Electric Car Bests Ferrari F550 In 0-60mph 357
Mind Mage writes: "It finally seems that electric cars are becoming worthy of consideration for performance automotive enthusiasts. Here's a link to an L.A. Times article describing AC Propulsion's new electric 'sports car.' The T-zero does 0-60 in 4.1 seconds and pulls .88G on skid pad tests. The manufacturer's web side has some Quick Time movies of the T-zero drag racing a Porsche 911-4, a Corvette, and the F550. I wonder how many 1/8 mile drag runs the T-zero can sustain before having to recharge the battery?" Electric car racing isn't new, but seems to be making faster strides than ye olde (and formidable) internal combustion engine.
Re:I'd buy an electric car... (Score:2)
You misunderstand. I don't want to REPLACE my engine. I want an ADDITIONAL 30hp.
I'm suggesting a motor that straps onto the driveshaft to assist the dinosaur burner. That way you jump from 170 to 200 for a somewhat average vehicle. No, it's not an incredible jump. But it would save a lot of that energy used to stop a vehicle into energy used to accelerate it. The main benefit is fuel economy, with some secondary performance enhancements to boot.
Re:I'd buy an electric car... (Score:2)
You misunderstand. I don't want to REPLACE my engine. I want an ADDITIONAL 30hp.
I'm suggesting a motor that straps onto the driveshaft to assist the dinosaur burner. That way you jump from 170 to 200 for a somewhat average vehicle. No, it's not an incredible jump. But it would save a lot of that energy used to stop a vehicle into energy used to accelerate it. The main benefit is fuel economy, with some secondary performance enhancements to boot.
Re:I'd buy an electric car... (Score:2)
http://www.bmwm5.com
Re:Not just moving polution (Score:2)
Sheldon seems to be just another well meaning yet deluded fool in thinking that 'out-of-sight, out-of-mind' will suffice to allow Canadian citizens all manner of 'guilt free driving'.
too bad really, because the sooner we start taking this situation seriously, the sooner we can start solving the problems.
Re:Not necessarily environmentally friendly (Score:2)
Oh, shut the FUCK UP. Every time an electric car article comes up on
And how about noise, jackass. Every electric I've ever heard ran at a quiet hum, compared to the rattle put out by the average unmaintained fossil fuel spewing junk heap that most people drive around in.
And what about future possibilities? The future promise cheaper, more efficient PV cells that could be integrated into an electric car so that there will be an advantage to letting my PV covered vehicle sit in that hot parking lot all day. I may only get half a charge before quitting time, but it would be a free fill-up. How would a convential vehicle take advantage of all that 0-emissions sunlight?
So take your tired arguments and go find someone who hasn't heard it. Maybe they'll listen to you.
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:4)
The biggest problems come from the smaller (relatively) oil companies that do the actual exploration/drilling/etc. They are not large enough to be diversified, and they must keep the "oil dependency" in order to survive. Ask George W. about it.
I'm not a fan of large corporations, but the big guys are well aware of the limited supply, and are putting a lot of money into other systems/fuels. They win either way, and so they're relatively neutral in the fight. We need to watch out for the 2nd tier corporations and their buddies. They're less well known, and consequently are able to avoid public scrutiny, while they pay off politicians and buy barrelfulls of lobbyists.
Re:Not just moving polution (Score:4)
Yeah, until another dam is required, at which point another river is blocked and several more square miles of land are put underwater, etc
Hydro is nice and it doesn't pollute, but it has its drawbacks, make no mistake. Also, individual cars can still be more or less efficient in their use and storage of electricity (but wouldn't be as bad as gas)
--
How about the Honda Insight? (Score:2)
Acceleration: Dunno, but it's probably reasonable ^^
Top speed: It'll do at least freeway speeds!
Good looking: Yes! It looks like a streamlined old school Honda Civic!
Reasonable range: Yes! 10.6 gallons, 60mpg == 600 m, ~100,000km range!)
Recharge time: Braking regenerative charging, as well as fuel assisted...
Reasonable price tag: Yes! $24k
Your 'only' tradeoff is that there is a gas tank, and that you get the 'burden' of having to visit the pump every 100,000km...
Geek dating! [bunnyhop.com]
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
You couldn't be more right. I heard that back when L.A. was just a town, the city board recognized that it would be a megatropolis in the future, and were deciding what to invest in: public transit systems (trams, trains, etc) or building lots of highways. There were oil tycoons on the board and other executive positions, so you can guess which one we got.
Now, we have 2 hour waits to drive 20 miles on the 405, and air quality went to shit (although it has improved dramatically of late, and we are now cleaner than a lot of other big cities.)
It's a damn shame that in this country, decisions are made base on lobbyers (sp?) and not based on whats right.
--
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
Actually that's not true -- some if not all of these companies are starting to move in the direction of alternative energy sources already. Recent BP ads refer to the company not as "British Petroleum", but as "Beyond Petroleum", the implication being that the writing is on the wall, oil supplies are being exhausted, and they're preparing for a day when their major product will be Something Else. This is a Good Thing.
As noted repeatedly in this thread, by myself & others, this is a red herring. Pollution is displaced, yes, but it is displaced to a place where it is far easier to manage. There are a host of reasons why it's better to draw power from a centralized plant rather than millions of dirty little engines, and the sooner we can get to such a point, the better.
Maybe, I'm not sure. This is just speculation on my part, but my instinct is that the environment can probably as a rule better withstand a low level shock everywhere than an intense shock at certain localized points.
That is, if the level of say CO2 goes up everywhere by some small amount, say half a percent, then the global plant population can probably absorb that without too much trouble. On the other hand, if all of that is dumped into a 50% increase in, say, New Jersey, with basically no increase anywhere else, then I suspect New Jersey is basically screwed. (Anyone that has driven down the NJ Turnpike near Newark can verify this has already happened... :). If that point of acute damage to one place is then followed by a low level increase as in scenario one, the damaged area probably won't be able to handle the load as it would have otherwise.
But like I say, this is all speculation on my part, and I welcome sources that can back up or refute the hypothesis.
In any event, I don't think that would be a very big problem if electric cars were to catch on. The pollution is getting centralized, but probably not to the point that it would cause that much of a shock, especially considering previous points about power plant scrubbers and what have you. Given the choice between 150 million nasty gasoline cars and the same number of electic ones complemented with a few thousand power plants, I'd eagerly take the latter.
Re:talk about comparing apples to oranges (Score:3)
Having an engine that can't be shifted isn't exactly what I'd call an advantage, unless you think that your car would work better in 4th gear all the time.
The reason it IS so fast is the powerband of the electric motor. Unlike petrol based engines that have a nice rounded powerband, electric motors reach their peak torque quickly. Not only that, but they hold that torque across the powerband. The other reason is that the drivetrain is more efficient than what'd you find on a typical petrol powered car.
Compared to an equal sized car with similar "paper" numbers, this car IS amazingly fast. The closest thing you can probably come to it on paper is the S2000, which makes 200hp and only weighs 200lbs more. It reaches 60 nearly 2 seconds faster.
The fact that the car can only be driven 100 miles at 60mph is rather prominately stated on their website. It's not like they try and hide that fact from you.
Range: No EV is going to deliver great range. They don't need to either, because you can't recharge them in a reasonable amount of time (5 minutes). What does this mean? No cross country trips. So you're "stuck" driving it around town. How many people in this country actually drive more than 100 miles in a day, around town. You'll find that people who do WON'T be driving this car (real-estate agents, for example). As a person who drives a LOT every day, a 100 mile range isn't unreasonable.
People also need to stop thinking about electric cars compared to normal gas cars. Just because you can go 2 weeks without stopping by a gas station doesn't mean you need an EV to do the same.
0.88g on the skidpad is also rather respectable. It isn't very good compared to the F550, but it's right there with most other cars in the "sport" class.
The reason why this car is a big deal is that it helps eliminate the stereotype that electric cars are slugs. If you want an EV that can give a Diablo a run for it's money you can have one.
psssh. (Score:2)
:::
Vaginux.
Re:I'd buy an electric car... (Score:2)
driveline losses for 2wd systems are typically 10-20%, most people just say 15%. if you dont beleive, me, go have your car dyno'd.
furthermore, the transmission/clutch assembly is not where all the losses occur, putting 30hp at the front of the driveshaft would still subject you to the losses of the driveshaft, coupllings, and more importantly the differential. Why do you think performance vehicles have temperature senders for differential fluids ? Because they turn some of your hard earned power into heat (and tiny metal filings
even in a perfect system, 30hp to the tires themselves would be a useless vehicle. even motorcycles deliver more power to the road.
this car is interesting because they're actually getting respectable performance out of it. im examining this site to see where they're "cheating". if they could make a 3500 pound electric vehicle that ran under 8 seconds for 0-60, seated 4, and had a 100mile range, then that'd be something. that'd be your average lame sedan. afaik, No one has made that car yet. once you start going to electrics, you need small, light, cheap, flimsy vehicles.
I'll never drive anything that looks/handles/performs like a geo metro just because it runs on batteries. They can't even make laptops run a long time on batteries
Re:The Ferrari is the one with the advantage... (Score:2)
The body on the car isn't there just to make it look like a car; it's covering the batteries too. They made a mention on their site about how that it isn't a pain to replace any of the batteries should it ever be required.
You can't hide all 1200lbs of that right at the wheels though, even if you tried. For what it's worth they distributed the batteries to produce something like a 45/55 weight ratio, if I recall correctly.
My current car pulls 0.87g's on the skidpad. It is definately enough force to throw you around the car through a turn.
Re:Not just moving polution (Score:2)
But even with that aside, electric cars themselves create quite a lot of polution. Electric cars are filled with batteries which contain highly toxic and dangerous pollutants (heavy metals). These batteries have to be replaced every 2-3 years, and are also prone to leak (significant even for small leaks). My understanding is that the single battery in current cars causes significant pollution already.
I would be very interested to see an impartial and complete rundown of the environmental impact of electric vs. gasoline cars. (Combined with stats on buses, trains, hybrids, bicycles, and other transportations would be even more interesting) Mostly I've just seen highly partial statistics, and statistics in regards to pollution seem particularly easily manipulated. Very possibly electric cars could be the most environmentally safe, but I'm not convinced of that yet.
Re:Will it jive with enthusiasts? (Score:2)
Very likely they wouldn't be noticed on an electric, as long as it has a decent range. When the cells run try, we'll charge 'em up and not think that we went 10 kms less between charges.
Please reference a thermodynamics textbook! (Score:5)
Don't get too excited. All an electric car does is moves the power generation from the inside of your car to a powerplant outside your city, which probably produces more pollution by burning coal. Better car performance is cool, but this doesn't have any environmental benefits.
Please don't spread completely incorrect assumptions like this around here. You're wrong. Let's say you have a 100MW coal-fired generating station. The average output of a good-sized car engine is about 200kW or so (that might be a little bit on the high side). If you think that 500 large car engines running flat out are a better bet than a properly running plant with a turbine, I have a bridge to sell you. Not only from an emissions standpoint - but there's lubricants, replacement parts, lifetimes - that plant is probably good for 50 years - how many 1950's engines you going to run flat out for 50 years? This translates into bigtime savings in emissions and environmental pollution elsewhere. And that's coal - some of the messiest. There's lots of surplus hydro power in Canada - but you gotta get it from us Canucks. Keep suckin back the juice so my taxes will go down! :)
ELECTRIC CARS HAVE LOTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS. The problem is getting a battery technology that lasts long enough to be cost effective, or getting fuel cells to have the outputs required to make them cost effective. A properly designed electric motor will run as long as it's OWNER if it's kept within it's temperature specs - and you can overclock motors, too :) - compare that with your average ICE GM product.
I suppose you drive a SUV and think it's safer, too. (Sorry, couldn't resist. That was uncalled for :).
Re:Not necessarily environmentally friendly (Score:2)
I hope not either, because you're not entirely correct. Moving to electric vehicles does have the problem of simply displacing the pollution to a centralized point, but generally that plant is going to be cleaner than personal vehicles could ever be. Even if it is a coal plant, there will be scrubbers that do a better job of cleaning up the by-products than can generally be done on cars.
When moving to electric vehicles & centralized power production, economies of scale are on your side. The dirtiest engines today are, perhaps surprisingly, the smallest ones out there: lawnmowers. People don't tend to think about how much air pollution the Lawn Boy makes, but they're really nasty. For a lot of reasons, larger engines tend to be more fuel efficient, cleaner burning, and more economical overall. We stand a lot to gain by moving as far in that direction as possible.
Re:incorrect, please moderate that post DOWN (Score:2)
Electric cars also require large amounts of batteries, which are made of toxic materials. Manufacture of electric cars is probably a net negative for the environment as long as we don't have a clean battery technology.
As for converting electric production to sustainable alternatives, the tree-huggers need to rethink their positions on nuclear power.
Not particularly impressive... (Score:2)
The real problem is how many miles you can go on your battery. 120 - 130 (Which seems to be about average currently) miles isn't enough for many commuters.
As for the issue of moving the pollution elsewhere, if you'd freaking let them build a nuclear reactor in your back yard it wouldn't be a problem, would it? All that ecowhining and they still won't allow the most pollution free plants in their areas. The breeder plants don't even generate much nuclear waste.
Re:The Ferrari is the one with the advantage... (Score:2)
For example, the car grips the road enough to produce pull 0.88g's in a turn.
It's very VERY rare to that number at/above 1g.
Re:Will it jive with enthusiasts? (Score:2)
and when you're an atheist, these things matter
--
Re:They Left out Something... (Score:2)
Insight: 2 engines. Duh. That's why it's called a hybrid. It's actually quite a good idea, and I personally think it'll be the next "wave" of vehicles we'll see on our roads. It has none of the problems associated with a fully electric vehicle, but is 2x more efficient than anything else out there.
Honda is losing money on those cars because the batteries are EXPENSIVE, and they wanted to sell the car at a price people would actually buy it at. For them, it's a technology demonstration...a proof of concept -- a "we were the first, all your base are belong to us" type move.
Re:Not just moving polution (Score:2)
The polution from the batteries depends largely on what type they are. Lithium Ion are quite nasty, NiCad a little less and NiMH less still. The good thing is that batteries can be recycled - gas can't.
Batteries have come a long, long way in the last while. Capacities increase while weight and size decrease. It's especially obvious with electric remote control aircraft where they're put through some tough use. High current 2400MaH NiCads that weight 2oz in a sub-C package are common, as are 3000MaH NiMH cells.
Re:Cool, but hardly useful (Score:2)
Re:talk about comparing apples to oranges (Score:2)
Bikes can be fast. Bikes are usually a lot cheaper than cars. Hell, if you get something like a Ninja you can roast most anything on the road. But you have to like bikes. And you have to be willing to tolerate the extra hazard of driving one -- the extra hazard being severe injury/death in a highway accident. You also have to be willing to tolerate the loss of creature comforts a car provides.
Re:Not just moving polution (Score:2)
I'm proponent of alternative engergy sources, and high performance automobiles.
Efficiency is certainly an issue, but electric cars do just move polution from the roadways to the power plants.
In the example you provided--hydroelectic power plant--is definatley a low polution power plant. However, it is not without serious consequences.
If you don't beleive me, try to go salmon fishing on the Columbia River. Sockeye salmon have been on the endangered species list for almost 10 years. Steelhead for the past few. Why would, over the course of only 50 years or so, the Columbia river go from being one of the biggest sources of Salmon to having hardly any? You're so-called guilt free hydro-electic dams.
The only low-impact electric power plants are Wind and Solar, to varring degrees. Niether of which are providing the amount of power that hydroelectrical plants are. So if you are advocating electric cars, you're advocating coal plants, killing salmon and nuclear plants. Suddently doesn't sound like a great idea anymore.
Re:Cool, but hardly useful (Score:2)
Does that concept even apply here though? What are you saying -- the amount of lead acid burned for every certain number of miles? God I hope that's a small number -- way smaller than gasoline consumption, 1000x times better even.
It's a problem of comparing the proverbial apples & oranges. What's needed are metrics that are more generally applicable. Perhaps a measure of energy units (joules?) consumed per unit distance, with maybe a local & global factorization that accounts for how much the vehicle itself consumes (the gas tank, the battery, etc) and how much went into supplying the vehicle (the oil refinery, the power plant, transportation costs, etc). Only then can reasonable comparisons be made.
Re:talk about comparing apples to oranges (Score:2)
No, but on a 0-60 test, not having to shift saves noticeable amounts of time.
The car itself weighs 2400lbs
You're right, it's not. My bad. I couldn't find a weight on the car listed anywhere.
0.88g on the skidpad is also rather respectable. It isn't very good compared to the F550, but it's right there with most other cars in the "sport" class.
I still say it sucks. They are charging more than a Porsche for a kit car. Looking at my most recent R&T other cars in its class:
Acura NSX 0.92g
BMW M3 0.91g
BMW Z8 0.92g
Corvette Z06 1.0g
Corvette C05 Convertible 0.92g
Dodge Viper 0.98g
Ferrari F355 Spider 0.93g
Ford SVT Mustang Cobra R 0.99g
Honda S2000 0.90g
Lamborghini Diablo 6.0 0.99g
Lotus Esprit V8 0.90g
Mazda Miata 0.92g
Panoz Esperante 0.92g
Porsche 911 Turbo 0.96g
Toyota MR2 Spider 0.91
Granted, skid pad ratings are hard to compare...but it still isn't anywhere close to other cars in its price class. It isn't even close to cars that are in one-quarter its price class (Toyota MR2 and Mazda Miata).
Re:Electro-pneumatic car (Score:2)
Re:Will it jive with enthusiasts? (Score:2)
If the car can do 0-60 in 4.1 seconds, that's enough power. I think it would be really cool to be able to do that quietly without using gas. Just make the car look cool [nbci.com] and there'd be no image problem as far as I'm concerned.
--
Re:I'd buy an electric car... (Score:2)
How feasible would it be to add a 30HP electric motor to the driveshaft (basically, convert the drive shaft into a rotor), and throw in a few batteries to capture braking energy? Rotational speed of the driveshaft is a factor, I know, but I believe that can be compensated for.
Note: 30HP on the driveshaft would equal much more than 30HP as advertised by most car companies. Companies generally rate their engines at the engines output, and not the transmissions. Putting 30HP directly into the driveshaft avoids losses through the transmission.
Re:Not just moving polution (Score:2)
> plant--is definatley a low polution power
> plant. However, it is not without serious
> consequences.
Absolutely.
> So if you are advocating electric cars,
> you're advocating coal plants, killing salmon
> and nuclear plants. Suddently doesn't
> sound like a great idea anymore.
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying electric cars are better than the alternatives, especially when combined with less damaging forms of power generation.
Oil spills kill those same salmon, even those that receive less memorable attention then the Exxon Valdeez.
Those same salmon are also extremely sensitive to fluctuations in temperature when young, and guess what the greenhouse gases causing by internal combustion engines are doing? Yup, almost litterally cooking them in their own streams.
Nobody should be using coal any more, for anything. The effects are just too damaging. Heck, those things give off more ambient radiation than a true nuclear plant (Carbon-14).
Re:Not necessarily environmentally friendly (Score:2)
But many of your points (but not all) are flawed.
My BSME Thesis project was a city transit bus fuel economy study, so I think I know what I'm talking about. Big diesel engines are the most fuel efficient engines on the road (best power to fuel consumption ratio). Yes, of course big engines spew more pollution than small ones, but what you're not taking into account is the pollution per person. There's a reason why 40 people can fit on a bus.
To make your comparison fair, compare the pollution created by a single bus with 30-40 average commuter vehicles.
All powertrains are a comprimise. In the USA, our EPA doesn't like the particulate matter pollution created by Diesel engines, while in Europe, Governments don't mind a little particulate matter because they feel that NOx and HCs are bigger problems.
The idea that electric vehicles can be bigger polluters is no hoax. If coal is burned to power the generators that charge car batteries, you can be sure that it would be a problem in countries that don't have stringent air quality standards. In Europe, the situation is much more complicated, because you could be pulling power off of the grid from any country at a given time. Maybe your electric car is being powered by Windmills in Holland, Nuclear Power Plants in France, or Coal burning plants in Italy.
The bottom line is ALL powertrains are polluters if you count the pollution created during the manufacturing process, disposal, or daily operation.
The selection of a powertrain is a complicated comprimise between performance, drivability, noise/NVH (you had a valid point), complexity, various pollutions, profit, logistics, and sale price. Fuel Cells, Flywheels, ultra capacitors, and batteries could prove to be the next big-big thing, but unfortunately each needs to improve it's performance/cost ratio.
Your rant shows you care, but unfortunately the world isn't that simple.
Hydroelectric power is not pollution-free. (Score:2)
Actually, hydroelectric dams produce lots of pollution, in the form of methane (a greenhouse gas) produced when vegetation washed into the stagnant dam water rots. See a blurb about this here [climateark.org]. The report [damsreport.org] was produced by the World Comission on Dams [dams.org], and I think this graphic [dams.org] does an admirable job of illustrating some of the pluses and minuses of hydroelectric energy. It's not perfectly clean, although it certainly has advantages.
Re:Not just moving polution (Score:2)
The benefit of hydroelectric power is that the damage is localized so at least the ecology can try to adapt around it. Polution from power plants like gas and coal are everywhere and it's systemic, there's no escaping it.
2. I believe The Three Gorges dam will cause the earth to wobble a bit differently, it's just that big. But tell me how the shifting of the techtonic plates, ocean tides and artic ice flows aren't already causing a wobble.
The less impact we have the better. Unfortunately, most of the populus of the world doesn't seem to care at the moment.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
In the end, it looks like electromagnetism has the ability to produce more instantaneous force than ye olde combustion engine.
Well DUH... Have you fallen off the stupid bus or were you just trying to troll?
The AC induction motor has an extraordinarly steep (almost vertical) speed-torque curve when it's near full speed. Now take into account that variable frequency drives (VFDs) keep the Volts/Hertz ratio in check at all times and you find that the AC induction motor, when being driven by a VFD, is "always" at full speed and is therefore always capable of delivering rated torque. An internal combustion engine can't even come close to this kind of performance.
The speed/torque curve of most internal combustion engines looks like an upside-down 'u' -- i.e. your maximum torque is somewhere in the middle of its speed range. You need gearing to keep the engine in this maximum torque range or you're just wasting fuel and heating things up. They are also mechanically complex and require more maintenance compared to an AC induction motor. Internal combustion engines burn gasoline which has one of the highest energy densities of any available consumer fuel around which is why they're everywhere.
Inverters (variable frequency drives) are solid-state, capable of regenerating the energy from the motor slowing down to brake and are relatively efficient so long as you don't mind a bit of a whine from the IGBTs or FETs switching. An AC induction motor is extraordinarily efficient (the shitty little 3HP one (which could probably fling my little Jeep around at a good clip) sitting beside me here is 87% efficient. What's the most efficient readily-available internal combustion engine? 50%? 60%?
The AC induction motor is simply amazing from almost every perspective. No brushes, almost zero maintenance (greasing only really), great efficiency and decent size/power ratios. Electromagnetism has always been way more capable than the internal combustion engine when it comes to producing instantaneous force. It's only recently that battery and hybrid technology has been developed to take advantage of them in automotive use.
Quote figures! You are WRONG. (Score:2)
This is especially true for older remote hydro-electric stations (dams), where over 95% of the energy is lost in transit. Meaning that 95% of the energy goes to heating 100s of miles of hydro cables and towers.
Transmission line losses are NOT 95%. What are you smoking? The figures I've heard bantered about are more like 5-10%. You are incorrect, and I don't want to see this modded up.
Not to commit the same crime, my Standard Handbook for Electrical Engineers (13th edition) quotes the figure at about 8% of the total output of a large power system. (18-107). PLEASE think before you post such a completely ignorant figure in the future, and I really hope the moderators don't mod that up, because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Centralized power distribution is the most efficient way to generate power. Period. Yes, it makes a mess in the location you do it in (coal, dam, whatever). Welcome to the price of a modern society.
Re:Electro-pneumatic car (Score:2)
Another reason, which I'll mention here even though it's already been mentioned several times on this topic, is that this kind of car really doesn't offer any environmental benefit. Sure, the car spits out air instead of exhaust, but you need a generator to power the air compressor that refills it, so where does that electricity come from?
The only "alternative" fuel powered cars that produce zero total emissions are solar powered cars, which are pretty useless in most parts of the world, and even then are very weather dependant. Batteries, compressed air, fuel cells, all of these solutions produce secondary emissions, and so can't really be considered environmentally friendly.
--
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
Re:Don't Have The Book With Me But... (Score:2)
Forgive me then, my standard reference texts and EE degree are worthless and I obviously bow down to the l33t knowledge of the "Natual Library" books. How stupid am I to go to my reference shelf!
You're being incredibly dense and ignorant. Power losses have been low ever since people figured out Ohm's law and that heating is a function of current, and that's why transmission lines run at 100's of kilovolts at low amperages - so you don't heat the lines up an lose power through thermal inefficiency. I have no idea about the turbine losses, but I can look those up, too. The actual transmission line losses factor in about 8%, which is more than acceptable, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation - electricity would cost too much.
100's of miles isn't actually that much loss, please read some basic physics and electric theory and you can figure out why.
Fuel Costs (Score:2)
With gas prices at $0.80 a LITRE here (roughly 4L to the gallon), and a super-efficient 56mpg car, that translates to close to $6.40 per 100 miles.
Assuming you commute to work and put roughly 10,000 miles a year on your car, that works out to about $500 per year.
Assuming a lifetime of about 200,000 miles for either type of car, you save: $10,000 over the life of the car in my region in fuel costs alone. (Maintainance costs are a whole other argument. I think fewer parts and less drivetrain complexity equates to cheaper maintainance, but the batteries could offset that, so I'll call it a wash for this exercise.)
Yes, the inaccuracy of the variables I chose are probably pretty high, but at least this gives you SOME idea of when an EV becomes economically attractive.
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
I'd buy an electric car... (Score:3)
That's with batteries.. (Score:2)
I'm in no way arguing that electric cars with current battery technology make any sense whatsoever - you're right, you probably could make a good case for them being net polluters, not the other way around. If you look at electric motors alone, which near 90% efficient, and in most cases, don't HAVE a transmission to cause losses. The problem is the energy storage, and the solution to that is a fuel cell - which we can't produce cost-effectively, yet.
I can dig some numbers out from my machines reference on high-output electric motors themselves, but they're extremely effificent. The losses are in the energy storage mechanism.
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
Let's see... Hydroelectric power floods huge areas of land and also creates mercury pollution (don't remember by which bio-chemical process)
Wind power is limited (You can't generate power for a whole country) and cause pollution by noise.
Solar power, although it looks "clean" also creates a lot of pollution because the solar cells are made of toxic chemicals.
Geothermal, like wind power is limited in power.
So far, there's no magical energy source. It would be nice to have a clean mass-to-energy converter (E=mc^2), but right now, there are lots of technical problems (like finding a source of anti-matter!) so it's not going to happen in a near future.
Re:They Left out Something... (Score:2)
Or catalyzed from hydrocarbon fuels, which is how they want to make it for cars. Then you wouldn't need to electrolyze water for hydrogen, and you wouldn't have to store hydrogen in large quantities. A cat-cracker/fuel cell combo is potentially much more efficient than an internal combustion engine. Plus it can run on chemically simpler fuels -- gasoline for internal combustion engines has lots of additives and compromises so that it burns properly.
Re:Will it jive with enthusiasts? (Score:2)
Fuel cells; Burn either methanol, or hydrogen. Methanol still releases CO2, and potentially other hazardous stuff (An ideal consumption of hydrocarbon like methanol, or methane, or octane for that matter, yeilds CO2 and H2O, ideally, but differing mixtures, temperatures yeilds Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon Monoxide, and sulfur content in todays crappy gasoline mixtures yeilds Sulfur Oxides, so, any burning of fossil fuels, whether it's Methanol in a fuel cell, or gasoline in an internal combustion engine, is going to yeild results that are environmentally undesirable. True, fuel cells have a better potential to control things like sulfur content and inclusion of nitrogen oxides, but they can't eliminate them, and currently, fuel cells are even less efficient.
Hydrogen is never going to be a staple fuel for powering cars. For one, you have the same problems as you would with raw electricity. Hydrogen has to be generated from water, probably seawater, and that generally requires energy input. Electricity. Hydrogen is very difficult to transport, and very unsafe, and even store- hydrogen molecules are so small that it actually leeches through the metal walls of compressed gas cylinders over time. Hydrogen is one of the most explosive substances there is. Even burning hydrogen can yeild some nasty noxious substances. Under ideal circumstances, you get water as a product, but you'll also end up with carbon and nitrogen compounds of hydrogen as well. Cyanide, Ammonia, things like that. Small amounts to be sure, but multiply that by hundreds of millions of cars, and you have another unsavory environmental dilemma.
Ideally, all the problems with hydrogen can be worked out:
generation: genetically engineer a plant that collects sunlight, and splits seawater, collect and refine the minerals for industry, package the pure oxygen and hydrogen in some inert manner, store them together in the fuel cell (eliminating atmospheric contaminants in the burn so you dont end up with Cyanide and Ammonia) -
Now, figure out what happens to our climate with all of that steam our cities are suddenly releasing into the atmosphere, and maybe THEN we'll have a solution.
Cool, but hardly useful (Score:4)
While I'm the first to agree this is cool, and shows off the strides that have been made in electric car systems, it's hardly more than a showcase for top systems rather than the real systems that are required for everyday use, which are still somewhat lacking when it comes to things like efficiency.
What we really need is for electric cars to overtake petrol based cars in terms of miles/gallon - without this there is absolutely no chance of them ever taking off as anything other than a curiosity for people with money and an environmental conscience. And given that the giant fuel companies are hardly likely to welcome such developments, it may take significant benefits to allow people to make the change.
Still, it's good to see that the state of the art is progressing so quickly - these developments will eventually filter down to affordable systems and bring electric cars onto the streets for normal people sooner.
Re:Oops (Score:3)
Re:Cool, but hardly useful (Score:2)
4.1s? Bah, McLaren F1 can do 0-60 in 3.1 secs ! (Score:2)
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Garage/8837/ph
And the specs to go along with it:
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Theater/7389/s
Re:Will it jive with enthusiasts? (Score:2)
Well, the "burning" of tires comes from the friction between the tires and ground. But more important is the sound of gas vs. electric cars. I consider myself a bit of an enthusiast, and the sound of a car's exhaust can make or break a driving experience. Car manufacturers put considerable import on the exhaust sound. Ferrari certainly doesn't hide this fact; there was an article in C&D [caranddriver.com] a year or two ago about it. I'd be more than willing to bet that manufacturers are willing to sacrifice a few horsepower to get the sound of their exhaust just right.
Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
As to electric cars being cleaner than ptrol powered cars, I do not think they are especially. This is similar to having longer chiminies - it merely moves the pollution elsewhere, in this case to power stations and the venting that takes place there.
This means that countries such as Norway and Canada, which have to suffer the pollution produced in Britain and America respectively, will suffer even more from its dead effects. Electric cars mean that Londoners and Manhattanites will live in cleaner environments while the true countryside suffers a little more.
However, my attitude to this is 'So What?' The lives of millions and their living conditions is a lot more important than the continued existance of some obscure far away plant or animal. I only wish the statist environmentalists could see that.
--
Not necessarily environmentally friendly (Score:2)
Hope I didn't shatter anyone's illusions :)
The problem with electric cars... (Score:2)
And since there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of people who like living next door to a nuclear reactor (one of the cheapest and most efficient sources of power we can build with current technology - not to mention safest, despite Chernobyl and Three Mile island), there isn't much chance of electric cars taking off in the near future.
Re:Electro-pneumatic car (Score:2)
The primary concern of using hyrdogen to power cars is the pressure that it needs to be stored at (NOT, as many people believe, that the gas itself is flamable). So this car has the dangerous high pressure tanks, without the huge amount of energy (equaling driving range) in the form of hydrogen. Sounds like a winner to me!
Re:Fuel Costs (Score:3)
The batteries for the T-zero cost $3000, and need to be replaced about every 3 years.
that works out to about $1000 per year...
Re:Electro-pneumatic car (Score:2)
No air conditioning, no heater!?!?? I'll give you a hint as to why it doesn't sell more: it gets hot down here in Texas, and it gets cold up there in Michigan. Any questions?
Please reference some independent safety surveys! (Score:2)
As long as your chastising people for not referencing any proof -- why not provide some proof that SUV's are not safer?
Will it jive with enthusiasts? (Score:3)
It won't be enough for electric cars to perform better than internal-combustion cars. We've had cleaner alternatives to gasoline for years now, and most have flopped. Part of that has to do with the economics of scale and the relative abundance of petroleum on our planet (more available and cheaper than milk), but part of that also has to do with image.
The dragracer is an important ideographic image in American culture. He is defined by his sleek car and fast speeds, but he is also defined by the clouds of smoke that trail behind him as he burns rubber. Will a "clean" electric car cast the same fiery clouds of masculine brimstone in his wake? Will manufacturers be able to overcome the perceived impotence of electric vehicles?
The trend has sadly been away from fuel efficiency. SUVs and diesel trucks hog the roads. Unless electric cars are fundamentally cheaper or better performance-wise, they will flop for sure. And it'll be years before the prices come down out of the stratosphere.
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
people never cease to amaze me! (Score:2)
I shouldn't even have to mention the horrifying production process of these batteries, or the contamination we'll see after accidents, either on the road or in some redneck's front yard! You thought dumping motor oil was bad? holy goddam hell!
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
Errr no. The soil has gold, silver, uranium, etc la in it. If that clod of dirt on your shoes has any quanity WORTH extracting, then somone will mine it.
What happens is Mercury is bound up in methylmercury and that bio-accumulates. The process doesn't CREATE the polution...it is already there. Take things at the TOP of the food chain out (like aggressive fish) and the mercury will go with them.
Solar power, although it looks "clean" also creates a lot of pollution because the solar cells are made of toxic chemicals.
Really? What toxic chemicals are in a stirling cycle engines [stirlingmotor.com] using helium as the working fluid? Would you consider steam [suntherm.com]?
Or, do you oppose metal-working or mirrors for its toxic effects?
Costs: $25K for 10kW of electricity, and about 120kW of waste heat you got to get rid of. All the heat you can use
How about thermionic [photonpower.com] process? Non-poluting enough for ya?
You can even make ice with the sun if you want to.
Re:talk about comparing apples to oranges (Score:2)
I don't know where you got some of your skidpad ratings from, but some of them look somewhat "off". For example, Edmunds lists an '00 Miata at 0.89g.
Most of those cars you listed don't have skidpads that are spectacular compared to the Tzero. Notable exceptions include the Dialbo, Cobra, Viper, Porche, and the Z06. IMO, anything in the neighborhood of 0.90 is doing pretty good.
And you're right -- it is hard to compare skidpad ratings. Different tires can make a dramatic difference, for instance. Lowered suspention, different shocks/springs, too make a diff. But I'm sure you'd argue that for $70k that you shouldn't need to do any of that.
Yeah, it's an expensive car. I'll never own one. I'll never buy a porche either. Hell, I can't figure out why people spend 50k on an SUV that they use to drive back and forth to work.
But seriously, you don't spend that kind of money on any car for "practicality", value, or performance in it's class -- Ferrari would be out of business if that were true; most of their cars can be outperformed/matched by less expensive vehicles. You do it to stroke your ego.
The other thing that doesn't seem to be taken into account is how much more expensive it is to make an EV compared to a similarly spec'd gas powered auto. You think NiMH batteries are expensive at $20 for 4? Try buying 1200lbs of 'em (I'll admit that I can't tell how much the batteries alone would cost, but they're not cheap
They Left out Something... (Score:2)
Like most companies who make electric cars, AC Propulsion fails to mention that they future may not be in electric cars.
It is widely circulated in some circles that electric plants emit more pollution generating the electricity required to drive an electric car, than a gas-powered car would emit, given similar circumstances.
I'm not an expert in this field, but have friends in the industry, not working on electric motors, but Hydrogen cars. I am told that the only things they emit is water. For some reason, though, the major car companies are only pursuing electrics... Did you know that for every electric car Honda sells, they lose around $3,000? That's because it has 2 engines, one gas and one electric. Neato, eh?
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
- Yes, but what do I do when winter days are 2 hours long?
Re:4.1s? Bah, McLaren F1 can do 0-60 in 3.1 secs ! (Score:2)
That gold and silver you blur you see blowing by you as you stock up on the latest fashions from Bugle Boys over at KMart would be me. Try and catch up - oh wait, you can't, because mine's 20 faster. I wouldn't ride a XX if you paid me to.
--
Re:I'd buy an electric car... (Score:2)
-----------------------
Re:Not just moving polution (Score:2)
Other forms of batteries tend to be considerably more expensive, aren't they? I'm very reluctant to say that things should be more expensive because it's good for the environment -- when you take in the larger picture, it's often not true. If those batteries are quite expensive -- as all the better batteries seem to be -- it's very probably because there's a lot of resources going into their creation. A lot of water used, mining required, etc. None of those things are good for the environment.
I think the transportation problem really needs to be looked at as an infrastructure problem, not a car problem. The best solution will not only be good and environmentally sound, but cheap too. And I don't even think it needs to be high-tech.
Re:Hydroelectric power is not pollution-free. (Score:2)
When those plants grew, where did the CO2 come from? The atmosphere.
Where does it go when it rots?
The atmosphere.
The amounts?
The same.
You're simply adding and removing atmospheric CO2 from a relatively SMALL amount of biomass.
It's not like you're dredging up carbon that took millions of years to accumulate from deep underground and suddenly releasing it into the atmosphere at once, like petrol does.
Great idea! (Score:2)
Re:Electro-pneumatic car (Score:2)
Any electric car that gets its power from a solar cell is a "solar-powered car," even if those solar cells are in a large array on top of a mountain hundreds of miles away.
The Bible is not my book, and Christianity is not my religion.
Stirling-electric hybrid? (Score:2)
This is really the best of both worlds. The slow starting nature of a Stirling engine is no problem whatsoever in a vehicle that depends for acceleration on battery power, and the range limitations of batteries are addressed by constant re-charging by the Stirling engine (Which should have output needed to cruise at 55 with flat batteries, but no more) and by regenerative braking.
So, why haven't the Hybrid-EVs used a stirling engine yet?
Any ideas?
Fuel cells and ultracapacitors. (Score:2)
Actually, if I understand correctly, several varieties of fuel cell can reprocess simple hydrocarbons like methanol internally (just need the right catalytic electrode material and the right operating environment).
I'd also argue that even carrying a converter would be less hassle than trying to use hydrogen
Methanol is a well-behaved liquid (a bit corrosive over the long term, but less so than water).
If you want a purely-electric solution, keep your eye on ultracapacitors. They're still pretty expensive, but they're already starting to beat the energy density of batteries.
Unfortunately, this isn't saying much. The energy density of batteries is orders of magnitude lower than the energy density of most fuel-burning schemes.
One word (Score:2)
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
More on the avoided costs....
Internalising all these costs therefore must become a priority if a "level playing field" is to be created.
While it is extremely difficult to quantify the external costs of such pollution, and some simply cannot be quantified, several studies show them to be
substantial. For example, a German study concluded that the external costs (excluding global warming) of electricity generated from fossil-fuel plants
are in the range of 2.4-5.5 US c/kWh, while those from nuclear power plants are 6.1-3.1 c/kWh.
According to the another study sulphur dioxide from US coal burning plants is costing U.S. citizens USD 82 billion per year in additional health costs.
Reduced crop yields caused by air pollution is costing US farmers USD 7.5 billion per year. What is important on these US figures is the fact that US
citizens are actually paying between 109 billion and 260 billion dollars yearly in hidden energy costs. In other countries similar patterns can also be
found.
Re:people never cease to amaze me! (Score:2)
As to the power stations in California producing 4 times the pollutants, that doesn't mean anything. Could it be that these power plants produce more than 4 times as much energy than the cars, trucks, and trains? If so, then they technically pollute less.
Another advantage is that most people will recharge their cars overnight, when electric usage is typically much lower than during the day, so the peak electical usage will not increase that much.
--
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
Hehehehehehhahahahah you seem to forget who the President of the USA is! The prick wants to dig for oil in a National forest and you think that he is going to want electric vehicles? Not for an instant.
Please read my
Re:One word (Score:2)
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
Costs: $25K for 10kW of electricity
Cool, scaling that you get more than a billion for 500 MW of electricity, which is just a normal nuclear plant. (BTW, I'm not saying nuclear power is better). Sure is you can use some heat from the sum to help heat you house, it's always good, but if you want something efficient, you totally change the kind of cells you need...
For example satellite solar cells use semi-conductors like GaAs (Gallium Arsenide), this isn't what I call non-toxic! Except for Silicon (which I don't think is ideal for solar cells), most semiconductors are toxic. Things like GaAs, InGaAs, InP, Se...
Re:Not necessarily environmentally friendly (Score:3)
Actually thats a GOOD THING.
I'll Explain:
Pollution is bad in any form but what makes it worse is distributed pollution. The kind emitting from many sources spread out over a wide area. That type of pollution has farther reaching effects. Centralized pollution, while not necessarily GOOD, is better than spread out pollution. It is easier to manage, filter, process and monitor than say 5 million little pollution generators roaming all over the city.
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
Good thing we found penicillin before too many folks started thinking like that. I wonder what other useful stuff we'd discover if we weren't so preoccupied with our own passing coolness.
Re:Not necessarily environmentally friendly (Score:3)
Right now everyone has to buy a new car if something reducing pollution appears on the market. Applying the technology to a smaller number of oil powerplants would be much cheaper.
These powerplants would probably be able to use the fuel more effeciently also.
Not that much of a supprise (Score:2)
Of course the real issue is power supply.
A battery can only hold 1% per weight of petrol.
So while trains don't have that problem. Cars do. I can't get to the site at the moment, but I suspect that eventhough they may bet petrol cars, the batteries probably don't last as long a tank of gas
But it is imporving, And one day, EV will be better performers than gas, there is only so much you can do with a gas engine. No matter how many new systems you can make, it dosn't change the fact that 80% of the energy is lost in heat and noise, and while that figue may decrese quite a bit. electric motors only waste about 20%, and thats probably improving aswell.
Re:people never cease to amaze me! (Score:2)
Re:4.1s? Bah, McLaren F1 can do 0-60 in 3.1 secs ! (Score:4)
--
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:3)
Fianlly, as a Canadian I can say that it is not simply Americans who pollute Canada. Ontario, our most industrialized province, has rather lax pollution standards, and various American states are starting to complain. Of course, Ontario complains about American pollution too so no one really knows what is going on.
Re:Cool, but hardly useful (Score:2)
400 miles on one battery, divided by 0 gallons of gas used..
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:2)
Hydroelectric, wind, solar, geothermal.
And then there's nuclear, which produces very dangerous waste, but it's much more feasible to manage- it isn't spewn into the atmosphere.
What is the source of the vast majority of air pollution? Cars, by far. In fact, the pollution of power plants could increase by a magnitude of 10 and still not equal the amount of pollution put out by mobile sources.
Re:people never cease to amaze me! (Score:2)
perhaps you should pull your head out of your ass. there is no WAY the transmission losses for power lines is 70%. noone would ever use electricity if it were. line loss accounts for about 15% at most of wasted energy in power transmission. and everyone already knows that you are moving the power generation from one place to another by going electic thanks anyway but that wasnt the point of the article.
Re:I'd buy an electric car... (Score:2)
Re:incorrect, please moderate that post DOWN (Score:2)
Also, the plants that are used for the fermentation remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere while they are growing, so alcohol production does not release large amounts of carbon that has been stored deep inside the earth like burning fossil fuels like coal to produce electricity does.
Re:Please reference a thermodynamics textbook! (Score:2)
Umm...you don't "overclock" motors, although you can supe up an electric motor in almost as many ways as you can with an internal combustion engine. That is one of the most lame uses of the term overclock I have heard in awhile. The motor doesn't have an internal clock that we are increasing for more power in some way. It's got magnets and wires, and a pile of control circuitry.
Is it reallly that lame? You can get more power out of an electric motor - easily 50%, or more, of rated capacity - by increasing the voltage and/or current (subject to the breakdown voltages and heat that the insulation can take). This is much like what you do when you overclock a processor - yes, there is no clock on a motor (although, there is phase in AC motors :), but you up the current supply just like you do a chip, and then you need to do something with the extra heat - and that extra heat effects the life of the motor, just like a chip.
The other thing...why do you mention an ICE GM product? GM has a hybrid that gets like 80 MPG they have been demoing. Look it up actually...it's a really slick and innovative machine.
Historically, GM makes crap. An engine/car that doesn't run is a lot of wasted energy. This is my opinion, and I'm sure yours is quite different. I drive hondas. :)
And as an afterthought...look up how much pollution a MODERN coal power plant puts out. It's no where near what people think they are, because they used to be so sloppy about pollution years ago. It's the lack of that knowledge and NIMBY that keep the things from being built anywhere that we could use one.
Yes, that's right.. coal is pretty cheap and a decent way to make power.. there's lots of places left to generate hydro power though, which is some of the easiest to do (red tape aside, of course). Then again, I'm Canadian, lots of places to generate power here, and lots of oil, too. Maybe someday I won't have to live with all these taxes... heh
Re:Please reference a thermodynamics textbook! (Score:2)
Even if you estimated the distribution grid losses at only 50% ( conservative ! ), add in the multiple conversions and you can't be far from the efficiency of an ICE ( in the area of 40% overall I think ?)
I already quoted in another post that distribution system losses are 8%, not 50% or 90%. This is straight from my electrical engineering handbook, which is in it's 13th edition. I don't have the mechanical engineering equivilant handy, but your typical engine in a car is at BEST only 20% efficient in converting the chemical power in gasoline to mechanical power at the wheels. I think the actual numbers are even lower.
As for your SUV comment, from a study I did three years ago, your chances of survival in many types of automobile collision are related in a linear fashion to the ratio of the weight of your vehicle to the weight of the other vehicle. So, in a general sense, if you are in an accident, it IS safer to be in the larger vehicle, ala SUV / truck / 18 wheeler.
Except that following this philosophy results in everyone driving behemoths that are wasteful and inefficient, and when they get in an accident with each other, the energies involved are much, much higher. Your safety comes at the expense of those who choose (or have no choice but to) drive smaller economy cars. SUV's are signifigantly more dangerous when evasive / sudden maneuvers are required for.
A good background on the electric car stuff is the book ' Natural Capitalism', which I believe was reviewed on slashdot before. It describes the electric car fallacies in great detail!
Much of those 'fallicies' had to do with the primitive battery technology we use currently. Electric motors are over 90% efficient at converting electrical energy to mechanical motion. 90%. The problem is in getting the power to the car at a useful rate without causing more problems than you're solving (lead pollution, weight, etc).
Re:Clash of the Titans (Score:3)
I couldn't have said it better myself! The petroleum cartel is a group of self-worshipping whores, nothing more.
Here's a true story that might interest you: (Americans, s/sulphur/sulfur/)
Recently, the Canadian government asked all oil companies doing business in Canada to submit their sulphur content data, and the gov't agreed to keep it secret. (Sulphur in gas is bad for engines and emission control systems.) A reporter found out about this and filed an FOIA request. The gov't took him to court, and lost.
The results (for fuel sold in Ontario, and probably Quebec) were shocking:
- Esso (Imperial Oil, a division of ExxonMobil): ~750 ppm sulphur
- Petro Canada: ~500 ppm sulphur
- Shell (Royal Dutch Shell Group NV): ~425 ppm sulphur
- Sunoco (div. of Suncor Energy): ~250 ppm sulphur
Comments from Esso's gov't submission were also published, including this (paraphrased) gem: "This information must not be made public to avoid possible consumer boycotts."Ever since that news broke (18 months ago or so), I have bought less than 120 litres of Esso fuel. Before then, I bought at least 75% of my fuel from Esso. This is fairly major, since I drive 60,000 km per year, so I buy a LOT of gas.
Sunoco now gets as much of my business as I can give it, with Shell second, PetroCan third, and Esso dead last. Even if I'm sucking fumes and the only gas station around is an Esso, I'll buy 1/4 or 1/2 of a tank to get me to the next Sunoco or Shell.
Incidentally, Honda Canada has issued a recall on all 1998 Accord V6 models to replace an intake manifold component with a freer-flowing version as a result of sulphur in fuel clogging the EGR system. Also, excess sulphur in fuel can foul up the fuel level sensor in your fuel tank by changing the resistance of it. Mine had to be replaced (under warranty, thankfully), and I think that's 100% due to my addiction to Esso fuel at the time.
I'll stop ranting now. (This is a subject that really gets me going...)
--
Re:Will it jive with enthusiasts? (Score:3)
However, even your basic very slow electric cars are very expensive compared to gas-burners. But trying to get good performance out of an electric car, you escalate the costs dramatically (of the motors, the batteries, etc.) - and, of course, you pay for that in range.
And on an electric car, everything else will come directly out of your range, where in a gas-burner, the extras are essentially free. Extras like, running your radio, power windows, seat warmers, headlights, heater, etc. Only Air Conditioning noticably impacts performance of a gas-burner.
Then there's the huge maintenance cost of replacing the battery packs. And then the disposal of the battery packs.
As far as the oil companies go, I'm sure they'd be just as happy to see everyone convert to electricity, because you still have to generate the electricity by burning fossil fuels, and oil companies aren't just about drilling a hole and sitting back pumping money out of the ground. There's infrastructure, trucks, tankers, distribution networks, drilling equipment, platforms, etc. All of that can be put to good use in an economy that's not based on oil. I'm sure a good portion of that can be adapted to a network for servicing electric autos as well.
Not just moving polution (Score:5)
The fact is, there will be LESS polution generated at the power plants. Besides being more efficient at converting fuels to power, not every power plant is poluting. For example, us drivers in hydroelectric rich British Columbia (Motto: Keeping California's Lights Burning) would be able to enjoy guilt-free driving right now.
The worst case is that some polution will still be generated at the plants, but at last there will be much less of it. More importantly, the the power is produced in centralized locations. This means if the power plants become 5% more efficient all of the EXISTING vehicles create less polution.
Not to mention that as more power plants shift away from nasty sources of energy like coal, every electric cars on the road will become truely polution-free almost overnight.
Electro-pneumatic car (Score:5)
http://www.electrifyingtimes.com/guynegre.html [electrifyingtimes.com]
and
http://www.zeropollution.com/zeropollution/index.
basically it's an air compressed car that goes at about 60mph top speed that can go for about 120 miles between charges. To charge it you basically plug it in an electrical outlet, and the compressor compresses the air to fill the tank.
It's also interesting that, due to some carbon filters, the exhaust air is cleaner than the air that goes in
I wonder why there's not more buzz about it, it seems really cool for short range movements, I know if I had one I would surely use it for the work/home commute...
It's the energy density. (Score:4)
Unfortunately, the energy density of batteries is only a fraction of the energy density of gasoline, drastically increasing the vehicles' weight (and thus lowering performance). Thus, after 60 mph or so the ferrari just takes off.
here's a link [acpropulsion.com] to more info. It's using Optima batteries...I hate to pee on the story but that "one hour" charge time requires a 240VAC@100A ac line...I don't think I'll be doing that at my house!!
Still, a little over three hours at something like 30 amps isn't too bad.