Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation Power Technology

Americans Refusing To Wait For Mainstream EVs 779

hazehead writes "The growing trend of folks refusing to wait for big-car manufacturers to deliver mainstream electric vehicles is starting to get some press. From DIY tinkerers in Atlanta trying to keep money from going overseas (or simply from leaving their wallets) to a guy in Oregon building an open source Civic conversion kit, Americans are taking energy policy in their own grease-stained hands."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Americans Refusing To Wait For Mainstream EVs

Comments Filter:
  • by wizardforce ( 1005805 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:01PM (#24602429) Journal
    shifting the source of power from an inefficient source to a more efficient one is an improvement. most cars average around 20% efficiency while even coal plants get around 35%. That and the fact that not all of our power comes from coal, that is nuclear, hydro, natural gas etc.
  • Conversion Kits (Score:4, Informative)

    by janeuner ( 815461 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:05PM (#24602509)
  • Re:Cost Effective? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Thornburg ( 264444 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:06PM (#24602533)

    Read more carefully, the $12,000 included the truck itself.

  • by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:07PM (#24602553)

    It's the concept of "waste" heat you see.

     

  • Depends on the area (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:08PM (#24602587)

    There are quite a few folks in the Seattle area tooling around in home-brew electrics, including a co-worker of mine who's done a nice job with a Miata. There are two local factors that encourage this. One is that, being in Boeing's backyard, it's fairly easy to obtain a surplus jet-engine starter motor. The other is that most of our electricity comes from falling water, and therefore is relatively cheap.

  • Re:$12k?! (Score:5, Informative)

    by clonan ( 64380 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:16PM (#24602715)

    Umm...RTFA!

    The $12,000 INCLUDED the truck. The truck probably ran around $7,000. So $5000 saved $700 in 6 months. At $1400 a year we are looking at 3.6 years. in addition EV's typcially cost 50% to run outside of the cost of fuel. Since he would probably spend around $1000 a year for repairs on the truck, the actual savings are $1900 a year for about 2.5 years.

    Electic Vehicles are about break-even for city driving/daily commutes. In the next 2 years the power storage will increase and become cheaper pushing EV's into the financial smart move category.

  • by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:18PM (#24602755) Homepage

    Also consider that most electric cars will recharge overnight, and during other "non-peak" hours. This also helps improve the efficiency of the power generation station.

  • by Crazy Man on Fire ( 153457 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:20PM (#24602801) Homepage

    Batteries can be recycled. Today, you pay more for your new lead acid car battery unless you turn in your old one. You get a pretty considerable discount when turning in an old one, which gets recycled into more car batteries. I think there's something like a 90% recycling rate for car batteries as a result.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery#Environmental_concerns [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:Conversion Kits (Score:3, Informative)

    by Bombula ( 670389 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:24PM (#24602851)
    Lots of good info on converting the American Prius to a PHEV (plug-in hybrid EV) here [eaa-phev.org], along with lots of other related DIY projects and conversion kits if you click around the site.
  • Re:$12k?! (Score:3, Informative)

    by eldepeche ( 854916 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:25PM (#24602875)
    1. $12k includes the price of the truck.
    2. According to this, [fueleconomy.gov] his truck would get 16 mpg, not 25.
  • by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:25PM (#24602877)
    Or, it'll just be like that guy who designed the intermittent windshield wiper, and the car company will steal their ideas out from under them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:26PM (#24602901)

    There are a myriad of other problems that arise, 10 years down the line you'll need a new set of batteries and what do you do with the old ones?

    Recycle them [wikipedia.org]. Lead acid battery recycling is one of the most successful recycling programs in the US - 97% according to the Wiki article. Further, I have seen statements (no reference, sorry) that recycled lead is cheaper/cleaner than mined lead.

    I can't comment on other battery technologies, but I don't see why similar results couldn't be achieved.

  • by Banekartr ( 1058752 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:32PM (#24603043)
    According to the U.S. Department of Energy (in 2003)... Oil Demand by Sector: Transportation 68% Industrial 23% Residential 4% Electricity Generation 3% Commercial 2% The US does not depend on oil for electricity. The US creates 49% of its electricity from coal, 19.4% nuclear, 20% natural gas, and 7% hydroelectric. The left over is made in other ways, but only 1.6% of the power generated in the US is actually produced from OIL. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html [doe.gov] Priority 1 here should be energy independence with transportation, based on the numbers. Our ability to create electricity has almost nothing to do with oil.
  • by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:33PM (#24603047)

    On Ni-MH batteries in 1996.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solectria_Sunrise [wikipedia.org]

    That's close to twice the range of my petrol car.
     

  • by claymore1977 ( 1343153 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:34PM (#24603071)
    A tank of hydrogen can store more energy than an equivalent sized battery, so in that right, the H2 concept is more viable. However, in addition to the H2 generation being much less efficient, its also very unsafe to be driving around with a tank full of highly exlposive gas... so in that right, the electric is more viable.

    In the long run, electric will be the better choice. We can get electricity from a number of sources, which abstracts that away from the engineering of the vehicle. An h2 powered car will have significantly fewer of sources (aka naturally occurring, electrolysis, byproducts from fission events)

    Just my $0.02
  • Re:Not true (Score:3, Informative)

    by sm62704 ( 957197 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:35PM (#24603091) Journal

    Gas engines are at best about 30% efficient... as in only 30% of the energy consumed actually goes to making momentum for moving the car.

    And every time you touch the brake pedal, your efficiencey goes down even farther, as you just converted the momentum that you converted that 30% of your gasoline to, to waste heat.

    Nothing drags your mileage down like stop signs, tailgating, and not taking your foot off the accelerator when the light ahead is red.

    That's one plus for a hybrid - rather than its brakes converting momentum to heat, it recycles it by converting it back to electricity, which can be reconverted to momentum.

  • Serious answer (Score:4, Informative)

    by Kupfernigk ( 1190345 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:42PM (#24603219)
    (my first post on an MSI Wind, and worth waiting for. It is so nice to have a proper keyboard, and the screen is better than I expected.)

    The job of the injector is to provide a metered supply of fuel, so the nearest answer is probably the plug, not the wire. High current connectors are not trivial to implement - the Vectrix scooter had a recall because of a problem in this area. But, generally speaking, it is the metering system - the controller - that is the major technical challenge of an EV. Because the batteries are available, if expensive, the brushless motors are available (and really solid proven technology), but connecting the two together is hard. The Vectrix has an advanced controller that allows regenerative braking, as do some hybrid cars, and effective regen is a major factor in mileage. The controller needs to be extremely efficient to avoid wasting lots of energy as heat, it needs to be very reliable and durable, and it needs to function correctly under many load conditions. In fact, I would submit that the sheer technical cleverness of modern motor controllers is what makes EVs possible on modern roads. If you had to start one like a tram, moving a huge brass switrch bar across a resistor bank to prevent the motor shorting before it ran up to speed, they would be impossible to commercialise.

  • by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:43PM (#24603221) Journal
    Where are you getting these numbers from? Wikipedia says:

    Even when aided with turbochargers and stock efficiency aids, most engines retain an average efficiency of about 18%-20%.

    In contrast, is says this about fossil fuel powerplants:

    Subcritical fossil fuel power plants can achieve 36â"40% efficiency. Supercritical designs have efficiencies in the low to mid 40% range, with new "ultra critical" designs using pressures of 4,400 psi (30 MPa) and dual stage reheat reaching about 48% efficiency

    Your coal plant is getting around double the efficiency of the ICE. Not sure about the other losses, but I'd be really surprised if you're losing 80% of the energy in the grid as you claim - figures I remember from school were closer to 95% efficiency. If your electric motor is 50% efficient, it's about even with an ICE.

    And this is assuming that all of your power is generated from fossil fuels. If some is from solar, wind, hydroelectric, or nuclear, then you've got a net decrease in fossil fuel consumption and you've moved the pollution away from population centres.

  • by Thelasko ( 1196535 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:43PM (#24603235) Journal

    Eventually all biofuels (including old frying oil) will be subject to fuel taxes and they want to be sure that it all flows through "legitimate businesses" that they can compell to collect the taxes for them.

    What do you mean "eventually?" [newsobserver.com]

  • by rah1420 ( 234198 ) <rah1420@gmail.com> on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:45PM (#24603265)

    I have heard of EVs charged a higher registration fee to at least partially compensate for the fact that they do not consume taxed petroleum fuel.

    I don't have citations, but there are 50 different possible ways this is being implemented, so check with your DMV if you are curious (as am I.)

  • Re:yes it does (Score:2, Informative)

    by sabre3999 ( 1143017 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @02:53PM (#24603419)
    I've also heard there's so much red tape bureaucracy to get through in order to build a nuclear power plant, that it becomes very expensive due to specifications changing and redesigns being needed to comply even before the construction starts. Seems like I saw somewhere that one of the new plants coming up here in the US took like 10 years or something ridiculous to make it through the paperwork and design stages.
  • by spaceyhackerlady ( 462530 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @03:00PM (#24603533)

    We have an active electric vehicle group [veva.bc.ca] here in Vancouver. Their cars are almost all DIY conversions. We don't have Boeing jet engine starter motors, but we have an active group and cheap electricity.

    The cars are all usable on the road, 100+ km/h top speed, none of this golf cart neighbourhood vehicle nonsense. The range varies from 70 km per charge for lead acid batteries to 200+ km per charge for the fancy stuff. Since my commute is 10 km each way, I have followed this with interest.

    ...laura

  • by Amouth ( 879122 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @03:02PM (#24603561)

    they already do this in some places - i live in NC and here you can get a time of use meter - which does exactly what you are asking for.. we get reallllllllly cheap off peak power and we pay higher than normal for peak times.

    mix that with our dish washer and washer/drier that has a wailt x hours ability.. and we just load it up and have them run at 2am

    doing this (along with setting comps to go standby while we are at work and wake up before we get home) dropped our power bill from about 250 to ~120$ a month..

  • by AndersOSU ( 873247 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @03:11PM (#24603711)

    Holy cognitive dissonance.

    Yes, efficiency, as measured by MPG would go up without a cat. However, it's quite a leap of (il)logic to conclude that they'd have better emissions without. Are you really saying that a cat INCREASES emissions? If it were physically possible to get reasonable power and stop the increased NOx formation that happens in lean situations, we'd be doing it. Cats are expensive, and cat's aren't actually required per se, its just that there are no known superior processes for reducing NOx emissions.

    Also the bit about the cat not getting hot enough is nonsense. My car has three cats - which is a bit crazy - but the first cat is really only works during start-up until it gets too hot.

  • by jriding ( 1076733 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @03:16PM (#24603809)

    Actually they are working on and perfecting solar powered refueling stations. http://www.hydrogencarsnow.com/home-hydrogen-fueling-stations.htm [hydrogencarsnow.com]

    Once that is in play the hydrogen cars are the perfect solution.

  • by init100 ( 915886 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @03:21PM (#24603923)

    Good point, but even H2 cells used for electricity generation can explode, albeit not under normal operations. Its still H2 afterall.

    Hydrogen cannot explode by itself, it needs oxygen and an ignition source. Thus, it is no less safe than using gasoline, and people do not seem to object to using that. And even batteries can explode, as some laptop owners had the bad luck to experience.

  • Re:$12k ain't cheap (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14, 2008 @03:39PM (#24604319)

    Idiot. The $12,000 covers the price of the truck PLUS modifications. I wish people would actually read the damn article for once.

  • by RJFerret ( 1279530 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @03:43PM (#24604413)

    Aside from the cost savings, efficiencies and other benefits already mentioned, the electric car I rode in back around 1990 was wonderful for more reasons.

    - silent, no noise pollution, just wind noise
    - no shifting, the better torque allowed it to be driven in one gear
    - no idling, it only is "on" using power when accelerating, otherwise completely off
    - regenerative braking, actually GAIN power instead of wasting energy slowing
    - less maintenance/cost, no oil changes, no cooling system, fuel injection, ignition system, clutch, timing belts
    - never stop at a refilling station again or ever "run low" between fill ups, basically have a "full tank" at the start of every day

  • Re:$12k?! (Score:3, Informative)

    by clonan ( 64380 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @03:47PM (#24604481)

    I am looking forward to hearing more about eestor.

    52 KW-h at 400 lbs and $3200

    They claim units will be shiped early next year...

  • by SolusSD ( 680489 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @04:39PM (#24605489) Homepage
    You are failing to take into account the efficiency of an electric motor vs a gasoline engine. An example is something like the Chevy Volt, which has a gas powered electric generator to drive the electric motor after the batteries are dead. Burning a gallon of has in a similarly sized care would get you around 25mpg city, the Volt will get ~60mpg when burning gas to generate electricity for the electric motor. Move the electricity generation to a large coal fire plant and even then it is much more efficient than burning gas in your car. Mile for mile you are putting less CO2 into the atmosphere w/ electric cars.
  • Re:yes it does (Score:5, Informative)

    by loshwomp ( 468955 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @05:20PM (#24606191)

    [EVs] can still be extremely useful for the other 90% of us in the meantime.

    So how do you enjoy your EV? (I thought so)

    I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. I drive our EV several times per week, and we love it. In the past 18 months there were exactly two times that its 100-mile range wasn't adequate. The first time, we just used our gas car, which we've since sold. The second time we traded cars with a neighbor. The EV is powerful, efficient, and fun to drive, so we have about a dozen friends who are happy to trade cars for a week if we need to take a long trip.

    Hope that answers your question.

  • by sdpuppy ( 898535 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @06:18PM (#24607185)

    Also note that volts alone don't kill, it's combination of volts+amps.

    Grrr - Not really.

    If you had to grip two ends of a power supply would you rather grip the 12V PS with a current capability of 10000 amps or the 1000 V power supply with maximum current of 20 mA ?

    hint V=IR where R is your resistance which is usually in the meg ohm region. It takes only a few mA to fry you.
    or more accurately: If R1 is your resistance and R2 is the internal resistance of the power supply (approx: R2 = Vps/Ips Vps = open circuit voltage of PS, Ips = current capability of PS) then Vps = I ( R2 + R1) : again current "I" here has to be less than the fry value.

    Of course if you had a power supply of many thousands of volts but current level capability is well under the value to interfere with your biological systems (Ven Der Graff (sp?)) generator - well it would be a hair raising experience but thats about it... Such a power source would have not applicability to EV. If there is a possibility of someone coming in contact with the PS, voltages need to be keep below the threshold that would pump more than a couple mA thorough a person. Of course this could be gotten around by having various protections if higher voltages are used.

  • by jmichaelg ( 148257 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @06:23PM (#24607265) Journal

    You're citing businesses trying to block alternative approaches.

    If you really want to see a mess, take a look at Compressed Natural Gas. Used to be you could convert your truck/car/bus whatever to run on natural gas/gasoline. When you burn natural gas, it burns cleaner than gasoline and is cheaper than gasoline. Right now, CNG is going for under a buck/gallon in Oklahoma, $2.60 in California.

    The EPA and the California Air Resources Board, for reasons unexplained, decided to regulate conversion companies out of existence. EPA started out by mandating that companies that manufacture the retro-fit kits get their kits tested for each and every car model it was being installed on. Smog test wasn't good enough, it had to be a special $40,000 EPA test. California, not wanting to be left out, upped the test fee to $300,000. *EVERY* US kit manufacturer threw in the towel on the domestic market. The costs of the testing put the costs of the kits up so high that no one would buy them. The only way the remaining manufacturers stay in business is exporting kits to other regions of the world like Europe and South America. European countries only require that the engine has a regular smog test after the install to verify the kit is properly installed and functioning correctly. If you happen to find a kit [ebay.com], you don't dare install it in California because the cops will confiscate your car.

    We have enough domestic natural gas to run every car in the United States for 100 years. We're the Saudi Arabia of natural gas and we can't use it except to cook and make electricity.

    It's damn stupid.

  • by statemachine ( 840641 ) on Thursday August 14, 2008 @09:14PM (#24609327)

    Greenies are so afraid of nuke plants that they blocked any being built for quite some time.

    Blocked in part because the glowies were blind to the problems of the reactors at the time and the problems of scalding hot water discharge that destroyed the surrounding water ecosystems, as well as the fishkill from the intakes. And there was always the issue of cost -- states would rather build coal plants because it had cheaper rates! Much on those fronts has been solved today, but a lot of that resistance was well-founded. Now that nuclear is becoming more responsible and more mature, you'll see (and are seeing) less resistance.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 14, 2008 @11:28PM (#24610429)
    read the italicized portion of gp's post more closely.... he was making a joke about hasoline. dont overreact.
  • by pivot_enabled ( 188987 ) on Friday August 15, 2008 @12:06AM (#24610723)

    Clearly you don't. The simplest definition would be that your rights end at my nose. Or to put it another way a Libertarian is very likely to support the logic of emmision controls that work because you DONT have the right to produce nox that I (a libertarian) might be forced to breath to my detriment. As a libertarian this also means that I don't care to impose my will unduly on your wallet, and I am wholly uninterested in what you do in your bedroom. Libertarianism is practically the definition of logic. It is the antidote to the Red / Blue stupidity which has consumed this country.

  • Re:Cost Effective? (Score:3, Informative)

    by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Friday August 15, 2008 @12:51AM (#24611013) Journal

    $3.24 worth where I live, which is actually a little less than the price of a gasoline where I live. And the gap is currently closing from both ends.

    Can't say any more until we know the full process efficiency of the electric.

  • by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Friday August 15, 2008 @01:09AM (#24611131) Homepage Journal

    By 70,000 miles, my Ford Windstar had already had to have the intake torn down and cleaned due to a flawed valve cover design sucking oil through the EGR hose (emissions control crap) clogging the vacuum lines, causing the computer to adjust the fuel mixture incorrectly and show a Check Engine light. The overdrive off light started blinking periodically due to a solenoid problem in the automatic transmission. It also had a faulty switch on the air conditioner that caused the rear air to randomly turn on and off. Several replaced bulbs. Recall for something wrong with the fan controller for the rear heat or something, recall for overheating wiper motor, recall for two or three other things. Problem with the suspension system causes a rubber boot to rub against something under there and make noise. Oh, and then there was the fuel line that blew off the back of the fuel filter while I was driving down the road. I'm sure if I thought about it long enough, I could list plenty of other problems.

    Okay, so maybe that qualifies it as not a "decently made car", but nearly 100% of the problems I've had with my vehicle stem from actual problems with the drive train, and the bulk of those stem from emissions control hardware.

    Don't tell me these modern engines are a dream. They can be great, but so could engines 20 years ago. The difference is that now there are a lot more things that can go wrong because of all the complexity of the emissions control system, and that when things go wrong, they often go cataclysmically wrong.

  • by savuporo ( 658486 ) on Friday August 15, 2008 @06:18AM (#24612547)
    ::EVs are presently about as efficient, overall as IC-powered vehicles.

    Actually they are a fair bit better in well-to-wheels efficiency, even with electricity from coal power.
    Tesla published a whitepaper on their site, unfortunately theirs is taken down for an update, a working link is still here
    http://me222.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/twentyfirstcenturycar.pdf [wordpress.com]

    Now coming from an EV manufacturer, that may not be the most trustworthy source, so i encourage you to go to Michelin Challenge Bibendum site to dig out their reports.

    Link here

    http://www.challengebibendum.com/challengeBib/AfficheServlet?Rubrique=20080611093557&Langue=EN [challengebibendum.com]

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...