Progress On Electric Cars 594
Mike sends along a couple of items of interest to those anxiously awaiting the era of production electric vehicles. First, there's the upcoming Aero EV, which Shelby Supercars claims will charge in just 10 minutes and will be able to produce over 1,000 horsepower, powering the vehicle from 0-60 mph in less than 2.5 seconds. Then there's the announcement by Aptera of the first pre-production model of the Aptera 2e, which will have a top speed of 90 mph and go around 100 miles on a charge. This EV also features a strong and aerodynamic body, a lithium-based battery, front-wheel drive, and an improved door design. Release is planned by October of 2009.
That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)
What, no love for the Big 3? Lemme see here. We've got the range-extended Town & Country EV [chryslerllc.com] from Chrysler that will do 40 miles on a single charge, plus another 360 miles using a mixed gasoline-electric propulsion. They're also working on Dodge and Jeep [autoblog.com] vehicles with similar designs.
Ford used to have the market in a bag with their Ford Ranger EV [wikipedia.org] pickup. Of course, they discontinued it in 2002. Now they're playing catch-up with the rest of the market. They are promising an electric vehicle by 2011 [wired.com], so there should be plenty of competition in late 2010/early 2011.
Speaking of competition, what discussion is complete without mentioning the Chevy Volt [chevrolet.com]? Still the gold standard for the emerging industry, it will be anyone's guess if it lives up to the hype.
I rather like the look of this car, but I am concerned by a couple of issues. First up is the single back wheel. Won't that make the vehicle a rollover hazard? I presume the front wheels are extended to help mitigate this issue, but one good blowout looks like it could send that sucker fishtailing right into roll. (And for that matter, how servicable is that tire?)
My second issue is the power-train. Generally you want as much weight sprung as possible, and electric motors are heavy. Aptera seems to understand that as it appears there is an axel linkage on the front wheels. Presumably this is how power is transmitted. Is having that axel exposed going to cause any safety and reliability issues? I'm just imagining something flying off the road and getting wrapped around the the axel. Or in an accident, a pedestrian getting an appendage caught in there.
Or is this a rear-wheel drive vehicle? In which case, is that axel really necessary? Could'nt the steering be accomplished by swiveling independent pods rather than linking them?
Just my 0.005 cents worth after accounting for inflation. :-P
P.S. The Shelby looks pretty darn sweet! I'd never spend money to purchase a vehicle like that*, but I wouldn't mind taking her for a spin.
* Unless I had way too much!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you look right at the summary, you see that the vehicle's description includes front-wheel drive.
Now, the info on safety is a little sparse from my quick look at Aptera's website, with the faq saying "It will match other commuter vehicles". Faq here. [aptera.com] Safety Here [aptera.com]
They focus on force-redirection, composite body and airbags but nothing on traction or stability. It's not the speed of being thrown to the side of your car that hurts, it's the sudden stop. I mean, with that much acceleration, I'd worry at fish
Re: (Score:2)
If you look right at the summary, you see that the vehicle's description includes front-wheel drive.
All vehicles these days have front wheel drive, it's cheaper to make than an FR layout. One back wheel on that thing also probably keeps them from transmitting back to an axle....
The single rear tire is bad unless it's rear-wheel steer like Dyson's car. Even then, I'm much more comfortable with front-wheel steer, rear-wheel drive, especially in non-optimal road conditions. Front wheel drive is bad enough in the snow on four wheels, coupling it with just a single back wheel (and even worse, rear-wheel
Re: (Score:2)
Living in Arizona, and driving a vehicle with two wheels, three will be an upgrade from my current situation and far more stable/safe.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Electric motors are exceedingly light for how much power they produce. Batteries are heavy.
Also I think we will soon see integrated motor/wheel/brake assemblies on the market, so the mass overhead is shared between three functions.
Re:That's it? (Score:4, Informative)
Big list (Score:5, Informative)
I've compiled a big list of upcoming EVs and their stats here [daughtersoftiresias.org].
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Funny)
According to the Top Gear spokeswoman, the tested Tesla was filmed being pushed into the shed in order to show what would happen if the Roadster had run out of charge.
"Top Gear stands by the findings in this film and is content that it offers a fair representation of the Tesla's performance on the day it was tested," the BBC said in statement."
Yeah, OK. So they're saying my gas powered car will miraculously make it home if I run out of fuel? I can't believe anyone would take that show seriously.
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is one thing that doesn't seem to be discussed about the Top Gear bit. I agree that emphasizing what happens when you run out of charge--when they didn't kill the battery--isn't entirely fair, but there is a difference between running out of charge and running out of gas.
I can easily walk to a gas station and carry a couple of gallons of gas back to the car, which is enough fuel to carry me at least a couple dozen miles in even a heavy SUV.
How many miles worth of charge can you carry back?
Re:That's it? (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep. Batteries don't advance as fast as computers, but they've advanced a heck of a lot faster than anything in the transportation industry. In the past 15 years, battery energy densities have tripled, and power densities even more than that. And they show no signs of slowing down; check out the list of recent li-ion tech breakthroughs [daughtersoftiresias.org] that promise 2-4 fold increases in energy density. The odds of every last breakthrough on that list failing to make it to commercialization seems vanishingly small.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the gold standard is by definition the best existing electric or hybrid vehicle. Right now that is probably the Toyota Prius.
Once the Chevy Volt is available, it will be interesting to see if it can beat the Prius and in which scenarios.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Aptera is rear wheel drive. The "Axle" in the front is actually only the push-rod for the steering. There are no rotating parts exposed in the front (other than the wheels of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But not as heavy as you might think. 20kg/100kW for an in-wheel motor is about the state-of-the-art, and given that it replaces the brake assembly and (part of) the drive shaft it ends up only slightly more than a conventional hub. For example, see:
http://www.pmlflightlink.com/motors/hipa_drive.html [pmlflightlink.com]
Since last time I checked out that company, they have a) moved everything to do w
Re:That's it? (Score:4, Interesting)
What, no love for the Big 3?
Nope. Let's face it, the Big 3 have spent the past 40 years advertising that bigger is better and not to worry about fuel consumption or consumer safety. They abandoned most of their electric research in the 1990's and now they're playing a terrible game a catch-up. I'm not saying I want the American auto industry to go under but I'm not going to support them until they start making some reliable cars. Currently, if you're looking for a reliable car you look to Japan or Germany, and then Korea, then maybe you move onto the US. It's a shame but no, there is no love for Detroit because they royally screwed up and in a market economy you don't get any free love.
Re:That's it? (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the primary market will be plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) by 2015, NOT all electric vehicles.
I cite the following reasons:
1) Since the vast majority of commuting is relatively short range, the all-electric range of a PHEV of around 43 to 49 miles (70-80 km) is not such a big issue.
2) With a PHEV, you don't need a big battery pack like you do with an all-electric vehicle.
3) Since PHEVs are an extension of the now-mature hybrid vehicle technology developed by Toyota and Ford, it also means way lower development costs.
Given that today's gasoline engines have very low emissions anyway, a PHEV backed up by a small gasoline engine is what will be common by 2015.
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Informative)
Say "Yes" to nuclear. It's less radioactive than coal, has killed barely a minuscule fraction of the number of people coal has killed, and we have enough supply to easily last for as long as we can reasonably project our energy requirements.
Oh, and it's a key component for any serious attempts at interplanetary or interstellar space travel. Which could be important if we want to research more efficient solar collection or need to go track us down more nuclear materials. (Or you could send missions to Titan and supply the Earth with a near-infinite supply of $10billion/gal gasoline. :-P)
In fact (Score:5, Informative)
Re:In fact (Score:5, Interesting)
You forgot the airborne, radioactive particles which may be inhaled and cause cancer. Not to mention The Great Smog [wikipedia.org] which killed 12,000 people.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lifespans are not getting longer due to coal.
Electricity can be made from CSP Thermal Solar and Wind
and if those run out the whole planet is dead anyways.
Coal is set to run out a lot sooner due to the rest of the world
ramping up use of it massively.
The coal producers in the US have nothing to fear of the US
getting off coal, China is building coal fired plants faster
than any 2 other countries on earth combined.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Electricity can be made from CSP Thermal Solar and Wind and if those run out the whole planet is dead anyways.
So what you're saying is that if we use too much solar or wind power, we're all dead. There's just no good long term solution, is there?
Re:In fact (Score:4, Interesting)
Hmm, that makes me wonder how total coal-related deaths compare to total nuclear-related deaths including deaths from the development, testing, and use of nuclear weapons. Nukes have only been used in anger twice, and there has probably been an elevated incidence of cancer among early development and testing personnel, but would King Coal still come out ahead?
Re:In fact (Score:5, Informative)
First, I'll point out that I believe that nuclear weapons aren't in the same category as nuclear power; that'd be like adding deaths from tank weapons into automotive deaths.
Still, I think it's an interesting topic.
Hiroshima: 140k
Nagasaki: 80k
Chernobyl: 57 direct deaths, 4k 'additional cancer cases', estimated, not all of which would be fatal.
Other: Various accidents; under a hundred. Less than 1% of the above, easily within the margin of error of the nuclear weapons usage.
224k total, of which 1.8% can be attributed, partially, to nuclear power(Chernobyl was also a weapons material plant, which affected it's design).
If you believe this [msn.com] article, 24k lives are 'shortened' by coal power, cause 2.8k cases of lung cancer a year, 4k deaths from asthma, heart attacks, etc... At 4k, we're killing a Chernobyl's worth of citizens each and every year. In the 63 years since the nuclear attacks in 1945, that would be 252,000 people.
On to China - They've [chinadaily.com.cn] made it a 'goal' to reduce their annual coal mining deaths to a 'mere' 5k in 2007 over the 7k of 2003. In 1988 - "chronic [american.edu]
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was 26% of all causes of death. If even a fraction of a percent of those deaths are from the pollution from coal power, 26k a year isn't outrageous from a country of over a billion.
Basically; I figure coal power kills more people every year than Chernobyl accident did period, and it bypasses our nuclear bombings in less than five years.
And people wonder why I'd shut down all the coal plants if I could...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Please name the ones that couldn't be replaced by nuclear power, or other alternative sources of electricity.
If the alternative was coal or no medical devices, no heat, no computers, no electricity, then yes, coal has saved far more lives.
But we can do cleaner today.
Production is still important... (Score:3, Interesting)
Salt storage isn't something that scales down well; it's used by solar thermal plants, not solar voltiac cells. You wouldn't be placing this every mile, you'd be keeping it at the solar plant.
In my combined vision for the future I figure a couple things:
1. Plug in Hybrids/EVs will have a far greater role.
2. Due to expense/savings, many/most home charging stations will have load leveling capabilities.
3. Putting a PHEV/EV in a garage will swamp all but the most extreme energy saving measures otherwise tak
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If by coal mine deaths, you mean deaths from mining acci
I agree with a nuclear powered car :-) (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why Ford never came out with this model [wikipedia.org]!
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't matter *WHAT* was used to generate the electricity, it will *still* be cheaper and cleaner than burning gas in cars. Large power plants are tremendously more efficient and clean because they have the scale... even burning coal (as long as they are modern plants). Don't focus just on coal & oil. Throw in natural gas, solar, geothermal, nuclear, hydro, and wind... they already account for a huge percent of electricity production and increasing each year.
And using electricity means that everyone has a fuel source right at home, ready to go. No new infrastructure. No hazardous or explosive alternative fuels (like hydrogen or LP gas). No special equipment or training. Plug it in... Done.
Re: (Score:2)
Now...if they can just get the prices down to that of a Vette....I'm sold and will finally go green!!
(Well, with the exception of my motorcycle, I'd never want an electric one for that, you need the sound and the rumbl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. The best part of electric cars is the decoupling of power production and power consumption.
Re:That's it? (Score:5, Informative)
The most common number for the lower-cost EVs for range seems to be about 100 miles. About what percent of Americans do you think travel more than fifty miles to work and then 50 back? I'd bet under 10%. Probably under 5%.
but don't kid yourself, anything approaching a 10% adoption rate of EVs could easily crush the grid
This has been studied, over and over again. No, they don't. EVs are actually a rather sedate grid load in that they don't suddenly kick in, draw a huge amount of current, then stop; it's a steady load. And easily most of the time, it's a nighttime load, which is a boon for the grid, not a bane.
But yes, our grid could use some overhaul because it's not good at dealing with our current loads. We need HVDC for long-distance transmission, a smart grid for timing loads, and EVs for variable loads and, potentially, V2G.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>On a standard, 110 volt, 15 amp circuit, it takes 32 hours to fully charge
No doubt. But it should be much easier to provide a 220 volt, 20 amp circuit (4,400 watts) which is 266% more power than the energy of 15@110 (1,650 watts) (compared the the exotic 70A Tesla circuit). And, unless one is doing a LOT more than just commuting to work, one will rarely have to charge the car all the way from dead. So a half-charge top-up with 266% more power might be more like 6 or 7 hours.
Re: (Score:2)
Even coal is better than gasoline (no, really!) (Score:5, Informative)
According to a DOE study [pnl.gov] conducted at PNL, switching to EVs is a net win even on our current grid. The main reason is that power plants are a lot more efficient than gasoline-powered cars at turning fuel into energy, while transmission and charging are very efficient. Also, EVs, which mainly charge at night, reduce the need for spinning standby, allow plants to operate more efficiently at night, and so on. The net result is that you could switch 84% of our cars over on our existing grid and you'd cut CO2 emissions by a third, increase PM somewhat, NOx would drop slightly, SOx would stay the same, and CO and VOCs would be nearly eliminated. The pollutants that would be emitted would be emitted on average much further from people's lungs and so affect them less.
Re: (Score:2)
From where will the electricity come? Are we going to say yes to burning coal?
As Boris Johnstone, Mayor of London, said on Top Gear (car show) "from plugs". I'm glad the audience laughed at him, it restored some of my respect for them. Londoners lost most of it when they elected BJ mayor.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hear this argument far too often, and it makes no sense.
Let's think about it this way... How much easier would it be to replace every single vehicle and retrofit every single service station in the country if we decided to switch between different chemical fuels? Compare that to the difficulty of updating where we derive electricity...
SURE, it's COAL today... but will it always be coal? If we try to nay-say electric vehicles and talk our way into biofuels or hydrogen, and we run into issues obtaining it i
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Its unlikely that $40k car will survive without massive tax credits or $4 gas anyway.
Perhaps they intend to sell them primarily in Europe? According to Wiki [wikipedia.org] almost all of Europe already pays more than $4 for a US gallon, most are even above $5/gal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't checked the site for a while, but all of their proposed plans had REAR wheel drive.
The switch was made last January, but wasn't publicly announced until December. Switching to FWD gave a huge number of benefits, including much better regen, handling, and more room in the back.
the plan was ~20k, but last I checked the total was closer to ~30k
The plan hasn't been ~20k since mid 2007. You have been following them for a while! ;) When the Typ-1, Mk1 ("Zen") was unveiled in late '07, the announced p
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Three wheels helps them get a vehicle to market faster and cheaper, that's quite true. But there are also a wide range of other benefits. Insurance is cheaper. The car can more easily follow the optimal teardrop shape. Reaction time to driver input is faster. Cost of construction is lower. Maintenance is lower. The car is lighter, and thus has less rolling drag. Lower rolling drag and lower aero drag means faster charging times and less power consumed. And so on down the line.
Even with all that reduction in cost, it still doesn't make economical sense for me (and most people I would assume) to own this.
I mean, somebody needs to compare owning this to a subcompact car, for 10 years and about 12000 miles/year. My quick calculation shows me its not worth it, even at $5/gallon.
Add on top of the economic factors, the practicability factors, and the only reason I see today to buy this is if you have money to spare and want to be green. Sadly most people cant afford to be green at that
Soon, gas stations will be replaced by (Score:2, Interesting)
Let's hope that SS's claims are true. This would eliminate the need for hydrogen cars as well (water vapor is another major greenhouse gas).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's hope that SS's claims are true. This would eliminate the need for hydrogen cars as well (water vapor is another major greenhouse gas).
God forbid water vapor should be in the air!
:)
I meant too much water vapor. (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a fact overlooked by many.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Clearly, you have never lived in the southern states.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have an idea how much water vapour is released over the oceans.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Do you have any idea how much more will be released if every car on the planet is replaced with a hydrogen-powered car?
Why, yes. But let's not stop there: What if all of the world's energy needs were met by burning hydrogen?
The annual global energy consumption is somewhere around 5e20 J. That would mean burning 3.5e12 kg of H2 to create 3.1e13 kg of water. Worldwide annual precipitation is 5e17 kg of water, which is more than 16000X greater.
In other words, even in the worst case our impact on humidity levels would be lost in the statistical noise. And as others have pointed out, any of this insignificant excess would rain o
Re:I meant too much water vapor. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a fact overlooked by many.
They should keep overlooking it. H20 is a greenhouse gas, but it's close to saturated nearly everywhere on the planet already. If you put a little more in, it'll just rain out. In the places where it's not saturated (which is pretty much only near the poles), it'll freeze out.
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, water vapor? Without water vapor in the atmosphere there would be drought.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Soon, gas stations will be replaced by (Score:5, Insightful)
Humans aren't natural?
I presume a "yes." Things humans make aren't natural? What if a monkey learned to make something, would it be natural?
Obviously I have a point to make here. From the evolutionary standpoint that most say they hold, human machinery is just as natural as a monkey using a bone as a club (sorry, I just watched 2001: A Space Odyssey). It's time to define "nature" and why I don't get to be considered "natural." Which seems like it will be hard to do form the scientific/atheistic viewpoint. Even more so when people want to tell me that genetically modified stuff is just as natural as non GMO stuff... "natural" stuff. So on one hand, we can modify nature and be natural, and on the other hand we can't.
And yes, this is on topic, since "greenhouse gas emissions" implies that there are natural and unnatural things, and most of the time, "global warming" is linked to those horribly unnatural and wicked humans.
As opposed to whatever caused the last ice age when humans weren't around, I guess.
/me runs away from the flamebait mods, hehe
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm not so sure about a lot of climate science, water vapor is supposed to be a relatively invariant quantity. Excess vapor dumped into the air is not a concern as it will not remain long enough to be a greenhouse issue.
The greater concern is supposedly the CO2 gases since that is one of the few things we can change about the climate. (Especially with the ocean's capacity to be a huge carbon sink/carbon emitter.)
Personally, I want to know what happened to the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CFCs were much worse and HORRIBLE for the environment, it really would have cooked us to death. Thats why they were phased out across the globe in 1994, we'd have been seriously screwed had we not. Same idea goes for CO2, it is just less obvious.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I want to know what happened to the CFC scare.
We switched to hydrocarbons for things like aerosol cans, alternative gases for refrigeration, and places like McDonalds switched to cardboard from foam packaging. There aren't that many activities that require CFCs anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Just asking, how is electricity generated in your area? We're lucky enough to have mostly hydro, but I remember reading in one of those science mags that over 60% of electricity in the country was generated by burning coal.
Relevant solution (Score:2)
You know what would work best? This. [guardian.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But I remember reading that conservation organizations are trying to shut down wind farms because of the damage they do to birds and (more recently) bats. Is this still the case?
Even the Audubon Society supports Cape Wind. The "environmentalists" opposing these "controversial" wind farms are mostly just wealthy landowners who don't want the value of their homes to drop. The bird thing is largely a myth. Even taking into account the relatively small percent of our power that comes from wind, wind farms ar
question (Score:2)
Wheee! 1,000 HP! (Score:2)
And a range of 5 miles if you use it.
Now that gas has come down in price, predict these things - as always - arriving too late/early for the market.
Still want a Tesla, tho'.
http://www.teslamotors.com/ [teslamotors.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Thats amazingly short sighted. Do you think the drop in gas prices will stay that way forever? I'm amazed on the stats for SUV sales in the US. They vary in lock step with that weeks gas prices as if it mattered.
Oh and the shelby has 150mile range just so you know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no reason to think that things have fundamentally changed.
Actually, there is an amazing good reason to believe things have changed. All the previous spikes in gas prices have been caused by supply shocks. This means that various oil producing conglomerates have decided they would or could not provide the amount of oil because they didn't like the cost of it. This past years price shock was caused by a demand spike that could not be met. With the rapidly growing economies of China and India (~1/3 of the world's population) there are going to be more and more de
Here's what we need... (Score:5, Insightful)
- 5 passenger
- mid size and safe
- 500km range
- a/c and heat
- charge up at home and work
- under $20,000
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Here's what we need... (Score:5, Funny)
- 17" chrome rims
- aggressive "face"
- chrome grills
- tall enough for your kids to easily flip it
- 10 billion dollar advertising campaign
- large enough to kill anyone I hit
We want people to actually use these things, remember?
Re: (Score:2)
500km? A honda civic gets about that i'm sure people will be willing to give up SOMETHING. You described exactly a honda civic with a bit more range, the ability to charge at home and much lower cost to drive around. I'm sure people will be willing to spend more or give up some range. Generally people don't need to go from Toronto to Philly in on go without a stop.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I see it just the opposite. I, personally, am not fond of discovering that I have to go out of my way home from work to fill up with gas in the middle of a blizzard. I'd much rather just plug in each night and know that I never have to go out of my way to "fill up" except on long trips (i.e., the exceptions, not everyday life).
I think the "500 km" requirement is not borne of anything actually related to driving, but simply is an artifact of "lets be like gas cars!" Gas cars need long range in order to cu
Energy storage (Score:2)
The big problem with electric cars is energy storage. Lithium batteries are too expensive, take too long to charge, don't have a high enough energy density, and don't last long enough. If the current work on ultracapacitors pans out (and that's a BIG if) electric cars will become a lot more practical for the mass market.
Cold climates (Score:5, Interesting)
The big problem with electric cars is energy storage. Lithium batteries are too expensive, take too long to charge, don't have a high enough energy density, and don't last long enough. If the current work on ultracapacitors pans out (and that's a BIG if) electric cars will become a lot more practical for the mass market.
There are certainly issues with current electric cars, but only by having them in the market place in some form will there be any incentive to improve them. Lithium is expensive, but it will come done like anything else.
My concern will electric vehicles is how they will pan out in cold climates, like Scandinavia or Canada. From my experience batteries perform badly in the cold, with apparent charge dropping off until the battery is warmed up. For me this is where the real test of the technology will happen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lithium is expensive, but it will come done like anything else.
Actually lithium is an element, like gold, so it can't be manufactured. There's only so much of it. Therefore, unlike manufactured goods, as demand goes up, price goes up, not down.
Really.... (Score:2)
...I just need something to get me the 6 miles to work and then back again. The four mile round trip to the grocery store would be a bonus. Ahh...But in TX, AC and heating are a must.
Re: (Score:2)
Bicycle? Oh you're in TX - I guess somebody will shoot you or run you off the road.
Seriously though. I lived for three years in the suburbs of Denver, and didn't own a car. Not as humid I'm sure as TX. But then I did it for seven years in downtown Toronto (range from hot/humid to cold and danger of frost bite) too. Anything within 10-15km is easy easy easy.
Re: (Score:2)
Not as humid I'm sure as TX
Not even close.
Lots of us ready and waiting... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Tesla and Aero are interesting, but waaaaaaaaay out of normal price range. And most of the other electric cars don't cut it. This is what I want, and probably what most consumers want:
1) A real sized car, not a tiny econobox with motorcycle-sized tires
2) Range of at least 100+ miles per charge (I am guessing 80% of people are within a 20 mile round trip to work, 90% within 30 miles, and 95% within 40 miles; so other than occasional, long road trips, that is a lot of coverage).
3) Ability to charge with regular home voltage/current (don't care if it takes several hours to charge overnight)
4) Real performance- at least as fast (accel & top speed) as a gas car (like a 3 liter V6, not a 2 liter 4cyl)
5) Features- full A/C, heat, heated seats, auto climate control, GPS, cruise, auto lights, auto windows, defroster, etc
6) Safety- comparable to a quality conventional car- crumple zones, airbags, seatbelt tensioners
7) Reasonable price- comparable to a quality conventional car, although many of us are willing to spend more for the advantage of electric... but not 50%+ more
When that happens, I am betting people will flock to them. Hybrids (plugin or not) are just too complicated; they have all the complexity of a gas engine (cooling, emissions control, transmission, lube, injection, etc) with all the added cost of electric (motors, batteries, charging systems).
Re: (Score:2)
That's great --- as a second car, unless you want to rent a car every time you need to drive over 100 miles. You don't want this car to be your first car, because the last thing you want for long drives is your old and unreliable (and gas-powered) second car.
I realy believe that plug-in hybrids are the solution. 40 mile battery-only range satisfies 95% of journeys and probably 90% of the miles and the gas/hydrogen/whatever energy source allows the car to be u
Re: (Score:2)
"they have all the complexity of a gas engine (cooling, emissions control, transmission, lube, injection, etc) with all the added cost of electric (motors, batteries, charging systems)."
This just isn't true. Hybrids have one less part than a standard gas motor just the scales are re-arranged. Larger single starter/alternator tied into the power train permanently rather than a separate starter and alternator. They also have larger batteries, and a little more computer to control it all.
Earth calling Mars (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not saying they should copy Corolla's body style but for heaven's sake, make something that looks like its meant for this planet. I am betting that these people probably spent a good deal of money on the shape designer. This car will appeal to teenage nerds, extreme yuppies and the Hollywood set. How many of them are there anyways ??
If they are really serious about addressing the actual gas problem, they should make something that looks a little more common (oh horrors !). This car looks like a rich man's gimmick. Don't be surprised if the middle class gives it a miss.
Re:Earth calling Mars (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because its hard to make a brick become aerodynamic. The majority of the energy of moving a car down the road goes into making the air that is in front of the car get back behind the car. Its not at all about being yuppie, its just if you want efficiency this is what you need to do. The more it looks like a space pod the more efficient it generally is. Perhaps a Porsche is more your style?
I happen to work in a physics lab, and I
Cost??? (Score:2)
10 minute charge is BS... (Score:2)
Lets say its a tesla-equivelent battery pack, a nice 50 kWH.
To charge in 10 minutes, you'd need to shove in power at 300 kW!
At 220V, that means you'd need 1300 A of current!?!
Re:10 minute charge is BS... (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps the trick is to run a thick steel cable up a bell tower and wait for a thunderstorm. A lightning strike delivers its 1.21GW for 1/6th of a second, you'll get 50kWH and your car is charged. Come on people, we've seen this work...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
At 220V, that means you'd need 1300 A of current!?!
It's not just an electric car, it's also an arc welder!
That recharging spec is total B.S. (Score:2)
Recharging a battery that could run a car that size, that long, in ten minutes would require far more current than an electric grid could reasonably deliver, at least to more than a token few cars.
SirWired
This is great but.... (Score:2)
In the mean time, it's good (though hardly believable) that the Shelby has such a quick charge time. In order to be viable for long-range trips (say a full day), you need to be able to get a quick charge while on the road. Hell, even if you can only get ~100 miles/charge,
Required Reading on the Subject (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi?currentPage=all [wired.com]
What do the rest of us do....? (Score:2)
Electric cars are dumb. (Score:2)
We're talking about energy storage here. First off, to accelerate a 2000 pound (907kg) car 0-60 in 5 seconds (Mustang GT take-off with stick) requires 4865kg*m/s^2 i.e. 4865 newtons of force. It's going to go about 5m/s^2 for 80 meters, expending 60 watts of power.
My grasp of physics is pretty incorrect here. Somebody please help, because the numbers I got say a 12V car battery supplying 5A of current can pull this off (they can supply around 400A for 30 seconds at 0F, so ... yeah a car battery would
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, is that what's tripping you up? Here:
https://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages/8577/7263.html?1071520520 [maths.org]
v = u + at
27m/s = 0 + (a * 5s)
a = 27m/s / 5s
a = 5.4m/s^2
5.4m/s^2 * 4,865kg = 26,271 newtons = 26kW
That sounds about right. Snack time!
Fig newton?
Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
For you questioning the "charge in 10 minutes" claim : be aware that a lithium ion battery exists that DOES have this feature. Altair nanotechnologies is shipping a battery right now that supposedly has an improved anode that solves the problems that prevent rapid charging conventional lithium ion batteries. Actually, they claim 5 minute recharges in their marketing materials.
They ALSO claim to have solved the other big problem with lithium ion batteries : finite lifespan. They claim their batteries do not 'wear' and can be put through at least 20 years worth of power cycling. Again, note that these special batteries can be purchased today, they are not vapor-ware. (I don't know if their claims are valid, but I do know the physical batteries exist)
Yes, I am aware that a 10 minute recharge would strain the capacity of standard electrical service. You would need the electric gas stations to either have extremely high amperage connections to the grid, or to have some kind of energy storage technology at the station. Such as super-capacitors, a bank of precharged batteries, flywheels, ect.
So could it be done? Mass produce these high end lithium ion batteries by the billions, putting banks of them in every new car and truck on the road and in electric gas stations? I think it could, but the huge upfront costs of such a conversion are going to put it off well into the future. The ultimate long run costs might be the same or cheaper than fossil fuels, but in the short term consumers won't pay for something that is significantly more expensive.
For the conversion to occur, one of these has to happen
1. "Moore's law" makes lithium ion batteries so cheap that electric cars are cheaper than gas
2. Oil shortages make gas so expensive that even electric cars look cheap
3. The government puts a huge tax on gasoline/diesel and artifically makes electric cars seem cheap
A lot of people have pointed out that an electric car is actually simpler than gas. The motors are a lot smaller, and the battery banks consist of thousands of identical battery cells. The only other thing in the car is the power handling circuitry, which is solid state. If the batteries didn't wear out with age, then an electric car would probably be much cheaper to maintain.
Kind of need a driveway for a charge at home car (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:chevy volt? (Score:5, Funny)
...no JATO rockets, less space than a minivan. Lame.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Watts != Energy
Watts == Power!
Huge difference there. But I do agree that charging batteries for 100 miles/161km in 10 minutes will require a lot of Energy. I'll give it a try...
I read somewhere that a car needs about 30 hp on the highway at 100 km/h (62mph). If that is true, you will need about 22.37 kW for 1.61 hours. This means about 36 kW-hour of energy. Now, back to your house, in order to charge that in 10 minutes, you will need a power output of
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ehmm, structural panel failure, break failure
No, structural panel failure is a break success.
Re: (Score:2)
Step/assumption 1- scrap the SUV and get an electric car (doesn't have to be tiny, just reasonable). Step/assumption 2- a rage of 100+ miles per charge. Step/assumption 3- you need to buy a replacement vehicle because it is time to replace the old one, not just to make the switch. Step/assumption 4- electric cars have a large battery replacement expense after several years, but it might be about the same costs as gas engine car maintenance over the long term (gas engines are FAR more complex)
With those
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you get that for free with an electric drive. The torque capacity of electric motors is so high that they are usually governed to more reasonable levels of acceleration.
As for the reason behind sports cars, that's easy. Sports cars are expensive. Electric drive technology is expensive. Electric drive technology is great for race cars. ("Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." --Carroll Shelby) Ergo, selling an expensiv
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It is legal, and it is just as safe as any small car on the road. It's far more safe in any collision than a bike. Yes, it looks a bit goofy, but that's basically the shape you're going to have to live with if you want a Cd of 0.11, which is what you'll need to get the kind of range/kWh they're getting. And you won't get the aptera's milage on a bike because the Cd of a biker is pretty darned poor (sorry, no cite).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Basically, it needs to be heated to 250 degrees Celsius to work. The battery is very well insulated, so if you turn off the heat it takes 4 days to completely cool down. (And another two days to heat back up to 250 degrees)
You need to keep the car plugged in at night to run the little heater, which can also be powered by the battery itself. You can get this type of battery with the
Re:Batteries of any kind don't work well in the co (Score:4, Interesting)
No, they don't.
Your only experience with lead-acid batteries is trying to start your car in the morning... yet you consider yourself an expert, and feel qualified to make baseless assertions.
Lead-acid batteries are used in UPSes in open-air telcom buildings, even in the coldest areas.
The fact that cars have trouble starting in the cold is only half due to battery voltages falling in the cold weather... The thickening of oil, and shrinking of cylinders has just as much to do with it. And even then, if you had a battery twice as large, you'd never even notice. It's just that the cheapest (therefore, smallest) battery that will work is used in cars, so you don't have much of a margin to work with in adverse conditions.
An electric car won't have anything like the duty cycle of current car batteries. They will draw relatively small amounts of power when you start moving, and continue the draw as you continue to move. Since the draw is only 1/1000th of the battery capacity, no matter how low the temperature, they will allow the vehicle to operate.
And once the vehicle is in operation, the continual discharge of the batteries will generate a substantial amount of heat, internally. The sheer mass of the lead-acid batteries will keep the normally generated heat from easily escaping, provided they aren't mounted externally, directly in normal airflow.
Getting RID of the heat generated is the real problem with batteries, and that's a manageable issue as well.