Slashdot Mirror
Aircraft Maker Will Produce Electric Cars in 2006
clarkie.mg writes "French aircraft maker Dassault has announced that they will team up with Hydro-Quebec to produce an electric car, available as of 2006. Hydro-Quebec will provide the lithium-metal-polymer (LMP) battery and the wheel motor propulsion system. The car will be built in partnership with a car specialist and sold in association with a large automaker not yet found."
See, this is what I hate.
Why can't car companies make an electric car that doesn't look like a bad futuristic science fiction movie? I mean, why do they have to make it sooo ugly that people will only buy it on the principle of fuel economy?
I imagine, if car companies made models of cars that looked *exactly* the same as their gas counterparts, and only marginally more expensive, that people would be willing to start making the switch. Appearances are important when choosing a car, to some people. They want things that are sexy. Not cars that will prevent them from getting laid for the next 5-7 years.
Not like the average slashdotter thinks along those lines, eh? ;)
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
Electric cars still require electricity which is produced by fossil fuel burning power plants. This doesn't help pollution, it just passes it.
OK, after reading the blurbs about the batteries and the wheel-motors, it looks good to me. Lithium Ion batteries look like a better match, but that's just the current (pun not intentional) version versus the current version of the other battery, the new technology will surely improve given time.
:( I'd really like these newer batteries to put inside my chair :) The wheel-motors would be nice, too, I'm sure, but the batteries are a must-have.
My personal take on this is - when can I get the same technology in a power wheelchair? My Jazzy 1113's nice, but those sealed lead-acid batteries just suck. Very much short-range
Lemon curry?
Electric Cars are the way of the future, there is no way that we will be able to continue along the lines of using fossil fuels to pollute our environment in the quantities that are endemic in our society!
Using electric cars is the logical next step in our society, synthetic alchohol fuels are a good idea as well, but the problem with those is the flammability issue.
With the benefit of electric cars, fuel can be transferred instantly along power lines, nuclear plants can be used to generate almost unlimited amounts of electricity to fuel our cars.
In order to follow our information society forward in progress electrically fuelled cars is the only choice!
Post apocalyptic gaming goodness
If nothing else, an aircraft maker ought to know about fuel efficiency and aerodynamics! It'll be nice to have a new brand on the market, too, one that doesn't have the same ties to oil companies.
Actually, the main reasons electric cars are not more popular are:
1) Lengthy refuelling time
2) Limited cruising range
3) Cost is not competitive - either the vehicle is prohibitively expensive (as in this case) or the batteries need to be replaced after a relatively small number of charge cycles, and the cost of electricity to charge the vehicle is not competitive with gasoline or diesel.
Solve all of these problems at the same time, and you will be wealthier than Billy G. (And less resented for your wealth) I won't hold my breath though, barring some revolution in battery technology, I put my best hopes for an alternative energy vehicle in fuel cells.
It has long been possible to get good acceleration out of an electric car, I remember a 1970's popular science article describing an electric vehicle with regular lead acid batteries that used an energy storage flywheel that recovered braking energy and fed it back into the transmission when you hit the accelerator for quick takeoffs. While you were idling at a stoplight, the battery would gradually be topping up the flywheel velocity, ready for a jackrabbit getaway on the green light.
1.) Think centralized pollution control. What is easier, cleaning a million little exhaust streams, or one big one? Any kind of electric plant is better than a bunch of gas powered cars.
2.) Electricity keeps getting cleaner. Every electric car on the road can take advantage of cleaner electricity before it is developed.
Typical anti-environmentalist FUD.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I think it gets up to the top speed (which is probably a lot lower than 75) VERY quickly (with 400 lbs of torque, AT ALL TIMES, no waiting till it's at a certain RPM for the max HP and then shifting, it's just ALWAYS at 400lbs of torque.) But then since it has very little horsepower it can't get any higher than a pretty low speed. Well that's most electric cars I've seen, dunno about this one.
This car (and most electric cars) wouldn't have sufficient space, well I don't think they would, since the batteries use a lot of space and weigh a LOT. And wouldn't a van use less gas than a SUV? They have smaller engines and less weight (no 4 wheel drive and they're front wheel drive usually so that eliminates the driveshaft, a special differential, the transfer case for 4 wheel drive and a bunch of other stuff that adds unecessary weight.) And then there's the commercial vans (I've driven one before) they use around the same amount of gas as a large SUV. They're much harder to drive (since your field of view is very limited) but then again since you're carrying all that stuff around your field of view is probably very limited anyway.
Electric car adoption really comes down to the price of oil. Nobody will buy an electric car that is more expensive to run than a combustion engine, and no company will heavily invest in the development of an electric car if it won't turn profit.
So really it comes down to oil and how much is left. It won't be environmental concerns or government involvement that will ultimately push electric cars into mass-scale production, but consumers and their pocketbooks.
Still, these articles are reassuring that nutballs like this are wrong.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
So, the difference is (assuming the lower figure for gas) like 12700 for gasoline vs 121 (the current figure for LMP). 100 times -- that is a lot of difference! Increasing the energy density for batteries up to 180 (and that is projected) ain't going to change the picture much.
Further, "re-charging" the fuel tank can be done in 2 minutes, while the batteries take ... who knows, certainly hours. Further, the fuel tank can
be refilled practically infinitely many times,
while the batteries are good after only so
many re-chargings.
Car and Driver tests the Ford Focus ZTW this month. The ZTW is a Partial Zero-Emission Vehicle (PZEV). C/D says "To qualify as a PZEV, a vehicle must meet Super Ultra Low-Emission Vehicle standards (SULEV) at the tailpipe; virtually eliminate all fuel system evaporative emissions; and guarantee that these systems won't degrade over 15 years or 150,000 miles. Compared with federal emissions standards in effect through 2003, SULEV cuts hydrocarbon emissions by 97 percent, carbon monoxcide by 76 percent, and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) by 97 percent."
C/D then contines latter in the article (not yet online) with this bit:
"If your Earth First! neighbors remain unconvinced that any internal-combustion engine can ever approach the godliness of a pure electric drivetrain, run these stats by them: Compared with a battery driven car juiced up by energy generated on California's electric grid, this Focus produces a scant 0.001 gram per mile more hydrocarbons and other smog forming gases, but it emits 88 percent less NOx."
That is what I never get about purely electric vehicles, it is just a displacement of pollution. Hybrids and clean burning internal-combustion engines make a lot more sense for the time being.
Sometimes people just live up to the stereotypes - if the subject and attitudes were not so deadly serious it would be worth a chuckle.
As most disparagers on this page start in their own little selfish buble - so I will start there.
If you live in the rest of the world - gas isnt so cheap you can piss it away boy-racing a Humvee around the city for no real reason. Gas prices usually reflect the local and global damage it does - that way people buy more efficient cars.
In the EU this sort of 'small car' is popular cos its easy to park and manouver on our overcrowded streets. If more people drove electric cars you or your kids are less likely to suffer from asthma etc.
Burning fossil fuels to create energy is not pollution free - agreed, but is less harmful than thousands of I.C.Es pumping CO1, lead (in some places - still), SO2, ozone and all sorts of other filth directly into your childs face (or yours if you are short).
It is more efficient to filter emissions from a single large source than a million smaller ones, it is easier to monitor and maintain and often outside of popululation centres. Not pollution free - but preferable.
Once you take the rest of the world who isnt hooked on fossil fuels like Darl McBride and his crack, like British Columbia (mostly hydro), Iceland (mostly geotherm) and in some places you CAN get to the holy grail of emmision free transport.
Batteries can be recycled, or at least disposed of responsibly and with less seepage from say - oil or other liquid waste. Take into account the spillage, tranport, infrastucture and human suffering caused by the oil industry and the business of manufacturing and recycling the batteries look quite attractive.
Also your beloved presidente would not have to kiss Saudi ass or invade any more oil rich countries.
Sooner or later, the American fetish for cheap oil will be its downfall - not terrrrism, North Korea, liberalism or the European taste for mariuana.
And when it happens, I will rejoice in the ironic justice of it all.
This perpetual motion machine Lisa made is a joke, it just keeps getting faster and faster. - Homer
Seriously, though, this looks not unlike a typical small commuter car that you might see in Europe every day. The accenting on the headlights is the only thing that stands out.
Wow!, *love* that Volta!
I'm also impressed by the looks of these:
Volkswagon Concept T
Acura HSC
Saturn Curve
Italdesign Visconti
Holden SST
Here's my question. Why don't car-makers actually make some of these concept cars, at least by body design if not all the under-hood bells and whistles! Why are the only new-looking cards on our streets all these funky looking things like the "new beetle" and the "new mini" and the like.... Why isn't there anything like the Volta available (at a reasonable price, the $400,000 Italian cars don't count.)
I mean, right now there isn't *anything* on the road under $50,000 that' I'd die to get my hands on. But the Volta and Concept T would get people who otherwise wouldn't have a car to buy a car, just for their uber-looks.
The problem with the Skateboard concept is the components to make it work do not exist at this time.
I liked the look and ideas, but much like the hydrogen initiative, it is to pacify the restless not to offer a real path to a solution. Sell em' heavy SUV's and Trucks where we make our money and offer pie in the sky solutions to keep em quiet.
I suspect that is the <I>'thinking'</I> in much of corporate america.