM I can't over emphasize that while electric cars are part of our future that urban/employer planning will in 50 years be the norm and that better than 80% of the population will live in work/live/play zones where moving people is not as important... This is the way of the future and, yes, within these population zones there will be electric cars... Heck, they may even be generic where the community owns then and you just check one out if you need to transport yerself a couple miles... We already have public bikes so why not public cars... That is the way things are gonna be, like it or not... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Jan 11 - 08:44 PM Brisbane recently started a program for communal shared push cycles around the city area. The cycles are on the ground already. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: saulgoldie Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:25 PM Shared cycles make sense for some. I'll ride my own bike, carefully assembled and sized for myself, and meticulously mechanically maintained. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Richard Bridge Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:49 PM Amsterdam is very short of hills. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: saulgoldie Date: 06 Jan 11 - 09:56 PM Hills, shmills. That's why you have multiple gears. (Thanks to Campagnello, from waaay back in the earlier Tours de France). And we have many unhilly cities where bicycles are little used and receive great hostility among four-wheeled motorists. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 06 Jan 11 - 10:02 PM Hydrogen, anyone? No one in Alberta is going to ride a bicycle at 30 below. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Donuel Date: 06 Jan 11 - 11:10 PM Panasonic is producing a Silicon Point battery 30 to 70 longer lasting than Lithium hydride batteries.. Some of the backing customers are; Tesla, Toyota and others. The battery is being made in Japan and South Korea. PS there is a very good opportunity to invest in Panasonic because of this development. word to the wise/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Jan 11 - 12:25 AM Brisbane has hills ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Black belt caterpillar wrestler Date: 07 Jan 11 - 07:49 AM I'm not happy on a bike (could be associated with why I don't like dancing either), so it would have to be a trike. I can't sit in a normal bike riding posture for too long either as the back can't stand it. Also I have a 1,100 foot difference in height between home and work as well as the distance! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Keith A of Hertford Date: 07 Jan 11 - 09:06 AM In UK, we have barely sufficient power and real concerns over being able to meet demand over the next 5 years. If large numbers of people switched to electric cars, the supply would fail. It would take decades to provide the extra capacity.(Double? Quadruple?) Hydrogen is great, but there is none. What we have is derived from petroleum. In most of our lifetimes, it would be impossible to produce it in quantities comparable to current oil production. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: GUEST,Doc John Date: 07 Jan 11 - 10:46 AM Good point made earlier: electricity is not a fuel but a method of transferring energy. Another point: how do you heat an electric car? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Jan 11 - 01:26 PM The silicon anode (with nannowires) was developed by Yi Cui and colleagues at Stanford University. A fuller silicon anode was developed by Rice University's Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering Dept. in collaboration with scientists at Lockheed Martin Nannotechnology Center, much superior to the nannowire technology. Several companies will take advantage of the technology. Panasonic will use a silicon-alloy technology; not certain of the details, but it adds weight to the assembly (too much for cars?). The battery will be first installed in laptop computers. Use in electric cars is some years off. Guening (China) is pioneering a sodium silicate electrolyte. There will be many competing advances in the years ahead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jan 11 - 03:00 PM There will be many competing advances in the years ahead. There is considerable reason to have reservations about the predictions of "grand advances" in the time frames most of the optimists predict. If you change "years" to "decades" the predictions are a little more likely to have elements of truth; but there's no real expectation that many of the "miracles" now in the labs won't require more like a century to displace simpler ones that can be expected to have shorter gestation. (About the same time it took UPS to evolve from a couple of bicycles to fleets of trucks and planes?) I worked with a company in 1968 that was then attempting to develope a "hydrogen fueled" car, using Hydride storage. They built a prototyps, and played with it for at least 10 years (that I know of) but never approached making it a "market ready" idea, much less a product. Hydride storage was still touted as viable until about ten years ago, but most people in the vehicle industry now consider it unlikely ever to be marketable, so after 50 years what was once considered a leading contender is now a dead and stinking corpse. Around the same time (early 1970s) there were grand predictions for "flywheel storage," and at least one city operated a small fleet of hybrid buses for a while to try them out. It doesn't appear that anyone still believes in that concept. There are some dozen or two "new batteries" (that I know of) that may offer some prospect of useful development, but none is within a couple of decades (or more) of being scaled from laboratory size to useful size. (No contract has ever been completed on schedule or on budget, and no research program is ever completed before the funding runs out - it's a rule.) The Lithium Ion battery is about the only thing available now with useful energy density. The slightly inferior storage density of a couple of other battery types can be accomodated in vehicle design, but result in a much heavier vehicle with lower overall efficiency. All currently available battery types have signficant environmental impacts that are mostly ignored in the interest of "bottom lines" and consumer disinterest. Lithium also is a "critical material" that may actually require(?) more aggressive "protection of sources" than is now seen for petro products if significant numbers of vehicles are placed in service using that technology. Several of the posited technologies involve "nano" technology. While bringing the "batteries" to market is a huge step, there is also the need to advance knowledge of the hazards of nano materials, both in use and manufacture, but also through the whole cycle of recycling(??), disposal, and decay/deactivation. It currently is not known whether these materials represent a large hazard, but some people suspect they could be at least as dangerous as the heavy metals and/or lithium used in existing batteries. We need to know a whole lot more about the environmental impacts of tossing them into the landfills before they're made ubiquitous. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 07 Jan 11 - 04:17 PM The silicon anode lithium ion battery will be marketed in 2012 by Panasonic; but the largest size is for a laptop. Anything in the size and type needed for cars is, as John indicates, some time in the 'future'. Panasonic is working with Tesla for the next generation of that car (present range 244 miles for that small sports model), which will continue to be well over $100,000 in cost. The program may be delayed beyond the next generation, if not developed in time. Chevrolet and others will continue to work on their electric inner city models, but useful distance ranges are not forseen for many years. (Above from several reports on the net). Petroleum will continue to be the main fuel source for vehicles for at least the next 30 years, as pointed out in other threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jan 11 - 05:36 PM The test program for a prototype fleet of local buses back in the 70s (IIRC), storing "recaptured" energy in flywheels, showed some potential savings, but savings were not sufficient to justify the costs of producing more vehicles of the kind, and experience with the high energy flywheels was "immature" so potential effects of catastrophic failures presented significant unknowns (and liabilities). There has been sufficient improvement in batteries to permit somewhat similar "regenerative charging" in hybrid vehicles, and they might be a best immediate path for development. With an IC engine on board, and a reasonable liquid fuel supply, range problems are minimized, and although the batteries add a significant weight penalty, the storage capacity required to improve overall efficiency is much smaller than for an all-electric vehicle, so a significant weight penalty can be traded off for a significant improvement in fuel "onboard consumption." The problem is to "define significant" in both cases, and to make sure the "bigger significant" is on the right side of the equation. As someone mentioned earlier, places where there is an existing population density appropriate for all-electric transportation often lack the "parking space" needed for recharging, while in current areas where "most people" have a garage or at least an off-street driveway the commuting distances often are a bit off optimum for using the all-electric vehicles. The hybrid vehicles, except for current costs**, could make more efficient transportation possible for quite a few people in some of the more dispersed areas. ** "Cost" must include consideration of the subsidies currently paid by the manufacturers in order to get people into the hybrids. Even at the prices at which they're available, the driver isn't generally paying the current cost of producing one. While it gets a little complex, "scale factors" indicate a maximum vehicle size beyond which the weight of the batteries requires all the energy they can store just to transport the batteries. I would forsee a very long development period before any all-electric vehicle will be practical for towing even a fairly small trailer, or of carrying cargo of more than a few hundred pounds. Getting people from one place to another isn't the only transportation problem that needs better solutions. Examined realistically, heavy transport vehicles have arguably been improved in efficiency by quite a bit more than smaller kinds of transport, but there still is no "electric" solution remotely feasible for moving 80,000 pounds of deliverable payload 500 miles per day. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Electric cars From: GUEST,Jim Martin Date: 08 Jan 11 - 05:29 AM Looks like Renault must be onto something: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/07/renault-france-china-spying-link |
