Slashdot Mirror

> would hydrogen be any worse?

If you stored a tank of the liquid stuff, you could get a real nice boom if that thing had a catastrophic rupture. However, most tanks are pressurized gas, not liquid, and they're just going to puncture, not explode. Check this out for some video of what happens when a hydrogen tank ruptures. I'd sure hate to be in the way of that flame jet, sure, but it's otherwise less than impressive.

You want to talk about rolling bombs, how about LNG or propane powered cars?

...the most optimistic estimates are for around 2035, with most realistic estimates coming in at about 2010.

And there are pessimistic estimates that it has already happened. If you look at oil produciton graphs (see page 16 of http://www.evworld.com/library/Oil_Shale_Stategic_ Significant.pdf), it hasn't actually gone up in the last few years. Naysayers will argue that the recent decrease in production is only due to temporary production difficulties, and the trouble with getting new production on line fast enough. That, however, is exactly the point. The Hubbert peak idea implies that as production reaches its peak, the new produciton will be progressively more difficult to get online or keep online, and therefore more expensive, and therefore that it will be impossible to get new produciton online faster than old production runs out. You can get a better explanation than I am currently writing here.

It's a dream that's been pursued for years by governments, energy companies and automakers so far without success: Mass-producing affordable electric-powered cars that spew nothing from their tailpipes. So Jada Toys decided to start small. Really small....yada yada yada....

http://www2.towerhobbies.com/cgi-bin/wti0001p?&I=L XKGY5&P=7

The article quoted:
"Public awareness and education are the first steps toward commercialization," said Horizon founder Taras Wankewycz, 32. "We want to make sure this technology gets adapted globally."

what bull. This is just a ploy to delay the use of existing, disruptive, technologies while the oil industry cranks out as much profits as it can.

Go see "Who Killed the Electric Car" and read this on how the oil industry won't let battery makers build NiMH batteries large enough for EVs:

http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogen try&authorid=51&blogid=104

LoB

as in, you can't get (meaningful) quantities of hydrogen
out of the ground.

See also for example:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/081803_h ydrogen_answers.html
http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&st oryid=581

among many other reports of why the heralded hydrogen economy
has a place in the pantheon of the FSM and his noodly appendage.

Wow, where to even begin. Right now there is a net reduction in CO2 emissions using dirty coal + BEV vs ICE. Read some of these reports, and then recheck your numbers: http://www.ilea.org/downloads/MazzaHammerschlag.pd f http://evworld.com/library/CanadaFuelCycle.pdf http://www.epri.com/event_attachments/2093_(16)Duv allEmissionsGlobal.pdf The benefit is not as large as you would like for current dirty coal, but it does exist now, and reduces our dependance on foreign oil. An existing BEV will actually get cleaner over time as dirty coal is replaced with something cleaner (like clean coal!). How much have we invested in oil wars over the last 20 years? Only roughly half of the power in the US is coal anyway, and of that not all is dirty coal. In california we have very clean power (primarily NG, nuclear, hydro and wind). EVs would make a huge difference in net pollution. There is a large unused off-peak capacity that would be sufficient until about 20-25% of all cars where electric. That would not happen over night, and gives plenty of time to upgrade the grid over 10-20 years as electric cars gain traction. We need to improve our electric grid anyway, so that is a good thing. I would much prefer investing in our electric grid than a whole new infrastructure for something else like hydrogen. BEVs are the ultimate flex-fuel vehicles, because they will run on the electricity produced by anything: Coal, NG, nuclear, solar, wind, bio. Whatever becomes viable in the future, your car could run using it. 100% flexibility. No foreign oil. Today. Current hybrids have it backwards, and at some point will change. The cars should be pure electric and then add a generator for extended range or off-grid use. Check out what Mitsubishi is doing (http://www.gizmag.com/go/4666/). Very cool stuff. If you are wondering whether electric works for semi trucks, just step up and see how a train works. The ultimate hybrid, and they do it the correct way (unlike the Prius), diesel generator powering electric drive.

Sorry for the 2nd post but I found this blog and it pretty much explains ALOT:

http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogen try&authorid=51&blogid=104

Cobasys forced Toyota/Panasonic(T/P) into a restrictive license after T/P chemically
'fixed' the Cobasys NiMH design and the courts/arbitrator didn't see this new
design as being different from Cobasys's patented NiMH design. The resulting license
restricts T/P from making any NiMH batteries worth using in either PHEV or BEV vehicles.

IMO, it's protectionism and market manipulation at the expense of profits but for the
goal of attempted control of EV markets worldwide.

Let's see if the Japanese pull the Li-ion 'rabbit' out of their hat and on the way
out the door with PHEVs, give Cobasys the one finger salute.

LoB

This car is not a true Tesla Car.

If it were, it would have no batteries at all. Instead it would gets it energy from some kind of wireless source like microwave power transmission or even the Earth's magnetic field.

"Oh but what about all the waste from the batteries"... I hate that typical response to your opinion/suggestion. Duh, recycle them into *gasp* new batteries. I just wanted to chip in that my current ideal world (until we have those transporter thingies) would be absolutely covered with maglev train routes and hubs for them. Soon as we make them go 500mph or so we get rid of the planes. The government is just sitting on its ass. Fun and interesting linkages: http://www.evworld.com/images/US_highspeed_railcor ridors.jpg http://www.nlr.net/images/NLR-Map-large.jpg http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/mag netrain.html

I research peak oil. We have entered into rather intresting times.

The best political summary i've discovered on my travels is
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogen try&authorid=75&blogid=189&archive=0

The best overview of peak oil and related energy issues is
"The Parties Over" by Richard Heinberg. (available via amazon.com)

Enjoy!

Is there a reason this particular article made it into the news here? Because I see this kind of thing every day at http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/BreakingNews.html. In fact, this article: http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&st oryid=975 has a more conservative estimate of peak oil. I don't think anybody can successfully argue that peak oil isn't going to occur, and that it won't have major implications, it's just that Professor Deffeyes isn't the only or even the best source for such information.

One thing a lot of readers also seem to be forgetting is that oil is not just used for energy production. If we do happen to run out of oil, we will also run out of nearly all petroluem based products such as plastics and pesticides. Alternative sources of energy can be researched, and maybe we'll even find something that has an efficiency high enough that it doesn't take more energy to produce than the source gives. However, there is really no replacement for plastics or any of the other petroleum based products that we absolutely rely on.

...

Worst of all, GM long ago stopped listening to its customers, and that's just plain bad Car-Ma! ;-)

The turning point occurred in the late 90's, when a group of visionary engineers, under the tutelage of then CEO Robert Stempel, attempted to "reinvent the corporation." Among their achievements, they built, on the relatively small shoestring budget of $350 million, the world's most advanced and efficient automobile -- the EV1. The EV1 assembly line in East Lansing, Michigan established new benchmarks in low volume custom manufacturing -- a key technology for the future, then and now dominated by Toyota Corporation.

But Stempel and his lieutenants were soon ousted by a corporate coup when GM's earnings took a downturn during a recession, and the Beancounters took over once again.

In 1997, GM showed off a hybrid electric version of the EV1 at the Los Angeles Auto Show -- just as Honda and Toyota were introducing their hybrids to the world. But the Beancounters at GM Corporate quietly tucked away their hybrid, never to be seen again, and openly derided the Japanese offerings for selling "below cost" -- forgetting the painful lessons that America has had to learn in so many other electronic-related technologies. ... (source)

The school system in this country also needs to be radically improved.

dood, talk to the children: almost all of them hate their government schools. School is the problem. Read some John Taylor Gatto and you'll understand why.

You're right on about needing CEOs who are Engineers and not Beancounters, though... Read about what happened at General Motors with their EV1 project. The engineer-CEO & board members who said "we can do this!" (meet California's Zero Emission Vehicle mandate) got kicked out in 1992 after a recession caused them to miss profit expectations. They were replaced with Beancounters, who gave the EV1 project lipservice, but did everything they could to kill the mandate. Now look at GM: giving away their cars for 3+ months (employee discount program, losing >$1,000/car). There are no profit expectations because the analysts expect that they're going to lose lots of money.

http://ev1-club.power.net/ - 100+ people offered GM $24,000/each for USED compact-sized EV1's. GM said "no thanks" and took the cars to Mesa, Arizona where they were uncerimoniously crushed.
GM Deathwatch (part 1 of 34+)

some links:

CARB's Fuel Cell Detour on the Road to Zero Emission Vehicles (pdf) (complete)
Perspectives on Fuel Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles (problems w/ fuel cells)
Letter to California Air Resource Board [CARB] against watering down the ZEV mandate (by requiring advanced technology batteries.. Later they watered it down even more by giving in to the fuel cell bait & switch)

They have to keep the charade going. Fuel Cells were the "switch" in the "bait & switch" con Automakers played to get out of California's Zero Emission Vehicle mandate. The California Air Resource Board wanted automakers to sell Batery Electric Vehicles (BEV). GM was going all-out to meet the mandate, but then GM's visionary engineers got kicked out, and then they spent some $600 million lobbying against ZEV.

"We can't do BEV 'cause the batteries aren't good enough and people won't want a car that they can't instant-refill. But Hydrogen! Hydrogen is just like gasoline, except it's clean! Never mind that there's no efficient or economical way to get hydrogen, advances in 30 or 40 years will make it possible!"

Of course, now that ZEV is DeaD, battery technology has advanced to the point where an "instant" re-charge is possible...

See Perspectives on Fuel Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles, and this mailing list post on GM's coming demise ("good riddance").

CARB's Fuel Cell Detour on the Road to Zero Emission Vehicles

The One Tank Challenge demonstrated that on a 62L gas tank it's possible to drive Toronto city traffic for 972 KMs getting better than 5.9L/100KM (or roughly 50MPG).

While that's interesting, it doesn't quite match up with what others have reported. Seeing as the people touting the 50MPG are Ford themselves, I'd have to take their numbers with a grain of salt.

...you'll need to do a lot of the DIY, perhaps just in the configuring. You can always sub out the actual work. You'll be retrofitting the entire drive train, plus adding space for batteries as well if you want any sort of at least minimum range before you are forced to use the fueled engine. What you are contemplating is a self propelled generator basically, with you along for the ride. That is in essence what a hybrid is.

Here is a generic link to get you going

http://www.evworld.com/

As another poster pointed out, this is a fabulous new industry idea, some places are doing it, but it's still in the mom and pop shop stage most places, sort of like the original mom and pop whitebox shops back in the haydays of making decent money at it.

pure electric conversion kits and links

http://www.electroauto.com/

Now what I think might be a useful idea, one already built at ACPropulsion, is to make the vehicle pure electric, and have the generator part that makes it a hybrid be in a tow behind trailer. Short range, run pure electric, extended range, tow the trailer.

read about that and more info here, these guys know their stuff

http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_FAQs/FAQ_products.

good luck and do a blog on it, would like to see the project as it unfolds

Maybe we can figure out how to get cheap energy from fusion before oil production peaks in 3 to 5 years time.

See here and here

I'm talking about serious enthusiasts, not the "I've got hybrid technology just because it's fashionable".

I'm talking about people who push their car's performance meaure as far as it can go. People who modify their automobile in ways its manufacturer never thought of and wouldn't approve if they knew about it. Such as this guy.

These people aren't serious enthusiasts, not to the depth I'm speaking of. To put the point sharply, these are the people that buy Mac's, they want form before function.

Y'know, the three smartest, most savy computer techs I know all just recently went mac. Something about a Unix interface.

Trust me--once Nascar is won by a hybrid, those "enthusiasts" will adopt the technology wholesale. (Nascar involves a lot of accelleartion and decelleration; anything that increases your fuel economy will be adopted, and at some point hyrbids will be added into the mix, if not a direct fuel cell.)

Just buy your Honda hybrids and stay out of the fast lane because I'll take my german V6 and be happy for the rest of my life.

You mean, until your german v6 totally falls apart on you once the warranty expires. When you build performance you get performance--and that means that the car won't last as long as an equal-quality car with a different model in mind.

It might not be economically feasible for people like you but real enthusiasts that get that special feeling when the vehicle comes to life, we're willing to pay past the current gas prices to reach it again.

Once gasoline is no longer the cheapest fuel, you'll have about five years where it's still sold, as everyone and their brother buys a non-gasoline car. And then you'll have an amazing decline in the avaliability of gasoline; at some point, you'll be paying hundreds of 2005 dollars a gallon.

At that point, the real enthusiasts will laugh at you old fogies, and you'll quietly try and forget that you ever wrote this post.

While General Motors is busy destroying its last EV1-s and getting people arrested over it, the French have debuted a new electric vehicle concept at Geneva Motor show.
Here is the press kit and images of the BlueCar, designed by Philippe Guedon and sponsored by Vincent Bolloré.
In other EV news, Commuter Cars Tango is reportedly close to producing its first vehicles, one of the first ones sold to George Clooney

While General Motors is busy destroying its last EV1-s and getting people arrested over it, the French have debuted a new electric vehicle concept at Geneva Motor show.
Here is the press kit and images of the BlueCar, designed by Philippe Guedon and sponsored by Vincent Bolloré.
In other EV news, Commuter Cars Tango is reportedly close to producing its first vehicles, one of the first ones sold to George Clooney

Current Li batteries are very limited in their max current. This make them poor choices for high current applications, like electric motors. It won't make your laptop run any longer, but you'll be able to charge it 3x faster.

I believe this automated load-balancing "packet-routing" approach to mass transit is inevitable. An efficient individual car system can really move people; just ask Disneyland.

I won't contest that SkyWeb beats conventional mass transit in every way -- in most ways even rickshaws would -- but I wonder if it's the best of the competing ideas out there.

SkyWeb appears clunky compared to SkyTran (interview with the inventor Part 1 and Part 2.). The SkyTran system looks like it could be lighter, faster (they have a target of 100 mph), slightly easier to use, more convenient wrt station placement, quicker to install and more flexible in terms of installation (can attach to existing buildings, very small ground-level footprint), more tolerant of inclement weather, and up to ten times cheaper meaning up to ten times the rail length/station nodes of SkyWeb for the same money.

But SkyWeb may be further along in their development cycle.

SkyTran's website leaves something to be desired, but it's entertaining.

I believe this automated load-balancing "packet-routing" approach to mass transit is inevitable. An efficient individual car system can really move people; just ask Disneyland.

I won't contest that SkyWeb beats conventional mass transit in every way -- in most ways even rickshaws would -- but I wonder if it's the best of the competing ideas out there.

SkyWeb appears clunky compared to SkyTran (interview with the inventor Part 1 and Part 2.). The SkyTran system looks like it could be lighter, faster (they have a target of 100 mph), slightly easier to use, more convenient wrt station placement, quicker to install and more flexible in terms of installation (can attach to existing buildings, very small ground-level footprint), more tolerant of inclement weather, and up to ten times cheaper meaning up to ten times the rail length/station nodes of SkyWeb for the same money.

But SkyWeb may be further along in their development cycle.

SkyTran's website leaves something to be desired, but it's entertaining.

I think what makes it interesting is the controllability. There is a much better chance this could scale than something which is just a new chemistry or a more convoluted surface. Once you have the ability to control the physical battery to a microscopic degree, then you are free to scale and address problems like overheating with logic, in theory. The chemistry of this particular prototype may turn out to be less interesting with advances in nanotech, like http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique &newsid=6636

Here is an interesting related interview. Also check out the specs for these ultracapacitors. The key benefit of capacitors over batteries is in deep discharge, near instantaneous bursts of current. It takes the load off your bulk storage supply, allowing them to operate more efficiently.

I still can't buy a hybrid flexible fuel vehicle, so I can shift my usage over to a more renewable source. This system opens up some options though. I like!

Aside: The regenerative braking aspect of all hybrids is a hidden bonus for the wear on the mechanical systems too. I've had my hybrid for almost two years now and the brake pads aren't anywhere near their first 10% worn-down state.

The Ford Focus PZEV has practically zero emmissions and will be widely available later this year. The gas mileage shouldn't be too much different from your regular Foci - or the above mentioned hybrids apparently...

You might be interested in what these guys have done. This is a cool page on their corporate web site. They can make a 25 pound 12"x4" motor deliver 100 ft-lbs @ 3800 rpm. It isn't an enhancement of conventional design. It's a new arrangement of the magnetic relation between the rotor and the stator. IIRC, the rotor gets twisted like a particle in a cyclotron instead of pushed/pulled like two kids spinning up a schoolyard merry-go-round.

Ford's Escape Hybrid gets 38MPG in a NYC driving marathon. Finally, an SUV that doesn't guzzle gas.

Link

There's never been a problem on the demand side, always the supply side.

Is that the new design? It looks identical to the Norwegian Pivco electric car developed about 5 years ago. Ford got into a partnership with Pivco and released the vehicle as the TH!NK in Europe.

AFAIK the Pivco is now out of production. It featured on an excellent Channel 4 programme backed by the Design Council 'Better by Design' where they called in the designer partnership Seymour-Powell. The designers came up with some superb little ideas - electric cars that looked great, micro-delivery vans for small companies that featured removable back sections so the van could be changed to a different purpose in minutes, small cars with easy access for the elderly or for small children, a sporty version.

As you can imagine, there ideas weren't taken up by Pivco.

Now what we need are electric Smart cars - great design, I love the removeable body panels so that you can restyle your car when you get bored of it, but the fuel economy is no better than bigger, cheaper cars. But I have to admit, the Smart Roadster and the Bluewave are gorgeous!

Best wishes,
Mike.

The car is mine, and while on my private property I should be able to do whatever I like with it.

That's why there's Segway and an increasing variety of Slo-Go mobility devices.

Cars are for responsible drivers the government can designate and trust. Consider, a car irresponsibly driven can be a flying missile, is often used by terrorists as weapons (ever hear of a car bomb?), can potentially outrun officers of the law, are used by pedophiles and other criminals to abduct persons, and in general is much more responsibility than most citizens are equipped to handle. Timothy McVey drove a car to flee the scene, and drove a truck to destroy innocent citizens. We don't let people own grenades or missiles, and owning a car or truck has become nearly as dangerous.

Unlike developing EU measures to restrict car ownership to by fiat (forcing the masses to take public transportation), early US national and municipal studies recognized that US citizens were unlikely to abandon transportation forms that restricted their liberty. Hence the Federal subsidies and purchasing support for Segway and similar low-speed, low-risk mobility devices (aka "Slo-Go").

With a Segway (or comperable Slo-Go mobility device), drunk driving consequences are reduced to a few bruises or possibly a broken bone. Death to innocent parties in a collision? Absolutely not. Road rage at 10 mph? Equally limited consequences.

Fleeing law enforcement (in autos) in a Segway would only be a few minutes of absolute amusement for the officer involved, before the fleeing party was apprehended. Road wear and a variety of other issues with big vehicles would all be eliminated.

Congressional studies suggested an initial step in the next five years to dramatically hike auto registration/ownership taxes beyond the reach of many, creating a market preference shift for slow-go devices. Blanket auto ownership restrictions would probably meet extreme initial resistance, so punitive taxes gradually increased would be the most effective way of shifting ownership and encouraging the growth of the slow-go market.

The car experiment has been a collosal 100-year failure. Transition to Slo-Go is the only proper way for letting the masses drive. If you agree, be sure to check out the leading Slo-Go website EVWorld.com

The car is mine, and while on my private property I should be able to do whatever I like with it.

That's why there's Segway and an increasing variety of Slo-Go mobility devices.

Cars are for responsible drivers the government can designate and trust. Consider, a car irresponsibly driven can be a flying missile, is often used by terrorists as weapons (ever hear of a car bomb?), can potentially outrun officers of the law, are used by pedophiles and other criminals to abduct persons, and in general is much more responsibility than most citizens are equipped to handle. Timothy McVey drove a car to flee the scene, and drove a truck to destroy innocent citizens. We don't let people own grenades or missiles, and owning a car or truck has become nearly as dangerous.

Unlike developing EU measures to restrict car ownership to by fiat (forcing the masses to take public transportation), early US national and municipal studies recognized that US citizens were unlikely to abandon transportation forms that restricted their liberty. Hence the Federal subsidies and purchasing support for Segway and similar low-speed, low-risk mobility devices (aka "Slo-Go").

With a Segway (or comperable Slo-Go mobility device), drunk driving consequences are reduced to a few bruises or possibly a broken bone. Death to innocent parties in a collision? Absolutely not. Road rage at 10 mph? Equally limited consequences.

Fleeing law enforcement (in autos) in a Segway would only be a few minutes of absolute amusement for the officer involved, before the fleeing party was apprehended. Road wear and a variety of other issues with big vehicles would all be eliminated.

Congressional studies suggested an initial step in the next five years to dramatically hike auto registration/ownership taxes beyond the reach of many, creating a market preference shift for slow-go devices. Blanket auto ownership restrictions would probably meet extreme initial resistance, so punitive taxes gradually increased would be the most effective way of shifting ownership and encouraging the growth of the slow-go market.

The car experiment has been a collosal 100-year failure. Transition to Slo-Go is the only proper way for letting the masses drive. If you agree, be sure to check out the leading Slo-Go website EVWorld.com

(1) The Hindenberg used uncompressed H2.

(2) Any vehicle wishing to travel more than a few miles will need to use highly compressed H2. To get the same range as diesel, you will need to compress it to around 2,000 atmospheres, or 14,000 PSI.

(3) What do you think a tank with a large volume of explosive gas at 14,000 PSI will do when ruptured ? I'll give you a hint : "simply burn quickly" is not one of them.

unextinguishable 60-ft. flames would be a better guess.

Speaking of mainstream, did anybody else see this
California is planning to put hydrogen fuel stations every 20 miles on interstate highways. I've seen several articles on it, but I've not seen any discussion anywhere. I don't know how they are planning in producing the hydrogen, etc.

From the Vancouver Sun,

The most promising source of the hydrogen may be geological "traps" similar to those now drilled for natural gas. Professor Freund said: "One of these natural hydrogen fields is already known to exist in North America, and extends from Canada to Kansas."

They could only measure 0-60 because at 4 seconds, the li-ion batteries are all dead.

Take a look at this article in EV World. Note the picture at the top. See that little yellow trailer behind the TZero?

I met Alan Cocconi once, back in 1995. There was a big EV rally in Yosemite valley because they were introducing electric buses to tote the tourists around. There were a lot of EV folks and a bunch of the big names in EV's were set up to show off their work, including AC propulsion. Alan had just arrived (a little late, iirc) in his electric Honda CRX, having come from Washington DC.

How did he make it from WashDC to Yosemite Valley, California? He had a little trailer attached to the back with a well-tuned little engine. It burned gas to produce electricity -- much as the hybrids apparently do today. If he was travelling across the country, he used the trailer. If he was going to the grocery store, he left it at home. It would appear he has the same setup for the TZero.

There are some common misconceptions about EV's and people's usage of cars. Most people think that a car needs a range of hundreds of miles. Not true, most of the time. Daily commutes are usually under 80 miles total, and if you "fill up" each night, a range of 80-100 miles is plenty. Of course, if filling up meant going out in the rain to put gas in your car, that would be a royal pain. But with an EV, it means plugging an extension cord in in your garage. Piece o' cake.

The next kneejerk exclamation is "what about when I want to go farther, like to Disneyland?" Well, you can use a set up like Alan's trailer, or to quote an EV owner from a number of years ago, "The best range extender for an electric vehicle is a rental car." Another option, and popular with EV folk, is to have a second, gasoline-powered vehicle for longer trips.

So, while amusing, your comment is not really based in reality, now is it?

They could only measure 0-60 because at 4 seconds, the li-ion batteries are all dead.

Take a look at this article in EV World. Note the picture at the top. See that little yellow trailer behind the TZero?

I met Alan Cocconi once, back in 1995. There was a big EV rally in Yosemite valley because they were introducing electric buses to tote the tourists around. There were a lot of EV folks and a bunch of the big names in EV's were set up to show off their work, including AC propulsion. Alan had just arrived (a little late, iirc) in his electric Honda CRX, having come from Washington DC.

How did he make it from WashDC to Yosemite Valley, California? He had a little trailer attached to the back with a well-tuned little engine. It burned gas to produce electricity -- much as the hybrids apparently do today. If he was travelling across the country, he used the trailer. If he was going to the grocery store, he left it at home. It would appear he has the same setup for the TZero.

There are some common misconceptions about EV's and people's usage of cars. Most people think that a car needs a range of hundreds of miles. Not true, most of the time. Daily commutes are usually under 80 miles total, and if you "fill up" each night, a range of 80-100 miles is plenty. Of course, if filling up meant going out in the rain to put gas in your car, that would be a royal pain. But with an EV, it means plugging an extension cord in in your garage. Piece o' cake.

The next kneejerk exclamation is "what about when I want to go farther, like to Disneyland?" Well, you can use a set up like Alan's trailer, or to quote an EV owner from a number of years ago, "The best range extender for an electric vehicle is a rental car." Another option, and popular with EV folk, is to have a second, gasoline-powered vehicle for longer trips.

So, while amusing, your comment is not really based in reality, now is it?

First off, the batteries are not "laptop" batteries per se. They are 18650 lithium ion cells, like these. While this ad shows them as "3.7 volts" and "1300-1400 mAh," the nominal voltage is considered 3.6 volts; let's split the difference and call them 1350 mAh. That means (3.6v x 1.350 Ah = ) 4.86 Wh / battery. A two-pack is $12.99, which mean ($12.99 / 9.72 Wh = ) $1.34 / Wh. At that rate, 50 kWh (which the article states is the car's capacity) costs about $67,000.

Their tZero gets at least 5 miles / kWh (according to other sources), which means at least 250 miles / charge (the EV1 got closer to 6 miles / kWh).

Note: many laptop battery packs (especially the third-party, aftermarket ones) are simply plastic enclosures with these replacement Li-Ion batteries in them. Hence the comment about "laptop batteries."

Still too pricey for making my own Battery Electric Vehicle (the batteries alone are more than I spent on my last three cars, combined), but we're DEFINITELY getting there. A year ago, the best deal I could find was over $11 / Wh.

If you've got RealPlayer installed on your machine, EVWorld.com has an interview with one of the car's builders, providing some more technical detail.

I'm not saying the Humvee isn't ugly, but at least it's practical...

http://evworld.com/archives/conferences/evs14/humv ee.html

Some answers:

It may do 0-60 in 4 seconds

* The car does 0-60 in a short amount of time because it has a fixed torque. There is no power peak - the motor has a full 200hp output at *any* speed (then presumably a rev limiter kicks in when it gets to 100mph). Usually you have to get a gasoline car engine up to 5000 to 6000 rpm before you get anything close to full power. This is why the electric can beat just about anything at road-legal speeds.

Put the Corvette's engine in that chassis

If you made this car as heavy as a 200hp gasoline car - the electric would STILL win a short drag race by a huge margin because the gasoline car only has something like 80hp available to pull from idle (far from it's peak output). Strong and steady vs a peaked output. Also, there are differences between the two systems: last time I read up on electric vehicles, batteries were the heaviest part of the entire system. You need batteries, motor & a switch. With gas you need a fuel tank, fuel pump, engine, transmission, radiator & fan, water pump, exhaust system & muffler, etc. The drivetrain is a lot more complicated.

[the range factor]

* 300 miles is quite a long range anyway (hell, ny car only gets 200 miles on a full tank), so here's their intermediate answer to the range problem - a trailer that contains a generator that is fueled by regular gasoline. I think it's a cute solution. One of the first electric ideas I heard of a long time ago was to imagine if there were a completely standard size / shape of batteries slung underneath the car. Instead of charging, you simply drive into a gas (or, I guess battery) station. The spent one is detatched and dropped from the bottom of the car via an underground mechanism, and a robot attaches a fresh one. You don't even have to get out of the car.

Efficiency *to* 70 mpg

* Any car to date can be driven badly and get bad efficiency. For example, GM engineers once emptied a Camaro's entire gallon gas tank in about 30 minutes going full throttle at 150MPH on the test track - obtaining less than 6 mpg. The same car had a federal emissions sticker rating it at 29mpg highway. So of *course* it depends on how you drive it. Gasoline cars achieve their best efficiency driving straight at a constant speed. Electric cars probably achieve their best in stop/go environments at lower speeds. You should pick the best tools for the job at hand.

Good luck getting a charge when you run out of juice in the middle of nowhere

* That's what the trailer (mentioned above) is supposed to prevent.

actual cruise range on the hilly terrain

* I don't know.

electric cars are less efficient in the winter

* Again, I don't know. I do, however, drive less when it's snowy out here in Colorado (except when skiing).

The emissions aren't "near zero"

But they *could* be. Electric vehicles have the potential to be the best solution to the overall problem of personal transportation. This changes the focus onto *how* that electricity is generated. In other words: renewable resources like hydroelectric, wind farms, solar. I'd even include nuclear fusion there too given it's potential efficiency and low waste output. However, people are stupid and don't want any of the above near where they live.

The battery system is totally impractical, and a chemical nightmare after a collision

* They're a chemical nightmare anyway in terms of disposal - should be recycled properly, etc. In terms of safety - you're already driving a vehicle laden with highly flamable gasoline. You've just become used to it and forgotten that gas likes to *catch fire* in an accident. Which would you honestly prefer: "don't touch that gell slowly oozing out from the broken side of the car, it might cause a minor chemical burn if you don't wipe it off within a few second

Electric Tzero

January 29, 2000 -- AC Propulsion' s tzero out-accelerated a Ferrari F355, a new Corvette, and a Porsche Carrera 4 in a series of impromptu 1/8 mile drag races held last weekend at Moffett Field in Mountain View, California, and at Calstart' s northern facility at the former Alameda Naval Air Station. The tzero was driven to the Bay Area from southern California last week. That journey spanned more than the geographic distance between those two areas, it spanned two cultures as well. Hot rodding, coming from the garages of Los Angeles, and high tech, growing from a garage in Palo Alto, are combined in the tzero.

The tzero is a silicon hot rod. It starts with the hot rodder's holy grail, horsepower - 200 of them. But the tzero harnesses the power with 120 IGBTs, equal to 7200 square millimeters of silicon-based control. The result is acceleration to 60 mph in 4.1 seconds, efficiency equivalent to 70 mpg, and emissions equal to zero. The tzero is an electric car.

The trip to Silicon Valley was planned to demonstrate the tzero to entrepreneurs and investors interested in the concept of a high-performance, environmentally-sensible, silicon-intensive automobile. As word of the tzero visit spread, the planned demonstrations took on an edge when a Ferrari-owner challenged the tzero to a race.

The race became reality when both Moffett Field and Calstart made their facilities available for the politically correct contest of speed. Saturday, January 22 dawned bright and sunny and an eager group of exotic car owners, high-tech gurus, venture capital investors and electric car enthusiasts gathered along the 4000-foot north taxiway at Moffett Field. Cones were set to mark the start and finish lines, and the tzero, with AC Propulsion vice-president Alec Brooks at the wheel, pulled up to the start line and sat silently. The Ferrari made glorious sounds as Rick Schick, a race car driver assigned to drive the Ferrari for the event paced the high-strung Italian thoroughbred up and down the track, warming its complex internals with nervous blips of the throttle and heating the tires with sudden burnouts. Finally the race was on. Immediately the crowd saw what it had not expected to see. The tzero leapt ahead at the start. The Ferrari' s 32-valve, 4-cam V8 engine screamed its delicious song in vain effort against the mute power of the tzero' s 120-IGBT-fed 3-phase induction motor. The spectators gasped at the sight of the tzero driving away from the automotive icon from Modena. At the end it was tzero by eight car lengths.

A Corvette C5, the newest example of American V8 muscle from Chevrolet stepped up to defend the honor of combustion power. Considered opinion had the Corvette, with its large displacement, high torque V8, putting up a good fight in the short 1/8 mile sprint. But against the tzero, the result was the same, proving in equally convincing fashion that American brawn fares no better than European sophistication against the tzero' s combination of light weight, high-current lead-acid batteries, and electric propulsion.

More races were run.

Different drivers wheeled the tzero. The result stayed the same. A Miata driver, unfamiliar with high power levels, got into the tzero and immediately blew away the Ferrari. She wants a tzero now. The Ferrari owner took a turn and was astounded by the continuous surge of smooth power. A newspaper reporter who arrived in an Escort allowed himself to be talked into driving the tzero and he beat the Ferrari. An investor from Sweden, after one victorious run in the tzero decided make a second run when challenged by his friend and investing partner who was proudly driving a brand new Porsche Carrera Cabriolet. By now everyone was surprised when the tzero lagged behind. Was the tzero battery dead? Was it collusion between two friends? Neither actually. The tzero inadvertently ran the whole race with its hand brake on, and the Porsche won by seven car lengths.

Here's an article that you don't have to register to see.

http://www.evworld.com/archives/reports/tzero_race .html

Why are electric cars always so damned ugly?

-- Dr. Eldarion --

The batteries are Nickel Metal Hydride (NiMH), not lead/acid. NiMH batteries can be landfilled legally.

The current term for that is an "air hybrid."

More details can be found here.

I'm not sure how the pickup is slow.. The beauty of electric DC motors is the constant acceleration. I'm sure the set points in the current profile that hackers will one day be able to get into the cars to change the performance curves.

For more geekier chemistry on electric/hybrids, here's Princton's chemistry website about hybrid electrics

Pros:
At a stop light, they are silent and no emissions. Silent start-up and DC-motor acceleration until the gas engine kicks on. Cool reuse of breaking energy into charging batteries instead of boring friction and heat in conventional cars. Can be used as a power plant, say, in power outages, or maybe one day, cars plugged into grid can run gas engine to produce electricty during peak times. And they sell pretty well

Cons:
From a cost point of view, they'll never beat out the super-efficient gas motors mini-cars. Battery life and cost of replacement (currently >= value of older hybrid vehicle). The impact on environment for spent toxic chemicals. Engine repairs. (I'm not sure if you've ever look in one, but they are jam-packed with every inch filled and basically unserviceable in terms of the ever fewer small jobs you can do yourself). Oh, and you *MUST* use specially licensed high-voltage service techs, which are few and far between currently. Will cause gas prices to rise -- see econ 101 supply vs. demand

I'm planning on purchasing a 2004 Toyota Prius this fall, when I move to California. The 2004 series has an AT-PZEV (advanced technology partial zero emissions vehicle) rating in California, and also qualifies me to park at meters for free and use the carpool lane with only me in it.

The 2004 model is very different from the 2003 model, and I would not have purchased the 2003 model (instead opting for a Honda Insight or Honda Civic GX). But the 2004 model has that much lower emissions rating and gets around 55mpg average, which is on par with the Honda Insight. The old Prius averaged 46mph according to EV World. It also has a larger size, moving it out of the compact and into the mid-size category. It also performs as well as a non-hybrid/electric car, according to people who have test drove it. It has a range of ~550 miles on a full tank.

The feature set is also very impressive--much better than that of the Insight or Civic GX, for the same $20k price range. I plan on getting bluetooth and the JBL six-speaker setup, at least. There's also the automatic parking feature, although I'm not sure if that will be available in the U.S.

The nice thing about the Civic GX is that it runs on natural gas. If you buy the Phill, partly financed by Honda, you can refuel in your own garage. But you don't have as much range as a Civic Hybrid. The Civic GX is also AT-PZEV, along with the Civic Hybrid. Unfortunately the automatic Insight is only SULEV, and the manual Insight, which gets better mileage, is only ULEV.

If you're only going to commute, then I might suggest the Twike. You'll have to custom order it, but if I only needed to commute then that's what I'd get. Unfortunately it is also $20k. The Tango is not yet available.

An article on it beating the other cards is here.

A couple comments on yours. You make some excellent points.

NREL typically rates "one sun" of solar flux as approx. 1 kW / square meter. Typical solar panels are, as you state, about 15% efficient. If you want an idea of how much solar flux your area gets, take a look at the maps from these pages.

The best hydrolyzers (electrolysis units) are about 60% efficient. Since a kilogram of hydrogen contains about 33 kWh of energy (if you convert at 100% efficiency), a 60% efficient hydrolyzer will need about 55 kWh to make one kilogram of hydrogen. A kilo of hydrogen has roughly the same energy content as a gallon of gasoline. Consequently, if you're going to burn hydrogen in your ICE vehicle, you'll need 55 kWh of energy to replace one gallon of gasoline. In case you're interested, that's about 14 LITERS of liquid hydrogen (density = 71 grams / liter); no other commercially available hydrogen storage can match LH2 for energy density (yeah, there are some experimental systems which have been announced, but none of the COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE solutions are anywhere close). Go find seven 2-liter bottles of soda (or which used to contain soda), and consider hauling that volume around to replace 3.785 liters of gasoline. Any question why they're having such a hard time storing a significant amount of hydrogen?

Last, but not least, most of your mobile fuel cell stacks are only 40% efficient. That beats the ICE's by at least 50% (last time I checked, none of the ICE's are beating 25% efficiency). Let's see, 60% effeciency at the hydrolyzer, and 40% efficiency at the fuel cell equals (0.6 x 0.4 = 0.24) 24% of the electricity you fed into the hydrolyzer actually coming out of the fuel cell. Talk about wasteful.

By the time you consider how little fuel you'll be able to store, you might as well just build yourself a battery-driven electric vehicle. The GM Impact/EV II gets about 6 miles / kWh. It has a range of about 96 miles (works out to 16 kWh storage). Over 75% of the energy fed to it comes back out; beats the hell out of 24%. Also, considering the price you'd pay for the fuel cell stack (Toyota's Fuel Cell Vehicle is quoted as costing $250,000 per unit to build; they lease them, not sell them), you could probably buy NIMH or Li-Ion batteries and get some pretty impressive range.

Any argument for a fuel cell vehicle is a bigger argument for battery electric vehicles. Safety issues aside.

More details here

Saw THIS a while ago, it provides some visual and more information for your statement.

Slashdot readers interested in this stuff should read EV World regularly. Support its dedicated editor by purchasing a subscription if possible.