Slashdot Mirror

One thing that immediately jumps out at me:

"Biofuels from switchgrass, if grown on U.S. corn lands, increase emissions by 50%."

Huh? Why would you grow switchgrass on corn lands? The whole point of switchgrass it that you can grow it on marginal lands, freeing croplands for food production. On crop lands, cellulosic ethanol is to be made from corn stover and the like.

Here's an interesting analysis of the studies from a member of the UC Davis faculty. He strongly disagrees with the methodology used.

Well, either way, I think we can all agree that corn ethanol from the corn itself is lousy, cellulosic ethanol from waste streams is good, and everything else is up in the air.

Many of the new battery techs coming out lately are fast charge. Li-ion, with the exception of the "laptop battery" style chemistry (graphite anode, LiCoO2 cathode), lends itself very well to rapid charging since it loses almost none of the energy as heat. A123's "nanophosphate" batteries, AltairNano's "Nanosafe" batteries, Toshiba's "SCiB", and so on are all fast charge capable (usually 5-10 minutes).

As for charging infrastructure, even Wal-Mart wants to get into the business. It's a great loss leader and a great way to green your image for relatively little expense.

As for range, google "lithium vanadium oxide", "silicon nanowires", and "EESU" for ideas of where the range is heading in the next generation of electricity storage systems. Not like I think that drivers *shouldn't* be getting out for a couple minute stretch every 150 miles or so.

There is a video involving an electric drill which demonstrates the stability of A123 Systems' batteries. It used to be on their web site. Now you can find it at: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/13/video-nail-drilled-through-a123-battery/

Fortunately, for folks who enjoy a bit of flame and spark, they also drill a conventional battery. Check it out.

A123 Systems also has a good bit of detail on the safety of their batteries at: http://www.a123systems.com/#/technology/safety/

-Jon

Nice article, but it only addresses the replacement of petro-diesel not gasoline. I have yet to read an article yet on running my car on waste cooking oil or soy based gasoline. So this algae will only be used to replace petro-diesel. Last time I checked, there are more gas cars on the road then diesel cars. So looks like ethanol from switchgrass is still top for gas based engines. On the note of development, with Boeing now backing biofuels to replace kerosene for commercial aircraft, I am sure this technology will start developing fast.

Air powered version will be available soon at about twice the price.

>>> Especially when you start to factor in carpooling.

That won't make as much of a difference as you think; when I was in India, it was vanishingly rare to see a motorbike with only one person on it. 2-3 was the average, and I saw 4 a few times...and this on bikes that would be considered tiny in North America.

So it's likely there will be at best a small increase in the number of passengers per vehicle with this car compared to a motorbike.

Mind you, it's likely that there will be at worst a modest increase in petrol consumption, too - this car is said to get 59mpg, which is 25-50% worse than Indian-style motorbikes.

People-per-vehicle can't increase by more than 2x, but petrol-per-vehicle can't, either, so the end result is likely to be a fairly modest change in petrol-per-person.

If you have a fixed number of miles driven, and you mandate a minimum of x mpg, this will result of an average of X>x mpg. This will burn the same amount of fuel as you would if you mandate a fleet average of X mpg.

No, it won't. Say my "fleet" consists of two cars - one a gas-guzzler that gets 10 MPG. The other is a small, unpopular car that gets 40 MPG. So, my "fleet average" is 25 MPG. But if the gas guzzler outsells the small car by a ratio of 100 to 1M

Ah, I see the issue. By my understanding "fleet average" is defined in terms of number of cars sold, not number of types of cars. In your example, this would make the fleet average (1*40+100*10)/101 = 10.2970297 MPG, not 25 MPG. By your definition, it is indeed almost entirely ineffective.

It took a bit to find anywhere actually defining the term but there is this: "(2) Fleet average fuel economy is - (A) the total number of passenger automobiles leased for at least 60 consecutive days or bought by executive agencies in a fiscal year (except automobiles designed for combat-related missions, law enforcement work, or emergency rescue work); divided by (B) the sum of the fractions obtained by dividing the number of automobiles of each model leased or bought by the fuel economy of that model." (Source) and a comment here runs some numbers using my definition.

Someone should go add the term to Wiktionary, 'cause it's not defined anywhere else. :-)

What harmful side effects are you talking about?

Loss of freedom to buy gas guzzlers, is one. So long as they're willing to pay for it (IE, pay extra in order to subsudise the cost of more efficient vehicles), I think we should let them.

I'm not sure why mandating better fuel consumption will necessarily change the price of cars. Or are you talking about something else?

With our new agreed upon(?) definition, you do, though, right?

Suppose the Guzzlebug gets 20MPG and costs $20 000. Foomobile gets 30MPG and costs $10 000. Barbug gets 40MPG and costs $15 000. I'm cheap, so I decide to go for the Foomobile instead of the Barbug. But then Mr. Burns says 'I want a Guzzlebug, but we have to average 30MPG or better, so I guess I'll have to go with a lousy Foomobile. But wait! I'll pay you $5 000 if you'll buy a Barbug instead of a Foomobile.' Obviously, Mr. Burns is happy with the trade or he wouldn't make it, and I'm happy (or at least neutral) with it or I won't take it. Result: our combined happiness (surplus) has increased, without lowering the average MPG.

This deal will be pre-made when car manufacturers realise they need to lower the average MPG of cars sold, not just their average MPG of cars for sale.

(Of course, it's possible Mr. Burns drives more than I do, but generally I'd expect more efficient cars to be favoured by people who drive a lot. Or maybe they're favoured by people who are mileage conscious and walk/bike/bus as much as possible.)

On long cross country trips, my partner and I switch drivers every two hours or so. And usually take the time to open up a new juice box or water, etc. Doesn't sound that inconvenient to me.

And let's do some math, shall we? Gasoline prices of $3/gal, with a car that gets 30 mpg (average consumer vehicle on the road is just under 20, thanks to old cars, SUVs, RVs, guzzling pickups, etc). That's ten cents per mile. An electric car with a range of 175mi that gets about 150Wh/mi (about average for the crop that's about to hit the market) capacity costs about 1.5 cents per mile. At 175mi, average speed of 65mph, that's 5 minutes of fuelling every 2.7 hours. Let's say 7 minutes for the overhead. This means just over 4 minutes of every hour driven is spent fuelling; gasoline cars have to fuel too, so let's say 3 additional minutes per hour is spent fuelling with an electric. During that hour of driving, covering 65 miles, the gasoline powered car cost $6.50, while the electric car cost $1. Net savings, $5.50. In short, you're saving $5.50 for 3 minutes of delay, which equates to the equivalent of saving of $110 per hour of extra time spent fuelling.

And you wouldn't choose this why?

Besides, I just love the look of the next gen crop of electrics. My favorite is the Aptera. I agree with one reporter's description: it looks like "Batman's girlfriend's car". And last they published specs, they hadn't seemed to have settled on a specific battery manufacturer yet. Which, to me, says there's a fair shot that these Toshiba batteries (or some of the other fast charging batteries soon hitting the market) may, if not in their first gen vehicles, land in their next gen vehicles.

I can buy a 3 year old Camry with much better metrics all around
Um, how about NO or hell no ?
So how much do you pay to drive 10 000 miles with a 3 year old Camry ? With MiEV, you pay £50
I guess if we discuss the price of the things, then price paid per mile is relevant.
Then, you might be surprised to hear about the little thing called "congestion charge" in a few places in the world, like London. Thats £8 saved every day when commuting to work. Guess what, MiEV would be exempt from that. It would also be able to drive in US HOV lanes.
Now, i havent driven MiEV myself, but everybody who has say that it performs actually better than the gas-powered counterpart. The reasons for that are: ideal weight distribution with low placed batteries, and instant torque without any gearbox available that is the inherent characteristic of eletric motors. I havent driven a Camry on track myself, but if feels kinda heavy to drive, i would not be surprised if it got its ass handed to it by something like MiEV.
If you add this all together, and throw in the fact that its a zero ( tailpipe ) emissions* vehicle, the metrics wont exactly be all around better.

* An electric vehicle powered by the electricity from coal plants is still roughly 75% cleaner per mile than modern gas engine.

Lots of coverage on AutoBlogGreen and some videos up on YouTube ( more tubiness)

The skinny: based on popular I car ( selling very well in Europe ) Mitsubishi is planning to market a fully electric version. About 120 miles range, a bit better acceleration performance than gas version and same top speed. Announced pricetag: $24K.
Fully crashtested to european standards at least, performs as well as gas counterpart.
The prototypes are in fleet testing by Tokyo Electric Power Company ( TEPCO ) right now.
There is some competition from Subaru in the form of R1E and Nissan with the Mixim.

I guess the reviewer does not subscribe to ABG electric vehicle news.

Lots of coverage on AutoBlogGreen and some videos up on YouTube ( more tubiness)

The skinny: based on popular I car ( selling very well in Europe ) Mitsubishi is planning to market a fully electric version. About 120 miles range, a bit better acceleration performance than gas version and same top speed. Announced pricetag: $24K.
Fully crashtested to european standards at least, performs as well as gas counterpart.
The prototypes are in fleet testing by Tokyo Electric Power Company ( TEPCO ) right now.
There is some competition from Subaru in the form of R1E and Nissan with the Mixim.

I guess the reviewer does not subscribe to ABG electric vehicle news.

Because there are 3 already in Detroit pursuing it too.

Actually 4 with Tesla Motors. Tesla quickly realized that while they may know a lot about how to produce kick ass electrical drive systems, computerized mechanics, and battery grids; they had a lot to learn about how to produce complete automobiles. It's a great move because they can gain industry experience and quickly ramp up simply by picking up the big 3's droppings as they downsize. I work right by the Rochester facility actually (though I've yet to see their new Sedan prototype).

P.S. not to mention I keep hitting their help wanted ads!

TFA is light on details. You might be interested to know that this is a hydrogen-burning internal combustion engine, not a hydrogen fuel cell.

BMW has also been developing hydrogen ("Wasserstoff") burning internal combustion engines: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/09/12/bmw-officially-announces-the-bmw-hydrogen-7

Due to the sky-high price of fuel cells, the good ol' internal combustion engine might turn out to be the most practical way to use hydrogen fuel, for the forseeable future.

You asked for it... just hotrod the new Opel, and you got it!

..."beyond petroleum". But then again, this is the same BP that just lost HUGE in the court of public opinion when everyone in Chicago started complaining about the fact that they wanted to dump more pollutants into Lake Michigan. Hell, even Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam called attention to it at Lollapalooza.

Frankly, I'm not impressed with BP. This big bad oil company is doing nothing more than chasing the $$$. You'd better believe that if oil prices dropped, they wouldn't hesitate to cancel these programs... Being environmentally conscious is money-making--for the time-being...

..."beyond petroleum". But then again, this is the same BP that just lost HUGE in the court of public opinion when everyone in Chicago started complaining about the fact that they wanted to dump more pollutants into Lake Michigan. Hell, even Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam called attention to it at Lollapalooza.

Frankly, I'm not impressed with BP. This big bad oil company is doing nothing more than chasing the $$$. You'd better believe that if oil prices dropped, they wouldn't hesitate to cancel these programs... Being environmentally conscious is money-making--for the time-being...

See discussion here.. no solid answers, but some research, and a theory that the illegal part would be calling them PZEV in states that don't have the same emissions laws.

The Ford Fusion Hydrogen 999 fuel cell car - a collaboratively engineered racer with Ballard, Roush and Ohio State University - is one of two vehicles Ford's fuel cell research team is helping prepare to set world land speed records. Ford researchers also are working with Ohio State University student engineers on its Buckeye Bullet 2, a fuel cell-powered racer that will compete for a similar world record in the unlimited class category.

buy myself a nice new electric roadster....buy myself a ...Honda generator....

And the real question is.... why doesn't some car company do essentially the above, except properly?

Actually, I thought the ad for the BMW Hydrogen 7 after the presentation was interesting. Apparently it can run on either liquid hydrogen or gasoline, crank out 260 hp and go 143 mph. When running on hydrogen it basically emits water vapor. Its nice to see a company stepping up and putting their money where their mouth is and actually producing something like this. In the long term I suspect this may be a more viable solution than conventional hybrid technology.

*Sigh.*

The good ol' SUV argument. Knew that'd come in somewhere!

1. All of GM's full size trucks and SUVs - GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, and pickup trucks and fleet vehicles - will have the most advanced two-mode full hybrid system to date on nearly any consumer vehicle for MY2008.

2. GM's bread and butter is the full size trucks; it can't compete with Toyota in the car market, and it doesn't have anything to do with "greener" (though increased fuel efficiency is a valid pragmatic argument for many). So GM is going after the market it knows and knows well with more efficient high-technology hybrids. Seriously, the amount of engineering in these things is incredible.

Hybrids are not some panacea; it's all about increasing efficiency for the type of vehicle in question. It's frankly no one's business to judge how big is "too big"; it could be argued that a Prius or Honda Civic Hybrid are "too big" or "more than someone needs". You could even argue that carpooling or small 1- or 2-person vehicles would serve many just fine. Then we start going down the road of taking away personal freedoms and mandating sizes and shapes of vehicles. I suppose in some nations, that would fly.

It's 6700$ for the components and 1700$ for the batteries ... Even when you have to change the batteries every year, it's still WAY cheaper than you think ... I'm still rather convinced that the electric car is being held back.

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/12/24/homebuilt- ev-conversion-drops-gas-bill-from-10-a-day-to-60-c ent/

I've seen this claim before. If this is "for certain", then I suppose it should be easy for you to produce some actual evidence to back it up. And please, don't bother linking to this discredited study.

This would seem to fit the bill:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/04/24/loremo-157 -mpg/

Dozens of environmentalist blogs have picked apart this "study" and have found it to be lacking. Two responses. The gist of it is that they underestimated the Prius' lifespan and overestimated the amount of energy it takes.

And a big red flag for every Slashdot reader is that CNW is a "market research" institute. Do you trust marketdroids to make engineering assessments?

From an unexpected horizon, far ahead
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/03/03/geneva-pre view-koenigsegg-creates-an-ethanol-powered-superca r/

"So, why would we be covering the Koenigsegg CCXR here on AutoblogGreen? Well, I'm glad you asked! This vehicle is just like their standard CCX, except that it has had its standard 800 HP V8 engine converted to run on E85. In the conversion process, the machine picked up a substantial amount of power. How much? How about 1018 hp at 7200 rpm and the torque to 1060 nm at 6100 rpm?"

---

Let's go vrooom

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/07/21/is-a-humme r-greener-than-a-prius/ http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hu mmer-is-not-greener-a-prius/

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/07/21/is-a-humme r-greener-than-a-prius/ http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/10/05/oh-so-a-hu mmer-is-not-greener-a-prius/

Also, I don't appreciate this article's attempt to conflagrate electricity generation with fuel production.

Few are worried about us running out of sources of electricity, due to coal, nuclear, and decreasing costs of renewables. It's vehicle fuels that are the issue of concern.

And some of the proposals are just plain stupid, like running vehicles on charcoal that it's embarassing that they even mentioned them in passing.

Look at the size of the USB / firewire port on this thing! Ack!

Besides that, there's another interesting feature of Tesla Roadster that's puzzling; it's autonomy. Tesla claims a 250 miles range, and a full charge of 3.5 hours while Chevrolet Volt has a range of 40 miles and full charge goes up to 6.5 hours .
Also, the volumes occupied by the batteries are simmilar, Volt has 100 liters and the Tesla Roadster about 120 liters (if my calculations based on this pdf are correct).
So, from where does this difference appear ? How come Tesla can have a 250 miles range, while Volt only 40 miles ?

I half expect that central column to start pumping up and down with a high pitched grinding noise as the vehicle slowly disappears.

From a page linked to by TFA: Regardless of the claims of battery makers, the technology to build an affordable battery that will last 100,000 miles, with minimal degradation of performance has yet to be demonstrated.

Li-ion batteries, after about a year, hold about half their charge. And this degradation can be accelerated if they're regularly stored in a hot place. And if battery manufacturers have fixed this, we sure as hell haven't seen these wonder batteries in laptops or mp3 players.

Maybe if you can afford a $100K Tesla you wouldn't mind buying a new battery pack every year, but I don't think this would go over well with consumers.

• Stop and go traffic
• Errands
• Diminishing battery capacity over time, especially for those who live in the last 25% of the range
• Detours
• Carpooling
• Anyone else have to drive to lunch?

• Stop and go traffic
• Errands
• Diminishing battery capacity over time, especially for those who live in the last 25% of the range
• Detours
• Carpooling
• Anyone else have to drive to lunch?

To produce the hydrogen we need, we require water and energy. Look to Iceland, home of tremendous amounts of geothermal energy. In fact, they also have hydrogen gas pouring out of geothermal boreholes - it only needs to be purified somewhat before use.

Iceland will be the new center of the world in so far as power supply. They have abundant geothermal resources that allow them to produce - are you ready for this - hydrogen - without the need for a fossil fuel energy source.

Check out a Google search on Iceland geothermal hydrogen, and you will get abundant information on the hows and whys.

Or, for you lazy bastards, copy link here: http://www.autobloggreen.com/2006/11/25/iceland-ha s-vast-resources-to-produce-hydrogen/

The Western US also has geothermal areas which could be harnessed, but they happen to be inside national monuments, and so harder to access in a industrial sort of way (thank goodness. Can you imagine Old Faithful with a big metal cap on it, and around the monument are gauges to show the pressure, and photos of how it used to look? ugh.)