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
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?
Firstly, the company mentioned in the article description is called Hydro Quebec for a reason - much of the electric power they produce is hydroelectric.
Secondly, a car that burns fossil fuels directly will always have to burn fossil fuels, but a car that runs on electricity, even if it currently pollutes indirectly via fossil fuel burning power plants, will immediately be able to take advantage of more environmentally-friendly produced electricity as soon as it becomes available.
Hopefully the public is starting to wise up and we can build new nuclear plants again, and also wind is starting to be used in North America. And here are some nice geeky pics of the wind turbine in Toronto being constructed and some views from the top.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
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
Hopefully the public is starting to wise up and we can build new nuclear plants again
Because of three mile island and chernobyl, I doubt if people would.
I think the pebble-bed reactor is a great design that would work. It is meltdown-proof.
That leaves all the waste that would be generated from the plants, and nobody wants in their backyard.
So, good idea, but society is still gun-shy over it.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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
First of all, you're making a strawman of environmentalists -- I've never heard anyone seriously complain that a slow-moving wind turbine might decapitate a passing bald eagle.
Besides, even if environmentalists are all a bunch of extreme crazies, as you imply, and it really would be best to ignore them completely, then that doesn't mean we should purposely go out of our way to do the opposite of everything they say!
I'm not saying that fossil-fuels are evil and we should all stop using them, cold turkey, as of tomorrow. And I'm sure most environmentalists don't either. What about the perfectly reasonable position of:
1. Recognizing that fossil fuels cause air pollution.
2. Recognizing that there exist other possible sources of electricity that cause no or much less air pollution.
3. Concluding that as these other sources become more cost-efficient and practical, using more of these other sources and less fossil fuels is a Good Thing.
As for your implicit claim that even though fossil fuels cause air pollution, dams affect salmon breeding habits, so therefore both are equally evil, or so those zany environmentalists claim -- call me crazy, but I take the pragmatic view that, yes, hurting the poor salmon is sad, but not nearly as bad as air pollution which:
1. Contributes to the greenhouse effect, affecting most all terestrial life on Earth (including me!) 2. Causes smog, which could affect me! 3. Causes acid rain, which has wiped out virtually all life in some lakes, affecting those poor salmon of yours!!!
So, as you can see, even if you're not a looney environmentalist, there are plenty of good selfish (i.e. dirty neoconservatist) reasons to take the entirely radical jump of a gradual switch from fossil fuels to other sources of power.
Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.
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
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.
What's more efficient - your car or the local powerstation?
I'm serious... both produce pollution, but does producing the electricity at a single point and then distributing it cause less pollution than having thousands of efficient engines?
If a square is really a rhombus, why aren't all triangles purple?
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.