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
duke nukem forever is due out only two quarters from now. pre-orders are available, see our website.
Looks like electric is finally starting to get a foot hold. Sure there have been others, and there are already hybrid cars, but to see Hydro Companies hopping in with both feet is good. Now if only they could make a car that looked good, and GET THE CONSUMERS TO GIVE A SHIT, they would be on to something.
That really is my homepage, no kidding.
There is not much info in the articles. But, the stats on the batteries is interesting. Even though a lithium polymer battery has a higher energy density, the cycle life may be a big drawback.
Fight Spammers!
a lithium-metal-polymer (LMP) battery hey. Isn't that the same one in Apple's iPod?
An 18 month lasting car! Wonder how popular that'll be heheh
Now all they have to do is make more than a few hundred of them, and convince people other than government agencies to buy them.
Good luck.
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?
I wonder how much it will cost when you get a flat on one of those.
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
I don't know if I'm reading this right but 400+ lbs of torque, that's a lot. But then again it's an electric car I heard they have a lot of torque. And low horsepower, so it can accelerate up to 60mph faster than most other cars, but then it gets their and you can't go any faster. I'd buy an electric car if it wasn't for that.
:-D.)
And the looks, the looks suck too. Although I would deal with the looks for an electric car with a high top speed (at LEAST 100mph, 120-150 would be VERY nice.) It'd be worth it, drive up to a dodge viper, in something that looks like a 4 year old drew (and then threw up on, and then the dog ate it, and then crapped out the drawin), and drag race them (and win
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.
The only electric car I can think of to be put into serious production in recent times was the (Ford owned) Th!nk, and it was canned a few years ago. Batteries are simply too heavy/expensive and charging takes too much time.
Also FYI hydrogen cars make even less sense and will untill we have an abundant source of cheap, clean energy (see: fission, fusion). What many so-called environmentalists fail to grasp is that the greater part of our electricity does and will come from fossil fuels (especially so long as they oppose nuclear energy) and the many conversions involved in hydrogen powered vehicles make them incredibly ineffecient and not worth the effort. There is a huge loss in effeciency turning fossil fuels into electricity at the generating plant, another signifigant loss transmitting it over power lines to the fueling station, another huge loss using that electricity to extract hydrogen from water, and finally another huge loss turning that hydrogen back into electricity with a fuel cell to power the car. Just burn the damn' fuel in the damn' car in the first place!!!
On the upside hybrid cars, even if they don't make sense now in terms of costs (all are sold at a loss by manufacturers, and even still at a price that outweighs any potential fuel savings for most people), they will in the future as costs come down. That in addition to the fact that there are will be be performance gains as well (electric motors make maximum torque at 1 rpm, while small gas motors tend to be peaky). Hybrids can also get by with much smaller/lighter batteries which are cheaper and less of an environmental concern (batteries are very toxic, but again don't tell the "environmentalists").
Finally, I have to wonder what Hydro Quebec (a public utility) is doing getting into the car business? Last I heard they were building a huge gas fired plant near Montreal since their hydro production cannot keep up with demand just in the provice of Quebec (in the short term they say). Of course there was a huge public ooutcry over the fact that they would be building a "dirty" gas plant (and opposed, I guess, to destroying another few million square kilimetres of pristine winderness for "clean" hydro... another example of envoronmentalists reasoning I can't get my head around...)
...Aircraft Maker Produce Cars 2006 and fill in the blanks with "Aircraft Maker Will Produce Flying Cars In 2006"? I was really excited for a minute :-/
This, in addition to the problems that are expected to arise for the amounts of lead that will be required in the car batteries. It seems that the reprocessing/smelting/leakage arising from lead in these batteries will be more harmful (if electric cars catch on and become popular) than what leaded petrol used to be. (The other options such as nickel/cadmium/lithium are even more poisonous and dangerous).
Of course, technology could overcome this, but it hasn't yet.
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
Hopefully the public is starting to wise up and we can build new nuclear plants again
Ummmm... not in my backyard. Actually, nuclear plants, apart from being highly dangerous (I needn't even stress chernobyl), and these days, terrorist targets, are bad for many reasons : 1. Uranuim mining is absolutely unsafe for workers 2. Radiation levels near plants cannot be contained easily, 3, and most importantly, there is no good way to get rid of the waste, not for thousands of years.
The law of excluded middle : Either I'm foo or I'm foobar
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.
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"
This being slashdot, I expect the usual nonsense about "But electric cars just get energy from gas-burning power plants . . ." will start up immediately.
Here are some facts that I don't think anyone disputes. Absorb these, and then continue with the ranting.
Fact 1: Electric motors are more efficient than internal combustion engines. Run a gas engine at X watts for 20 minutes. Run an electric motor at X watts for 20 minutes. Afterwards, the gas engine will be hotter than the electric motor. Yes, it depends on the load, blah, blah, blah, but in the loads typically encountered by cars, the internal combustion engine loses.
Fact 2: The energy density of batteries has quadrupled in the last 10 years, mostly pushed by laptop and cellphone battery technology. Lead acid batteries have about 35 Wh/kg, while different variants of lithium batteries are in the range of 100 Wh/kg to 150 Wh/kg. Note that the cost of a lithium pack is substantially higher than that of a lead acid pack of the same capacity.
But don't worry, zealots! There are still lots of other things to debate! Does every family of four really need TWO cars with more than 100 mile range? Was Carl Pope of the Sierra Club being blackmailed when he endorsed hybrid SUV's in the latest issue of Green Car Journal? Would you cry if someone gave you a lithium-ion-powered Tzero for Christmas or other nugatory tradition? Can putting a 500 W solar panel on a car that consumes 15 kW at highway speeds make any difference? Will people ever stop suggesting that putting generators on the wheels of electric cars is a good idea? Am I really as much of a tool as I seem?
Have at it, boys!
In Australia, in 2005 is the completion date of a solar power tower, they, sbp of Germany are building.
:-)
In short, the sun heats the air at the 7km diameter base 'glasshouse'.
This hotair rises, up the 1km tunnel, spinning turbines as it moves.
it's cool. (and hot)
Here another article I found.
So with more advances like this, we will get in the right direction !
Economic forecast prevent a
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
If electric cars take off, we can make use of all that surplus off-peak power that comes from wind, tidal, etc.. For instance the UK could make 200% of power needs from offshore wind, but that would leave loads of unused off-peak capacity going to waste.
The problem with pure electric (as opposed to petro-electric, etc) has always been the batteries, and the recharge time. I have always thought that you should be able to change a battery for a fully charged one at a pump station, so you in effect "lease" rather than own batteries. Gives the oil companies something to sell & keeps them happy too..
Its got to happen..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
GM starts producing their own electric "freedom cars" in response to the French. ;)
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.
Anyone know of what the actual cost of operating an electric car is? Say on average how much it would cost to drive 200 miles on an electric charge versus how much the same distance would cost if you were using gas?
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
I much prefer this version, which uses a combo in-wheel system and a constant RPM diesel engine for power. (Last seen on /. as Dutch Invention Uses Electric Engines For Wheels) First off your "recharging station" is anywhere that sells diesel, and the wheel brakes generating charging current as well as the constant RPM makes for a damn small, quiet, and efficient system.
I'm aware the article mentions hybrids, which definately means this version of the "wheel motor" can be used in the exact same situation, however it seems from the web sites this car is planned as a pure electric with special "charging stations", which IMHO will never take off without government mandates.
Jonah Hex
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
The facts seem to agree. All the words are true. It's just those pesky numbers that are a lie. Try 80.65%. That's adding the imported energy to the non-hydro energy. Of the energy you produce, it's a respectable 87.57%. But still not 99.9%.
Darn numbers.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
The wheels will be too heavy and add kinetic energy of the rorating mass. It will require more breaking power and will be slower to react on the controlls. I say, put one sufficiently large electric motor where it can be cooled and distribute that power the traditional way. This looks very nice in theory but drivers will no like this concept. A normal wheel is heavy as it is. Permanent magnets can not be made light and they will require volume. The magnet height along magnetic lines acts like a source and the air gap as a resistance. Those things add up to a heavy fragile (alt. inefficient) design. You'll crash that engine the first time you run over a curb at 30 mph (or forget low-profile tires).
A single electric motor inside the car can be isolated from road vibrations and shock. The motor can optimized with fewer requirements and a traditional clutch can isolate the wheels form the kinetic rotation energy of motor (when required).
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.
Oh come now, what do people do with their old car batteries? Smash them open on their front lawns? Dump them into the rainforest?
We recycle them, and I imagine that for expensive lithium batteries the incentive to recycle will even be greater. Unless you mean that recycling causes more pollution than it prevents, in which case I'd like a source on that.
Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
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.
Even if present fossil fuel plants are used to power EVs, they're still far cleaner per mile than ordinary cars. In California, that works out to about 97% cleaner.
Even the cleanest modern car engine is just plain dirty, even when compared with coal-fired power plants.
And as others have pointed out, as cleaner power plants are brought on line, electric cars will use them too.
Ford's hybrid strategy actually makes sense. Instead of putting expensive hybrid powertrains in cheap and already effecient small cars, they're focusing their efforts on SUVs and large cars. The Escape (SUV) will have a hybrid powertrain in the next year or so, and the upcomming Futura (and I'm assuming it's relatives like the Mazda6, upcomming crossovers, etc.) will have one as well.
Also the reason the hybrid Escape was pushed back was because Ford decided to do te engineering by itself from scratch (originally it was more of a publicity stunt and they were going to source a Toyota or Honda powertrain).
And I assure you Ford designed powertrains run with the best of them. There's no reason to think their hybrid system won't be equal to or superior to what's coming from Honda/Toyota, especially since they have more engineering resources at their disposal and are pairing it to a newer an better gasoline engine family.
GM seems to be aiming even higher by commiting themselves to hybrid full size pickups and SUVs in the next few years. That would make for MAJOR fuel savings. Of course it would be nice of them to have a car hybrid strategy as well...
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
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.
Forgive my ignorance, but how is there an issue with the flamibility of alcohol, that's different from the flamibility issues with regular gas? As I understand it, Alcohols are infinitly renewable, significantly less polluting, and can be used in most vehicles with only minor alterations (valve settings and different material for the head gasket or something.). Why isn't this being persued as actively as fuel cells? The only reason I can think of is that High schoolers would be able to pull up to the gas station and get their resources for the kegger that weekend, (and how is that any different than now anyway?) Just a thought..
And as long as we're talking about electric cars, here's the obligatory Tesla refference: Tesla Electric Car #1
"Operating systems suck: you're better off using only the BIOS" --trainsaw.com
A mistake that many electric car designers have made over the years is to fail to recognize that the electric car is not simply an internal combustion engined car with the engine replaced by an electric motor.
I'd say the designers are pretty well aware of this. However the budgets aren't infinite, and they're trying to make use of existing technology and parts as much as possible.
Only GM has created a fuel cell powered concept car from the ground up. This seems to be a nice article about the skateboard concept.
My wife showed me an article about a two-seater diesel powered Mercedes apparently now available in Europe and apparently coming to North America in a couple of years. If I did the arithmetic correctly, it gets about a hundred miles per gallon. If you run it on bio-diesel, the greenhouse gas problem goes away. It seems to cost about the same as a Toyota Echo.
Why the heck would I bother with an electric (or air powered) car?
Favorite quote; "There are liars, there are damn liars and then there are battery chemists".
On the Geneva fair, an number of nice hybrid concept cars were introduced. Have a look at them:
Alessandro Volta
Honda IMAS
Lexus RX 400h
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.
How long before the petrol lobbyists get governments to make electric cars illegal?...
It will probably go the way of the GM and Ford electric cars or the ceramic engine...
Hello there, I'm an electric car.
I can't go very fast, or very far.
And if you drive me, people will think you're gay
ONE OF US! ONE OF US!
solution?
a universal battery design that gets slid in and out of the car every X miles at a station. an automated process like a car wash, pull in, it pulls the car to the correct point, and slides a new battery in from the side, forcing the old one out.. you are automatically billed based on the charge remaining, and the # of cycles you've charged at home since the last station swap. (against the cost of replacement only) and you drive on.
the batteries are the property of the station, not the car owner. If you've not pulled into a station for 300 cycles, you pretty much pay for the batteries all at once.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Smart fuel economy is around 60mpg (combined city/country) - although not the absolute best, that's still pretty good. I was in Italy last year and they were absolutely everywhere, definitely the single most popular car. I'd say every tenth car that I saw in Rome was a Smart. Understandable when you see the size of the streets they have to drive down! Not so many in the north of the country however.
It was proposed during the 70s to build a tidal dam across the severn estuary between England and Wales. This was rejected for economic reasons, but also met opposition from environmental groups concerend about fish migration. This dam would have produced 12% of the UK's electricity requirements, 8.6GW. Environmentalists are opposed to stuff like this. Source.
IMHO electric cars are a bad idea at the moment. I read a while back, I don't have the source, that the transmission of electricity from the burning of coal to the output from a charged battery is only something like 30%, wheras burning petrol or diesel is far more efficeint. However, if we become more reliant on renewable sources, then I guess this could be a good thing. Honda's Hybrid offerings are good, theres no doubt about that. But if you bought a diesel car you'd probably be producing fewer emissions as they are so efficient. I have a 10 year old diesel Ford Fiesta that gets ~55mpg on the motoway and ~35mpg around the town. The newest diesel offerings such as the Citroen C2 are even more efficient and unlike electric vehicles, they actually look good!