Slashdot Mirror
Low Emission Cars Continue to Gain Popularity
Rio writes "A company may soon offer American motorists a new option to save on high gas prices -- vehicles powered by lithium batteries. From the article: 'Just plug in these cars for about five hours or so and you'll get about 300 miles on a single charge.' The vehicles cost about $35,000 or about double what buyers would pay for a gas-powered model." Relatedly acidrain writes to tell us The BBC is reporting that a prototype of the new "Clever car" (Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport) is starting to make the rounds on European test tracks. The car is one meter wide and less polluting than normal vehicles. It has a top speed of 100 km/h (60mph) and uses a novel tilting chassis to make it safe and maneuverable.
How much will the power cost me?
What is this going to do to the power grid which has been known to collapse, famously with the northeast blackout and the rolling blackouts in California?
How about the transmission line waste? What if I let my car sit for a week or two?
Aren't these the batteries that tend to explode if you look at them funny?
Just what does battery production do to the environment? How about leaks and recycling?
Is it just me, or does it look more like a souped up go-kart than a car...
Judging from the photos, doesn't look like this thing has ANY trunk/passenger/leg/head space. Other than that, it looks great and I can't wait to buy one[/sarcasm]
E = m * c^(Hammer)
It's nice to have the smaller cars, but the immediate reality is you're going to have to match feature-for-feature (outside of the high-emission, low-efficiency parts) in performance and otherwise without ending up in the Lexus or BMW range, and doing so without the driver noticing. That includes similar size and performance without having to take any notice as to driving a low-emission car, with the down-the-road option of converting existing cars over to low emissions parts that do the same but retain the body and performance of the previous engine/drivetrain as close as possible (again, without the price being beyond a conventional swap of such kind).
Not all of us care to drive something that would result in a guaranteed pre-packaged closed casket burial in the event of the Absolutely Unavoidable Collision- especially if such vehicle performs in a manner that would predispose it to being a 5'x8'x5' object with relative ease in ordinary operation.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Not unlike Star Trak era Lithium Crystals, I suspect that
crim's will go after such vehicles for their energy banks.
More value also pushes up the cost of insurance for them.
How do fuel-cell technologies work in this app'n domain?
What do Toyota Priams run on, Lithium Cells or Fuel Cells?
Would you buy a car that would only last you 150 days before very costly repairs? QED
Grrrr... "relatedly" is not a word, and it should never be one. Dict.org doesn't have an entry, and the built-in Mac OS X dictionary doesn't have an entry. Arggh! I hate made-up words.
</language nazi>
This would be perfectly fabulous if there were federal regulations on vehicle sizes permitted in urban or other zones, but it sounds like a logistic nightmare for lawmakers to get a gradual migration to this going at any level that would prove effective. It's not really a phased migration thing. You can't put such a small car on roads with normal compact and larger cars. It's a safety nightmare. You can't really build a whole additional set of roads for these things other since municipalities like mine are already looking at $700 million dollar annual deficits.
Time to visit Europe!
Why bother with either really? Motorcycles can get 45 or so miles per gallon and they are safe provided:
a) you don't act like a fucking idiot
b) soccer moms in behemoth SUVs stop talking on their phones long enough to see you.
A is probably easier than b though...at least if you live in the states.
And Smart cars can get up to 60 mpg on regular unleaded(though YMMV). These kinds of vehicles just seem like an odd crossover between motorcycles and smart cars.
Monstar L
The pollution is generated wherever the power plant is, rather than inside a city. That only moves the problem, but in the LA basin it's useful to move the problem from the great bowl of people over to Nevada.
The pollution from a power plant, about half the time in the US, is coal smoke. It's CO2 with nasty contaminants. Gasoline smoke would be better, except that the smog controls on a power plant are easier to engineer. They can be big, they can be heavy, and they can require on-site technicians to keep them working well. None of those are possible on a car.
The fixed power plant can be more efficient, but some of that efficiency is stolen by transmission line losses.
Having spent most of last year living carless in the big city, I'm here to tell you that personal cargo capacity is very important factor in designing an efficient and useful low-emissions vehicle for urban transport, a factor that the 'clever' car designers seem to have ignored. Where am I going to store my groceries in this thing? I suppose the passenger seat might do the trick, but with that kind of limited space, why am I driving a car anyway? I can take a taxi just as easily, or even a bus. Hell -- maybe I could even buy a bike, which might help reduce both my fat ass and be good for the environment. What's the use in owning a car that costs twice as much as a regular car, but which has no room to transport me and the occasional junk I buy at the store?
As I see it, no urban vehicle is going to catch on with buyers unless it has some, even if limited, cargo carrying capacity. Small size is great -- especially when you consider the parking situation in most cities -- and fuel efficiency is wonderful, but if it doesn't move both me *and* my stuff, what good is it?
For a technology to mature, the way is paved with suboptimal experimental designs and "proofs of concept". The thing is, something may be bitched about and downgraded untill there is immediate, burning problem that needs to be addressed, such as oil shortage which is looming in not so distant future. Every problem addressed here can and will be solved when pressing needs arise. Right now, it seems like a solution for distant, someone else's problem (GHG emissions->melting polar caps->oceans rise, but no worries for some of us as we are on high enaugh ground) while, on the other hand, designers are obviously 'not meaning it seriously', or in other words they pity wackos with money to burn who will pay for these toys.
... railroads!). Today's performance is result of competition inside the same category. That is why their initial quirks where tolerated - they had no substitute.
... ?).
n smission). That would create enormous advantage for invasion forces, especially if chain of satellite relays is used to beam energy from homeland power grid up to the first satelite, then from satelite to satelite, then down to any arbitrary point on the surface of the Earth. Aside from military uses, a nation in possesion of such system could allow own electric power companies to export, sell energy to any other nation, or even make other nations totally dependent ("a hand on a switch" instead of "hand on a oil tap")to this nation, create advantage for national civil engineering corporations to win any bid anywhere because of the low logistics costs... I believe there is a lot of goodies involved in it for serious, resourceful powerseekers.
It should be noted that first gas cars where also hobists' toys, inefficient, unreliable, short radius authonomy and explosion-prone, but all the problems where gradually solved, one step a time. OTOH, internal combustion engine cars had no viable competition at the time (if we exclude trains, which were constrained to
Now, it is all like a sumo match - if you press hard enaugh, you will get what you want. If we are determined to press the electric cars, people will find it worthwile to spend some effort inventing solutions for its' present problems. You have noticed that Lithium batteries are response to problem of heaviweightness and bulkiness of acid-lead batteries, but instantly there comes the next problem - endurance of these new batteries. There is a number of other problems, such as recharging time, authonomy, scaleability (you cannot go to nearest battery station and buy just a little "juice" to get car there, or carry small canister in luggage compartment), that may need complete change of viewing point (micro or nano capsulled batteries,
Perhaps new cars will have modular engines, that would allow us to reconfigure and equip them differently for different uses, i.e. when commuting between work and home, use electric subsystem, but when you go on intercity trip, swap it with internal combustion module. Or, even better, make complete powertrain electrical and just swap main battery block with electric generator(, or fuel cell), depending on intended use or personal preference. Of course, there is downside: this would require you to own a garage, or else pay for changing services and rent-a-module.
Like every time before in tech history, military will be judge of what goes and what s(t)inks. When there is mil-grade electric vehicle in comission, there will be cheaper, less robust, fancier versions for civilian use. But, why would military do such thing? Well, for one, transport of energy supplies could potentially be cheaper, faster and more reliable then transport of fuel supplies. I mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_power_tra
"It's pretty cool, but I'd rather have a bike, personally."
I have a bike. My argument was that if I was going to blow the thousands on a so-called green car (which really only just moves the pollution back to the generating facility, most likely meaning you're burning dead dinosaurs anyway), which is almost as expensive as the Ariel, I'd take the Ariel and the horsepower of a 4 banger Honda engine. TYVM.
I do have a bicycle, btw. Cannondale 800 Flat Bar. Egg beaters. Ksyrium Elite wheels. Brooks Pro saddle. Zoom Zoom. I'd probably be dead without it.
--
BMO
I had a conversation with a veteran motorcyclist who explained the method he used to avoid getting in accidents: assume that no driver can see you, ride as if you were invisible.
He went on to explain that he had been riding bikes for 20+ years, and had never been in an accident. When you think about it, it rings true.
I have explained this to my children, but have expanded it to be inclusive of all motor vehicle activity. Never assume that the other person on the road can see you. Do the thinking for every driver within your range of vision, and you will be much safer.
If they put a decent sports bike engine in the Clever Car it
would sell by the bucket load as a recreational vehicle for those
who don't want the risks of a motorbike.
But as an everyday enviromental commuting vehicle? Hmm. Not so sure.
Ok , it might have good mileage but having gas cylinders right at
the back of the car where they're a prime target to be hit and crushed?
Not to mention the vehicle itself doesn't exactly look volvo-esque in
its ability to protect its occupants plus its got very little storage
space.
Also at one metre wide its hardly going to be able to squeeze
between traffic like a bike can especially when it leans over hard.
Seems to me its got all the disadvantages of a bike (dangerous, little
storage space) and a car (slow, stuck in traffic) , and none of the
advantages of either.
Its ONLY selling point is its mpg and novelty value. Well sorry, but in
a competitive market you need more than that to sell a vehicle.
My version is assume they are all out to kill you.
It is quite scary they way a car driver can pull up at the stop sign on the side road, look directly at you then continue through the stop sign cutting you off. Headlight off, headlight on, dark coloured clothes, light coloured clothes the cars drivers just don't see you.
But then look at the number of car drivers pull out in front on a semi because they did not see it. If they don't even see large trucks what chance do motorcycles have?
That is already installed.
Not quite. While I agree that this class of vehicle is more dangerous in itself (not colliding with other cars), the thing is that in a collision between a Hummer and a car, the car will still suffer most of the damage. Vehicles like that and even "regular" SUVs are a real danger on the roads. The whole thing has become a sort of arms race about whoever can feel the safest by knowing they'll "win" in the event of a collision.
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
Just imagine, go to work - unplug the battery unit briefcase.
;-)
All 250 Lbs of it.
Check out the size and weight of this briefcase. Also look online for EV recharging stations. Your computer power strip may not be up to the task.
Oh I get it.. imagine..
The truth shall set you free!
Secondly, this car is recumbent which puts your eyeline very close to the ground which is a total disaster in a complicated driving environment, whereas on a motorcycle you have excellent visibility at a height comparable to the majority of vehicles. In other words, on a motorcycle you are not effectively blinded by every vehicle in front of you, or in any other direction.
Some of the responses to this were flip: "Hey, we call that a motorcycle," but in reality this vehicle and a motorcycle are radically different in many of the ways that really matter in an urban driving environment. And since I am a rider, I won't make the "Yeah, well motorcycles are deathtraps, too," argument that could also be brought up here, :-). But in any case. This thing is not a motorcycle. It has huge disadvantages relative to normal sized cars and none of the advantages of a motorcycle.
for my rant about my sister and her new Pacifica. she also bought it because she felt safe....i guess knowing that you cant control your own vehicle for shit makes you want something larger than a neon to cruise around in. i still think shes an idiot.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
The car companies are finally smarting up and offering hybrids that are not toy eco cars. If you look at the latest models from Accord and Toyota, both have 6 cyclinder engines and both out perform in fuel economy and performance of the standard models.
You got repeatedly modded up for supporting RWD, with absolutely no reasons as to WHY it could possibly be better than FWD, other than "fun". That's definately not what fuel-effecient vehicles need for wide public acceptance right now.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Considering that the vast majority of our electricity comes from oil-fueled and coal-fueled generators which burn thousands of pounds/gallons of fuel per hour each, there is a huge power loss due to resistance of the conductors between your house and the generator (not to mention losses in the various transformers along the way) and battery charge cycles are at best 20% efficient, this is NOT a low-emission solution; you are merely displacing the emissions to another location (the NIMBY syndrome), and not only that, you've generated a lot more toxic waste that companies show little interest in recycling (the lithium-ion batteries) which need to be replaced every 50,000 to 75,000 miles.
;)) - and it should be getting even better mileage this summer now that I just had brand-new RC fuel injectors and a Corsa exhaust installed (the nice quiet stock exhaust finally rusted to the point where I can't have it repaired :( An exhaust lasting 179K miles on a '91 car is not bad), replacing the stock GM crap. Not only that, it burns amazingly clean such that one time the techs running the dyno remarked he doesn't usually see economy cars burn that cleanly, let alone a sportscar. But then again, I keep it tuned and have the alignment checked regularly. My business partner's car with a six-cylinder burns dirty and every inspection costs him a few hundred, because he doesn't keep up with maintenance (he changes his oil every other year whether it needs it or not). If you keep your car maintained, run good oil (I run Mobil 1 or Castrol Syntec in my vehicles - I hate ExxonMobil but still buy their synthetic oil, I usually cannot find RedLine oil), and use detergent-based fuel injector cleaners every now and then, your car will run very cleanly. Let maintenance go, run the crappiest, cheapest engine oil you can, you will wear out the engine far more quickly and will have problems with emissions after a few years.
I'll stick with my current car, thank you. It gets better fuel mileage than almost everyone who criticises me for driving a "gas guzzler" (I get 26-27mpg combined, I've gotten 32-33mpg on long trips - when driving like a sane person anyhow, 180mph+ runs on I-70 get crappy mileage
The idea of a hybrid intrigues me, but I'd feel far more guilty about the production costs and toxic waste generated from the battery packs which need to be replaced far too often than I do about driving a conventional car. What would convince me to buy a hybrid is using the hybrid technology in combination with a V8 to enhance performance - there is no reason one can't get 35+mpg normal driving and sub-4.1 second 0-60 times in the same car (obviously you wouldn't get good mileage driving like a bat out of hell). The upcoming Lexus is interesting (and out of my price range right now) but I'd like to see what its specs will be. If the specs are comparable to my car and I can afford it at the time (no way in Hell I can afford it at the moment unless I sell my car which "ain't gonna happen" in my liftime), I might buy it.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50