Slashdot Mirror


Test Driving the Tesla Roadster

stacybro writes "Wired has an article about the Tesla Roadster. It is similar to other electric cars that we have seen in that the electric engine's serious torque will allow it to do 0-60mph in about 3 seconds. Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop-type lithium-ion batteries. They are claiming the range is about 250 miles. As the battery tech for laptops improves, so will the range of these cars. The car will run about $80,000, which is about par for an exotic two-seater. So who is doing the poll on which tech CEO will be seen driving one first? My guess is one of the Google or E-Bay guys, since they are investors. It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency. It is odd that the big car companies aren't more on this track!"

665 comments

  1. I'll take two! by jollyroger1210 · · Score: 0

    I'll take two, just as soon as I sell my stock in Exxon.

    --
    Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
  2. Global "Dependencies" by hotsauce · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency.

    Now all we have to do is get rid of our electronics, consumer products and innovations dependencies, and we can tell the rest of the world to take a hike!

    If only all countries could have such a lack of inter-relatedness with their neighbors, imagine what a beautiful world it would be...

    1. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Donniedarkness · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I consider our reliance on oil much more "evil" than our reliance on electronics. PDA's aren't killing the earth quite as fast as cars are ^_^

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    2. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, you're right. I was thinking about cutting back on my heroine dependency since it's bad for me and it's getting unaffordable, but instead I'm going to nourish my relationship with my neighborhood dealer. That's what neighbors are about!

    3. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I consider our reliance on oil much more "evil" than our reliance on electronics. PDA's aren't killing the earth quite as fast as cars are ^_^

      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.

      Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas. Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think "helping to getting rid of our oil dependency" is flawed from the gate. How are you going to generate the electricity for the car? A lot of that comes from oil.

      And as for you, my commentor, not having oil dependency can have a lot to say to stability and security. I.e. someone can not threaten your energy supply and it will free the US from all those blood for oil wars that the US keeps getting accused of.

    5. Re:Global "Dependencies" by bman08 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      yes, but it's a centralized problem.

    6. Re:Global "Dependencies" by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      I think "helping to getting rid of our oil dependency" is flawed from the gate. How are you going to generate the electricity for the car? A lot of that comes from oil.

      And as for you, my commentor, not having oil dependency can have a lot to say to stability and security. I.e. someone can not threaten your energy supply and it will free the US from all those blood for oil wars that the US keeps getting accused of.


      Yes, but our electric grid uses several diverse forms of energy. Say if our oil supply was cut off completly and we all used electric plugin cars. Sure we would be hurt but we would still be able to get to work if we cut back on other things and conserved. As it is I and many others would be forced to start sleeping at work and many jobs would simply shut down as the economy experienced a complete freefall.

    7. Re:Global "Dependencies" by nephridium · · Score: 1

      If only all countries could have such a lack of inter-relatedness with their neighbors, imagine what a beautiful world it would be...

      Yea, but then the poor politicians would have nothing to distract from domestic issues...

      --


      And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    8. Re:Global "Dependencies" by someone300 · · Score: 1

      Where does one find these heroine pimps?

    9. Re:Global "Dependencies" by thrillseeker · · Score: 1

      I consider our reliance on oil much more "evil" than our reliance on electronics. PDA's aren't killing the earth quite as fast as cars are

      Their, and the electric cars', significantly limited-life batteries, and the inefficiences in recharging them, certainly are.

    10. Re:Global "Dependencies" by kypper · · Score: 3, Funny

      Nucular

      George? Is that you?

    11. Re:Global "Dependencies" by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Their, and the electric cars', significantly limited-life batteries, and the inefficiences in recharging them, certainly are.

      Do you, always write with, so many commas, in your text, so that it's, one, big, run-on, sentence? Plus, it makes no sense... it should be "they" instead of "their" -- "their certainly are" vs. "they certainly are".

      Most people are quite capable of reading text that has no commas and understanding the meaning of the text without having to be cued as to when you would have had to pause to take a breath.

      Now back to your regular programming...

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    12. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I disagree, Powerplants have already been showen to be a solvable problem. So if we get rid of the oil dependencies then you technically have a complete end to end solution already, you just need to actually implement the required technology.

    13. Re:Global "Dependencies" by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cleaning up the emmissions from a hundred plants is easier the cleaning up the emissions from a hundred million cars. Cheaper too.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    14. Re:Global "Dependencies" by superdude72 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas. Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

      The US has vast reserves of coal. We wouldn't have to rely on the Middle East. And it is easier to cut pollution from relatively few centralized sources than it is from hundreds of millions of cars. And if something better than coal comes along, it's easier to switch relatively few power plants than hundreds of millions of cars. Etc, etc.

      I'm going to give you a pass on "nucular" because a dictionary guy I heard on the radio said it's a regionalism, not barbarism that is like nails on a chalkboard to educated people.

    15. Re:Global "Dependencies" by unitron · · Score: 1
      The commas are exactly where they should be.

      "Their" refers to the PDAs mentioned in the quoted sentence from the parent post. It is not the subject of the sentence, "batteries" is. It is the batteries (it is claimed ) which are "killing the earth quite as fast as cars are".

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    16. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Rix · · Score: 1

      That's a local issue. Responsible countries don't burn much coal/natural gas for electricity, aside from emergency backup.

    17. Re:Global "Dependencies" by unitron · · Score: 1
      "I was thinking about cutting back on my heroine dependency..."

      My favorite heroine dependency was on the very shapely Yvonne Craig in the Bat Girl costume.

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    18. Re:Global "Dependencies" by mandos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As far as I'm concerned supporting "domestic evil" would be better then "foreign evil". We don't import coal like oil, so using coal actually helps our economy. And for any problems that arise with coal, they will all be with bounds of US law and law enforcement. Also it's easier to clean up 100s of large coal power plants then it is to clean up millions of cars.

      Yes there are better solutions then coal, but we have over 50% of our power coming from coal, so improving coal will happen quicker then scrapping the system and replacing it with other systems (solar concentrators, tidal, wind, or other low eviroment impact systems). The is no reason we can't do both and enjoy both short term and long term gains. They're not mutually exclusive.

      --
      Mike Scanlon
    19. Re:Global "Dependencies" by this+great+guy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity

      Has already happened in my home country, which generates 79% of its energy in nuclear power plants. Now can I get my electric car ? ;-)

    20. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution to oil dependency requires only the will of the government to implement. Two five-year (OK, maybe ten-year) plans running pretty much in parallel. First plan paves some significant number of square miles of government-owned land in some sunshine-rich state (Nevada? Arizona?) with solar power systems. Could be photovoltaics or mirrors focused on boilers or whatever else you care to think of or some combination of all of the above. The point is to make a huge dent in our fossil fuel usage for generating electricity. Second plan provides incentives to build and buy electric cars.

    21. Re:Global "Dependencies" by greg_barton · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

      Today.
      Today.
      Today.
      FUCKING Today.
      You can see past today, can't you?
      I'm so sick of people who can't see past today.
      It does matter, if you can see past today.
    22. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Planesdragon · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas. Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today.

      one based soley on cost, btw.

      Figure out how much it costs to clean up the pollution from said coal. Bill the coal plant for that. Watch as other, less polluting alternatives becomes more popular.

      Nothing else matters in a capitalist economy but cost. We keep Wal-Mart from enslaving its employees by having a very high price tag for slavery. We keep GM from leaving cars on the road that are death traps by having a high cost on such activity. You want to clean up the environment? Make pollution cost.

    23. Re:Global "Dependencies" by eonlabs · · Score: 1

      I've always wondered. If you've ever seen an oil refinery, they always have these huge flames on top, blowing away tons of heat that could be doing useful work. I don't see why that's turned into a power source itself. I mean heat some water to push a turbine or something. Our current system could be made cleaner simply by making it more efficient.

      --
      I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
    24. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Alien+Being · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So simple, yet so wrong.

      Cleaning up the emissions from a hundred million cars means telling a hundred million peons that they are responsible for maintaining one vehicle. That's simple compared to telling a hundred lobbyist-paying energy companies to maintain one power plant.

      Just look at the White House's Clear Skies program. It allows antique coal plants, which were supposed to be phased out in favor of cleaner ones, to increase their capacity without being subject to the regulations on new plants.

      Gasoline cars in the U.S. are cleaner than electric power plants.

    25. Re:Global "Dependencies" by dbIII · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.
      With better battery storage it doesn't matter much where the electricity comes from and when - the car could be charging up with solar power in the carpark in the day or with wind when it is blowing, or offpeak when the base load stations are running as low as they can but no-one wants to use the electricity.

      Battery power isn't about saving energy anyway, it's often about shifting the pollution to a big facility that can handle it instead of having heavy pollution control equipment to move about. The first hybrid car I saw, back in 1987, embodied this principle and was designed to work at an underground mine. Above ground it ran on fuel, but below ground you wanted to minimise the air pollution as much as possible so it ran on batteries.

      Personally I think the compelling area for electric vehicles as technology improves is as farming equipment or transport in remote areas - charge things up on wind, solar or whatever is handy instead of trucking in a lot of fuel.

    26. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not exactly true the point is efficency. Gasoline in cars is mostly wasted. Electricity is much more efficent. They are talking a couple of cents a mile instead of say twenty cents per mile. If it wasn't for storage/range, convenience and cost of batteries gas cars couldn't compete with electrics. All those things are changing so electrics will get more cost effective and accessable. Also electricity can come from many sources. Right now cars have one option, gasoline. There are a few options of coarse like diesel and LP gas but few cars run on either one and none can switch. Diesel is the most flexsible since it can also run Biodiesel or pure vegitable oil. Electric is the only system that can adapt to future sources of energy. A diesel hybride running biodiesel has the most flexsiblity in reguard to things like range while still being extremely efficent and clean burning. They also require no new technology. The real trick then would be producing enough vegitable oil to switch most new cars to that system. By adding more batteries so you can charge it overnight for added range then adding a solar trickle charger the demand for fuel would be a fraction of todays demand. Most projections are based on us still driving gas guzzlers. If cars were running 80 to 200 mpg the demand would be a fraction of today and agroculture could potentially fill the need.

    27. Re:Global "Dependencies" by LS · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *sigh*, you really are a "rainman", just staring at your own nose and spouting back facts. You know, when I saw the mention in this article that this could help reduce dependency on oil, I specifically skimmed the posts to find someone who would bring up your tired point, and then berate them. But alas I have not the energy, and a couple others have already shot you down. Ok, i can't resist. We are talking HYPOTHETICALS... i.e. replacing internal combustion with battery power. This has not happened yet on a wide scale. It's a "WHAT IF" and a WISH for the future. While we are in the realm of "WHAT IF" we might as well also hypothesize that the coal plants are replaced with other forms of clean centralized energy. Here's an analogy of your thought process: "We should put parents who abuse their children into prison". Your response: "But the children will be alone at home, who will take care of them?" You're not looking at the big picture. What is your solution? That we just sit and wait, and not try to innovate? Every industry should just wait in lock-step for everyone else to come up to speed at the same exact moment in time?

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    28. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Dude, did you just write "nucular"?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    29. Re:Global "Dependencies" by UngodAus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I revoke that pass. It's not a nucules, it's a nucleus. Regionalism or not, it's still wrong.

    30. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas. Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today."

      Not here in Canada. And it will be phased out alltogether by 2009. Ironically we have 1% of all the worlds coal.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    31. Re:Global "Dependencies" by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      The "cars" are yes, but you appear to be missing the part about the enegery used to get the crude processed and to you. That isn't exactly a "clean" process and do you want to make any wagers on what kind of energy is used to get that crude processed? Oh right...COAL.

    32. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's more, much of that burn-off, especially in other parts of the world, is natural gas that would be used for power generation or heating but can't be transported because of lack of infrastructure. Simply connecting these refineries to existing power plants would save a bundle.

    33. Re:Global "Dependencies" by killjoe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just because this administration is unable to pass a law mandating cleaner emissions from power plants that does not mean others won't. Yes the republicans are very beholden to energy companies and this administration is doubly so. Furthermore this administration is openly hostile to any environmental legislation no matter how minor. Future administration will in all likelhood be more responsible then this one, not just for the environment but all around. I can't imagine any administration that could be more inept or stupid then this one.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    34. Re:Global "Dependencies" by j-turkey · · Score: 4, Insightful
      While we are in the realm of "WHAT IF" we might as well also hypothesize that the coal plants are replaced with other forms of clean centralized energy. Here's an analogy of your thought process: "We should put parents who abuse their children into prison". Your response: "But the children will be alone at home, who will take care of them?" You're not looking at the big picture. What is your solution? That we just sit and wait, and not try to innovate? Every industry should just wait in lock-step for everyone else to come up to speed at the same exact moment in time?

      Yeah, you tell 'em! Forget about pragmatism and we'll create our own reality. Feasability? Screw it. Net environmental effect of the technology? Who needs to analyze anything when we've got dreamers! There's no point in looking at our world for how it is when we can see it like we want it to be.

      The analogy that you provided about abusive parents is exactly the kind of absolutism that I disagree with -- and there's plenty of it to go around. What about when the definition of child abuse gets murky? What about when you've got a kid in an otherwise 'good' home, where the parents (for example) are pot smokers? Does it make sense to subject the kid to 'the system' by sticking them in a foster home (at best)? In the United States, it's not uncommon for child services to consider parents like that unfit. Absolutes don't work so well in a dynamic world.

      In any case, we've already got an idealistic executive administration in the US who tends to think in black-and-white. Frankly, I think that we would do well with a bit of measured analysis.

      To get back to the discussion, there's nothing wrong with trying to innovate, and I'm not seeing that argument anywhere. You're using a straw-man argument. However, there are plenty of hurdles which must be overcome when talking about electric cars...and it's important to recgonize that the electric car is no panacea for our environmental/political/economic ills. It just moves the problem elsewhere, and would continue to for the forseeable future. If it were really economically feasible, every major auto manufacturer would be selling an electric car right now.

      Personally, I'm more interested in diesel power (utilizing vegetable-based fuel). The technology is already 100% available, very well developed, mass produced, and it can utilize the existing distribution infrastructure without serious modifications (I think that oil pipelines would need some help, however). Burning vegetable-based fuel also releases zero net greenhouse gas, since all carbon released into the atmosphere was originally metabolized from the atmosphere. Are there drawbacks? Certainly -- among other things, there is a poor public perception of diesel engines power and torque charasteristic, of being smelly, and having hard-to-find fuel. The former two have been resolved though development: Diesel emissions (as well as the sulphur odor) have been greatly reduced, and an Audi diesel race car won Le Mans last year, partly by churning out massive amounts of torque while maintaining better fuel economy than every other car in its class.

      Again, getting back to the point, there is nothing wrong with pragmatism. In fact, the best way to deal with idealogues is to share a bit of reality. If you really believe in this, and this is truly an engineering problem, why not embrace the naysayers? Why not help find a solution to the real problems with the technology in question rather than smugly berate them in public? Your attempts to berate aren't convincing anyone of anything (except for the people who already share your ideals).

      --

      -Turkey

    35. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Cobralisk · · Score: 3, Funny

      Does the US know about this arsenal you're developing? Everybody knows nuclear power plants are just a front for WMDs.

      --
      Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
    36. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I can't imagine any administration that could be more inept or stupid then this one.

      I can - but not in US history. Maybe Lenin? Well just as fashist as this one anyway...

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    37. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm going to give you a pass on "nucular"

      It was planted there deliberately. I know how to spell nuclear -> I just giggle every time Dubya says nucular. No it isn't a regional thing, any more than ebonics is. It's an excuse to justify presidential stupidity.

      It isn't a nuculus. Ergo it isn't nucular.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    38. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can see past today, can't you?

      Natural Gas? Fossil fuel like Coal, not renewable.
      Wind? No. Not enough land to do it effeciently.
      Solar? Not cost effective.
      Hydro? Bad environmental impact. Can't dam up every river in the country?
      Tidal? Not enough ROI.
      Nuclear? Too much radioactive waste. Yes I realize we've made some vast improvements in nuclear tech.

      Consider if you took every car off the road and everyone at 6pm was charing their cars for three hours, we'd suffer from some mega brownouts.

      Yes, I know today != tomorrow, but to be pragmatic, today the electric car is impractical considering the extra power we'll need to generate.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    39. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      :) Thanks for that post - saved me a whole helluva lot of typing.

      Sincerely, GP

      =D

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    40. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Not here in Canada. And it will be phased out alltogether by 2009. Ironically we have 1% of all the worlds coal.

      I live in BC. We have an abundance of hydro electric power. Not all of the US is as fortunate.

      To replace all the coal reactors in the US with hydro would probably mean damming up every river in the US (Just guessing btw)

      We have 10% of the US population. If we had their population we'd have their energy problems too.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    41. Re:Global "Dependencies" by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Very much doubt it. How would you recognise another moron round here?

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    42. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      *sigh*, you really are a "rainman", just staring at your own nose and spouting back facts.

      No, it's much better to use conjecture and rhetoric instead of facts right? We'll play make believe that some magic solution will come along that'll save our asses. Or we can be pragmatic about it and think that there is a side effect to switching the masses to electric cars.

      You've been watching too much Mr. Rogers. In the real world, we can't think that someone will innovate our way out of our problems. We need to think that WE have to innovate our way out of our problems instead of thumbing our noses at them.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    43. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Dude, did you just write "nucular"?

      Yeah. Pretty funny huh?

      I cringe every time the dumbass says nucular. I actually yell at the TV: "It's fucking nuclear. Noo-Clee-Ar. How fucking hard is that?"

      =D

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    44. Re:Global "Dependencies" by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

      I know you are probably joking, but just to clarify, this country is France.

    45. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      George? Is that you?
      Well, his nick is rainman_bc, after all.
    46. Re:Global "Dependencies" by amorsen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wind? No. Not enough land to do it effeciently.

      Of course there is. It's not like the land between windmills suddenly becomes useless for farming. Winds largest problem is that it's unreliable, so there will be times of low production, but that would not be a big issue for cars. Cars are standing still most of the time, so they can basically charge when there is wind.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    47. Re:Global "Dependencies" by this+great+guy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Nuclear? Too much radioactive waste. Yes I realize we've made some vast improvements in nuclear tech.

      Do you have any idea of the volume of radioactive waste produced by the whole world over a 1-year period ? It is much smaller than what you think. Search for it and I'll promise you will change your mind after knowing it. No I won't give you the response here, I want to make you change your mind by yourself ;-)

    48. Re:Global "Dependencies" by dreamlax · · Score: 1

      I actually yell at the TV: "It's fucking nuclear. Noo-Clee-Ar. How fucking hard is that?"

      It's just as bad as a-loo-minum. It's fucking aluminium, al-you-mini-yum. How fucking hard is that.

      However, if the US want to change the spelling of sulphur to sulfur, and the pronunciation of aluminium to "a-loo-minum", then well, I suppose they can have nucular too.

    49. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.


      Sure, but your situation is nonetheless much improved. Why? Because if your infrastructure now runs on electricity instead of oil, you have many different options to choose from for generating that electricity. There aren't very many ways to generate oil.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    50. Re:Global "Dependencies" by djimi · · Score: 1

      We didn't change the pronunication, we spell it the way it sounds, besides Humphry Davy wanted it to be named Aluminum. He discovered it. He was from Great Britain. Some jackass contributor from the British "Quarterly Review" decided to have its own agenda in 1812. See for yourself : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminum#Spelling. As of 1993 both spellings and pronunciation are acceptable internationally.

      --
      Vox et praetera nihil
    51. Re:Global "Dependencies" by John+Nowak · · Score: 1

      I think that was his point... no one raises an eyebrow because it is France, but if Iran wanted to do similar, well...

    52. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Gasoline cars in the U.S. are cleaner than electric power plants.

      I subscribe to my power company's optional wind power program. This means that the electricity I use at home was sourced from a windfarm.

      How is that not cleaner than burning gasoline? I'd love to be able to plug my next car in overnight and never have to visit a gas station again - and knowing that my day-to-day energy use was 100% sustainable.

      Although admittedly the power company wouldn't have the capacity for this if everyone had an electic car, their windpower allotment is already currently full. But stuff like this is a start.

    53. Re:Global "Dependencies" by nacturation · · Score: 1

      You appear to be right. For whatever reason, I had one hell of a time parsing that sentence. One too many commas confused me as to which parts were parenthetical statements I think.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    54. Re:Global "Dependencies" by evolseven · · Score: 1

      Its not a regional thing, I am from Texas, and I have never ever heard another semi educated person say such a thing.

    55. Re:Global "Dependencies" by AGMW · · Score: 1
      There are a few options of coarse like diesel and LP gas but few cars run on either one and none can switch.

      If you get your petrol car converted to run on LPG (at least, here in the UK) it becomes a bi-fuel vehicle and runs on both petrol and LPG. Indeed, it always starts using petrol, then switches to LPG. There is (certainly in the installations I have seen) a button on the dash to switch back if you want the extra power petrol provides - for example to beat someone away from traffic lights.

      The Gov (bless 'em) used to offer a subsidy for new cars being converted when the real benefits would be had from encouraging people with old cars. The old car benefit would be two-fold - they are less efficient to start with, so there is more to be gained from using LPG, and you end up using the old car for longer ... re-use is better than recycling!

      If yer interested, there is another benefit and that is that petrol cars burning LPG don't turn their oil into black sludge because there's less shite in the fuel and this translates into longer service intervals.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    56. Re:Global "Dependencies" by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Hey, does Canada have any surplus electricity, and if it does, does it sell it to the "brownout boys" to the south? Just wondering.

      I could sure see that turning into a nice little earner!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    57. Re:Global "Dependencies" by HaMMeReD3 · · Score: 1

      You missed solar, oh wait, that doesnt really count, sorry.

    58. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Quadraginta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well...it's kind of like the fact that I don't mind that my local cop carries a loaded .38, but I wouldn't be at all happy if the local 14-year-old gangbanger with a crystal meth problem carried one.

    59. Re:Global "Dependencies" by caridon20 · · Score: 1

      "Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas. Doesn't matter. Coal is the most popular choice today."

      Maby in America but the rest of the world is not going that way. /C

      --
      You dont have to be an analretentive nitpicker to be a tester.... But it helps :)
    60. Re:Global "Dependencies" by HaydnH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "I subscribe to my power company's optional wind power program. This means that the electricity I use at home was sourced from a windfarm."

      I doubt that very much, I think what they mean is that the sum of elecricity you and the others on the program use at home is equal to that the company produces by their windfarms - the actual energy you personally use will probably be a mixture of all of their power plants outputs... unless you have a seperate cable running straight to the wind turbines of course!

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
    61. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Zapdos · · Score: 1

      US oil comes from Canada, Mexico and Venezuela, less then 10% from the middle east.
      Our allies England, France, Japan etc use oil from the The Middle East. We care about that oil because we care about them.

      For whatever reason, the news media has always created the impression that we have supertankers lined up across the Pacific Ocean.

    62. Re:Global "Dependencies" by SlOrbA · · Score: 1

      Nucular == Nuclear

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucular

      I allways thought that the pronunciation of the word was deliberately the same as New Clear.

      So by all means let's have more of these New Clear Power Plants.

    63. Re:Global "Dependencies" by cnettel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No one raises an eyebrow right now, since it's 50 years too late to stop the French nuclear arsenal.

    64. Re:Global "Dependencies" by s31523 · · Score: 1

      But what about the: "The Tesla Roadster is powered by 6,831 rechargeable lithium-ion batteries"?
      There has got to be a negative impact on the environment when we ditch them into a landfill. How recycleable are those things anyway, and , how much does it cost (i.e. is it cheaper to throw them into the deep ocean or a landfill)?

    65. Re:Global "Dependencies" by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter at all whether or not anyone can "see" past today. Infrastructures do not change overnight, and you'd be a naive fool if you didn't plan for that.

    66. Re:Global "Dependencies" by huge+colin · · Score: 1
      I consider our reliance on oil much more "evil" than our reliance on electronics. PDA's aren't killing the earth quite as fast as cars are
      Um... the fact than an electric car is "electronic" doesn't have anything to do with it. It still needs a lot of energy to move. Besides, if cars were actually killing the Earth, wouldn't it be more likely due to the fact that they require orders of magnitude more energy than PDAs?

      With and electric car, instead of merely having the mechanical and heat losses of the internal combustion engine working against us, we'd have the efficiency losses involved in spinning a turbine to generate electricity, the transmission loss on the line to get the electricity to consumers, the loss due to chemical batteries being imperfect, and the final efficiency loss in converting the electricity back into mechanical motion. Plus, we'd still have the resistance due to imperfect wheel bearings, tires, and road surfaces that we have today.

      Electric cars are a pretty awful idea.
    67. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think owns a large portion of american stocks and thus exerts a degree of influence - yep you got it the middle east.

      If I was an arabian oil prince you bet I would buy all the ford stocks I could - it just makes sense to control demand as well.

    68. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anomylous+Howard · · Score: 1

      Yes coal is dirty, but coal burned for electricity, transmitted over the grid and stored in lion batteries in still not as dirty as oil refined to gasoline, and burned in cars. Due to economies of scale, I suspect it is easier to ameliorate the emissions of a 100 coal power plants than a 100,000 cars.

    69. Re:Global "Dependencies" by AcidLacedPenguiN · · Score: 1

      HA! HA ha haHA!
      America doesn't "care about them", you care about that oil because you care about having power over them.

      --
      disclaimer: I've been known to store numbers in my ass for which to dig out when quantities are required.
    70. Re:Global "Dependencies" by dylan_- · · Score: 1
      Our allies England, France, Japan etc use oil from the The Middle East.
      Erm, no...."England" (by which, presumably, you meant the UK) has its own oilfields. At least, for the next few years. I think we're due to run out soon...
      --
      Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
    71. Re:Global "Dependencies" by wizzat · · Score: 1
      Bad Presidents

      Looks like Dubya's sitting at #22. Though Harding appears to be liked little. And I'd agree that Grant was pretty terrible as a President.

    72. Re:Global "Dependencies" by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 1

      Yes, that's right. Just like it wouldn't affect the price of your groceries at all if all the wheat farms on the east coast shut down, right? Cos you know that your supermarket buys wheat from the west.

      *rolls eyes*

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    73. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Has already happened in my home country, which generates 79% of its energy in nuclear power plants.

      Yeah, and over 99% of ours is by hydroelectric power (Norway), but you need some more global scale to get it going. That is, if you could increase your nuclear power plants enough to actually meet demand. Around here we have too little power, but gas power plants are polluting so we export gas and import electricity *rolls eyes*. Apparently pollution doesn't exist if it's not domestic.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    74. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      And it is easier to cut pollution from relatively few centralized sources than it is from hundreds of millions of cars.

      Reduce polution you mean, not cut it out altogether. If you burn carbon you generate carbon dioxide. If you cant understand this you need to post on a different forum as this one is for people with at least half a brain.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    75. Re:Global "Dependencies" by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      We don't import coal like oil, so using coal actually helps our economy.

      American coal is not clean-burning enough (low in sulfur) to use in industrial power generation, as far as I'm aware.

      solar concentrators, tidal, wind, or other low eviroment impact systems

      Wind isn't really low impact. We just think it is because we do it on such a small scale. If we got significant quanities of power from wind we'd actually slow down the wind sufficiently to fuck up the climate even more than we currently do. Every time you use windmills to harness the wind you are effectively sucking energy directly out of the climate.

    76. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Blymie · · Score: 1



      Erm. ;)

      You're missing the point. You're not spelling it the way it sounds, you're spelling it the way it sounds *to you*.. which is a colloquial sound and spelling. You've changed the word's spelling, after changing the word's sound....

    77. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that depends where you live dude. I live in the UK and its mostly gas-fired power plants here.

    78. Re:Global "Dependencies" by hlavac · · Score: 1

      It has something to do with nukes, theferore nucular ;)

    79. Re:Global "Dependencies" by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, you tell 'em! Forget about pragmatism and we'll create our own reality. Feasability? Screw it. Net environmental effect of the technology? Who needs to analyze anything when we've got dreamers! There's no point in looking at our world for how it is when we can see it like we want it to be.

      Well, I don't see a necessary conflict between looking forward and pragatism. It's helpful sometimes to "assume" the existence of a thing, in a tentative way, because it allows you to think about the potential value of searching for that thing. Where it becomes unpragmatic is when you assume that thing is going to spring into existence because you wish it to be. Yet is equally dangerous to dismiss all change becuase we don't know the details in advance.

      I think we are approaching a shift in the world's energy use. It's like waiting for an earthquake to generate a tsunami; inevitably it's going to come, but nobody can say precisely when. Uncertainties, such as whether a technology will be developed to extract heavy crude deposits, introduce decades of uncertainty into when the shift will occur. Thinking about, and planning for this shift takes resources away from current needs, and so it is easy to think of it as unpragmatic. However, I suspect that when a shift comes, it won't be a surprise that it came, but it will be a surprise when it came and how quickly.

      WRT electric power, the key is that electricty isn't an energy source. It's a medium for transmitting energy. The great benefit of this is that it can come from many sources and put to many uses. It's helpful to "assume" a replacement for coal fired plants, because while we know no such replacement exists yet, there is no reason in physics why such a thing could not be. In fact, there may be no single satisfactory replacment for coal. As there may be no single satisfactory replacement for petroleum either. If that is the case, electricity is going to be a key part of the strategy for dealing with that. Even if we were to put in hydrogen pipelines to everybody's house, it doesn't fundamentally change things. Hydrogen is a method of storing and transmitting energy.

      However, there are plenty of hurdles which must be overcome when talking about electric cars...and it's important to recgonize that the electric car is no panacea for our environmental/political/economic ills

      Yes, but I'm deeply suspicious of the phrase "no panacea", because it's often trotted out in a way that suggests that if some form of progress doesn't solve all our problems, it is worthless.

      This bears on your point of net environmental effects. What we need is a rational framework to think about them. But it's harder than it sounds. I once worked for an organization trying to help universities teach this. "Systems" thinking really isn't anything special. It's just broadening the scope of your reasoning to include effects you hadn't considered or intended. When you do this you tend to find that nothing is as good as you might hope, but on the other side few things are as bad as you might fear.

      People point out the fact that electric cars just shift emissions from tailpipes to distant smokestacks. This is true. But it's not a conclusive argument. You have to crunch the numbers. And even after you've done that, you don't have the entire story. the importance of the electric car is that it creates options. It has been remarked that the definition of a bad policy is that it leaves you with no good options. It seems to me a good policy is one that leaves open many options. That is why electricity is so important; it is the most versatile and adaptable medium we have.

      I agree that biodiesel is an intriguing option. It is, in effect, a method of storing and transmitting solar energy. The carbon molecules are recycled. But I'm not prepared to pin all our hopes on it.

      A key point to remember is that scale is a big part of assessiong enviornmental impact. The second gigawatt of tidal power

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    80. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I couldn't find that figure easily. So if you want to convince more people, you're best off giving a link. Unless you don't really care.

    81. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      O'l George is just being a good business man. Global Warming, energy conservation, alternative energy sources are all bad business for his family and many other politicians (oil). If we switch to another form of energy source george and his buddies will want to make sure that they are in a position to make a profit from it. That is why you do not hear more talk about Wind, Solar or tital energy systems, there just isn't much of a profit to be made on these.

      Nope our Addiction to oil will continue as long as we place, mediocre businessmen in government instead of statesmen.

    82. Re:Global "Dependencies" by archen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      American coal is not clean-burning enough (low in sulfur) to use in industrial power generation, as far as I'm aware.

      You're right and wrong. It's not clean burning, and we DO use it for industrial power generation. I lived right next to two power plants that burned lignite. When the parent says it's easier to clean a couple powerplants than a bunch of cars, I'm not sure he's completenly aware of the issues with burning dirty coal on a large scale. Now if we could get our energy out of coal in a few other ways I've heard of, it seams plausible, but just burning it I would think would be a wash.

      I don't think sucking power from the climat is a big issue right now since we're already dumping tons of energy into it. In fact right now that might be the best thing to reduce some of that energy. You also have to consider that trees also absorbe a large ammount of energy from wind, but with global deforistation windmills will probably not even offset a fraction of the energy trees traditionally absorbed.

    83. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Hey, does Canada have any surplus electricity, and if it does, does it sell it to the "brownout boys" to the south? Just wondering.

      Yes, but then they don't pay their bills.

      BC sold electricity to California during the .com boom, when electricity prices were soaring. I think they are still in court - California is arguing we were price gouging, even though in NAFTA charging market rates is legal.

      BC used to be a net exporter, but recently with our economic boom we've had to import some.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    84. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Cos you know that your supermarket buys wheat from the west.

      When's the last time you when to a supermarket and bought wheat?

      Last I saw it was wheat products like flour and cereal and stuff. Can't just go in and get "wheat".

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    85. Re:Global "Dependencies" by idonthack · · Score: 1
      Forget about pragmatism and we'll create our own reality. Feasability? Screw it. Net environmental effect of the technology? Who needs to analyze anything when we've got dreamers! There's no point in looking at our world for how it is when we can see it like we want it to be.
      Adam Savage? Is that you?
       
      "I reject your reality and substitute my own!"
      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
    86. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're confusing Lenin with Stalin. Also, it's "fascist".

    87. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Don853 · · Score: 1

      That's pretty skewed - there's only two polls that address W. One is from 2002 and the other is from the WSJ, which while a very respectable publication slants conservative and in favor of business.

    88. Re:Global "Dependencies" by jguthrie · · Score: 1
      "There aren't very many ways to generate oil."

      Oh? Upon what is that conclusion based? You might want to examine your underlying assumptions. "Oil" is just an arrangement of carbon and hydrogen atoms. If there was sufficient incentive, someone could invent multiple ways of turning sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into a substance that was as identical to petroleum as you could wish. Nobody's going to do that, of course, because the there are already ways to convert the output of plants into replacements for the three main uses for petroleum (as a fuel, as a chemical feedstock, and as lubricant) so there's no point in attempting to duplicate petroleum.

      Now, the reason that plant products haven't replaced petroleum for those three main uses is primarily economic: Petroleum is still cheaper than the plants required to turn the plants into biodiesel, lubricating oil, and plastics. Further, the current high prices are viewed by a lot of people as being temporary which limits the willingness to invest in improving the technology to the point where it would even be cost-effective with oil at the prices being paid for it two years ago.

      The thing that sticks in my craw is the fact that I would be a prime target for an electric vehicle, but they cost too damn much. I pay $400 per month for the minivan (because I need the seats for all the people in my family) I just bought (because some idiot in a pickup truck didn't know you shouldn't drive 70 mph in a parking lot) and it burns $150 per month in gasoline. Even if I were to entirely eliminate the cost of fuel, I could only justify paying $550 per month for an electric vehicle. That's not enough to buy an $80,000 car, not unless the note is for substantially longer than six years. (My current car note is a sixty-month note.)

      Anyway, that leaves me with the option of buying a gasoline-powered car and converting it. That actually is cost-effective (and here is a link to some information about building your own electric car) and I've been interested in that option since I read the article about it in Make but that requires a commitment to the effort (in time, energy, and a reasonably stocked workshop) that I'm not currently willing to make.

    89. Re:Global "Dependencies" by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      How ironic that you used the word "responsible". A responsible person weighs the impact of different problems and solutions, and acts accordingly. This involves seeing that tightening pollution standards raises prices, weakens the economy, and thereby relatively strengthens people who want to kill Americans. A responsible person fights the anti-civilization killers, instead of pretending that they're not a problem as Clinton and Carter did.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    90. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. joke on you. No new wind generators built as a result of your participation that wouldn't have been built anyway. Half of extra money you pay go for marketing. Rest go to increase profits of power company. No coal generated electricity displaced by your actions.

    91. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A good point about electricity being a transport mechanism for energy, not a SOURCE of energy. Same with hydrogen. A very good point and one that most people don't understand, but it needs to be taken just one small step more than just saying that.

      Today, our cars are fueled by essentially one source of energy - oil. Sure, we have some biodiesel going, and ethanol, and those options will increasingly diversify the SOURCE of energy for transportation. But electricity as a transport mechanism is important because it allows for multiple sources of energy to be plugged in seamlessly. Want to power your car with coal? Sure, turn the coal into electrons and drive. Want to power your car with Solar - same deal. Same deal for nuclear (fission and perhaps in the future fusion). Same for wind, hydro, biomass, wood, etc. By using electricity to power our cars, we can swap out any and all sources of energy in the future.

      We can already do that in so many other areas of energy consumption. I choose what energy source will heat my house, or cool it. Same with my office building. By allowing the arbitrage of these differing sources of energy, we allow those sources to compete with each other. This makes energy production efficient because no one source is bound to one use. Except for oil. And that is why oil is so expensive right now. If we could swap out oil for transportation with any other fuel, ALL energy costs would be driven down.

      The plugin hybrid will make this a reality. It will break the monopoly on energy for transportation. And the sooner we do it, the faster our transporation costs will fall.

    92. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the US does have vast reserves of coal, but at present when additional generating capacity is needed (think heat wave or someone suddenly placing 10^6 plug-in hybrids or EVs on the grid), that extra capacity largely comes from burning oil and natural gas. (Energy sources like hydro, nuclear, are always 'on', and additional sources like coal, oil and NG are brought on-line as needed.)

      So in the short term a switch to EVs will centralize emissions to power plants, but since the "marginal" sources of energy brought on-line to accomodate the resulting extra demand will come from burning imported oil and gas, we don't really gain much energy security.

    93. Re:Global "Dependencies" by GrayFolded · · Score: 1

      How does an electric car reduce our oil dependencies? Where does the electricity come from to charge the lith-ion batteries.? This car shares the same fundamental problem with fuel cell technology.

    94. Re:Global "Dependencies" by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      We're not helping the situation by pointing the finger at one particular party. After all, Jimmy Carter was beholden to the cardigan sweater industry!

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    95. Re:Global "Dependencies" by GWBasic · · Score: 1
      Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.

      Not really. Compared to the internal combusion engine, electric cars are so efficient that they are still desirable, even if powered by coal. Internal combusion engines waste about 80% of the energy in their fuel. If you read TFA, 1 gallon of gasoline can generate enough electricity to make an electric car go over 100 miles.

      Quite frankly, the soot from a coal plant that's outside of a population center is much, much, much less evil then car exhaust.

    96. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Mr.+Burrito · · Score: 1

      Coal gasification is a viable option.

    97. Re:Global "Dependencies" by jafac · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Foreign Evil:
      Saddam Hussein, who, over the space of 20 years killed nearly 60,000 Iraqis.

      Domestic Evil:
      Donald Rumsfeld, who, over the space of 36 months killed over 100,000 Iraqis.
      (and the rest got purple fingers, an entrenched Theocracy, and civil war).

      hmmmm. . . decisions decisions.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    98. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you read TFA it says it costs about 1 cent per mile to drive. At $3/gallon and 30 MPG, you're talking about 10 cents per mile for a regular car. The difference in costs relates a lot to a difference in efficiencies (turbines in power plants are much more efficient then ICEs in cars). So while you are replacing one evil with another, you are replacing it with a much lesser evil.

    99. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NUKULAR , you mean

    100. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Klanglor · · Score: 1

      not in my book. haha. we have hydro as our main source. :p but i guess its not much better since it floods lands and destroys natural habitacles too.

      waiting for the iRobot satelite.. a orbital solar power canon that beams energy back to earth.

    101. Re:Global "Dependencies" by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

      Ok. For the year 2006, the total amount of Uranium required by all world nuclear power reactors combined will be about 65,000 tons, assuming a density of 19.1 g.cm^-3, this is equivalent to a cubic container measuring 40 feet x 40 feet x 40 feet (40 feet =~ 15 meters). Of course Uranium waste is never stored like that in huge containers but even assuming it is stored while filling only 10% of the raw volume of a container, it is still much better than releasing millions of tons of polluting gases in the atmosphere, better than polluting rivers and seas, etc.

    102. Re:Global "Dependencies" by inKubus · · Score: 1

      I always wondered:

      Why don't they just stick the waste in the middle of the ocean? Why do they have to bury it on land? Just cruise over the Mariana trench, drop the fuel rods one at a time into an undersea volcano, spaced out a few hundred feet a piece. Hell, build the plant out on an island in the middle of the ocean too. I understand there are some problems transmitting power long distances over salt water, but still... we can find a way.

      Of course, then "terrorists" might blow it up. So put up a fortress.

      I heard that the real problem with nuclear is the lack of available uranium reserves. We only have a 50-60 year supply of fuel at our current energy use rates (assuming we went to 100% nuclear). A lot of that is in Wyoming, I might add, where our good friend "Dick" Cheney was governor.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    103. Re:Global "Dependencies" by mmarshall · · Score: 1
      Wind? No. Not enough land to do it effeciently.

      You've never been to Kansas, have you?

    104. Re:Global "Dependencies" by penguinstorm · · Score: 1

      > Yes, I'm aware of Nucular, Hydro, Wind, Tidal, Natrual Gas.

      You've got two typos here, so I'm not sure if it was meant ironically.

      I feel compelled to point out that it's NUCLEAR!

      Of course is you had spelt it properly, I was going to jokingly correct it to Nucular.

      --
      Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
    105. Re:Global "Dependencies" by smorken · · Score: 1

      Lets see, Volume of 6,831 AA batteries: (these batteries are probably bigger?) V = 6,831 * pi * 0.007m^2 * 0.05m = 0.0526m^3 (batteries per car) times 100M cars = 5.26 Million cubic meters of dead batteries every 4-5 years I hope Li-Ion batteries aren't too toxic. Maybe we should wait for fuel cells?

    106. Re:Global "Dependencies" by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      tital energy systems

      Now that's an idea I'm fully behind.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    107. Re:Global "Dependencies" by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Wind? No. Not enough land to do it effeciently.

      It's more effective to not build them on land anyway.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    108. Re:Global "Dependencies" by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      Of course is you had spelt it properly, I was going to jokingly correct it to Nucular.

      Just to point out the word I think you wanted was if not is

      If you're going to be pedantic, ensure your own posts are free from errors...

      And as for nucular - I threw that in on purpose. makes me cringe every time that moron says it wrong. Can't believe half you guys voted for that doofus.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    109. Re:Global "Dependencies" by killjoe · · Score: 1

      A responsible person doesn't swallow the republitard line of "cleaner air will kill our civilization" meme hook line and sinker.

      According to the republitard theory countries with more environmental regulations should be poorer then countries without any environmental regulation at all. But wait!. Is that really true? Can you show a statistical correlation between enviromental regulation and strong economies? I haven't done the study but a quick perusal of the top 10 economies says that you can. The countries with stronger environmental regulations have stronger economies then those that don't.

      Mmmmm. This must be another case of the facts having a liberal bias.

      But hey those are just facts. Facts are useless, you are better off listening to Rush Limbaugh.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    110. Re:Global "Dependencies" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Infrastructure isn't in place for wide spread wind farming.

      Farmers would Love to make money this way, most just break even because the grid doesn't handle electricity coming in from random places and won't be constant.

      Fortunatly, people are working on replacing the grid with a 'smart' grid a piece at a time.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    111. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wind? No. Not enough land to do it effeciently.
      Land? Since when do you require land to make use of wind power? Did sail ships cross land? I believe it was water... That's where there is a lot of potential for wind power, out at sea. Plenty of space and a lot of wind, many countries have plans for wind turbine parks along their coastlines.

      Solar? Not cost effective.
      Not cost effective? Why don't we change that to "not YET cost effective", because when fossil fuel and thus energy prices rise enough, you'll suddenly begin to think that solar power is economical.

      Hydro? Bad environmental impact. Can't dam up every river in the country?
      Dams that impact the nearby ecosystem are not considered to be a true renewable energy source, but there is nothing wrong with a regular water turbine generating power as water from a river flows by.

      Consider if you took every car off the road and everyone at 6pm was charing their cars for three hours, we'd suffer from some mega brownouts.
      The fundamental problem everyone has with future electric cars, believing they will run on the batteries we know today. These batteries will eventually be phased out since they are heavy, toxic, take a long time to charge, they are not very efficient and pollute the environment.
      The battery of the future is hydrogen, that's right, hydrogen! It's not really a source of energy (unless you locate harvestable H2 deposits), but it does pretty good for an energy storage medium.

      That's where the balancing act between renewable energy (unreliable) and sufficient power delivery (hydrogen) will begin. Power that is generated while it is not needed will be put to use to produce hydrogen (see why the open sea is such an excellent location for wind turbine parks), and vice versa (when there is not enough energy being produced to fullfill demand, hydrogen is "burned" in fuel cell arrays to meet the electrical requirements.

      In other words you won't be charging your car in the power outlet, just like you don't throw a pile of biomatter together and wait for it to become crude oil. Like fueling gasoline or LPG, we will probably be fueling hydrogen somewhere in the not too distant future...

    112. Re:Global "Dependencies" by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Feel free to start tagging electrons to prove him wrong. But really the accounting works out for this and he indeed is running off wind power, even though his power is getting mixed in with "other" electricity in the grid. If his money goes to building more wind farms I think that is a very positive thing. You cannot expect people to build a seperate power grid for every form of energy, that would be extremely wasteful. (copper is quite expensive)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    113. Re:Global "Dependencies" by blugu64 · · Score: 1

      Should negate the storms caused by global warming no?

      (yes it was a dumb joke)

      --
      "Personal ownership is a hallmark of conservative capitalism. And I don't believe I am entitled to anything that I did n
    114. Re:Global "Dependencies" by djimi · · Score: 1

      No. Read the Wiki article. It should explain it. It has nothing to do with sounds. The spelling has *always* been the same in the United States. The current *right* answer is that both are correct (internationally). In the US, for non-scientists, only Aluminum (a-LOO-min-num) is correct, any other pronunciation is from a foreign source, or an affection from an anglophile. Capice?

      --
      Vox et praetera nihil
    115. Re:Global "Dependencies" by Blymie · · Score: 1


      Well, I live in English speaking Canada.. and the spelling is not that cited by Wikipedia. It is not something I would call authortitative, but something as a starter point. On the flip side, the article specifically states that the spelling has NOT been the same in the United States.. but started out one way, and changed. There is a suggested reason as to why, as well.

      Quote:

      "The United States adopted the -ium for most of the 19th century with aluminium appearing in Webster's Dictionary of 1828. However, in 1892 Charles Martin Hall used the -um spelling in an advertising handbill for his new efficient electrolytic method for the production of aluminium, despite using the -ium spelling in all of his patents filed between 1886 and 1903. It has consequently been suggested that the spelling on the flier was a simple spelling mistake rather than a deliberate choice to use the -um spelling. Hall's domination of production of the metal ensured that the spelling aluminum became the standard in North America, even though the Webster Unabridged Dictionary of 1913 continued to use the -ium version."

      Anyhow, the above does state no certainly. Words like "suggested" are not the same as "proven".

      It could certainly be a spelling difference to change pronounciation. Definitely, words like sulfer and sulpher do match how they are pronounced. I write sulpher, and pronounce sulpher. Sulfer is not the same sounding word.. an 'f' and 'ph' do _NOT_ sound the same in my variant of the English language.

      This is what I am referring to. Aluminum and aluminium are not pronounced the same. Heck, color and colour are not, as an example. I pronounce the "our" in colour... it is not the same sound as simply an "or" at the end.

  3. Exploding Batteries? by glowworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I am left wondering if this car is involved in an accident if the batteries will vent like the recent /. articles suggest.

    Exploding Dells, fires on planes, and soon at an intersection near you... cars venting more flame than the batmobile.

    --
    Orationem pulchram non habens, scribo ista linea in lingua Latina
    1. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Unknown+Poltroon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Much safer to use something like 15 gallons of liquid petrolium distillate that is highly inflammable at room temperature.

      --
      All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
    2. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Apraxhren · · Score: 1
      An accelerometer, smoke detector, voltage meter, temperature gauge, and water sensor can detect a crash or other failures and shut the batteries down to prevent fire or explosion
    3. Re:Exploding Batteries? by alienw · · Score: 1

      I think batteries are going to be a lot safer than gasoline. Obviously, there would be more measures taken to make them safer. In Dell's case, the reason is because the batteries are designed to be cheap rather than safe.

    4. Re:Exploding Batteries? by topham · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Last time I checked cars don't explode while driving down the street; while it seems laptops might...

      (And with over 6 thousand batteries one might expect a failure rate of 1 in 10000 to be a little high...

    5. Re:Exploding Batteries? by SEWilco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Notice the fast acceleration. Maybe this car uses a lithium-ion Orion drive, where the force of exploding batteries drives the car forward forcefully.

    6. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Sinistrad_D · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Looks like the company that is manufacturing the batteries has replaced graphite with a "Lithium Titanium Oxide" that they've tested and claim doesn't have the smoking, venting, or explosive problems of normal lithium ion batteries. Here is a link to a rather informative article about the battery technology that will be used in the Tesla:

      http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2006/07/ altair_batterie.html

      I mean based on the stuff I've read about the founders of the company and a lot of the people who have invested in it (i.e. Elon Musk, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, etc.) I feel I'll wait and see before passing any judgement.
    7. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Gasoline has a long proven history of relative safety. The liquid isn't flammable at all. You can douse out a match in liquid gasoline, as long as the vapors are well ventilated.

      And if you don't think a car using 6000 cells is going to have rigorous cost containment measures taken in the cells' design, you're dreaming.

    8. Re:Exploding Batteries? by TheShadowzero · · Score: 3, Funny

      Since when do laptops drive down the street? Damn, better keep a better eye on mine...

      --
      If history repeats itself, why can't we study the future?
    9. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Twiek · · Score: 1

      [i]Gasoline has a long proven history of relative safety. The liquid isn't flammable at all.[/i] I guess you've never heard of the Ford Pinto.

    10. Re:Exploding Batteries? by spirit+of+reason · · Score: 1
      So the answer is that it is not very likely, provided you have properly implemented protection circuits to correct for bad thermal, current, or voltage situations and have designed a sturdy battery box that permits good heat dissipation. One would also place the batteries in areas that would prevent it from taking the brunt of an impact. These are just some of the simple design considerations, and as a member of an electric vehicle design team, I can tell you it's something we take very seriously and make sure to prevent.

      It's unfortunate that the batteries with the highest energy density are so fragile, but there's some hope coming from A123 Systems and some other companies. They have drilled through their cells in demonstrations to illustrate that their cells do not explode under some pretty extreme situations. I don't know if it has been in a commercial or not (I don't watch television much), but they showed us a video in a presentation of their capabilities.

    11. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you upgraded to English 2.6.0.4 yet? The term 'inflammable' has been deprecated from the most recent lexicon.
      That's what you get for sticking with your bloated MS English. I bet you even say "nucular".

    12. Re:Exploding Batteries? by bdolan · · Score: 1

      Are you going to put a huge fireproof red sticker on the car warning firefighters not to douse the flames with water so as not to create an explosion?

    13. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Emnar · · Score: 3, Informative

      Liquid gasoline only explodes in Hollywood. You can drop a match into it and the match will go out.

      Gasoline fumes, on the other hand, can definitely explode. While it's a fine distinction, it's an important one.

      In fact, the technological advance which finally permitted combustion engines was figuring out how to vaporize gasoline so that it would burn.

    14. Re:Exploding Batteries? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      LIQUID Gasoline is NON-FLAMMABLE. However Gasoline VAPORS mixed with air are highly flammable. As long as your fuel tank does not rupture (recall the exploding Pintos and Chevy Pickups?) you are OK. It takes a hell of a rear-ender to rupture your tank and if cars used bladders inside the tanks like race cars you'd never see a fire. However, the laptop batteries are documented to explode sort of at random, and if one goes the others may go with. Also, if you can afford 80K for a car you can pay the $3-$4 a gallon to drive anything you want, the car is a "look at me, aren't I Green" statement nothing more. Or maybe "I'm so f*cking rich I can drive an 80K electric car". Until they can produce them for 20K and they last 200K miles and have a low operating cost they are not going to catch on enough to make any difference in consumption of "petroleum distillates".

    15. Re:Exploding Batteries? by rs79 · · Score: 1

      "I am left wondering if this car is involved in an accident if the batteries will vent"

      Worse, this is an ELECTRIC car being built in ENGLAND. Think about it.

      Nobody say the L-word. Just don't say it.

      --
      Need Mercedes parts ?
    16. Re:Exploding Batteries? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Exactly correct! Vaporization is CRITICAL to getting gasoline to burn.

      One reason an engine can misfire is due to inadequate atomization of the fuel. The only two known methods are with a carburetor or fuel injector. If the fuel squirts in the combustions chamber rather then "spray or mist", you can forget about getting the sparkplug to ignite the air/fuel mixture. The unburned fuel just blows right out the tail pipe.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    17. Re:Exploding Batteries? by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      Nobody say the L-word. Just don't say it.

      But everybody loves Lucas electrics!

      --

      -Turkey

    18. Re:Exploding Batteries? by drwho · · Score: 1
      Worse, this is an ELECTRIC car being built in ENGLAND. Think about it.

      Nobody say the L-word. Just don't say it.


      Q: Why do the English drink warm beer?


      A: Because they have Lucas refrigerators!

    19. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, the poster said that it's inflammable at room temperature, when vaporization takes place.

    20. Re:Exploding Batteries? by drsmithy · · Score: 3, Funny
      Last time I checked cars don't explode while driving down the street; while it seems laptops might...

      Don't you watch movies ? Cars explode as soon as all of their wheels are off the ground.

    21. Re:Exploding Batteries? by spindizzy · · Score: 1

      LUCAS!

      There, you happy now?
      Still it could be worse, it could be using Italian wiring from the 60s.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    22. Re:Exploding Batteries? by cptgrudge · · Score: 1

      Well, then it wouldn't be totally without direct oil dependence. The impact plate would need to be covered in oil to keep it from breaking down over time. Still, I imagine that it would be less usage than our current cars.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
    23. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      "over 6,831 laptop type lithium-ion batteries"...."range is about 250 miles"....Well, at least we know where Hazballah are getting the rockets from.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    24. Re:Exploding Batteries? by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Last time I checked cars don't explode while driving down the street

      I'm guessing you've never seen an American movie.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    25. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      "You can drop a match into it and the match will go out."

      Is this the same gasoline that occasionally I use to light a
      BBQ which gives nice 2 foot flames when I drop a match on it?

    26. Re:Exploding Batteries? by MrNaz · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see you up to your knees in gasolene testing that.

      If you can say something like that you obviously were hever 13 years old on a farm. I remember when I was 13 I'd syphon gas out of the ride on lawn mower to make nice big fires sure to bring my dad running with a wet grain sack.

      --
      I hate printers.
    27. Re:Exploding Batteries? by agingell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Can I strongly suggest that NOBODY tries this at home. Gasoline in its liquid state will always have fumes above it at room temperature, and throwing a match into it will definitely result in a very severe fire!

      The match going out comment in more usually attributed to Diesel fuels, Kerosene and paraffin, which have a much higher flash point, and a higher boiling point. This means there is little vapor above the liquid and they are not likely to be ignited by a lighted match. It usually requires a wick to make fuel Oils burn e.g. a rag etc. or alternatively high temp and pressure such as in a diesel engine or gas turbine.

      So please be careful!

    28. Re:Exploding Batteries? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Surface area (relevant for vaporization and oxygen supply) vs. volume.

    29. Re:Exploding Batteries? by david.given · · Score: 1

      The match going out comment in more usually attributed to Diesel fuels, Kerosene and paraffin, which have a much higher flash point, and a higher boiling point. This means there is little vapor above the liquid and they are not likely to be ignited by a lighted match.

      My father has a small yacht. There's an outboard motor, powered off the usual marine petrol/oil mixture, but the cabin cooker and lighting run off paraffin.

      Petrol is never allowed in the cabin. It gets stored in the engine well, which was floor-level vents so that any petrol fumes will go overboard. If petrol got taken into the cabin, then the fumes would go down into the bilge, where they'd build up --- having your boat explode while out at sea is generally considered a bad thing.

      (Paraffin's a great fuel. Cheap, easy to use, very safe; it's more or less liquid wax. We generally use primuses, where the fuel gets preheated by the flame to vaporise it before it reaches the burner; you have to bootstrap them with methylated spirits to get them hot enough to run. Modern primuses, though, have atomiser jets good enough that you can light the fuel spray directly without needing the bootstrap stage. I'm surprised paraffin's not used more often.)

    30. Re:Exploding Batteries? by squoozer · · Score: 1

      While I agree you are technically correct it should be pointed out that at room temperature petrol has a fairly high vapour pressure. As such it ignites very easily. Lit matches brought into proximity with liquid petrol will almost always result in a very bad fire.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    31. Re:Exploding Batteries? by houghi · · Score: 1
      Liquid gasoline only explodes in Hollywood.


      And it is so explosive, it explodes at least three times.
      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    32. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Anomylous+Howard · · Score: 1

      Somewhere in the tesla motors' FAQ it mentioned active ventilation of the batteries. Keeping them cool will help prevent explosions, and help extend their life in other ways too. They claim that the betteries will last 100,000 miles.

    33. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      You're still burning vapor. Gasoline evaporates when exposed to air, just like virtually any other liquid. It just doesn't do it very quickly.

      A gasoline engine depends on the injected fuel being a vapor when the spark plug sparks. If the fuel isn't intermixed with the air well enough, it won't have enough oxygen to combine with, and thus not all of the fuel will burn. If your injectors get bad enough, you'll hardly ignite any of the fuel at all.

      Case in point: When I was a volunteer firefighter, a vendor came by to try to sell some foaming agent to the department. One of the demonstrations he used was to put out a 3' x 3' pan of burning gasoline by dousing it with a bucket of his foaming agent. (Which, I should point out, hadn't been made into a foam yet. He didn't smother the gasoline fire, he mixed the foaming agent with the burning gasoline.)

      He then soaked some tires in another batch of gasoline, and lit them on fire. He waited until the thermometer read well over 1000 farenheit, and then splashed a bucket of gas from the pan on the tire fire. The tires darn near went out!

      You see, his foaming agent, in addition to normal foaming properties when properly mixed with the fire engine's water supply, also served to prevent that gasoline from evaporating. No evaporation, no vapor. Without vapor, it was no more dangerous than a scalding hot pan of water.

    34. Re:Exploding Batteries? by hotspotbloc · · Score: 1
      Liquid gasoline only explodes in Hollywood. You can drop a match into it and the match will go out.


      Exactly right. Thanks for mentioning it. I once saw an MKSC in the USCG showed us that trick (outside on a windy day). Pretty cool but clearly a "Don't try this at home kids" thing.

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    35. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Inflammable means flammable? What a country!

    36. Re:Exploding Batteries? by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      While 'throw a cigarette at it and watch it go boom' is clearly a crock of shit, dropping a lit match on gasoline will generally ignite it. You are correct in saying that the fumes are what ignites -- but near the surface of the gasoline, the fumes are highly concentrated.

      Go on. Try it for yourself if you don't believe me...

    37. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you stand in a pool of gasoline and I'll drop the match and you can tell everyone what happens next. Gas evaporates very quickly. Thus anytime you have a pool of gas you have vapors. Whoever used mod points to mod this guy informative needs to be in the pool with him.

    38. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Liquid gasoline only explodes in Hollywood. You can drop a match into it and the match will go out.
      Is anyone else here familiar with the expression 'A little knowledge is a dangerous thing'? I would urge anyone here to avoid following the above smug-and-soon-to-be-badly-burned idiot's advice.

      At normal temperatures, gasoline has a vapour pressure sufficient that there will be a flammable vapour above any standing liquid gasoline. The flashpoint of gasoline is -40 (that's minus forty) degrees; at any temperature above that there can be sufficient vapour present to ignite and explode.

      Under some conditions (for example, a confined container with a narrow neck and little air circulation) you might get the gasoline vapour to displace enough oxygen that it won't be able to burn. The upper explosive limit for gasoline is about 8%; above that level combustion will cease rapidly because the available oxygen will be depleted.

      If you really insist on doing a drop-a-match-in-the-fuel experiment, use diesel fuel. The flashpoint of diesel is a little bit more than 60 degrees Celsius (about 140 F) and so won't form a flammable vapour mixture in air unless you're storing it really warm.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    39. Re:Exploding Batteries? by The-Bus · · Score: 1

      Well, one thing is for certain. You don't want to be driving this around with it on your lap. It might burn you.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    40. Re:Exploding Batteries? by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      At normal temperatures, gasoline has a vapour pressure sufficient that there will be a flammable vapour above any standing liquid gasoline. The flashpoint of gasoline is -40 (that's minus forty) degrees; at any temperature above that there can be sufficient vapour present to ignite and explode.

      He never said anything about the gasoline not igniting. He just claimed that the match will go out, which is generally correct.

      Next!

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    41. Re:Exploding Batteries? by bjohnson · · Score: 1

      Some of which was Lucas parts...having worked on numerous 60's Fiats and Moto Guzzis.

      Did you know that Lucas once made Vaccuum cleaners? Yep, only Lucas electric device ever that didn't suck.

    42. Re:Exploding Batteries? by alienw · · Score: 1

      Yeah, gas doesn't burn. You can verify this experimentally. Empty a can on yourself and then have a smoke.

      My point is that for an $80k car, it doesn't matter if the batteries cost 50 cents or 55 cents. For $500 Dell laptop with thin margins, that's the kind of thing they worry about.

    43. Re:Exploding Batteries? by daniel422 · · Score: 1

      I'm also VERY dubious of this 100k miles claim. How long does your laptop battery last YOU before it starts looking tired? How's your iPod lately? Yeah -- about a year before they start getting SERIOUSLY weak. There's nothing new in this car except the massive amount of Li-Ion batteries on board. The specs are nice, but not particularly impressive as far as modern electrics go. But 100k on Li-Ion batteries? I'm doubting those last few miles are very fast.... As for exploding: gasoline doesn't typically explode on impact -- something it seems Li-Ion can (or when crushed). Gas takes a pretty decent ignition source to go off (spark, flame -- not impact). Considering most crashes do not involve cars exploding (even when significantly crushed), I'd think this would be a serious weakness of Li-Ion.

    44. Re:Exploding Batteries? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      I guess _you_ never heard that Pintos exploded because the gas tank ruptured allowing vapors to be ignited. The parent was correct, liquid gasoline is not flammable.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    45. Re:Exploding Batteries? by bugnuts · · Score: 1

      Are you going to put a huge fireproof red sticker on the car warning firefighters not to douse the flames with water

      Yes, right after we do the same for gasoline cars.

    46. Re:Exploding Batteries? by DrVomact · · Score: 1
      I once found a friend in his garage, cleaning parts from his perpetually disassembled Harley in a pan of gasoline. He was happily humming to himself, puffing on a cigarette. When I pointed out the inadvisability of this practice, he sneered at me and said, "That's bullshit. Why, I could drop this cigarette into the pan, and it wouldn't light. Watch...". Luckily, I managed to persuade him to move the gasoline outside the garage before he proceeded with his demonstration. It took about 3 months for his eyebrows to grow back.


      I'm perfectly willing to believe that sometimes you can throw burning objects into containers of gasoline without disastrous results. There are a lot of variables--like how much vapor has collected near the surface of the gas, how much oxygen is mixed with the vapor, how hot the cigarette is burning, how fast the cigarette moves through the critical region, and so forth. But good grief...common sense should tell you that gasoline is on the list of substances to be treated with respect.


      Lithium, on the other hand, goes on the list of things I'm positively paranoid about. I don't want to have large quantities of the stuff near me--especially with me in a car. Aside from the fact that you have to very careful about the electrical design of anything using lithium batteries because failures are disastrous, lithium is a metal so reactive that it burns on contact with water. So what happens if you have a crash in the rain? Jeepers. I think Toyota made the right decision sticking with NiMH batteries for its hybrids.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    47. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      "liquid petrolium distillate that is highly inflammable "

      Actually the liquid is not very flammable at all. The vapors, very flammable, the liquid not so much.

      If you have ever seen someone extinguish a cigarette in liquid gasoline you know what I mean. Not for the very bright or faint of heart, but it is a useful demonstration.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    48. Re:Exploding Batteries? by HyperVerbal · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised that no one has made the comment about not putting the car on your lap because it may get hot... or is this my Monty Python sense of humor? I'm also surprised that the subject of Fuel cells has not been cross-talked into the forum.

      --
      Stan M. ~~~Verbal~~~
    49. Re:Exploding Batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla is NOT using the Altair batteries discussed in your link, but rather commonly available Li-ion computer/cell phone batteries.

  4. Lithium-Ion? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would hate to see the devestation after a head on collision.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Lithium-Ion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given that the batteries are in the back...

    2. Re:Lithium-Ion? by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

      Given that the batteries are in the back...

      Just being picky now? ;) Okay, make that someone rear-ending your car then.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    3. Re:Lithium-Ion? by RiffRafff · · Score: 1

      According to Wired, the car is equipped "with an accelerometer, smoke detector, voltage meter, temperature gauge, and water sensor" to "detect a crash or other failures and shut the batteries down to prevent fire or explosion."

      http://blog.wired.com/teslacar/FF_162_tesla3_f.jpg

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    4. Re:Lithium-Ion? by kimvette · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the batteries are damaged, how does one shut them down? Once you short a lithium battery there is no stopping the reaction - no practical way, anyhow. Almost 7,000 of them in a confined space will lead to an interesting chain reaction if just one in that cluster gets damaged. It'd be a fun fire to watch at night though, especially if firefighters douse the burning vehicle with water.

      As much as I dislike NiMH due to their rapid self-discharge rate, they look like a safer bet for automobiles.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    5. Re:Lithium-Ion? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 1

      If the batteries are damaged, how does one shut them down?

      Doesn't seem like an unsolvable problem. You could give each battery unit its own "acclerometer fuse", which basically breaks the internal wiring in the case of a crash.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    6. Re:Lithium-Ion? by SEWilco · · Score: 1
      7,000 of them in a confined space
      Don't worry. The space will become no longer confined.
    7. Re:Lithium-Ion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem is once a single lithium battery is crushed, it burns very hot no matter what. Even if all neighboring batteries disconnect, they will catch fire from the failed cell, and it's a chain reaction after that... a thermal problem, not electrical.

    8. Re:Lithium-Ion? by cnettel · · Score: 1

      You're missing the point. A battery is two compartments that's partially connected while they undergo a chemical reaction. The partial connection means that you can get an electric current out of it. If you take the compartment isolation away, you need no wire at all -- you'll just get the reaction part. Depending on the kinetic parameters of the reaction, it can be very rapid.

    9. Re:Lithium-Ion? by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      I love me some smell of lithium-ion electrolyte fumes in the morning!

      Seriously, I left a bunch of them charging overnight on a wrong voltage, and came back to a characteristic odor and bloated battery packs.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    10. Re:Lithium-Ion? by Locutus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As much as I dislike NiMH due to their rapid self-discharge rate, they look like a safer bet for automobiles.

      Unfortunately the oil industry owns the patent on NiMH and has already attempted to shut down Toyotas use of the battery tech. Lucky for Toyota that the Prius currently is 49% electric and 51% ICE powered. This is because the license for NiMH only allows upto "D"-cell sized batteries when used in vehicles predominantly powered by electric power.

      So, if you want to make an electric vehicle with NiMH batteries, you're going to lose alot of space between all those D-cell batteries you'll need. IMO.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    11. Re:Lithium-Ion? by mfarver · · Score: 1

      If the batteries are damaged, how does one shut them down? Once you short a lithium battery there is no stopping the reaction.

      A serious concern but one that the EV industry has thought a lot about.

      Lithium batteries are not inherently explosive. Instead certain components used in their construction are. The most common lithium ion battery uses Cobalt in its electrodes. The cobalt when heated (like during an accidental overcharge) becomes unstable and rapidly enters a runaway exothermic reaction. Nearby batteries will also get heated and rapidly the whole pack catches fire. Bad. Cell phone and laptop manufacturers build extensive safety systems into the batteries to shutdown the pack if temps begin to rise into the danger zone. Many of the fires were traced to aftermarket batteries that lacked these safety features.

      However there are Lithium ion batteries that do not use Cobalt in their construction. One battery manufacturer "Valance" uses a phosphate system that does not exhibit this runaway when overcharged. I think most of the "large scale" lithium manufacturers do not use Cobalt.

      The Tesla is a prototype or low volume car.. I do not think their battery choice is unacceptable to the general public but it may be acceptable for exotic market they are targetting.

      Mark Farver

    12. Re:Lithium-Ion? by tcgroat · · Score: 1
      "Unfortunately the oil industry owns the patent on NiMH and has already attempted to shut down Toyotas use of the battery tech."

      Ovonics invented the technology and holds many key patents. They have a 50/50 joint venture with oil company Chevron/Texaco, but it's quite a stretch from that to claiming "the oil industry owns the patent". This is particularly true when NiMH cells have been sold since 1983, which means the earliest patents on NiMH technology have already expired. The joint venture looks more like Texaco exploring strategies for survival in the post-peak-oil era than an evil plot to kill the hybrid car.

    13. Re:Lithium-Ion? by Locutus · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd read about this years ago and originally, it was the oil industry owned the patent on NiMH after purchase from Ovonics. Then, recently( "Who Killed the Electric Car" ) stated that General Motors purchased a 51% stake in Ovonics and therefore their NiMH patent after which Texico purchased GMs stake in Ovonics. Now what you pointed out shows that Ovonics created a subsidiary called Cobasys but I do not see where they have a 50/50 owership in the patent.

      What I did find was another reference to the court case Toyota and Panasonic got into with regards to putting prismatic NiMH cells in the Toyota Hybrids. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0308-09.ht m

      I had read that Toyota/Panasonic 'won' this case because their original license for the NiMH said that they ahd to use only consumer sized( D-cell ) batteries when the NiMH tech is used in vehicles predominantly powered by electric power. The story goes they showed the Toyota Hybrid System(THS) is only 49% electric powered and 51% Internal Combustion Engine(ICE) powered.

      WTF was Texico doing going after Panasonic for making prismatic cells? Why were they restricting the size of the cells when used in electric vehicles? And if they were so bent on making money off this tech they they should not have made everything look like they were trying to hinder its use and the original owner of the EV1 and majority patent holder( GM ) shouldn't be looking like an enemy to fuel efficiency. Heck, the same week that Toyota had the US press in Japan watching Prius's come of the same assembly line as the Camry and 3 other models, GM made a press release saying hybrid technology is bad for the US because it distracts us from the future which is hydrogen fuelcells.

      So, if it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, looks like a duck. It's a freak'n duck. IMO.

      LoB

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
    14. Re:Lithium-Ion? by Locutus · · Score: 1

      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

      --
      "Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
  5. where are the flying pieces of cars? by artifex2004 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here in Texas, where I suspect temperatures exceed battery design, I think this idea will bomb spectacularly.

    Seriously, though, Li-ion? I shudder to think of how those will get disposed of, eventually.

    1. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I shudder to think of how those will get disposed of, eventually.

      They will be recycled. Almost all lead-acid batteries get recycled today, and lithium is far more valuable than lead.

    2. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by RiffRafff · · Score: 4, Informative

      Seriously, though, Li-ion? I shudder to think of how those will get disposed of, eventually."

      Um, probably the same way you dispose of alkaline batteries. You throw them in the trash. Lithium-Ion batteries are classified as "non-hazardous waste and are safe for disposal in the normal municipal waste stream."

      Or punture and flood with saltwater if you're paranoid.

      "Discharge: with the cell or battery pack in a safe area, connect a moderate resistance across the terminals until the cell or battery pack is discharged. CAUTION: the cell or battery pack may be hot! Discard: puncture plastic envelope, immerse in salt water for several hours and place in regular trash."

      Li-Ion and Li-Poly batteries are a non-problem if they're discharged, and they are environmentally friendly, to boot.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    3. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by woolio · · Score: 1

      Here in Texas, where I suspect temperatures exceed battery design, I think this idea will bomb spectacularly.

      Seriously, though, Li-ion? I shudder to think of how those will get disposed of, eventually.


      And the public doesn't want to see their super-duty 4x4 offroad pickup trucks loaded down by a metric tonne of LI-ION batteries.

    4. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Zeinfeld · · Score: 2, Informative
      They will be recycled. Almost all lead-acid batteries get recycled today, and lithium is far more valuable than lead.

      Actually in recycling terms its not. Lithium batteries are not expensive because the raw materials are more expensive, its the cost of manufacture.

      It makes much more sense to use Lithium Ion batteries in an electric car than lead and it is quite possible that this will be the way that some of the more exotic technologies are finaly made cheap enough to become mainstream.

      Despite the number of Li batteries that go into laptops they are still a small fraction of the battery market because each battery lasts for many hundred cycles. The other problem is that every battery is custom and the production runs are tiny.

      What may well make more sense than the all electric car is the Li battery based hybrid or even a battery/fuel cell all electric car.

      One point I did not understand in the article is how or why they would be using a Tesla AC induction motor in a vehicle with a DC power source. This is surely a mistake, not least because the principle disadvantage of the Tesla design is that the motor only works at a single speed.

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    5. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Or punture and flood with saltwater if you're paranoid.

      This has been show to be both ineffective and dangerous!

    6. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by vivian · · Score: 1

      For starters, one major advantage is that you would not need brushes to transfer the power to the stator, so you would be eliminating arcing (which is electrically inefficient), wear and tear, resistance and noise. Another advantage is that once you have your power converted to AC (via an inverter), it's easy to step the voltage up or down to the appropriate level as needed during operation.

    7. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by dfn_deux · · Score: 1

      Computer controlled brushless DC motor have proven to be a cheap and effective technology for many applications. I've never priced one out that is large enough to drive a car, but the smaller "hobby" sized motors are only about double the cost of the equivalent brushed motor AND has a lower TCO due to it's fewer wear parts.

      --
      -*The above statement is printed entirely on recycled electrons*-
    8. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe, it is illegal to dispose of batteries in the wastebin. They have to be recycled. Although moste types of batteries are not hazardous, material is much easier and more efficient when recycled in a recycling facility.

    9. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by RiffRafff · · Score: 3, Informative

      In the states, only California requires non-hazardous batteries to be recycled for their materials.

      --
      "I might have made a tactical error in not going to a physician for 20 years." -- Warren Zevon
    10. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by battjt · · Score: 1

      Here in the midwest USA, we are much more efficient about recycling. We are storing it in large piles until the day that we have the technology to more efficiently recycle it. By then there will be a scarcity of many of the materials and we'll be able to sell it to you with a nice margin.

      Seriously, don't you think the aluminum and steel content of a landfill is pretty high?

      Joe

      --
      Joe Batt Solid Design
    11. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously, though, Li-ion? I shudder to think of how those will get disposed of, eventually.

      You mean in a year, when the 250 mile range between charges is down to 5 miles?

    12. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by hamburger+lady · · Score: 1

      brushless DC motors are similar in design to AC traction motors, true. but the DC ones aren't scaling too well currently. that should change in a few years tho.

      --

      ---
      Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
    13. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aluminum? Maybe?

      But thin steel rusts too fast when outside and constantly moist like that.

    14. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      That is not 100% true. New Jersey has regulations covering "universal waste" (batteries, fluorescent lights, CRTs and other electronics). However, the reg only applies to businesses that already generate a certain amount of hazardous waste. It does not apply to consumers.

    15. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea so is the led content that is getting into your watertable.

    16. Re:where are the flying pieces of cars? by CapnGib · · Score: 1

      AC = slightly more efficient, but also allows for regenerative braking at the motor. With DC powered EVs, a seperate generator is used, often coupled to the motor shaft.

      The 3-phase AC motor has a fancy controller to run it on the DC power.

      --
      Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
  6. Pricy, but.... by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A 250 mile range gets an electric car into the "very practical" range IMO. Now the challenge is to get the price down to something acceptable. Range has always been the biggest downside of electrics and the reason I would never consider one. However if I can have something with the sized between a Mini and a Civic and be able to easily commute to work AND not pay through the nose for it, I'm in.

    --
    There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
    1. Re:Pricy, but.... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You can get used to a lower range, easily. My Honda motorcycle has a range of about 150 miles. It doesn't bother me one bit. Every one of those miles is 1000x more fun than any car-driven mile, even if I do have to fuel up once per week instead of once every other week.

      Fuel economy could be better though. 35 MPG isn't much better than many cars.

    2. Re:Pricy, but.... by Durrok · · Score: 1

      That is far, far better then what most cars get on the road. My Cougar gets around 22MPG and I think that is spectacular compared to the Sonoma Truck I was driving. Although after I took off the truck's bed the mileage was comparable. I also had a sundance that pushed 28MPG but after someone ran a stop sign and smashed into my passenger side it just wasn't the pimpmobile I was looking for. Something about opening the driver side door for a women and saying "Hop over the console" isn't appealing for most memembers of that gender.

      Hm? Oh, you were talking about new cars? Oh well.. uh yeah... 35 mpg... must be rough...

      --
      I keep telling myself I'm not the desperate type.
    3. Re:Pricy, but.... by Sergeant+Beavis · · Score: 1

      For something that would be strictly used as a commuter, yes I could get used to it. However for a vehicle that is used for more than just commuting, it might not be enough. That is ok, if you can own more than one car though. Go ahead and keep the SUV, just use it when you actually need it and use the electric the rest of the time....

      Of course there are many other options to consider as well. I just think this car might be a good step in the right direction.

      --
      There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
    4. Re:Pricy, but.... by treeves · · Score: 1

      For a car that 0-60 in 3 seconds and top speed of 130mph, $80k isn't out of line. Once they get going, they make a typical performing sedan geared lower and costing much less. I would love to test drive one.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    5. Re:Pricy, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      35MPG is worse than my car. I average 45-50MPG, depending on how long of trips I'm making, and amount of hills.

    6. Re:Pricy, but.... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      150 miles isn't bad unless your living some some isolated places. There are plenty of roads in texas where there is litterly a gas station every 250-300 miles with nothing in between. You simply couldn't make it.

    7. Re:Pricy, but.... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      A 250 mile range is absolutely no problem in a motorcycle where it takes 3 minutes to gas up, and it's fine in any case if you're just commuting, but 300 mile trips are not uncommon, and a multi-hour pit stop to charge the battery isn't going to work for most people.

      When either the range is 1200 miles and hotels have recharging outlets or charging takes less than ten minutes is when these things become mass-buyable for the anyone at the Christmas and Easter environmentalist level.

    8. Re:Pricy, but.... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      My '93 Saturn has over 180,000 miles with no major rebuilds or mantenance and gets 32MPG. And that's with an engine that is presently buring about 2/3 of a quart of oil with every gas fill.

    9. Re:Pricy, but.... by punkrockguy318 · · Score: 1

      Hybrids are pretty practical nowadays if you can get a hold of one. The Honda Insight gets ~60 miles to the gallon, and has a 10g tank. So, that makes for about 600 mile range. They go for about 20k, not much more than any other new car.

    10. Re:Pricy, but.... by killjoe · · Score: 1

      The rural population in those types of places is pretty small. If we could get most of the urban population riding in electric cars we would have made some serious progress.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    11. Re:Pricy, but.... by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1
      A 250 mile range gets an electric car into the "very practical" range IMO.

      The problem with an electric car that has a 250 mile range is that it is utterly worthless if you want to go somewhere 251 miles away -- or make a round trip to somewhere 126 miles away.

      In my gasoline-powered car, I can stop at any filling station and add energy to its energy storage system at a rate of around 20 - 25 megawatts. What kind of electrical connections would you have to have to charge a battery at that rate? What kind of battery could absorb that much power?

    12. Re:Pricy, but.... by qurk · · Score: 1

      My 93' Sunbird got like 33 MPH too, with about 170k miles. I'm trying to get rid of it actually, but it's having stereotypical (to this model) water cooling issues so I'll probably just junk it. (My 2000 Civic gets like 32 MPH, but is much nicer than the Sunbid :) )

    13. Re:Pricy, but.... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      OH lord even $35K sportscars will do 165mph or so, and even pedestrian cars like the R^HMustang will do 0-60 in under 5 seconds now, and for some sub$100K cars, all that's needed to get 0-60 to 3.5 seconds or so is changing the gear ratio, and sacrificing a little on the top end but you'll still be going well above the 130mph that car will do.

      I'm sure someone will argue that "you can't drive even 130mph legally in the US" but that's besides the point.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    14. Re:Pricy, but.... by scottv67 · · Score: 1

      My Honda motorcycle has a range of about 150 miles. Fuel economy could be better though. 35 MPG isn't much better than many cars.

      Bryan, what kind of bike do you have? I get pretty much the same numbers with my 2002 VTX 1800C. The wierd part is that the bike's mileage is *always* the same. If I ride really easy, I don't get better mileage than if I am doing full-throttle takeoffs from stoplights. I don't get it. I thought that if I cruised real easy in fifth gear on the Interstate, my mpg would go up. But it's always right around 35mpg. I wonder if it is related to the fact that the VTX 1800 is fuel injected.

      -s

    15. Re:Pricy, but.... by mad.frog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Depends on your use case. Two-car households may differ.

      My wife and I have two cars, but one of 'em is used 90% of the time just for commuting over the Bay Bridge and back... let's say 25 miles roundtrip. I could easily make do with a 100 mile range for that car. 250 would be even better. 3 hours to recharge? That's what "overnight" is for.

      A car like this sounds appealing. If this guy can keep production quality high (unlike, say, the Corbin Sparrow), he can probably sell as many as he can make.

    16. Re:Pricy, but.... by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      If you have only one car, yes.

      If you are a multicar household, and one is used mainly for daily commuting, no.

    17. Re:Pricy, but.... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      Pedestrian cars? Are they powered by hitting pedestrians?

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    18. Re:Pricy, but.... by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      Good call.

    19. Re:Pricy, but.... by j-turkey · · Score: 1
      You can get used to a lower range, easily. My Honda motorcycle has a range of about 150 miles. It doesn't bother me one bit. Every one of those miles is 1000x more fun than any car-driven mile, even if I do have to fuel up once per week instead of once every other week.

      I'm with you on the motorcycle point (although my old POS goes 200-250 miles on a tank). The real question is whether or not the Tesla is rapidly rechargable. It takes me a minute or two to put 3-4 gallons into my bike. How long does it take to recharge a metric shitload of laptop batteries?

      --

      -Turkey

    20. Re:Pricy, but.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Main Entry: 1pedestrian
      Pronunciation: p&-'des-trE-&n
      Function: adjective
      Etymology: Latin pedestr-, pedester, literally, going on foot, from ped-, pes foot -- more at FOOT
      1 : COMMONPLACE, UNIMAGINATIVE

      Of course, one would have had to have reached the fourth grade or so to learn such a difficult word, but, you know, some people, like, ok, say, you, need to illustrate just how lousy our public schools are today. Thank you for taking a moment today to be a good example of a bad example!

    21. Re:Pricy, but.... by treeves · · Score: 1

      . . .how cool is it though to have a car that will do 0-60 in 3 sec, 130 mph, AND so silently that you won't even know it's come and gone 'til it's too late. And 3 seconds is 40% quicker than 5 seconds. I can't afford it whether it's $80k or $50k, so it doesn't really matter to me. I guess the point wasn't to compete with a Viper or Corvette, but to create a whole new class of car, which I'd say they've done.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    22. Re:Pricy, but.... by drsquare · · Score: 1

      250 miles may be practical, but waiting several hours for it to charge up again isn't. We don't all have garages.

    23. Re:Pricy, but.... by drsquare · · Score: 2, Funny
      3 hours to recharge? That's what "overnight" is for.
      I think a common prank would develop whereby you'd pull out the charging cord of people's cars during the night so they run out of charge on the way to work the next morning.
    24. Re:Pricy, but.... by AGMW · · Score: 1
      And what you are really complaining about is infrastructure. The "people who know" reckon you should have a break every couple of hours if you are driving, so if you stop for a coffee at a suitably setup cafe you could plug in for 15 mins. Stop for lunch and get an hour's charge.

      So, 250 mile range. How fast do you drive? Let's assume 70mph average, so after 140 miles, you stop for a coffee and a 1/4 hr charge. I've no idea how much charge a 1/4 hr might give you, but assume there's some "fast charge" option that can boost the remaining range by 30 miles (anyone any idea if that's even remotely right?). That gets you another two hours driving at 70 to "empty your tank" when you stop for lunch and an hour's charge. If the 1/4 hour got you 30 miles, the hour should get you another 120 or so which is nearly another 2 hours driving and an afternoon stop for high tea, maybe some scones/clotted cream/jam (Mmmmm) and a top up for another 1/4 hr.

      OK ... I've almost certainly not got the math(s) right, but I'm sure you've grasped the concept. Chuck some solar cells on the roof and drive somewhere where it's sunny ...

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    25. Re:Pricy, but.... by Will_Malverson · · Score: 1

      In other words, if you're going to own an electric car, you also need to own a real car. Got it.

    26. Re:Pricy, but.... by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Just like it's a common prank to syphon out the gas/diesel out of a normal car. Oh, wait, it isn't: the compartments for refueling are locked when the car is locked.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    27. Re:Pricy, but.... by inKubus · · Score: 1
      I think a common prank would develop whereby you'd pull out the charging cord of people's cars during the night so they run out of charge on the way to work the next morning.


      Thus allowing my patent for "locking power panel with armored cable" to pay off dramatically. Thanks!

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    28. Re:Pricy, but.... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 1

      It's a 2002 Honda CBR 600 F4i. It is also fuel injected, I don't know how that relates to fuel economy. I find that on long trips where I am doing 95% highway riding at a steady speed, I get just over 40 MPG. In heavy traffic city street situations it's less than 35 MPG. My average mileage is probably a bit better than 35 MPG, but not much. I am disappointed, I feel like the bike should do better than that. However a CBR600 F4i is gentle enough in power delivery to make cracking the throttle open just about anywhere a safe proposition (unlike my old Triumph Daytona 955 which threw me off a few times when I gave it too much gas), and as a result, I pin the throttle open quite frequently. Blast off. Maybe that's part of the reason that my fuel economy is so bad ...

    29. Re:Pricy, but.... by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      Depends on your situation.

      I know many city-dwellers who own *no* car.

      Or just a scooter or motorcycle.

      Do they also need a "real" car?

      For some situations, the constraints of 250 miles with a long "refill" may be perfectly acceptable.

  7. Umm... by errxn · · Score: 1

    It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency.

    Yeah, it uses close to 7000 laptop batteries and costs over $80K. These guys are REEEEEAL serious about it.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
    1. Re:Umm... by gnu-sucks · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You know what's odd about this -- that's roughly $10/battery.

      I saw we buy one and part it out on ebay...

    2. Re:Umm... by IWorkForMorons · · Score: 1

      Yeah...the *concept* car uses 7000 laptop batteries and costs over $80K. Just imagine what it will be like when the electrical engineer that came up with the concept refines the design...

    3. Re:Umm... by TerminaMorte · · Score: 1

      What did you expect, some sort of magical engine that ran on dreams and happiness?
       
      It doesn't use laptop batteries, the article was just comparing the batteries used to laptop batteries.
       
      They're serious enough to put time and effort into it; seems to me they're serious enough.

    4. Re:Umm... by Voice+of+Meson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Put it another way... It only cost $80K and it has similar acceleration to the Ferrari Enzo!

      Plus it's only a prototype. How can you be negative about that? Are the batteries made from harp seal eyes or something?

      --
      Dammit! I had a good one.
    5. Re:Umm... by BronsCon · · Score: 0

      I'd buy one just because it uses 7000 laptop batteries. That's just under $12/battery, i can ebay them for AT LEAST $15 each, that's AT LEAST a $21000 profit on my $80000 investment in a VERY short term. And THAT'S being conservative. Now... who wants to loan me $80k plus taxes and other applicable fees?

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re:Umm... by kimvette · · Score: 1

      There's no way it uses 7,000 laptop batteries. More likely, it uses 7000 of the AA-or-so size lithium cells that most laptop battery packs are comprised of.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    7. Re:Umm... by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      You plan on selling 7000 bare batteries?

      1. No one can use them as they are, and very few would be comfortable hacking together a battery for their laptop.

      2. Of the very few people who could use one, how many need to get a new battery for their laptop, and are willing to risk it exploding for ~$40?

      3. Of those people, who will end up buying it and finding it?

      Investment = $80,000 + taxes
      Proceeds = $60
      Revenue = Proceeds - ebay fees - paypal fees - lawsuit when "laptop battery" hurts someone - interest on loan
      Net Profit ~ -$100,000

      "And THAT'S being conservative"

      You might want to rethink your business plan.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    8. Re:Umm... by tgd · · Score: 1

      They may be giving the count of cells, not the count of batteries.

      Most laptops have 4-6 lithium ion cells in the battery.

    9. Re:Umm... by BronsCon · · Score: 0

      At least you didn't mod me down. Wait, I wouldn't have cared. It was a joke. It was intended to be funny. Let me lay it out this way, maybe you'll get it then: 1) Buy $80k car for the batteries it contains 2) ??? 3) Profit! If the humor still eludes you, perhaps you should go read Digg.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  8. Hot car? by wbean · · Score: 1

    Wow! Can you imagine what this will look like if the batteries come from Dell's supplier. Frying eggs will be nothing :)

    1. Re:Hot car? by lcllam · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but roasting nuts will be something spectacular.

  9. roadsters by Raleel · · Score: 1

    While i love the roadster design, and I applaud their efforts, and am happy to see them working on a sedan, I think I would have really liked to see a cheaper, less break-neck car for my commute. something in the $20k range would have been much easier to sell with the missus :) Yes, I've looked at the Smart Roadster, but it's not US available, and not that cheap.

    Still, I'll be trying to afford it...

    --
    -- Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the fool who follows him? --
    1. Re:roadsters by kfg · · Score: 1

      something in the $20k range

      The batteries are about three bucks apiece in bulk. Now that you've spent your $20K, all you need is a car.

      Eccles, if you're still out there, please note that these are off the shelf, consumer item batteries made by the megabuttload. There is going to be no reduction in cost when they go "into mass production."

      Good . . .batteries. . .are. . .expensive.

      KFG

    2. Re:roadsters by lionheart1327 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's a good reason that this is a roadster.
      That most electric cars are billed as roadsters.

      1. It's going to cost around $80,000 no matter what you do.
      The parts are just that expensive.
      So they need to classify it as something that is already that expensive to be competivite.

      2. Electric engines have an intrinsically very high accelleration rate.
      This isn't even really something you can turn off.
      The sedan version of this is still going to accelerate faster than a porsche.

      So if it has to be expensive, and high accelleration is built it, you might as well call it a roadster.
      Its the only chance you have of making it appealing for somebody.

    3. Re:roadsters by onebadmutha · · Score: 1

      Smarts are supposed to go on sale, direct from Daimler Chrysler here in the US: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13593486/ Too bad by then I'll be a fossil. Chrikety.

  10. Sigh by Lord+Kano · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency.

    Oil isn't the problem, ENERGY is. So instead of burning oil everwhere, we'll be burning more coal in a few places. Maybe this is the kind of thing we need to turn public sentiment away from the greenies and get some more nuclear power plants built.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Sigh by EdZep · · Score: 1

      Maybe. And, I believe one of the founders of Greenpeace or Sierra Club has come out in favor of nuclear power, as you suggest.

    2. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you do realize that a power plant is much more efficient than a car's combustion engine, right?

    3. Re:Sigh by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      What? You've got it exactly backwards. Energy isn't the problem; we've got plenty of that. FUEL is the problem. We don't use oil to generate our electricity (for the most part), and we don't use electricity to power our cars, except for this ridiculously expensive prototype, anyway.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    4. Re:Sigh by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is the kind of thing we need to turn public sentiment away from the greenies and get some more nuclear power plants built.

      I have no idea what the figures are, but nuclear has to be infinitely better for the environement than natuarl gas and coal. Tidal, sun ray, and wind turbines are doing what they can, but it just isn't much.

      Have we gotten to the point of a high effeciency house being economical? Private solar pannels on the home, with low wattage bulbs and such? This past weekend I was washing my dogs and discovered that the water left in the hose all afternoon was actually hotter than what comes out of my hot water heater. I need to build a solar pre-heater contraption for my gas water heater.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    5. Re:Sigh by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do realize that a power plant is much more efficient than a car's combustion engine, right?

      Exactly. Even with transmission losses, and losses due to charging and discharging, I bet this thing is considerably more efficient than a gasoline engine. What gasolene has as an advantage is that it's not so heavy with respect to the amount of power it has. And that batteries are expensive, have a very limited life span and possibly an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen. There was a guy on Science Friday that suggested that we could convert to methanol use, it's easy to make from oil, it's easy to make from biomass, easy to haul and so on.

    6. Re:Sigh by russellh · · Score: 1
      Oil isn't the problem, ENERGY is. So instead of burning oil everwhere, we'll be burning more coal in a few places. Maybe this is the kind of thing we need to turn public sentiment away from the greenies and get some more nuclear power plants built.
      energy is the general problem, yes, but oil is the specific problem. your car doesn't run on coal and you can't make plastic out of coal, etc.
      --
      must... stay... awake...
    7. Re:Sigh by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe. And, I believe one of the founders of Greenpeace or Sierra Club has come out in favor of nuclear power, as you suggest.

      Yes, he has. And for his trouble, the remaining members of Greenpeace shrilly scream that he's a traitor and shill for the oil industry, etc, blah blah.

      The real problem is that the people who oppose nukes are bound together more by their general political loopiness than they are by actual, real, rational environmental/energy issues. So when they see one of their own taking up a different messages, they excommunicate them idealogically - never mind the practical issues at hand.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    8. Re:Sigh by Soldrinero · · Score: 1

      Oil isn't the problem, ENERGY is.

      If you're talking about global warming, then you're absolutely correct. Wether the source of energy is one hydrocarbon or another, you're still releasing some amount of carbon dioxide into the environment.

      If, on the other hand, you care about global politics, then oil is a very serious problem. Several strongly anti-western regimes in the Middle East are funded by oil, and they in turn are known to fund, if not terrorists directly, then at least educational programs that promote radical fundamentalism. Also, a certain global power sees oil imports from that region as critical to its security, and so is willing to engage in otherwise rather stupid foreign policies to protect those imports. For the record, I think most of those policies are stupid anyway.

      Either way, though, practical electric cars (or cars powered by certain other alternative fuels) are an improvement. Clearly they help the political problem by reducing said oil dependency. You alluded to the environmental benefits in your posting, but I care about this a lot so I'm going to expand on that a bit. By centralizing the creation of energy, even if it is produced with hydrocarbons, you make it easier to regulate and reduce emissions. Also, you open the possibility of switching the generation to non-carbon-releasing power generating methods, such as nuclear, wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, etc. Once the cars don't care directly where the energy comes from, you can get it from anywhere, which goves us many more options for producing energy in an environmentally sustainable way. Woohoo progress!

      --
      I would rather be killed by a terrorist than enslaved by my government.
    9. Re:Sigh by dbIII · · Score: 2, Informative
      I have no idea what the figures are, but nuclear has to be infinitely better for the environement than natuarl gas and coal.
      That is the entire problem - we don't yet know what the figures are because a decent nuclear power plant design has not yet been developed. Pebble bed has the major safety issues sorted but does not scale up by design so is not a method of producing cheap energy yet, accelerated Thorium looks very good but is still many years away from a full sized prototype, and CANDU is popular in those parts of the world where they like the fact you can produce plutonium with it. Uranium enrichment is not easy and is very energy intensive but works out OK with very high grade ore - of which there is not a lot available, hence moves to Thorium.

      Nuclear energy has the problem that it appears more money has been spent on advertising and misinformation than development and solving waste problems - the now successful synrock waste management project has probably had less spent on it over two decades than a year of advertising by the AEC. Ricidulous advocacy hype (clean Plutionium and Uranium hexaflouride that is too cheap to meter!) has been opposed by equally ridiculous opposition - so all you can do is ignore both and listen to people who believe in the laws of physics and the poor results from existing plants. Sadly it looks like we have a long way to go before nuclear power is viable outside situations like submarines, nations worried about naval blockades cutting their energy supplies and as a way to get weapons materials. Hands up all those that think Iran wants to reduce their dependance on oil or really think they can get cheaper energy with their nuclear program? Take it a step furthur and look at those promoting nuclear power in your country, then think about what they have to gain - in many cases it will be a creative way to get your tax money into their pocket while they build a 1950's white elephant to expensively boil water.

    10. Re:Sigh by ozbird · · Score: 1

      I'm a "greenie" and in favour of building modern nuclear power plants in Australia. I see that as being more realistic - and likely - that Australian's kicking the energy habit. Green != anti-nuclear.

    11. Re:Sigh by DDLKermit007 · · Score: 1

      Methanol is nice & all, but it's got a much lower amount of energy content than gas. Sure that gallon will cost less and put out a little less pollutants, but on the flipside you'll end up paying for even more methanol and put out more pollutants to reach the same destination. Methanol also probably will not make a good match for anywhere that gets very cold given it's flashpoint is 11C (52F). Gasoline's flashpoint is -45C (-113F) which I'd wager you would be more worried about the impending Armageddon if the tempature was that low. Methanol & Ethanol are both neat (you can thank politicians for promising farmers to sell their corn for them), but at the end of the day something like biodiesel will be more likely to do the job if they can get the yields up high enough. Get a #5 and the oil they cooked it with to go.

    12. Re:Sigh by 18r18r13m · · Score: 1
      The Big Car companies have come out with E85 which uses only 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol. So once the demand gets high enough for that, ie enough E85 cars are out on the road, then we won't be dependent on foreign oil. Though haven't done as well as foreign car companies with MPG.

      The second thing is that we have a vast reserve of oil in Alaska, the gulf of Mexico, and Canada had more oil in Alberta then the Middle East has left in their known deposits. I understand concern for the environment, and humans always have a chance to screw something up, however with the technology that we have now I would think we could drill while being very environmentally safe. Maybe not the long term answer however it would help solve the fact that we are funding Iran which in turn was helping to fund Iraq, and is currently helping to fund the Taliban against USA and Hezbollah against Israel. At this moment in time that is what bothers me more than anything.

    13. Re:Sigh by TigerTim · · Score: 0

      Come off it - it's a logical fallacy to suggest that just because some arguments against nuclear power are flawed, nuclear power is still the right way to go. The two sentence summary: modern plant deisgns are an awful lot safer than older designs so safety is NOT the paramount issue; rather, the disposal issue is the key problem - the waste products remain dangerous for thousands of years.

      There may perhaps be some clever quantum trick that one could play that might increase the tunneling rate (and thence decrease the half-life) but noone has come up with suck a trick yet.

      The proponents of nuclear power have come up with no satisfactory answer to the waste issue. I haven't even mentioned the fact that nuclear power projects have a history of cost overruns (in fact it is virtually impossible to quantify the costs). And who's going to insure a new generation of nuclear plants these days?

      That's not to say nuclear doesn't have place in our efforts to tackle global warming but it is ridiculous to hysterically shout "the answer's nuclear!" when the situation is much much more complex.

    14. Re:Sigh by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >waste products remain dangerous for thousands of years.

      The mercury in the wastes from coal plants is dangerous forever. We seem to be satisfied with disposing of it in people's lungs.

      The most dangerous materials are by definition the shortest-lived, because they're the ones decaying and emitting radiation fastest. The longest-lived elements are actinides which could in principle be recycled for fuel. Vitrify the hottest stuff, wait 600 years, and it is less radioactive than the uranium ore that it came from.

      It's so possible to confine fission products that the naturally occurring reactor in Gabon kept them in place for 1.5 billion years without our help.

    15. Re:Sigh by Dave+Emami · · Score: 1

      the waste products remain dangerous for thousands of years.

      Store it temporarily while our space capabilities develop, then launch it into the Sun.

      Expected reply: "But what if there's a failure on launch? That'll spread radioactive waste everywhere!"

      Note that I said launch it once our space capabilities develop. If our level of space technology progresses so slowly that it's more than a couple hundred years before we can get stuff off this rock safely and reliably, then we're probably going to be made extinct by a comet or whatnot eventually, anyway.

      --

      "The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
    16. Re:Sigh by dajak · · Score: 1

      your car doesn't run on coal

      It can run on coal, wood pellets, dry leaves, newspapers, rags, etc. This solution has been available since it was used in WWII occupied Europe. There are some minor disadvantages: it is inefficient, polluting, and people will take an axe and make their own fuel instead of paying for a refill at the designated places.

    17. Re:Sigh by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Exactly! I remember seeing a movie about a german family in post-WWII. One of the guys in the movie had a coal-powered truck (not the actual model of the truck, but incinerator is clearly visible: cylindrical structure on the side). Later he upgraded to a gas powered one, but I found it pretty amazing that such things didn't exist anymore. I frankly don't know what the movie was, but it doesn't matter.

      Also remember that the original Diesel engine was designed to run from a variety of fuels, including coal dust.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    18. Re:Sigh by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Except we can never produce enough ethanol to supply our needs. This is just a sham to bring "Big Ag" more money for their corn crop. People aren't drinking as much Coke, and they are becoming wary of the health effects of a corn-based food chain. So, keep growing your corn, and we'll burn it. Unfortunately, it costs a lot energywise to make ETOH so it's only barely economical even at today's oil prices. We are still nowhere near what prices were like in the late 70's; today's equivalent would probably be around $180/barrel, maybe more. If we got to that point again, it might be economical to use more ETOH. However, a jump in prices by that much would almost certainly be geo-politically related and therefore a temporary hit to the supply side. The ETOH producers would have to keep the war going for a while to make back the investment on the ETOH plants.............

      Anyway, I know there's a lot of hype about these "E85" vehicles. Guess what, the car in your driveway right now can run on E85. ANY engine can run on alcohol. They've been using it in unmodified race cars and dragsters and mud racers and boats and everything for almost 100 years... The only thing different is they have QC'd the fuel system to make sure the alcohol doesn't degrade it and added some map points to the engine management system. If you're using a carburator, you mgiht have to rejet it, but with electronic fuel injectors the adjustments are all software. Alcohol also burns much cooler than gas so you don't need as big of a cooling system, but the catalyst needs some sort of preheater to be effective. Fuel in many areas is already 10% ethanol, 85% isn't that big of a diff.

      America does have large reserves of oil. It's not surprising that GHW Bush (the father) was one of the founders of Pennzoil, there was a huge gold rush at the turn of the century, and they drilled up california, the gulf and texas. I'm sure those wells have filled back up in 50 years. I hear of smaller companies buying old dry wells and using a different (more expensive) drilling technique to get oil out of them. There are huge reserves in Eastern Russia that no one talks about, and Indonesia has more coal and timber than anywhere on earth. And these are areas that have mostly not been developed. I think oil companies prefer to deal with the relatively friendly Middle Eastern people, who love money and love selling their oil. Russia is doing it on it's own, and I think Indonesia will also.

      What America really has that's valuable is LAND, and valuable farm land at that. Those wheat and corn fields feed the world. Agriculture is the most overlooked big business and gigantic companies such as ConAgra and Simplot have been quietly buying up small farms for decades. They only stand to make more and more money as the world population increases.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    19. Re:Sigh by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      Take it a step furthur and look at those promoting nuclear power in your country, then think about what they have to gain - in many cases it will be a creative way to get your tax money into their pocket while they build a 1950's white elephant to expensively boil water.

      I take it you haven't priced 5% enriched uranium lately vs coal, or compared the relative extractable energy densities of them.

      Kilowatt for Kilowatt, Uranium is orders of magnitudes cheaper than coal or any other fossil fuel. That makes up for all of the added expense from the extra security and regulatory expenses that come with nuke plants, and then some. Operating nuke plants in the US are well-loved by investors because they're pretty much a license to print money. As the risks of tree-huggers dragging out your construction period and your legal expenses endlessly are minimized, nuke plant construction will take off.

      As for waste, the federal government holds billions of dollars in taxes assessed on nuclear fuel collected specifically for the purpose of disposal, and the utilities are pretty pissed off there's nothing to show for it besides Yucca, which is a decade away from use. In the interim, there's dry cask storage on site. Given the weight and thickness of the casks, they won't be stolen, and they won't be damaged by anything short of a bonafide, purposeful military attack.

        so all you can do is ignore both and listen to people who believe in the laws of physics and the poor results from existing plants.
      Again, here's a law of physics for you: the energy released in a chemical reaction (burning) vs the energy released in a fission event.

      As for poor results from existing plants, I don't know which plants you're basing that on, but I know it's not the one I work at. We hold the highest ratings from INPO, WANO, and the NRC. We have pretty much the lowest radiation exposure for workers worldwide. And we make tons of money for our parent company.

      That is the entire problem - we don't yet know what the figures are because a decent nuclear power plant design has not yet been developed.
      We've got plenty of great designs, thank you very much. You will never get a guarantee of "It will never, ever melt down", because no 'absolutely safe' promise can be made about anything. We can, however tell you that the probability of a core damage event that releases radiation to the public is such that it will happen less than once every 100,000 years, and have that based on solid numbers.

      You cannot have a perfect solution, as there are trade-offs to every viable source of energy out there. Given that, I'll take the downsides of nuclear energy over coal or other fossil fuels anyday.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    20. Re:Sigh by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Kilowatt for Kilowatt, Uranium is orders of magnitudes cheaper than coal or any other fossil fuel.
      Obviously - but then consider capital expenditure. On the basis of fuel alone a fast breeder like superphoenix should have been a way to print money instead of consuming vast amounts of it - but nuclear engineering is not easy stuff and any new plant has to be something novel or a rehash of something that doesn't quite do what it is supposed to yet.

      As for poor results from existing plants, I don't know which plants you're basing that on
      British Nuclear Fuels were forced to publish unaltered numbers since the days of Thatcher (who was no greenie), and there are other figures published around the world unaffected by advertising or bribery. I doubt that some old 1950's technology plants in the USA really do perform better than the best recent designs out of Europe or Japan which may even have evolved from those magic too cheap to meter plants.
      And we make tons of money for our parent company.
      Tax dollars at work :( The good thing is nuclear has around 30% of carbon dioxide production in the whole cycle of natural gas turbines, so that expensive steam is useful. I just wish the nuclear industry would stop trying to compare their base load stations to portable solutions like photovoltaics to make their figures look good. Comparing safety to a dodgy Chinese coal mine is the lastest trick - stand on your own merits guys and come back when you can make that cheap steam. Actually put some money into research instead of milking the public purse for operating costs on obsolete plants. Nearly everyone is ready to consider nuclear power now, so the "we would have been able to do it if it wasn't for greenies and their damn dog" excuse which never made sense should just be ignored and some effort put into a plant design that doesn't cost incredible amounts to build, doesn't cost a lot to run and has fuel that is easy to make. I think the answer will come out of the poorly funded Thorium work in India long before the USA gets it's act together - think of what just redirecting the subsidy from the USA or the UK would do to those projects.
      We hold the highest ratings from INPO ...
      So did certain plant in the USSR in 1985 that had a steam explosion in 1986, but things have changed somewhat and perhaps there has not yet been time for corruption to creep back in.
    21. Re:Sigh by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

      And we make tons of money for our parent company.

      Tax dollars at work

      I get the feeling you're confused about something, so let me draw it out for you: We contract out the electricity we make to distributors at around $40 MW/hour (current, going to go up soon). Roughly, over the full course of a year we're online, that equals something along the order of $440,000,000 dollars of revenue. Our operating & capital budget is around $150 million a year. If we have an outage to refuel, that adds maybe $30,000,000 or so to the cost.

      Where do you imagine tax dollars come into this equation, besides the government offices that ultimately use some of this electricity we make?

      I never hear the site VP and his direct underlings talking about the sweet subsidies we conned the feds out of this year. I do know we pay extra, special taxes on our fuel for disposal, which we already discussed. I know we have the pay the NRC for their 'services.' I know that the plant did cost a tremendous amount of money ($6 billion) to build, way more than projected, but still reasonable amortirized over the life of the plant, given the income it produces. The original cost was borne by the electricity customers of the then-regulated market, who were also coincidentally taxpayers, so is that what you're getting at? The decommisioning fund is already set up, again paid for by the electricity customers (who ultimately pay for all plant construction under any regulatory scheme), so it won't be tax dollars doing that.

      I know the NRC wants a bigger budget to completely review new plant designs, but given that Congress demands that, is it not unreasonable that some of the cost be borne by the taxpayers who put congress in power?

      So did certain plant in the USSR in 1985 that had a steam explosion in 1986, but things have changed somewhat and perhaps there has not yet been time for corruption to creep back in.
      We get more anal retentive on a daily basis. You quite clearly have no idea. Some folks CAN learn from history, especially when a billion dollar plant and the jobs of hundreds of people are constantly on the line.

      some effort put into a plant design that doesn't cost incredible amounts to build, doesn't cost a lot to run and has fuel that is easy to make.

      Ever heard of the saying "cheap, good, and quick: pick any two?" You're listing off incompatible requirements. If you want the highest level of safety we can possibly provide, that will require extensive backups of backup systems. Such redundancy isn't cheap to build and isn't cheap to constantly test for readiness and maintain at the highest levels of operational status. Now, it is true you didn't list safety when I quoted you, but I'll assume it's important to you. We too could run our plant far, far cheaper if we didn't have to consider the absolute safety of the public, but no one wants that.

      Oh, and some company (it was on fark) recently developed a way to make enriched fuel with 1/3 or so of the current energy requirements, so yes, improvements can be made there.

      Further, you seem to lack knowledge of the new designs on the block right now, namely the Westinghouse AP1000 and the Areva EPR. The AP1000 includes a number of passive safety systems and some 60% fewer valves than most current operating plants. This of course will make it cheaper to build & operate. The EPR doesn't rely quite as much on passive systems as it does quadruple redundancy of active safety systems, but even those four safety systems have lost a great deal of the unneccessary complexity of current operating plants- hence, cheaper to build, and one is going up in finland right now. The EPR's built after that one will go smoother still for all the lessons learned. Toshiba also has a design for a 30MW plant that can run with minimal staffing, perfect for remote towns in Alaska. You wouldn't want to scale up such a scheme to the size of continental US powerplants, but it has it's applications.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    22. Re:Sigh by 18r18r13m · · Score: 1
      E85 is not the answer, you are right about that. I mean they will find cheaper and more efficient ways to make E85 and all of that. Also what is supposed to be the good thing about E85 engines is that they are supposed to be able to detect the octane of the E85 mixture (which is higher than regular gas) and be able to burn it at a higher compression and get the most out of each cycle. But I will be the first to admit that I have not done extensive research on this by any means.

      I would also be weary about doing business with Russia and their oil (if they ever drill) because of all the talk about them being part of the Iraq scandal and until we know to what degree for sure I wouldn't be sending too much money over there as well. But that is just a side note.

      But I think it would be interesting to find out who we actually buy oil from. I was always under the impression that OPEC was an organization that not only controlled the price of oil from those nations but also companies bought though the organization and not really from each individual nation. Maybe I am mistaken. If I am then I would like to know what countries we deal with.

    23. Re:Sigh by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Ever heard of the saying "cheap, good, and quick: pick any two?" You're listing off incompatible requirements.
      I didn't say anything about quick - you don't get that with thermal plants anyway. Cheap and good is what you are competing against and is why you have huge plants and an economy of scale in the first place - dollars per Megawatt capicity at construction time does have to come down without risking nuking the landscape, hence the need for new designs as stated above.

      Every day we get reports from all the other nuke plants in the US and the World about things they screwed up
      The EPRI failure analysis stuff I used to read was very interesting and had great examples in the US oil and coal fired plants of what can happen when you go to sleep and problems reach their conclusion - obviously the US nuclear power industry has much higher standards otherwise we wouldn't bother talking about TMI and in the UK Sellafeild would not be held up as an example of leakage.

      Finally, you allude to chernobyl ... or any modern design ... cheap shot
      I avoided the name so I wouldn't just get an emotive reaction and I was adressing certification by International Atomic bodies and how that really didn't mean much in the 1980's. I suppose because it is the major failure it can't be used as an example of anything without annoying some people. A turbine engineer I knew from the former USSR who actually worked in a similar plant talked about it all the time, and yes, the US plants designed in the 1960's and 1970's (the "modern" plants) are different and would not fail in that way or in several other ways that it could have failed to make things worse. The only other nuclear industry people I have worked with are from research reactors and a power plant in Indonesia that generates very little electricity and is run by the military (I suppose you could call that a research reactor as well).

      The nuclear power industry now has a chance to go somewhere without fighting public opinion (not that was ever the major reason plants didn't get built) - it's time to stop messing about and prove that it is an option without trying to nobble the opposition with carbon taxes, being subsidised by the customer (the extra bit in every UK power bill) or getting a government to pay for the plant. Some plants made a lot of money from plutonium sales pre-Carter - but the defence budget via the taxpayer paid the bill there. The PR guys lying about things like "zero-emissions" and ignoring the fact the the fuel is made from a rock and not magic beans is a bad start, as are the fanatics who are stupid enough to call an industrial process of generating electricity "clean". People will live with risks but react very badly if they are told something is perfectly safe and a minor incident happens.

    24. Re:Sigh by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      his past weekend I was washing my dogs and discovered that the water left in the hose all afternoon was actually hotter than what comes out of my hot water heater. I need to build a solar pre-heater contraption for my gas water heater.

      About 11 years ago, I left a bottle of water in my car on a hot summer day. My car had a black interior. When I came out of work, I squirted the water out and touched the stream and it scalded my hand.

      I know of people who route hoses from the filter pump of their swimming pools through solar heaters to keep their pools toasty warm on cooler days.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    25. Re:Sigh by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The Big Car companies have come out with E85 which uses only 15% gasoline and 85% ethanol. So once the demand gets high enough for that, ie enough E85 cars are out on the road, then we won't be dependent on foreign oil.

      I believe that Ethanol is the near-future of automobiles. In many parts of the world, it's too cold to run a car on pure Ethanol, but a blend like E85 would work. Ethanol is environmentally friendly, it's carbon neutral, it's renewable, and once demand and volume increase enough the price will plummet.

      Maybe not the long term answer however it would help solve the fact that we are funding Iran which in turn was helping to fund Iraq, and is currently helping to fund the Taliban against USA and Hezbollah against Israel.

      Israel is largely to blame for their own problems, but that's a nother discussion.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    26. Re:Sigh by yusing · · Score: 1

      Methanol burns into carbon dioxide and water.
      CO2 and H2O.
      CO2.

      If we're going to get away from warming, we need to NOT generate more CO2.

      Did the guy on SF mention using algae to produce hydrogen? Burns into water.

      --

      "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

    27. Re:Sigh by yusing · · Score: 1

      You must be a neo-con. I see you automatically approach a question by ridiculing people rather than addressing the question with information and logic. Like there's nothing shrill about your hand-waving.

      There are many, many problems with nuclear power. France is a little country. The US is a big country. Hopefully the founder of Greenpeace has ignited more fruitful discussion than your approach will.

      --

      "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

    28. Re:Sigh by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      You must be a neo-con

      Which means, what to you, exactly, in terms of my response to another person's comment about a founder of Greenpeace lately speaking out in favor of using more nuclear power? I made the factual response that he has been roundly condemned by other Greenpeace members, and I made the thoughtful, considered, and informed observation that many of the no-nukes crowd have more political things in common than they have any sort of shared science-based perspective that actually brings about their positions.

      There are many, many problems with nuclear power

      Yes, there can be. And there are many, many (and arguably far worse) problems with the unrelenting burning of coal and other fossil fuels. And since the use of wind and solar energy isn't likely to even come close to addressesing the rapidly exanding global energy demand, and fusion-based power is decades away (if ever), that leaves us with the one thing that the person in question has now found himself supporting. And for that, he is villified - and I think, irrationally so. Hence my comment, which is neither "neo-con" nor "hand-waving" in nature.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  11. The time is right? by grapeape · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There have been some great inovations in vehicles over the years which have been supressed and even shut down by the big auto companies in the past, but with current technology its hard to keep information and good innovation down. Perhaps with the help of the internet this company has a chance of not going the way of the Tucker.

    1. Re:The time is right? by stecoop · · Score: 1

      Nah, RC street track racers know that the fast cars are battry powered. They go like hell for 10 minutes and then you get to do a charge cycle. The complexity (remember this thing has >6000), charge time of the batteries, and low millage are holding electric cars back; once these are solved then I would bet that a battery car would indeed be faster and more popular than a gas one.

    2. Re:The time is right? by Will_Malverson · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why would car companies supress innovations in vehicles? They'll gladly sell you anything that you're willing to pay them for, so long as what you're willing to pay is higher than their cost of producing it.

    3. Re:The time is right? by east+coast · · Score: 1

      There have been some great inovations in vehicles over the years which have been supressed and even shut down by the big auto companies...

      I think what is going to suppress this "innovation" (cough, cough) is more likely the 80k price tag. Believe me, the guys at GMC, Toyota or even Shell Oil are not losing sleep over this "innovation". Even at 3 USD a gallon it's only going to cost me 25K to buy and drive my elantra 100,000 miles*.

      * This is the cost of the vehicle and gas only, not including the costs of maintenance, insurance, car loan interest, etc etc etc

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    4. Re:The time is right? by bobscealy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, thats what the want you to believe. You see the oil companies and the car companies are actually all owned by satan and they dont want you to find out that oil is actually made from baby seals that have been clubbed to death. Thats why they suppress these inventions.

    5. Re:The time is right? by bdolan · · Score: 1

      Imagine how much of the cost of this vehicle will be in making it run 0-60 in 3 or 4 instead of 6 seconds or more. The additional amperage, cooling load, and other considerations from having a car that silently can slam at high speed into an object (wall, child, car, bike) without warning is immense. Given that the car is already @ $80k. It is virtually certain to cost more to get into production once they have all of the safety features including anything required to keep from electrocuting people when lots of metal gets bent and to recharge the cells individually so that none of the >6k cells get overcharged, you have a car that is designed for an specialized market segment that is very small. (High end Mercedes roadsters themselves are lucky to sell in the 10s of thousands, and they work in climates this car cannot. You don't want to get these batteries too hot or cold or use a lot of AC or heating)

      Unless major care is used to charge or discharge only a portion of the theoretical range, battery replacement costs could overwhelm the purchase costs over a few years. In CA, the manufacturer must guarantee the batteries for at least 100k miles or 7 years (might be higher), so if they are replaced 3 or 4 times over that period, the manufacturer would have to add another ~$100k to the purchase price to cover the expected battery packs.

      R.e. crashes, note that almost all nuclear reactor designs assume that the geometries of the fuel are intact. Good assumption most of the time. ;) A car rearended by a semi or locomotive might need a VERY highly engineered containment system. With >6000 cells, you will need this to prevent fires caused by high-altitude, high temporatures, or manufacturing defects, or a short.

      It would great for this to be super successful, but it sounds like a prototype and a great article in a magazine.

    6. Re:The time is right? by zacronos · · Score: 1

      Maybe because the parent companies have a vested interest in oil?

      But no, what am I talking about? No company would ever use their presence in one market to maintain profits in another!

    7. Re:The time is right? by Will_Malverson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do the math on it. Imagine that GM had access to some magical technology that would double (triple?) gas mileage, or allow them to create an electric car with a 300 mile range and a 2-minute recharge time. Figure out how much that technology would be worth to GM -- and therefore how much you'd have to pay them to not use it. Figure out how much profit an oil company (or parent company with an interest in oil) would lose if such technology were introduced, and therefore the maximum that they'd be willing to spend to supress the technology. Under any reasonable set of starting conditions, the former is always greater than the latter.

      Maybe they wouldn't need to be bribed. Maybe threats or captitalist solidarity would cause them to choose not to put the new technology in their car. In that case, though, Ford might. Or Kia. Or BMW. Or Ferrari. Or Honda. Or some car company in India that you've never heard of. Or John Deere might find out about it and get into the car business. There are easily a hundred companies in the world that could exploit such a technology if they knew of its existence.

    8. Re:The time is right? by Herkum01 · · Score: 1

      Because car companies make extra money selling engine parts?

      No gas engine, a lot of parts are no longer needed.

    9. Re:The time is right? by zacronos · · Score: 1

      > There are easily a hundred companies in the world that could exploit such a technology if they knew of its existence.

      And if they could convince the company to let them use the technology. You're forgetting the power of our wonderful IP laws -- get a patent, sit on it, and voila. No one else can do it.

      Now, don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that I necessarily think this is the case. I honestly haven't looked into it. But you asked "Why would car companies supress innovations in vehicles?" -- I was merely giving you a possible answer.

    10. Re:The time is right? by chrisb33 · · Score: 1

      The main problem is that most CEOs nowadays only stay with companies for a limited amount of time. They don't feel like spending money on R&D for projects that may be profitable 5 years from now, since it will hurt their profits and they won't be around to reap the benefits. This is unfortunate, since these decisions are terrible for the company as a whole - this is the perfect opportunity for oil companies to branch out into alternative energy, but the short-term losses make them afraid to innovate.

    11. Re:The time is right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would've thought the EV1 was innovation, but GM not only took it off the market, when it was around, you could never fully own one, just lease it. I heard it was a pretty nifty vehicle too.

    12. Re:The time is right? by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't like conspiracy theories but one can look at it from a different angle.

      Currently they sell us oil (gas/diesel) with a healthy profit. They know that some day this resource is going to dry up. However, increasing demand will push up prices and hence increase their profit. Now, won't it be smart to pursue the profits in their current business model until the prices get so high that few can pay them.

      That point is an excellent timing to introduce a new revolutionary technology, because at that time they can pretty much ask any price they want for it. After all the energy companies are pretty much oligopolies. You see: they'll just say. Sure our new revolutionary cars cost twice what you would pay for a normal car but we have to recoup our years and years of research & development. (Even tough, in reality the tech was ripe for usage in the last 50 years) People won't have an alternative and thus will pay up.

      Introducing this new revolutionary tech now would make it compete with the current offerings and thus the prices would have to come down.

      I'm not saying this is the case. I'm just saying that holding off technology might provide more profit in the long run.

      Having more expensive cars that have a certain "green" label do not make them magically sell better. For example, there has been a range of 3L cars (meaning 3l/100km) made by VW/Audi. As far as I know they have been pulled from the market because of low sales. ( Audi A2 3L - pulled from market 2005 , VW Lupo 3L - pulled from market in 2005 ) Okay, you might argue that they are ugly cars, but my dad has an A2 (petrol) and it's actually fun to drive :-)

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    13. Re:The time is right? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      They could lisences the technology to all other car companies.
      15,000,000 new carsd are sold in AMerica every year.
      1000 per car license would be cheap.

      so 15,000,000,000 per year for America alone for something you don't even have to manufacture yourself.
      the overhead for the division that did this MIGHT be 30,000,000 dollars. Assume they are well paid and have ther assed kissed 24/7.

      Tell the executive of the large oil companies what you are going to do, they set all there shares to short and stand to make a lot of money.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    14. Re:The time is right? by aztec+rain+god · · Score: 1

      The main problem is that most CEOs nowadays only stay with companies for a limited amount of time.

      Those darned immortal CEOs are so hard to find.

      --
      Sig cannot be found.
  12. Over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop type lithium-ion batteries.

    Over 6,831 batteries? Why cite an exact value as random as that if it is a ballpark value anyway?

    TFA: The Tesla Roadster is powered by 6,831 rechargeable lithium-ion batteries ...

    1. Re:Over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, alternatively, if you took 6,831 iPods and connected them in series, you could power a car AND play terrible pop music, and make Steve Jobs very happy when the time came to replace the batteries. Wait. Not such a good idea after all. Never mind.

  13. And this is a good idea? by rts008 · · Score: 1

    Considereing this :( Exploding laptop old news to Dell? Anonymous writes "CRN is reporting that Dell had about a dozen reports of burned laptops before they announced last year's battery recall. The recall was launched in response to a exploding laptop caught on film at a Japanese conference. Dozens more cases popped up with apparently severe overheating, melted cases, etc., according to the report." ), and the fact that there is a lot of toxic/EPA unfriendly chemicals in laptop batteries (which will need replaced- the discarded ones will go where?), and what EPA unfriendly processes are needed to produce the batteries in the mean time, how can this be good news?

    Okay, the tech acheivments are to be commended, but this seems more an answer looking for a valid question.

    Maybe I'm wrong and over-reacting, if so, help me out here.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:And this is a good idea? by mspohr · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are overreacting. Do you know how many automobile gasoline fires there are every day? Also, the newer Lithium and NiMh batteries don't have the toxic problems of older lead and NiCd batteries.

      --
      I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
  14. Now that's a car by kimvette · · Score: 3, Funny
    Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop type lithium-ion batteries. They are claiming the range is about 250 miles.


    Now THAT's a car that'll hit the market with a bang! Not only do you have the instant response of electric motors and full torque from a dead stop, but you will also get rocket assist when you put a heavy load on the Li-ion batteries!
    --
    The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    1. Re:Now that's a car by Barny · · Score: 1

      Hehe, i wonder if they get their batteries from dell?

      Finally, a car bomb pre built from the ground up, now all the potential terrorists and suiciders can rest assured their mutual destruction devices are well built ^_^

      --
      ...
      /me sighs
  15. Over 6,831 batteries? by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Funny
    Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop type lithium-ion batteries
    Over 6831? You mean 6832 batteries?
    1. Re:Over 6,831 batteries? by solafide · · Score: 2, Informative

      Eh, seems to me from reading the article that Mr. Submitter was just a little over-enthusiastic about using the word over; the article claims -exactly- 6,831 batteries.

    2. Re:Over 6,831 batteries? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop type lithium-ion batteries

      So you're saying I can run a Beowulf Cluster of laptops out of the cigarette lighter on this baby?

    3. Re:Over 6,831 batteries? by Jeremi · · Score: 1
      Eh, seems to me from reading the article that Mr. Submitter was just a little over-enthusiastic about using the word over; the article claims -exactly- 6,831 batteries.


      Nah, Mr. Submitter has it right -- he's including the 1.5V watch battery used to keep the clock set on the stereo during battery-pack change-outs.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    4. Re:Over 6,831 batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It puzzles me why they don't use proper Li-Ion batteries suitable for this (like http://www.saft.fr/120-Techno/20-10_produit.asp?pa ramtechnolien=20-10_lithium_system.asp&paramtechno =Lithium+systems&Intitule_Produit=VLPcells

      Must be a nightmare connecting up all those tiny cells, and it can't really help reliability either (if one fails, find it!). Using proper cells they'd probably need less than a 100.

    5. Re:Over 6,831 batteries? by SmittyTheBold · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that it's another case of the press translating units for the American market without paying any attention to context. You know, like those times that something is "over 621 miles out!" or "hold more than 1,981 gallons of fuel!"

      I just don't know how many metric batteries 6831 imperial ones are equivalent to.

      --
      ± 29 dB
  16. Bed buddies by LoudMusic · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It is odd that the big car companies aren't more on this track!

    Just like Dell is in bed with Microsoft, the auto manufacturers are in bed with the oil companies. No surprises.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Bed buddies by martinX · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's one conspiracy theory I could never understand. There's nothing in it for the car manufacturers. If they make a great car that runs on blueberries, the oil companies may be upset, but what could they do? If they sell lots of cars, great. Not like big oil can do anything about it.

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
    2. Re:Bed buddies by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      Not like big oil can do anything about it.

      Except for paying off the car manufacturers to keep them in business.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    3. Re:Bed buddies by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      This is the stupid 100 MPG carburetor debate all over again. If a car company had some incredible technology that tripled the mileage of your average automobile, they would have almost immedate monopoly on the automobile market. Do you know how much that is worth? Do you have any idea how much the oil companies would have to pay that car company to keep it under wraps?

      Worst. Conspiracy. Theory. Ever.

  17. So, is it 6,832 batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does "over 6,831" mean? I'm guessing it's closer to 6,832 that it is to 60,000.

  18. Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by loose+electron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever comes up with a significant advance in battery technology will die a very rich person.

    Li-Ion batteries have excellent amp-hour ratings for their size, but like all other batteries are still pretty limited.

    Acceleration/Torque for electric cars is not a problem. High performance capabilities are there if you want them. However, you are playing battery energy against performance against distance, and all electrics, or fuel-electric hybrids have been designed to be "green" in their approach. (Any Hummer oweners want an environmentally aware vehicle?)

    Right now the weakest link in many electronic systems is the energy source. A good solution there and you can be a very wealty person.

    --
    www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
    1. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      (Any Hummer oweners want an environmentally aware vehicle?)

      Evidently, there area a few biodiesel Hummers out there.

    2. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Whoever comes up with a significant advance in battery technology will die a very rich person.

      Life doesn't work that way. There will be a handful of people who invest their time and money into organizing a lot of people to make better batteries because no one person can do it alone.

      Li-Ion batteries have excellent amp-hour ratings for their size, but like all other batteries are still pretty limited

      These cars get 250 miles on a charge, while other, lead acid based cars get a max of 80. That's a big difference and thus a big deal. Plus, they are using 6800 laptop batteries, not batteries designed for the car. When there is enough demand for ANY electric car, there will be a battery made for it, increasing that range again for ALL electric cars.

      Acceleration/Torque for electric cars is not a problem. High performance capabilities are there if you want them. However, you are playing battery energy against performance against distance, and all electrics, or fuel-electric hybrids have been designed to be "green" in their approach. (Any Hummer oweners want an environmentally aware vehicle?)

      This is true only for conventional fuels but not for fully electric cars. Electric motors are highly efficient at whatever speed/acceleration.

      Right now the weakest link in many electronic systems is the energy source.

      It's the only weak link. The problem has always been a matter of energy storage. We can make cars, we can make electric motors to power them, we've had all of this other tech for ages. But a battery that can hold a lot of energy at low weight and volume as well as give that energy back quickly and consistently has only existed in recent times. Some would argue we still aren't there yet, especially when weighing in safety concerns as noted by other posters. However, there are batteries in development that are safer and as we all know, batteries get better all of the time (statistically about 5% greater capacity every year). If cars did that, we'd have our 80 mpg cars today.

      What is shameful is that governments around the world haven't pooled massive quantities of money together to make better batteries. This should have happened immediately after the first embargos in the 70's. If it had, we wouldn't be spending the gargantuan sums we are today trying to protect all that middle eastern oil, nor would my laptop run out of juice in the middle of a meeting or on a plane flight.

      J

    3. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by JuzzFunky · · Score: 1

      I've got it!
      Energon Cubes!!

      --
      Unexpect the expected!
    4. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by misleb · · Score: 1

      Die? Are you suggesting that there is something inherently fatal in solving the battery problem? Or are you threatening us?

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    5. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Die? Are you suggesting that there is something inherently fatal in solving the battery problem? Or are you threatening us?

      I think he is actually saying "The Rich, The".

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    6. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Modern flywheels have greater energy densities than batteries, when properly designed. I can't really imagine cars powered by batteries given our current level of technolgy, barring some huge theoretical leaps. Flywheels I can see.

    7. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by hotspotbloc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      How about a different type of hybrid:

      - enough batteries for ~50 miles.
      - a small (100cc) biodiesel engine running at a fixed and preset RPM connected to a small generator. The engine would be set to run at the peak of it's power curve.
      - a small ~10L fuel tank.
      - an AC charging circuit

      This would allow the driver to run on electric most of the day and charge on the road when needed. One could also use a gasoline engine instead of biodiesel and still see big fuel operating savings since some wall recharging would take place. It would also greatly decrease the number of batteries needed.

      This is a really old idea. I saw something like this (on a much larger scale) on an USCG cutter (WLB-389) that was built in 1943. Two diesels -> two generators -> one electric motor. Worked great and it could double as a light ship.

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    8. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope this site doesn't get slashdotted, but it does need all the attention it can get (hopefully from a few of the right people) but you're spot on the ball. Flywheels are a very effective energy storage device for vehicles

    9. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Whoever comes up with a significant advance in battery technology will die a very rich person.

      Oh, they'll definitely die. Plane crash, "suicide". Big Oil is Watching.

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    10. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by HK+MP5-A3 · · Score: 1

      A couple of problems with fly wheels. Gyroscopic effects can cause a car to flip on its side if it turns at high to moderate speed. In the case of an accident, damage to a rapidly spinning flywheel will often cause catastophic failure, and throw lethal shrapnel a long way. Fender benders that kill everyone within 100 yards are very bad. Flywheels are great in fixed applications, but moving flywheels powerful enough to propel a car for any meaningful distance are bad mojo.

      --
      There is more than one way to skin a cat.....I got up to 4,521 ways, but the batteries died in my electric belt sander
    11. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by CapnGib · · Score: 1

      The EV reminds me of the DeLorean in Back to the Future. The time circuits needed 1.21GW. To get it Doc initially had to use plutonium, but then he was able to use a bolt of lightning when he knew when and where it would strike, and finally the Mr. Fusion household cold fusion reactor.

      The point is that a viable EV platform could use a variety of storage technologies, as they become available. Lead-acid cells, NiMH, Li-ion, H-fuel cell, Methonol-fuel cell, etc... When the Li cells in the Tesla stop working in ~100,000 miles, no doubt the replacement cells will be better, faster cheaper and lighter.

      Consider that electriciy is just a means of transporting energy, not a source of it, the enviornmental impact and energy production associated with opperating an EV is much more flexible than for a gas powered one. Clean energy electric (wind, solar, biomass...) won't replace coal in large numbers anytime soon, but it is currently supplemental and with EV the flexibility to use alternate energy is built-in.

      The issue with EV as a primary-use vehicle is its range + recharge time limits your longer trips. As an enthusiast machine the Tesla looks solid: quick, stylish, nimble, about the same price as a similarly capable high-end gas-powered car.

      --
      Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
    12. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by shplorb · · Score: 1

      You've also just described how diesel locomotives and large earthmoving equipment work.

    13. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Submarine propulsion plants used this idea back in the 30's.

    14. Re:Solve the Battery Problem = Die Rich by Eye-of-Modok · · Score: 1

      If anyone comes up with the technology and the big energy companies catch wind of it first, it very well might be! http://forums.streetfire.net/showthread.php?t=7018

  19. It's not price... by NineNine · · Score: 0

    It's not just price that will get electric cars used... it's the dork factor. The first company to figure out how to make electric cars less dorky (marketing, design, I don't know) will be the winner. I don't care if gas goes to $20/gallon. I wouldn't be caught dead in one of those things.

    1. Re:It's not price... by MrSquirrel · · Score: 1

      That's what this company is doing. If some "cool" kid in his Camaro (hell, as the article says, even his Porsche) pulls up next to me and thinks I look funny in my electric mobile, wait until he sees how funny I look when I've left him in the dust. I wouldn't buy one of these ($80,000 ...and with a range of 250 miles I'd be fscked because I have to travel about 300 miles to get home from where I am now).

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
    2. Re:It's not price... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      You know what they say. The only thing a Camaro stops at is every gas station along the way to fuel up.

    3. Re:It's not price... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't a practical car -- it's a sports car. This car isn't intended for you.

  20. Recharging time? by mangu · · Score: 1
    A 250 mile range gets an electric car into the "very practical" range IMO


    Not if they are like my Ni-Cd battery electric shaver, which takes 14 hours to recharge.

    1. Re:Recharging time? by NoTheory · · Score: 1

      You've just asked my major question. I can get from Columbus, Ohio to London, Ontario on a single tank of gas, although i usually stop once for fuel (at the duty free), and refueling my car will take me less time than it will to get across the border. But if i had a car with a range of 250 miles, then i would have to stop on my trip, and it had better not make a 5 hour trip 12 hrs longer, due to recharging time.

      That said, i've got two different energizer battery chargers, one of which takes 8 hrs, and the other which takes 15 to charge the same batteries for comparable use. I'm curious what sort of possibilities there are for rapid charging, and what the potential hazards are of moving large amounts of energy very quickly are.

      --
      There are lives at stake here!
    2. Re:Recharging time? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

      But if i had a car with a range of 250 miles, then i would have to stop on my trip, and it had better not make a 5 hour trip 12 hrs longer, due to recharging time.

      Easy... just plug the car's charger into the cigarette lighter and charge as you go! :)

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:Recharging time? by matt21811 · · Score: 1

      For long trips, you tow a small trailer that has a pertol generator.

      If most of your travel entails this kind of long trip then you are not a suitable candidate for an electric vehicle.

      If you hardly make this kind of long trip then you can just rent a petrol vehicle for the occasional trip or rent the forementioned trailer.

    4. Re:Recharging time? by spirit+of+reason · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Sadly, with the current infrastructure, that's the way things are. The first problem is that you simply have no outlet that can charge your batteries quickly. Probably the highest power outlet one has easy access to is a 30 amp, 220 V. That's 6.6 kW of power. It sounds like Tesla's battery pack uses 18650s (the cells frequently used in laptops--it's a standardized size). These are 3.7 V, ~2.1 Ah cells. So, 7.77 Wh per cell * 6800 cells = 52 kWh pack. So even if you could dump all of that power into the pack (which you can't because chargers aren't 100% efficient), it would still take you 8 hours. Then, there's also very few charging stations on the road (and these only exist in some states).

      The other problem is battery chemistry. The common, older lithium ion cells can't take much current when they charge up. This creates very lossy regenerative braking in addition to longer charging. So even if you did have more power, you couldn't charge them that fast anyway. Now, there are newer cells that can charge quite rapidly. The cells from A123 Systems have a standard charge of 45 minutes and a standard fast charge of 15 minutes. Altair Nanotechnologies and Toshiba also seem to have something along these lines. However, you're still limited by your outlet with them... For 15 minute charge, you'd need more than 200 kW of power.

      Now to recharge. To the nearest substation!

    5. Re:Recharging time? by f8l_0e · · Score: 0

      Oblig. Simpsons: Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

    6. Re:Recharging time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be new here. To get mod points, you have to rephrase the quote.

      Here on Slashdot, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

      That would have netted you a +5 Funny. Rephrasing old jokes: it only takes a second, but it makes a world of difference.

      /psa

    7. Re:Recharging time? by HaydnH · · Score: 1

      "Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option."

      Do you mean Humorously in you sig? Or do you actually mean the thick spread made from mashed chickpeas, tahini, lemon juice and garlic which is used especially as a dip for pita?

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
    8. Re:Recharging time? by Nocterro · · Score: 1

      Damnit, you owe me a new keyboard!

      --
      [clever sig]
    9. Re:Recharging time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which is why you should be able to roll ur car onto a train for the large portion of this type of journey.

      overground ferry

    10. Re:Recharging time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A post consisting of humous would be a lot more humourous than some of the comments on slashdot though...

    11. Re:Recharging time? by planetmn · · Score: 1

      from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/posthumously:
      2 : published after the death of the author
      3 : following or occurring after death

      And the spread is spelled hummus

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    12. Re:Recharging time? by HaydnH · · Score: 1

      "And the spread is spelled hummus"

      It can also be spelt humous, humus, hommos or hoummos.

      --
      Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
  21. Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    If we here in the United States are serious about removing dependence on foreign oil, shouldn't we follow the Brazillian model and switch 100% to ethanol rather than wasting time with batteries?

    More info:

    -NPR
    -Carnegie-Mellon
    -ABC News (why corn ethanol is not so great), and which points out:

    For consumers, switching to ethanol would cost only about $100 per car. Kammen said all it takes are some new hoses and a new gas cap. "This is actually a switch we could make very easily and very quickly," he said.

    Kammen is working to get an initiative on California's November ballot requiring that all new cars sold in the state be flex-fuel ready within five years. According to UC Berkeley, in 2004, ethanol-blended gasoline accounted for just 2 percent of all fuel sold in the United States, though nearly 5 million vehicles are already equipped.

    "Converting to fuel ethanol will not require a big change in the economy," Kammen said. "We are already ethanol ready. If ethanol were available on the supply side, the demand is there."


    An interesting report on "locking down CO2 emissions" can be found at
    The News Hour with Jim Lehrer

    1. Re:Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by sr180 · · Score: 1

      Brazil have an excellent source of ethanol from their extensive sugar plantations. The US does not have the environmental conditions to make sugar, and hence would have to make ethanol from corn, which is not energy productive. Current surveys show this as breakeven in energy terms as best (ie 1 barrel of oil is required for the equivalent amount of energy from ethanol.)

      --
      In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
    2. Re:Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by Hyperx_Man · · Score: 1

      There is not enough land in the U.S. to grow saw grass, corn or other ethanol friendly plants to remove 100% dependance. Biodiesel has more future because you get more yield from soy beans per acre than ethanol from saw grass. On the flip side, even 20% decrease in dependance is great. And if anyone says ethanol is energy negative to produce, so is gasoline.

    3. Re:Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by m874t232 · · Score: 1

      Corn is indeed a poor source for ethanol, but you can make ethanol from just about any plant material.

    4. Re:Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Only problem is, is that farmers are greedy by necesity of desparation. Except for small family farms who exploit their children rather than tech for yield increases, most farmers grow their crops on petrol products because they cannot afford not to. They dump them in the fields, they run it through outragously inefficient equipment. More petrol is spent growing bio-mass used in ethenol production than is produced. The whole industry is propped up by government transfer payments.

      The solution is undoubtedly in electric cars. The only point of debate is where the power comes from to drive the motors. Some claim petrol-electric hybrids, others hydrogen--be it combustion or via fuel cells, and there are those who think we can hold the power in batteries and just plugin when we get home. The most promising tech for the present is likely the plugable petrol-electric hybrid. It's not the most glamorous but it is far closer to the budget of the average person than any of the others and it's readily available today.

      --Neth

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    5. Re:Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some claim petrol-electric hybrids, others hydrogen--be it combustion or via fuel cells...

      ...The most promising tech for the present is likely the plugable petrol-electric hybrid. It's not the most glamorous but it is far closer to the budget of the average person than any of the others and it's readily available today.


      But: you get hydrogen very inefficiently through the use of enormous amounts of electricity, which is currently being produced mostly through burning coal. Start using hydrogen in your car, you'll start burning that much more coal and natural gas at the electric plants. Your plug-in hybrids introduce the same problem.

      They only viable solution is more nuclear power plants. A LOT more.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:Forget batteries, go with Ethanol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      From the WaPo:
      But allowing a net positive energy output of 30,000 British thermal units (Btu) per gallon, it would still take four gallons of ethanol from corn to equal one gallon of gasoline. The United States has 73 million acres of corn cropland. At 350 gallons per acre, the entire U.S. corn crop would make 25.5 billion gallons, equivalent to about 6.3 billion gallons of gasoline. The United States consumes 170 billion gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel annually. Thus the entire U.S. corn crop would supply only 3.7 percent of our auto and truck transport demands. Using the entire 300 million acres of U.S. cropland for corn-based ethanol production would meet about 15 percent of the demand.

      When will people realise that corn ethanol programs are just another wasteful farm subsidy?
  22. Lithium Polymers may be a better choice by Dunhill_BKK · · Score: 1

    Lithium ion batteries are known to be a bit hazardous, however lithium polymer batteries seem to be a safer option. Lithium polymer batteries can be formed to fit different shapes, do not require rigid metal casings, don't use flammable solvent liquids and are, therefore, less likely to fail dangerously. They also seem to provide a greater number of charging cycles. Large size lithium polymers are available to the electric scooter and bike market now. They are often the battery of choice in solar racers.

  23. P.S. by kfg · · Score: 1

    You'll need to buy a new set every five years or so, even if you don't use them, because these batteries have a shelf life. Mistreat them once, and you may have to buy a new set, even if they're only a few months old.

    You might want to factor that into your cost per mile.

    KFG

  24. Powered by Dell batteries I'm assuming? by melted · · Score: 1

    It's Powered by Dell batteries I'm assuming? It's a great car for 4th of July then.

  25. Power, not torque by flibbajobber · · Score: 0

    the electric engine's serious torque will allow it to do 0-60mph in about 3 seconds
    The engine's power does this. To get a X-kg mass up to 60mph requires about 400J per kg (e.g. a 500kg car would require about 200kJ)

    ...in about 3 seconds
    Change in energy / change in time = POWER, not torque! An engine's power dictates how fast a given mass can accelerate.

  26. I'll tell you why big auto companies... by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 1

    arent moving to alt fuels
    1) they make money from oil either directly or indirectly
    2) it would require updating the thousands of gas stations in some manner or creating yet another sub industry
    3) it would require quite a bit of money to retool factories - when US companies are not doing all that great now

    1. Re:I'll tell you why big auto companies... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      I don't know... the reason I think that big auto companies aren't moving to alt fuels

      1) Consumers are still too fucking dumb to get their heads out of their ass and their egos out of the showroom.

      A company can not produce a product for long if it doesn't sell. When it comes right down to it as much as people are out there moaning about "a war of oil" and ANWR the fact is that their consumption habits aren't matching the pace of their steadily running mouths. While it's nice to see the likes of Ed Begley out there doing his part the fact is that most people who like to consider themselves environmentalists do very little aside from the recycling of beer cans. I remember when Greenpeace was making a stir and so many were "moved" to be environmentally conscious... that lasted about 9 months and all these companies pushing green products either went belly up or struggled to keep what little marketshare they had.

      If the consumer buys a product a company will produce it. Big oil companies may not be easy to work around and the oil imports probably won't slow down much for sometime but if consumers don't start today tomorrow will continue to be business as usual.

      So go ahead and blame big corporate entities for big oils clutches wrapped around your wallet but the bottom line is that you do have a choice and the more people refuse to make it and instead continue to make excuses the longer this bullshit will go on.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:I'll tell you why big auto companies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please. The auto companies are in business to sell what a consumer wants. If what you said was true, then car makers wouldn't entertain the thoughts of hybrids at all. And yet they do. Why? Because consumers want them.

      The problem is that few, including most on this board, are capable of doing the most basic physics to understand just how much energy this country uses. If you can't get your head wrapped around scale, then everything seems feasible.

      BTW, Li-Ion and Li-Poly batteries have a life cycle of about 500 cycles if treated nicely (1C average discharge rate). If you beat the crap out of the, like the RC airplane folks do, then you are looking at 50 cycles. Cars will beat teh crap out of these cells.

      So, next question is how often do you want to buy new batteries for your car? Would you go electric if that was a every two month purchase?

    3. Re:I'll tell you why big auto companies... by Orig_Club_Soda · · Score: 1

      THe only choice a consumer really has is to buy a gas using car or not. Sure, there are hybids and mod kits but the average consumer is lazy.

      Plus corn or sugar beet ethanol is more expensive for gas and harmful to the enviornment in its own right.

      The only reason I commented is that it is not good business for the oil-car industry to move away from oil.

    4. Re:I'll tell you why big auto companies... by drsquare · · Score: 1
      1) Consumers are still too fucking dumb to get their heads out of their ass and their egos out of the showroom.

      Correction: The leftires are still too fucking dumb to realise that electric cars won't be viable until someone makes a battery that charges in seconds/minutes, rather than hours, and they sell for the price of the cheapest petrol cars.
    5. Re:I'll tell you why big auto companies... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Acutally, we were discusing alt fuels as a whole and not simply battery power.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:I'll tell you why big auto companies... by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Sure, there are hybids and mod kits but the average consumer is lazy.

      Laziness doesn't make a choice invalid. Too bad that in today's society that laziness is an acceptable way out of fulfilling one's obligations. It's not, in my mind.

      Plus corn or sugar beet ethanol is more expensive for gas and harmful to the enviornment in its own right.

      Do you care to elaborate on this? I'd like to see some figures on this. Even if it is harmful I find it hard to believe that it's as bad as straight gas and taking steps in the right direction is better than standing still and making more excuses.

      The only reason I commented is that it is not good business for the oil-car industry to move away from oil.

      I've never seen the oil and auto industries as the same. The auto industry will produce if people buy. And if they are the same why the push on flexfuel?

      Again, Joe Sixpack and you and I need to do OUR part and it is the greater part of the equation. If people sit on their hands and complain and point blame out on others they're simply a willing participant in what's wrong today.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  27. 80K?+batteries once a year by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I would wager that this vehicle is more like a Lotus Elise, or a Corvette, or even a S2000, all of which can be had for under 50K. Any performance benefits over those sports cars can be attributed to the natural advantage of this car, namely that you can go from 0-60 without switching gears, and it is easier to get it perfectly balanced without an engine. Anyway, The true test of a sports cars, as opposed to just a fast car, is the handling, which was not mentioned in review. Without proper handling, it becomes a Mustang at 30K.

    Which is to say we are still in the same world, in which low volumes and other issues cause electric cars to be 50%-100$ higher than traditional cars. All that seems to have happened here is that an electric car has been targeted to the high end market and priced accordingly. It is kind of like taking the hummer, putting a cheap truck base on it, calling it an H2, and pretending that it still has the dubious value of the original.

    Oh well, I suppose if they can build a sedan for 35K I would be impressed. We would also have to look at maintenance cost of the vehicle, which would be dominated by the battery replacement. A sports car car easily run 20 cents/mile in maintenance. Knowing that laptop batteries can only handle a couple hundred charge cycles, one can image where the long term maintenance cost could approach three or four time that amount.

    I wish we had electric cars. I think the technology is there, and the pricing could be reasonable. But even companies that could be using the electric car to revive themselves, for instance Mazda and Ford, still seem to be married to the antiquated internal combustion engine.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Hektor_Troy · · Score: 2, Funny
      Which is to say we are still in the same world, in which low volumes and other issues cause electric cars to be 50%-100$ higher than traditional cars.
      Since you usually write "a-b" in such a way, that a is smaller than b, you have some cheap ass cars ... from 50 percent to 100$ more expensive. That means the car, at most, costs 200$. Damn.
      --
      We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
    2. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by palndrumm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Anyway, The true test of a sports cars, as opposed to just a fast car, is the handling

      The good news there is that he was hiring lots of engineers from Lotus - they've been the guys you call when trying to develop a good handling car for a long time now...

    3. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Sinistrad_D · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I would wager that this vehicle is more like a Lotus Elise
      The vehicle will be built by Lotus. In fact the designers were wooed away from Lotus and Tesla had to sign an agreement not to steal any more workers in order to have Lotus build the car.
    4. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they typically do it by taking out weight.

      Guess what batteries are made of? 100% pure weight.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    5. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by himurabattousai · · Score: 4, Informative
      Since you mentioned Mazda and Ford, type "hydrogen RX-8" into Google's search engine. The RX-8 uses a Wankel rotary engine, an engine that has the unique property of being flex-fuel, in this case the alternative fuel is hydrogen, without any modifications. Since Ford owns roughly one third of Mazda, they could use that engine in Ford-branded cars and have a nearly instant alternate-fuel vehicle. I imagine it could even be turned into a Prius-like hybrid, since the Wankel engine looks not much different than a generator--and since all the parts rotate in the same direction, the generator could be built right into the engine components itself.

      Yes, you are correct in saying that auto companies are married to the internal combustion engine. Right now, they have to be. Americans expect their cars to be capable of certain things, and those expectations influence what they buy. Right now, electric cars (and hydrogen vehicles like the hydrogen RX-8) do not have the combination of capability and price to be mass-market vehicles. Until they reach that sweet spot, they will be nothing more than niche products. The research and investment shouldn't be stopped because of this, though. The best niche products have ways of becoming mainstream, and even if the Tesla roadster never makes it big, the accomplishment and lessons learned will have an impact on automobile technology before too long.

      --
      "osake no hou ga, biiru yori ii" to omotteiru.
    6. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Even better, the prototype car *was* a Lotus Elise. A friend works for Tesla and told me about the Lotus. They used it as a demonstator to raise funding to do their Tesla full design.

    7. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Jotham · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and they typically do it by taking out weight.

      Well, maybe if you're doing rocket calculations, but for cars you can also help by keeping the structure rigid and placing the weight low/balanced to reduce body roll. Getting the aerodynamics/suspension/brakes/wheels/etc right also helps alot.

    8. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Moofie · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      *eyebrow*

      Yeah, because you know way, way more about car design than Colin Chapman.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by ChronosWS · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are some excellent points here. People get all excited because some electric car is now faster that some car the author thinks is defined purely by its acceleration from 0-60. And most slashdotters, I would bargain, are persuaded by such arguments because they are similarly uneducated. Sports cars like the Porsche Carerra and the Bugatti Veyron (mentioned in a related article) are consummate sports cars - they exemplify not only speed but styling, handling and quality expected of a car with their price tag. Cars such as the Corvette, especially the most recent incarnation, do so relatively inexpensively. But regardless, 0-60 acceleration is not the most important statistic, and often isn't an important statistic at all EXCEPT to people who don't know better (I refer the undereducated to the more useful 0-100-0 or 0-150-0 tests, as well as relevant agility tests such as emergency lane change, slalom and skid pad.) Electric cars will be desirable when they meet the following conditions met by existing cars - price (under 30k), features (styling, interior, gizmos), convenience (fueling in under 5 minutes.) This car does not appear to meet any of those.

    10. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess what batteries are made of? 100% pure weight.

      And thus the very very light Li-Ion choice?

      Ever think that yanking out a very heavy combustion engine, gearbox and fuel and replacing with a light engine, no gearbox and light batteries is a good thing? Does the whole 0-60 in 3.0 seconds thing not tip you off here? When typical super cars do 3.6 seconds and some of the obsolute top super cars do 3.2 - 3.0 seconds? Weight is what hurts acceleration the most, yet this thing out accelerated almost all super cars. Somehow I think they know what they're doing.

      What's more, if you wanna talk about handling, this car *IS* a Lotus Elise. Think of it like a go-kart but a little bigger.

    11. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But regardless, 0-60 acceleration is not the most important statistic, and often isn't an important statistic at all EXCEPT to people who don't know better (I refer the undereducated to the more useful 0-100-0 or 0-150-0 tests, as well as relevant agility tests such as emergency lane change, slalom and skid pad.)

      What a joke. 0-60 is a specific benchmark which demonstrates more than one aspect of a cars performance. Power-to-weight ratio being the most obvious. An all around good package includes good acceleration, braking, handling and top speed. Braking is really the easiest part and thus this light car with good brakes should have an excellent 0-100-0.

      In fact a 0-60-0 is mentioned in the article as being 9 seconds under what sounds like conditions which were far from optimum for such a test. This is just a test car too. Not too shabby.

      But you think acceleration is not important? Okay. So who is uneducated? 0-60 tells an important story about a car. What's more, when people need to obey the law, 0-60 becomes one of the few "fun bits" to a performance car. Acceleration feels good and there are lots of red lights and stop signs out there.

    12. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that soon someone is going to gain the competitive advantage of having an electric car, and it will be the hybrids all over again. In the hybrid case, there was no reason for Ford not to be the first with a hybrid SUV, if not a compact. I know a lot of people who would have bought such a car for pure chauvinistic reasons. Ford did not do this, and now may be not long for this world. But instead of citing management mistakes, Ford cites Americans taste for foreign cars, which only exists because the Big Three-Two-One-Zero management won't take chances. No, they build SUV and rake in the easy money for as long as they can. So, when we are down to one american car company, is this going to happen again? Is some chinese company, maybe under the MG marque, going to build an electric car? Will the last American car company then go crying to congress that they did not know any better and have learned from their mistakes?

    13. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as this car was based on a Lotus Elise, it's already GOT good handling. In fact, using a motor and batteries would probably not alter the weight distribution at all, simply put the motor in the engine compartment and the battery arrays in place of the fuel tank. 6000 laptop batteries would weigh about the same as a full fuel tank, for a little less space (off the head calculations, but certaintly not far off).

    14. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by goatan · · Score: 1
      Yeah, and they typically do it by taking out weight.

      Guess what batteries are made of? 100% pure weight.

      Actually they mostly do it with advanced suspension and chassis design low weight helps more with aceleration braking and tyre wear (which does meen you can put softer gripier tyres on) than it does with handelin. In addition that means you put a smaller and more fuel efficent engine in.

      Lotus are known for good handeling and low weight but these are complimentry rather than one leading to the other.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    15. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by planetmn · · Score: 2, Informative

      Wasn't the hybrid escape the first hybrid SUV?

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    16. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by goatan · · Score: 1
      would wager that this vehicle is more like a Lotus Elise, or a Corvette, or even a S2000, all of which can be had for under 50K

      Considering it has been designed by lotus who want to use Variable Vehicle Architecture for everything it will be almost exactly the same as the Elise or more likely the Europa as that is easier to live with.

      The true test of a sports cars, as opposed to just a fast car, is the handling, which was not mentioned in review. Without proper handling, it becomes a Mustang at 30K

      It was designed by lotus good handling is kind of implied in that. After all they have even managed to get Ford cortinas, Vauxhall carltons and even a Lada Riva to handle. Not to mention that they designed and setup the suspension of the new Golf GTI which is probably why it is considered the best Golf GTI since the original and one of the best drivers cars you can get.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    17. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by goatan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's a sports car probably the single must important aspect is Fun not necessarily how fast or quick it is but how much fun it is to drive, as it is based on an Elise's VVA it should be both quick and fun to drive as well as doing well on the tests you talk about.

      Electric cars will be desirable when they meet the following conditions met by existing cars - price (under 30k), features (styling, interior, gizmos), convenience (fuelling in under 5 minutes.) This car does not appear to meet any of those.

      of those only one is important for a sports car styling and it looks nice enough. Convenience (not just fuelling) Price, interior, gizmos are not usually considerations of sports car buyers in the first place otherwise current models wouldn't sell well.

      I actually think starting of with a small low production volume sports car might be an astute choice as this means they will not be trying to compete with major manufacturers, this car could do for Electric cars what the Elise did for Lotus i.e. provide a profitable product from which other more mainstream advances can be made.

      --
      Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.

    18. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Don't teach your grandma how to suck eggs. I know exactly what a Lotus Elise is, and I know exactly what the power density of an electric system is relative to an internal combustion system. In a word, it's "terrible".

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    19. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      The Corvette is a 3000 pound car. If they're getting decent mileage (I suspect that they are fudging their figures) it's going to be much closer to a Lotus.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    20. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by dascandy · · Score: 1

      I'd prefer external combustion but it seems that having 40 foot afterburners on your car is kind of dangerous for other people... say those behind you at the lights...

    21. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "they've been the guys you call when trying to develop a good handling car for a long time now..."

      BWAHAhahaha...oh.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    22. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Let's play Jeopardy.

      I'll take "Famous Sports Car Designers" for $1000, Alex.

      Here is the answer: He founded Lotus Cars in 1952. Known to have said, "For speed, add lightness."

      Who is Colin Chapman, Alex?

      Correct.

      Look at the Elise. Look at the Super Seven. Power is great, but lightness pays dividends all over the race track. This is a simple test. Let's do a 24 hour endurance race between the Tesla and an Elise. I will bet you an Elise that the Elise will win.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    23. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know exactly what the power density of an electric system is relative to an internal combustion system. In a word, it's "terrible".

      Petrol Elise 0-60: 4.5 seconds.
      Electric Elise 0-60: 3.0 seconds.

      I realise the power density of petrol is much higher than that of batteries. But I can only conclude that the reduced weight of engine and transmission, the instant full torque and wide power band which electric allows, provides for the awesome 0-60 time in the electric car. There is much more at play than just the fuel used.

      I expected much more from a "rocket scientist".

    24. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by booch · · Score: 1

      I own a Lotus Elise, and you're exactly right -- the number one reason I bought it is because it's fun. If the Tesla Roadster was closer in price, I would consider buying one. Especially given its quicker acceleration, "stealth" quietness, uniqueness, and environmental friendliness.

      I also agree that this is a good strategy. High performance sports cars already cost a lot. So it's easier to find buyers willing to spend the kind of money involved in a low-volume production model. As business builds, economies of scale kick in, and lower-priced models can be offered to meet larger demands.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    25. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If you think a 0-60 time is what sports cars are all about, you don't have a competent opinion on the subject.

      Let's look at lap times. Around, say, the Nurburgring or Laguna Seca. Then your thousand pounds o' batteries are going to make themselves known.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    26. Re:80K?+batteries once a year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think a 0-60 time is what sports cars are all about, you don't have a competent opinion on the subject.

      I didn't say 0-60 times were what sports cars are all about. It does however provide an indication of a cars power to weight ratio, something which is important for a sports car. Weight makes a big impact to 0-60, just as it does in cornering.

      Let's look at lap times. Around, say, the Nurburgring or Laguna Seca. Then your thousand pounds o' batteries are going to make themselves known.

      Ok, so you have those lap times for a petrol elise versus this electric?

      The fact remains, 3 seconds versus 4.5 is an amazing improvement for the 0-60 and 0-60 is ALL about the struggle between getting power onto the road versus the weight of the car at the low end and as speed increases, drag plays an increasing role. Since these cars have the same body, we can ignore the drag coefficient.

      You are one of these people who are incappable of understanding the value of certain benchmarks are you?

      It tells a small story, but a valuable one.

  28. 220V .... 70A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's cheap (about $4 for a "fillup" for me) ...until I have to rewire and order another feed from the utility to charge this thing up... (Still with 110V and 100A service here)

    Definitely not a 'roadtrip' car however.

    1. Re:220V .... 70A by bhmit1 · · Score: 1

      I guessing you are talking about the US. While I don't know the amps, homes in the US are powered by two 110V lines that are out of phase. Normal circuits from the breaker box are wired by connecting one 110V line to the ground. The 220V lines that you have for dryers, electric ovens, and so forth, are setup by connecting to the two 110V lines, which, since they are out of phase, make 220V. All you need is to run an outlet from your dryer or from the breaker box to your garage. And if you're spending $80k on a car, the afternoon project for an electrician isn't a big deal.

    2. Re:220V .... 70A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the US, dryer outlets are typically 30 Amp 220v. 70 Amp really
      is special (not to mention that most (household) electrical panels
      will not have 70 amps to spare). However, if you are spending
      $80K on a car, the cost of the installing the electrical circuit
      is not likely to bother you.

    3. Re:220V .... 70A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I only have a 60A main feed -- which gets a little annoying when you want to run the A/C and the electric range at the same time let me tell you. Then again, I'm probably not the prime audience for this car.

  29. battery life degradation? by knBIS · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After a year or two of serious use my laptop batteries last about 1/2 as long as they originally did... And those things are pretty damn expensive to replace.. i would guess that a large percentage of the price is going to pay for all the batteries. What happens when they don't hold their charge anymore?

  30. Dell by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they are Dell laptop batteries. If they are, we are probably in for a level of destruction never before seen on earth.

  31. Direct Current by r2q2 · · Score: 1

    Does it run under direct current? (Probably does)

    --
    My UID is prime is yours?
    1. Re:Direct Current by barakn · · Score: 1

      The car is inappropriately named, considering Tesla's work with AC.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    2. Re:Direct Current by Phs2501 · · Score: 1
      The car is inappropriately named, considering Tesla's work with AC.

      It's got an inverter and A/C motor.

  32. 4 not 3 by wallior · · Score: 1

    "The Tesla Roadster, powered by more than 6,800 lithium-ion batteries, can go zero to 60 mph in about four seconds. Top speed: 130 mph."

    1. Re:4 not 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, the site does say 4. There's a huge difference :). 3 seconds is phenomenal. 4 seconds is quite good, but somewhat slower than, say, a current year Z06 Corvette.

      Still, impressive for an electric vehicle I think...

      Top speed of 130 with a 4 sec 0-60 time implies to me AWD is giving it a great launch, but there isn't as much power as you'd think, so it wouldn't be as fast from a roll. Typically 4 sec 0-60 times go hand in hand with much higher top speeds. For example, the above mentioned Corvette has a top speed of 198 MPH. Other sports cars of the same class (some mid to high end Porsches, Ferraris, etc) are similar.

    2. Re:4 not 3 by spindizzy · · Score: 1

      The pictures with the article show it as being rear drive with the batteries taking the position usually held by a mid-engine design. The quoted figure of 0-60-0 in 9 seconds seems slow on the braking side of the equation. I'm more used to seeing figures for sports bikes though, where it's usually sub 7 seconds.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    3. Re:4 not 3 by Don853 · · Score: 1

      Does it specify the gearing? It's a two speed - it might gear out at 130.

  33. Tesla Roadster by 56ker · · Score: 1

    When I first read the name of this car it reminded me of the Tesla coils in Command and Conquer - http://www.cnc-source.com/gallery/data/media/14/te slacoil.jpg . Or maybe that's just what the car looks like when it gets too hot and the batteries explode. :)

  34. Finaly by pcbob · · Score: 1

    An alternative power car that doesn't look like crap. In fact to me it looks fantastic. Compare this to all the Priuses and Insights in the world, and those are just hybrids. Sure there is that Ford hybrid SUV, Toyota's large sedan and I beleive Honda has hybrid Accord as well that look like a regular car, but again, they also burn fuel in the car (yes, electricity has to get produced somewhere, bu doesn't have to come from coal - how about wind/solar/hydro, the more demand grows, the more we will see these eco-friendlier plants appearing).

    Interestingly enough, their main site http://www.teslamotors.com/ says there is still couple an hours to go before unveiling. If this thing actaully performs as advertised, it will finaly give the name Tesla some more cradit that it surely deserves. I have already started saving for it (hope they have financing plans available)!

  35. *flare* *whooom!* by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    (the above is an attempt at visualizing all those lithium ion batteries igniting all at once).

    If you put enough of something together that are prone to a certain sort of behavior, it seems very likely that said behavior will happen somewhere in the population. Hasn't there been discussion recently about these batteries spontaneously igniting?

    It just doesn't seem like a good idea to amass that many of them in a big movable cluster that can crash and cause cell ruptures. Really, it just doesn't.

  36. OB Airplane! reference by Fishbulb · · Score: 1

    Eberhard suggests it would be easy enough to pump MP3s of prerecorded engine roar into the car's Blaupunkt stereo. And for those with even older tastes, the sound of horse hooves could be substituted.

    Or turboprop engines. :)

  37. a-sploding slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sorry, several anonymous informed slashdot screen names say electric cars will never work, in every article about electric cars, hence all those other investors are idiots, especially the billionaire ones. I mean, what do they know anyway?

    that's just how it works here. and on most forums.

  38. not viable for big car companies by vijayiyer · · Score: 1

    How many big car companies can sell small roadsters for $80k? Not very many. The car has range because it's light and impractical. This won't scale into a typical sedan.

    1. Re:not viable for big car companies by hazem · · Score: 1

      This won't scale into a typical sedan.

      True, but I'm not so sure the Earth will scale to handle a typical sedan for every person. It might be best to re-scale our expectations from our transportation and living options.

      What I love is hte irony of using laptop batteries to power a car as a way to reduce dependence on fossil fuel... while laptops are opting for fuel-cell technology using fossil fuels to get away from batteries...

  39. Charge It by Mignon · · Score: 1
    ... 0-60mph in about 3 seconds ... range is about 250 miles ... about $80,000 ... 6,831 laptop type lithium-ion batteries

    Good work, guys. Your next project is to design a power strip with room for 6,831 wall warts.

  40. Electric cars do not reduce the dependency. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    From the Slashdot story: "It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency."

    That's why democracy doesn't always work: Many people don't understand the issues. Electric cars do not necessarily reduce the oil dependency, and definitely not greenhouse gases, because the electricity to run the car comes from power plants.

    --
    Like where your money goes?

    1. Re:Electric cars do not reduce the dependency. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      "because the electricity to run the car comes from power plants. "

      Not all the electricity.
      Not everywhere
      Not in the future.

      Some electrity comes from nuclear and wind plants. In many areas of the world geothermal and dams provide significant amounts of energy. In other places wind energy is very popular. Who knows what the future will hold.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:Electric cars do not reduce the dependency. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Electric cars do not necessarily reduce the oil dependency, and definitely not greenhouse gases, because the electricity to run the car comes from power plants."

      That's why democracy doesn't always work: Many people don't understand the issues. The energy efficiency of a power plant and AC transmission far exceeds that of oil drilling, refining, and delivery. More so with nuclear energy, which is undergoing a renaissance. On top of that, electric motors are far more efficient than combustion engines. Manufacturing an electric motor is far simpler than manufacturing a combustion engine. The only place where electric cars lose in energy efficiency is that batteries take more energy to manufacture than gas tanks, but this inefficiency is a drop in the bucket compared to everything else.

    3. Re:Electric cars do not reduce the dependency. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

      "The energy efficiency of a power plant and AC transmission far exceeds that of oil drilling, refining, and delivery."

      In many areas, coal (with Mercury emissions) or oil (with Sulfur emissions) are used to generate power. So, you may have oil drilling, refining, delivery, burning, and losses from AC transmission.

    4. Re:Electric cars do not reduce the dependency. by AGMW · · Score: 1
      In many areas, coal (with Mercury emissions) or oil (with Sulfur emissions) are used to generate power. So, you may have oil drilling, refining, delivery, burning, and losses from AC transmission.

      They are now, yes.
      The point is that once we have centralised "power" production (ie moved away from all having our own IC engines) it is much easier to clean up the existing power generation. It is much easier to incorporate cleaner ways of generating power into the mix (solar/wind/geothermal/oil/coal/gas/nuclear/whatev er) because you just need to feed the power into the grid. If a new method of generation becomes available we can just add it to the system and everyone benefits.

      Sure, it's not all going to happen overnight, but if city dwellers chopped their SUVs, their Chelsea Tractors, etc, for an electric vehicle it would sure make living in towns and cities a nice proposition for everyone, and help kick-start the new technology.

      As I see it, this technology is coming. It's really not a question of if, but when and I'd say the sooner the better.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  41. screw you guys.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get a motorcycle.. my ST1300 gets 45MPG...

    -Dirtbag

  42. What if they hybridize it? by istartedi · · Score: 1

    How about taking out, oh... 80% of the batteries, cutting the pure electric range to 50 miles, and using the space and weight that's freed up to install a small IC engine for longer trips?

    Aside from that, for those who argue that electric cars just move the problem to the power plant, this is true, but emissions problems are easier to solve at the power plant. Also, grids can choose to shut down plants that use fuels that are temporarily expensive. Grids can transform to new generation technologies without impacting the end users.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  43. Thumpa ... Thumpa ... Thumpa by Newt-dog · · Score: 1
    This is commander Chuck, your eye in the sky! Hey everyone we have a major Sig Alert here on the 405 tonight. We have a major car fire in the middle lane with billowing clouds of black smoke. Reports say it's one of those new electric cars that use the laptop batteries."

    (Bob at the desk) Wow, Chuck, this wire report lists' the car as having over 6,831 laptop batteries. That's some fire!

    (Carol at the desk) Gee, 6,832 batteries on fire all at once, that's gotta be a mess!

    (Bob) Uh, I thought I just said " over 6,831 laptop batteries".

    (Carol) That would make it 6,832 batteries, right Bob?

    (Bob) Whatever Carol! Hey Jim, How did those Dodgers do today?

    1. Re:Thumpa ... Thumpa ... Thumpa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hehe, LA sucks. you don't even got no football team. ;-)

  44. I want to see it go to Tahoe by Animats · · Score: 1

    OK, let's see it go to Tahoe. Start at Sacramento, and make that long climb up I-80 at Donner Pass. That's 100 miles, but it's mostly uphill. It's easy to get range on the flat.

    1. Re:I want to see it go to Tahoe by AGMW · · Score: 1
      OK, let's see it go to Tahoe. Start at Sacramento, and make that long climb up I-80 at Donner Pass. That's 100 miles, but it's mostly uphill. It's easy to get range on the flat.

      It's funny how so many focus on the limited range as the show-stopper. Isn't that like saying the new Nissan Micra is no use because it can't tow a boat or caravan very easily? Surely it's horses for courses. The Tesla is based on a 2 seater, open topped, Lotus Elise. You could just as well damn the original Elise for not having enough room for the kids or not being comfortable enough to drive across the continent (although actually, it's not half bad as it 'appens!).

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  45. Wind turbine measure by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 1

    This is where I like the 'wind turbine' unit of measure. How many wind turbines would we need to deal with an increasing energy demand. The truth is we consume far more energy than we need to. While on person using energy doesn't seem like much, a population of 500 000 is.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  46. Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by sanman2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just imagine how much you'd save. Firstly, cost per mile is cheaper, based on what you pay for electricity out of your socket compared to buying gas. Nextly, electric motors are a simpler setup that don't need all that maintenance. You could drive that thing for a much longer time without even needing any repairs. No lube jobs needed, and with

    All you have to do is replace the batteries, probably once a year. And if the newer-technology ultra-capacitors get used, then you wouldn't have to replace them ever. You could have a vehicle that might require no maintenance at all for the life of the car.

    But gee, I'd hate to get hit from behind because I didn't hear the damn thing coming. You'd have to build some kind of noise-maker into it. Also, what about accidental electrocutions? Could you get electrocuted in an accident? Could people maliciously misuse that kind of mobile power source to zap people they don't like?

    1. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Kadin2048 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could people maliciously misuse that kind of mobile power source to zap people they don't like?

      Uh ... you think that this possibility is somehow more dangerous than the current situation, where everyone is driving around with a tank of explosives under them? Where anybody who doesn't like you could get a jerry can, a gallon of petrol, and a barbecue lighter, and melt your flesh off? Or burn your house down? Blow your car up?

      Don't be ridiculous. Electric cars have enough problems without inventing inane ones for them.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Brett+Johnson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > All you have to do is replace the batteries, probably once a year...

      There is the rub. Replacing the battery on my laptop costs USD 100. The Tesla roadster uses 6831 laptop batteries. I would estimate that half the $80,000 cost of the roadster is batteries.

    3. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by shawb · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "All you have to do is replace the batteries, probably once a year." From the summary, the car runs on 6,831 laptop style lithium ion batteries. A quick froogle search reveals that a replacement lithium ion laptop battery runs around $90 - $150. Let's assume $100/battery. Since you'd be buying in bulk and using batteries designed for this purpose, I'll give you a 90% reduction in cost (overly generous) which puts you at $10/battery. That means your annual battery replacement is almost $70,000 (I.E. most of the price of the car.) And we haven't even charged the batteries yet. Most people I know with anything approaching a reasonable car fill up maybe once a week for under $50.00/tank. That puts you at $2,500 annual fuel cost, add in a quite generous $1,000 for maintenance and repairs, and $1,000 a month for insurance and loan payment brings you to a little over $15,000 annual cost of driving a relatively decent newish car. So, assuming a lithium ion battery pack lasts four years, it would still be cheaper to own and operate, and insure a gasoline powered internal combustion vehicle than to simply change the batteries on this car. And I'd be willing to place a decent size wager that trying to outfit any significant portion of U.S. vehicles (Let's say... 10%) with lithium ion batteries will cause a tremendous surge in demand for lithium, driving prices sky high. In fact, I'll do the math. Lithium has a specific energy density of up to about 200 Wh/Kg. Many major electric vehicles use around 300 Wh/mile, so I'll be generous and say 1 Kg of lithium storage will get a driver 1 mile before recharging. American passenger vehicles drive around 2.5 trillion miles per year, which works out to around 6 billion miles a day driven by americans (An average day's driving being the absolute minimum charge you would want in a car) which means we would need 600 million Kg lithium to make enough batteries to replace 10% of passenger cars. That works out to a bit over half a million tons of lithium. In the year 2005, only 18,000 tons of lithium were mined WORLDWIDE. That means we would need over 25 times the current annual worldwide lithium production just to make enough lithium batteries to give ten percent of U.S. passenger vehicles (cars, light trucks, SUVs) enough charge to drive for one average day, with pretty generous rounding in favor of lithium storage at almost every step I took. That's not even touching the semis, construction equipment, mass transit, airlines and ocean liners that actually keep our society running. And then there's the issue REPLACING the batteries, although I assume there would be large scale lithium recycling implemented.

      So I don't foresee lithium being a long-term cost effective material for energy storage in our transportaion system.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    4. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Quadraginta · · Score: 3, Informative

      You make a good point, but there are maybe a few qualifications to the calculations. The lithium metal in a lithium-ion battery is only a small part of the mass of the battery. A typical electrolyte component might be LiPF_6. Only about 4% of the mass of this compound is lithium metal. Then there's the mass of the solvent, the electrodes, casing, et cetera -- all of which contribute to that 200 W-h/kg figure. Probably your final figure of lithium required for a 10% fleet replacement is 60-100 times too high.

      Of course, that doesn't change your point that batteries generally are an expensive and inefficient way to store energy. Storing energy in chemical fuels is far cheaper and more efficient, and that's why it became the preferred energy-storage method for automobiles. It's not that way because our engineer ancestors were idiots, didn't understand batteries and electric motors, or because gasoline at the turn of the 20th century was as cheap and widely-available as it is now.

    5. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      i think it's obvious, that they can't be talking about 6341 laptop batterypacks, but about 6341 laptop battery cells. at which point you can get these bulk for about 50 eurocents each.

      howie

    6. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by muhgcee · · Score: 1

      I would estimate that half the cost of your $100 laptop battery is copyright BS.

    7. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Aladrin · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was going to mod you insightful, but then I realized that some may not realize why.

      The trick? The Tesla Roadster is powered by 6,831 rechargeable lithium-ion batteries -- the same cells that run a laptop computer.

      They are not using laptop batteries, as you said, but instead using batteries that use lithium cells. They say they are the same cells, but they probably actually mean that they are the same kind of cells used in laptop batteries.

      Anyhow, good call. I'm hoping others will read my post and rate yours insightful.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    8. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Realistic_Dragon · · Score: 1

      That means your annual battery replacement is almost $70,000 (I.E. most of the price of the car.)

      Basic sanity check please! If the batteries cost $70k then they cannot afford to sell you the car for $80k! Your estimate is over by a minimum of at _least_ 50% and probably more.

      --
      Beep beep.
    9. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Nice post.

      And that is why the entire way american culture works will have to change when the oil runs out in the next 50 years or so. There is quite simply no way to carry on when we have to start generating the energy to drive around hugely innefficient SUV's (or any car for single person transportation).

      Even if it was cost effective to produce the batteries in these quantities cheaply the cost of generating the electricity to charge them would require a huge investment in nuclear power plants and a corresponding huge increase in nuclear waste.

      Basically, when the oil runs out (however soon or far off that is) we are screwed without some major technological advancements between now and then.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    10. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by amliebsch · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the electricity to charge them would require a huge investment in nuclear power plants and a corresponding huge increase in nuclear waste.

      But the amount of waste that comes out of an efficient reactor is tiny that even a "huge increase" would be easily manageable. (Note practically all of the old reactors currently operating are not terrible efficient.) It is simply incorrect to suggest that relying on nuclear energy as a primary energy source would be impractical.

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    11. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by kabocox · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...we would need 600 million Kg lithium to make enough batteries to replace 10% of passenger cars. That works out to a bit over half a million tons of lithium. In the year 2005, only 18,000 tons of lithium were mined WORLDWIDE. That means we would need over 25 times the current annual worldwide lithium production just to make enough lithium batteries to give ten percent of U.S. passenger vehicles (cars, light trucks, SUVs) enough charge to drive for one average day, with pretty generous rounding in favor of lithium storage at almost every step I took. That's not even touching the semis, construction equipment, mass transit, airlines and ocean liners that actually keep our society running. And then there's the issue REPLACING the batteries, although I assume there would be large scale lithium recycling implemented.

      So I don't foresee lithium being a long-term cost effective material for energy storage in our transportaion system.


      You had me at the first part with your dollar value cost benefit analysis, but then lost me at the mining part. I maintain a fleet with about 30 laptops mounted all lithium batteries. Now, I'll tell you the really dirty secret of them. Nearly all laptop batteries have only a 1 year warranty on the battereies. We generally get 3-4 years out of one in a mobile environment, but they are out of warranty after the first year. How much do they cost to replace? It varies from $150-$250. (I believe the $150 is the reman price from an off brand vendor. The $250 is what the laptop man. is charging for battery replacements.) I don't think your mining part really holds water though. I'd really have to look up the "difficulty" of mining lithium, but I'd say that if there was a sudden demand for millions of tons of lithium rather than only a few thousand pounds then we'd see more companies start mining if only for a cash crop. You don't think the long term looks good mainly from a minerals/price point. I want to know what cost reducations all lithium batteries would have if there were suddenly millions of tons of lithium ready for industrial use. Would those $150-$250 batteries drop to $15-$25?

    12. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Karzz1 · · Score: 1

      Ummmm... when was the last time you went to an auto dealer to have repair work done? You do realize that GM, Toyota, Honda or whomever does *not* pay $800 for an alternator right? Their costs are more along the line of about $50 (at the manufacturer level -- at the dealer level they still operate on about 40% markup on parts - margins can be higher on parts that are not available in the aftermarket). The $800 you pay is mostly profit. The same holds true for these cars -- I am sure that the cost of batteries to Tesla would be about 25% of the cost you (as the consumer, end-user, or whatever you would like to be called) would be paying to replace them.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master.
    13. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by MidKnight · · Score: 2, Funny

      A great post, but as others have mentioned you seem to have made some assumptions that greatly affected the overall calculations. I almost spewed tea out my nose when I got to the point that said...

      ...trying to outfit any significant portion of U.S. vehicles (Let's say... 10%) with lithium ion batteries will cause a tremendous surge in demand for lithium, driving prices sky high.

      If we can assume that we're operating in a free market of sorts (meaning OPEC hasn't already set up a lithium cartel), then it's reasonable to assume that a surge in demand for lithium would trigger a surge in supply as well. Plus, as a previous reply mentioned, lithium makes up a very small part of a Li-On battery.

      But the real thing to remember is that this car isn't claiming to be cheaper to operate than your typical gas guzzler. Cheaper to drive day-to-day? Yes. Cheaper over the life of the car? Probably not. But horseless carriages weren't the cheapest mode of transportation 100 years ago either.


       

      (PS. How's this for ironic: the thought of a lithium cartel makes me slightly depressed!! Thank you, thank you... I"ll be here all week.)

    14. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by hey! · · Score: 1

      According to the manufacturer's web site, they use the same cells as laptop batteries. Not literally laptop batteries as has been erroneously reported.

      The ways in which it would be ridiculous to use laptop batteries instead of cells are to numerous to enumerate. But even if you did, you wouldn't buy them through consumer channels that price them for ones and twos.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    15. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by rsclient · · Score: 5, Informative

      OK -- here's some basic terminology:

      a "cell" is the fundimental unit of a battery. A "D" battery contains one cell -- and indeed, in old books was just called a "D cell" and never a "D battery". The "cell" is the fundimental battery unit because of chemistry.

      A "battery" contains a bunch of cells. The actual word "battery" means "a bunch of identical things" -- so that a bunch of cannon all grouped together (for example) is a "battery" -- hence the existance of "Battery Park" in New York.

      Thanks to the average person's inability to keep these concepts seperate (and the lack of a reason why they should be seperate), "battery" is now used to mean either a battery in the old-fashioned sense OR a cell in the old fashioned sense (but only if the cell is, as it were, individually wrapped). Once again crystal clear tech language is subverted. (Note to self: don't go on a wild tangent about dumb terminals)

      The "battery" in your laptop contains a bunch of cells -- I see from Google that at least some laptops use batteries of 12 cells. The "batteries" in the Tesla contains exactly one cell and would be better termed "cells", except that (per above) language is changing.

      A big chunk of the cost of buying batteries for your laptop are:
      1. You aren't buying in bulk. Bulk is lots cheaper.
      2. You are also buying specialized circuitry that inside of the
      3. Expensive plastic

      I would expect that your 90%-off-in-bulk isn't high enough. Add in another by-twelve factor, and the price-per-year drops even more.

      --
      Want a sig like mine? Join ACM's SigSig today!
    16. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      But gee, I'd hate to get hit from behind because I didn't hear the damn thing coming. You'd have to build some kind of noise-maker into it.

      Yeah... they already have them. They're called horns. Also, modern internal combustion vehicles are very quiet when running. A friend of mine has a 2005 Camry, and I couldn't even hear the engine at idle. With a moving vehicle with a properly working muffler, most of what you hear is tire noise unless the driver is "gunning" the engine.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    17. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      But on the plus side, when the oil runs out we can stop worrying about which muslim countries want to kill each other this week. Anyway, we're unlikely to run out of coal/methane so we can always take a page out of Brazil's handbook and use alcohol. Sure it's not the best thing for the environment, but I hardly think that will matter in 50 years.

      And that is why the entire way american culture works will have to change when the oil runs out in the next 50 years or so. There is quite simply no way to carry on when we have to start generating the energy to drive around hugely innefficient SUV's (or any car for single person transportation).
    18. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      But on the plus side, when the oil runs out we can stop worrying about which muslim countries want to kill each other this week. Anyway, we're unlikely to run out of coal/methane so we can always take a page out of Brazil's handbook and use alcohol. Sure it's not the best thing for the environment, but I hardly think that will matter in 50 years.

      When we run out of oil, aren't we just going to have a bunch of other problems beside no fuel for SUVs? Given that oil is a raw material for building just about anything besides gas, and coal and natural gas can only go so far to replace oil.

      We need to find something and we need to find it fast. If only the world spent money on research and development instead of defense, we'd almost be living in utopia by now.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    19. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Indeed, no oil = no plastic. But that's totally manageable, especially considering we are unlikely to ever 'run out' of oil, it will just become scarce enough that it's not cost effective to run cars with it. Think back to the 1950's, been there, done that. In many respects it would be an improvement, since things would need to be engineered to last instead of being engineered to break and end up in a landfill inside of 2 years.

      As for the utopian society comment, I find that very questionable. The world's biggest problems stem from too many humans, not enough space/food/stuff. R&D will only take you so far, especially when your neighbor countries use their R&D budgets to build pointier,sharper sticks/bombs/etc.

      Given that oil is a raw material for building just about anything besides gas, and coal and natural gas can only go so far to replace oil.
    20. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by hyc · · Score: 1

      I think 50 cents is massively underestimating, just like $70K is massively overestimating. The most efficient off-the-shelf LiIon cell available today comes in the 18650 form factor. You can get these retail for $6.00 each, which should mean they can get them direct from the manufacturer for around $1.50 - $2.00 each. (E.g., http://www.sabahoceanic.com/detail.aspx?ID=750 I've ordered from these guys several times to rebuild packs for my 3 laptops...)

      That means almost $13,000 worth of batteries that need to be replaced every 3 years or so. If a car company is buying these in bulk to put into cars, I would expect the entire pack to sell for less than the retail cost of the individual cells, but obviously it'll be more than $13,000. Prices will continue to drop over time.

      I'm not sure I'd want to budget $4K/year for battery replacement, but if other maintenance cost is reduced or eliminated, it may balance out in the end.

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    21. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Millenniumman · · Score: 1

      $4k/year? Where did you get that figure? Tesla says the batteries only have to be replaced every 100,000 miles. Do you drive that much in one year? It's really about $4k for the lifetime of the car.

      --
      Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
    22. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Right now, cars can BURST INTO FLAMES during an accident. And cars already have electrical systems capable of electrocuting people. 12V at hundreds of amps can definitely be fatal, and defective ignition circuits have started fires (and this is without involving any gasoline from the engine or fuel tank).

      Also, the batteries are almost as much of a fire hazard as gasoline. Google around for what can happen to defective lithium ion batteries.

      All vehicles are dangerous machines, and it has always been that way. Hell, back in the day you rode a horse that could decide to kick or throw you on a whim. There has always been a danger, and this is nothing new. As the technology goes into use with a wide range of manufacturers and a wide range of users, the safety issues will be exposed and worked out just as with any other transportation technology.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    23. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      The actual word "battery" means "a bunch of identical things"

      Actually it means getting battered. A battery of weapons would batter an enemy. At least that's what Wikipedia says, I think not too long ago it quoted Franklin as saying he'll call it battery because that's what touching it feels like.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    24. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by CapnGib · · Score: 1

      From the FAQ:
      "Li-Ion batteries are good for 500 charge/discharge cycles. With 250 miles of range this works out to 125,000 miles, but our estimate is a conservative 100,000 miles. However we believe that we will get better life from our batteries due to temperature control of the batteries and intelligent charge/discharge cycling."

      So more like every 10-15 years. Also the battery recycling cost is built-in to the price of the car.

      --
      Beauty is truly in the eye of the tiger
    25. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by shawb · · Score: 1

      Have you even seen a lithium ion battery go anywhere near 10-15 years? My current cell phone could go one week without recharging when I bought it. Less than a couple months into ownership, I can barely go 2 days. Yes, lithium ion batteries can be recharged 500 times, but saying that you will go anywhere near the full 250 miles on that 500th charge is assinine. The deep charge/discharge cycles gradually affect the chemical makeup so that the battery can no longer hold the same charge.

      More importantly, Lithium ion batteries age whether or not they are being used. According to Wikipedia they can lose 20% of their charge capacity of a year if stored at 20c, which is around 75f, not that far off from normal daytime temperatures, and who knows what operating the car will do to the temperature: it could vary wildly based on where the batteries are located, what cooling they use, etc. (Charging and discharging batteries is not 100% eficient and so gives off a fair amount of heat.) Let's give them 15% losses per year, from storage alone. That means after the first year the battery only has 85% storage capacity, after the second year the battery has about 72.5% storage capacity remaining, after the third year around 61% of storage capacity remains. So, after the first year you get an average of 212 miles per charge, after the second year you get around 180 miles per charge, and by the end of the third year you're down to somewhere around 150 miles per charge. And that's not including the wear and tear on the battery from deep charge/discharge cycles, which will occur more and more often as the battery ages and the charge becomes more and more shallow. I would honestly assume less than 100 miles a charge cycle by the end of the third year. If you haven't replaced the batteries or just garaged your 80,000 car by that point.

      Granted, for someone who has the money and wants to go really fast, a pure electric car with lithium ion batteries may very well be the way to do it. But for a reliable mode of transportation that anybody but rich playboys can afford to maintain (Remeber TCO, boys) lithium ion batteries are not the best choice energy storage method.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    26. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by hyc · · Score: 1

      $13K to replace a full set, average of once every 3 years replacement, spread out to about $4K/year. Duh...

      --
      -- *My* journal is more interesting than *yours*...
    27. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      However that little quantity of waste that is generated will still be toxic in several thousand years.

      That is more the problem. Basically it will still be toxic until we can find a way of launching it at the sun with 100% success rate.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    28. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Actually we in the west build most of the best pointy sticks and then just sell them to various dodgy countries to do with as they please.

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    29. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I dunno, $4k/yr sounds pretty doggone good for a fast, efficient, clean car.

      But that's not on top of what I pay, because of gas prices... Let's see. $3/gallon (http://www.gasbuddy.com/), and I get about 30m/gallon. So $.10 per mile. The Tesla Roadster gets 1-2 cents per mile. We'll just say 2.

      I travel around 15,000 miles a year commuting. That's $1500 gas or $300 Roadster. So it's $4300 for the Roadster or $1500 for my car.

      So I'd be paying $2800 extra per year to drive a clean car and I wouldn't ever have to stop at a gas pump again. (Travelling long distances is another story. I assume I'll find other transportation for that. Rental car, airplane, whatever.)

      I'd pay it. Gladly.

      The only thing that stops me is the up-front $70k. $30k would be quite a stretch for me, but $70k is dreamland. It'll be nice when these come down in price.

      On a side note, cars like this would have people thinking about energy and other ways to get it. Sunlight, wind, etc. Everyone would want as much 'free' energy as they can, so I think the world would end up better off. In theory, anyhow.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    30. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by dynamo · · Score: 1

      R&D will only take you so far, especially when your neighbor countries use their R&D budgets to build pointier, sharper sticks/bombs/etc.


      So.. your argument is that spending more money on reducing the number of humans (a.k.a. military spending) is the way to go?
    31. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      I don't recall making that argument. I made a statement that magical R&D fairies won't allow the world to support an infinite number of people. If you disagree, perhaps you could make some sort of relevant argument?

      If we're talking about spending money to reduce the number of humans and therefore improve their general quality of life, perhaps some form of enforced birth control would be more to the point?

      R&D will only take you so far, especially when your neighbor countries use their R&D budgets to build pointier, sharper sticks/bombs/etc.

      So.. your argument is that spending more money on reducing the number of humans (a.k.a. military spending) is the way to go?
    32. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      The world's biggest problems stem from too many humans

      Oh my, that's so wrong. There is enough for everyone, the world's biggest problem is unfair distribution.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    33. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Enough what exactly? Enough CO2 to melt the ice caps? We're getting close, and don't worry, distribution isn't a problem. If you're talking say, food, I would argue that people who can't manage to feed themselves should perhaps think twice about having 12 kids. Then they might you know, have enough to eat.

      The world's biggest problems stem from too many humans

      Oh my, that's so wrong. There is enough for everyone, the world's biggest problem is unfair distribution.
    34. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Well of course that would mean the rich nations would have give up some of their booty. Do you tell me it's impossible?

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    35. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      I believe that they in fact do that now. If you've been following the funtastic genocide project going on in Darfur, without U.N. food aid all of those people would have been dead ages ago. Of course, if there were less of them in the first place, the Sudanese government would probably think twice about purposely killing them to oust a few guerillas.

      Well of course that would mean the rich nations would have give up some of their booty. Do you tell me it's impossible?
    36. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      I'm not talking about aid but about not sucking those countries dry in the first place.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    37. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      Fascinating, so your solution involves some sort of time travel device? Plx to page Steven Hawking, I think we have a live one here.

      For the record, nobody but the Sudanese government has been involved in Sudan since the 1950's, other than one missle attack on al'queda weapon factories in '98. That country was not 'sucked dry by rich nations', it's just that sticks, rocks, and illiterate tribesman are just not really hot commodities on the global market.

      I'm not talking about aid but about not sucking those countries dry in the first place.
    38. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Sudan was not part of the discussion when I joined, and I don't wanna discuss your strawman. OBVIOUSLY Sudan is different, but it's not as if its problems were caused by overpopulation either, as by your original argument, "The world's biggest problems stem from too many humans, not enough space/food/stuff."

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    39. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Zothar42 · · Score: 1

      You may have replaced the batteries, but don't forget the charging costs.

    40. Re:Electric Cost Per Mile is Cheaper by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I didn't. The article says it costs 1-2 cents per mile.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  47. Ethanol from Switchgrass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    sr180 wrote:

    The US does not have the environmental conditions to make sugar, and hence would have to make ethanol from corn, which is not energy productive.

    sr180 , I agree 100%, that is why my original post linked to articles that show ethanol could be made in the United States from switchgrass .

    For example, the article I linked from ABC News is entitled "Switch Grass: Alternative Energy Source?", and states:

    By ADRIENNE MAND LEWIN

    Feb. 1, 2006 -- It grows throughout the Great Plains and parts of the South, can be used to make ethanol -- an efficient and environmentally friendly fuel for cars -- and it has the potential to reduce the nation's dependence on oil.

    Switchgrass is the perennial wonder plant touted by President Bush in Tuesday's State of the Union address and in his remarks made today in Nashville, Tenn., where he joked that he could have a new career in farming. "All of a sudden, you know, you may be in the energy business," Bush said. "You know, by being able to grow grass on the ranch and have it harvested and converted into energy. And that's what's close to happening." ...
    David Bransby, a professor at Auburn University in Auburn, Ala., supervises research into ways to optimize switchgrass production. He told ABC News that researchers know how to grow, plant, harvest and deliver switchgrass, but now they need a market for it. And the biggest barrier to that is government policy.

    Bransby said the Department of Energy will only fund a pilot project to produce energy using switchgrass, about 10 to 15 tons a day. There are no plans for commercial plants that could develop technology to convert switchgrass into ethanol on a large scale.

    Craig Stevens, a spokesman for the Department of Energy, told ABC News that the government wants to make sure the projects are viable on a small scale before expanding. "We need to walk before we can run," Stevens said, "and we need to make sure these technologies work."
    Ethanol as a fuel is nothing new. Dan Sperling, a professor at the University of California at Davis and director of its Institute of Transportation Studies, noted that even early Model T Fords used ethanol, and it's an ingredient in beer and wine.

    Most ethanol produced in America is made from corn -- a less-efficient material than switchgrass -- but corn producers are supported by a large lobby and huge government subsidies. There is no similar lobby or investment for grass or wood.

    "When you make ethanol from corn, for every gallon of fuel you get, you put in about seven-tenths of a gallon of fossil energy, oil or natural gas," he said. "That's only a small improvement in terms of greenhouse gases."

    On the other hand, he said, "ethanol from cellulose [like switchgrass] is a great energy strategy because for every gallon of ethanol, a tiny amount of fossil material [is used.] There's a dramatic reduction in greenhouse gases, so from an energy perspective it's far superior."

    "We've known this for a long time," Sperling said. "Why has nothing happened? Part of it is we do need more R and D [research and development], but I think what we really need is a commitment on the industry and business side to invest."

    For the government's part, Bush's 2007 budget will include $150 million -- a $59 million increase over the fiscal year 2006 -- to help develop bio-based transportation fuels from agricultural waste products, such as wood chips, stalks or switchgrass.

    "Corn is an OK source for ethanol," said Daniel Kammen, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley and director of its Institute of the Environment. "But if you really want to hit a home run, you need to go to cellulose."

    1. Re:Ethanol from Switchgrass by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 1

      Cellulosic ethanol (as opposed to corn/sugar based ethanol as presently used) does indeed seem to work out better when you run the numbers. However the technology to produce this does not exist on an industrial scale yet. The technologies involved are completely different, relying on quite advanced and expensive enzymes. The cost of these enzymes is certainly coming down but right now cellulose based ethanol is in the same box as solar/wind - the technology exists but it hasn't reached mass economic viability.

      The other factor to consider is that you can only grow switchgrass (or any crop) "again and again" if you heavily fertilise the land. Fertilisers are made from, amongst other things, natural gas, oil and phosphate all of which are depleting rapidly.

  48. Problem: recharging by momerath2003 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Li-ion batteries have a limited number of charge cycles on them, somewhere around 300, before their capacity starts to decrease. You would have to replace all of the batteries at some point after this when your car's range is decreased to the point where you can't stand it. This means, what, most of the value of the car after 100000 miles? Is it worth it?

    --
    I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
  49. but are coal plants worse than millions of cars? by User+956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Until something replaces Coal power plants as the main method of generating electricity, you're just replacing one evil for the other.

    Yes, because a few coal plants are way less efficient than millions and millions of internal combustion engines.

    (not to mention it's a lot more efficient, as technology progresses, to upgrade emissions controls on a few power plants, than every car on the road)

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  50. out of range price tag by Digitus1337 · · Score: 1

    It is odd that the big car companies aren't more on this track! Yeah I was wondering why they wouldn't be... oh yeah, $80,000.

  51. Anyone know what Steve Jobs drives? by surfcow · · Score: 1

    Anyone know what Steve Jobs drives?

    Come to think of it, he probably doesn't drive at all. Never mind. Sigh.

    1. Re:Anyone know what Steve Jobs drives? by s.o.terica · · Score: 1

      Last I read he drove a Mercedes CL600. But that was years ago.

    2. Re:Anyone know what Steve Jobs drives? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I used to live a block from his house in Old Palo Alto. He is into Mercedes, or at least was through the 90s. He always had the latest S-Series. I think I remember he had a Porsche too, but definitely more into Mercedes now that he was a family man. His wife was driving a more family-style kind of Mercedes: an M-Series (can't remember whether it was AMG or what). Anyway, pretty basic taste as far as cars are concerned. Not even an Aston-Martin or a Bugatti or a Bentley... Or maybe he has those at another property.

  52. Double sigh.... a Slashdot full of know-nothings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The full energy cycle of an electric vehicle is FAR more efficient than the full energy cycle of a gasoline powered car. But don't take my word for it, here's the research, rather than the usual "common sense" that passes for ill-informed criticism on slashnot these days.

    I am constantly amazed by the anti-EV mindset that pervades Slashdot. Every time the subject comes up, INVARIABLY, someone claims that because EV's are powered by coal plants that there is something somehow wrong with that, like they would not still be a huge jump in both efficiency AND technology (power distribution issues like AWD, ABS, traction control, etc... with EV's they become *SOFTWARE* problems... perhaps I am just too old school for Slashdot, but I happen to think that is pretty cool).

  53. $80,000 is only 100 times what I paid for my truck by Nehmo · · Score: 1

    I'd get one, except the cargo space is limited :-) === This is not a serious car for the typical consumer.

    --
    (||) Nehmo (||)
  54. Big car maker behavior surprising? No... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    Not considering the sunk costs they have in their current designs (based around the over 100 year-old combustion engine) and manufacturing facilities... And their persistant incompetence at building smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles to compete with those from Japan. You'd think American car companies would have learned from the Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s, and in many ways, they have: American cars now start on the first key-twist, they don't explode into a giant fireball when rear-ended, they're cheap, and reasonably fuel-efficient.

    But Japanese makers still beat the Americans on small, efficient cars, because they've been doing it longer and have focused on the longer-run issues of depleting oil supplies more than American car copmanies have, so fond of their SUVs to the exclusion of fuel-efficient vehicles they were until just 2-3 years ago...

    Frankly, if one of the "Big Three" ends up being swallowed by another car company, or going bankrupt altogether -- preferably without a government bailout this time (thank you Jimmy Carter) -- not only will I not be disappointed, I might even be mildly-happy...

    (Of course, there is the massive dislocation of the employees of whichever of those companies goes under, and that is a problem that frankly requires 2 efforts: one on the part of those people to save for their own "rainy days", and the other on the part of government, charity, and businesses to provide re-training, job-finding assistance, etc.. And, of course, many of those workers would no doubt be re-employed under new corporate management anyway, to help remaining companies pick up the market slack left behind by the recently-deceased auto corporation...)

  55. forget ethanol, butanol is dah bomb by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    ethanol corrodes pipes, can't pipe it around like gasoline. Using cellulose to make sugars and then butanol would let us use an entire plant rather than just the sugary fruit, and would require no modifications to gasoline engines to use.

  56. Un-smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) big car makers have made plenty of electric cars they are not practical (cost, size, time to recharge ect ect ect) or cost effective..

    some have been successful look up the GM ev1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

    2) 250 miles in something best described as a deathtrap fit for a midget.. great that does the other 99% of the world no good. In a car that small I am not impressed with its performance.

    less oil.. maybe, but not much.. it depends on how they generate electricity in your area..

    FAR from a solution.. this goes 4X for hybrids.. they are just patches..

    fuel cell cars will be done soon.. everything else is just a fad IMHO

  57. Nice but do not throw out the internal combustion by Chris+Kamel · · Score: 1

    just yet...
    I applaud the car and the idea and technology behind it.
    But the article seems to me intentionally misleading. It compares the car to Ferrari Enzos and Porsche Carrera GTs and compares the prices as if the cars are equal, which they are absolutely not.
    They just cite the 0-60mph time, and while that achievement is impressive, 0-60mph times have been (and still are being) used to confuse consumers for so long. Regular car manufacturers would gear their cars to hit 60 in 2nd no matter how optimal or suboptimal that is just to get a good 0-60mph. And this is in play here again with a car that can hit 60 in 3 seconds but with a maximum speed of 130mph. Granted, most people never even hit a 100mph, but still for a fair comparison you should also factor in that both the Carrera GT and the Enzo will top out above 200mph.
    And for something that's more comparable costwise check the C6 corvette Z06 which will not only turn out close 0-60 times (4 seconds) but also outrun the little roadster up to 190mph.

    Morale? Not exactly the most objective article I've seen.

    --
    The following statement is true
    The preceding statement is false
  58. lithium-ion now supports 1.21 jigawatts by rayde · · Score: 1
    the electric engine's serious torque will allow it to do 0-60mph in about 3 seconds.

    Too bad these cars keep dissappearing when they get to 85. :-(

  59. sorry, but no by buddyglass · · Score: 1
    It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency.
    And how often will those 6,800 batties need to be replaced? And how much electricity will it take to recharge them every 200 miles? I very much suspect this car's environmental impact is far worse than a standard petroleum-based sports car.
  60. watch out for any signs of explosive acceleration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just be careful if you get the car from your local DELL dealership... Keep a close eye on those 6,000+ lithium batteries... KABOOM!!!!

  61. I've seen more burning vehicles by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    than I have burning laptops. Ok, so I've only seen one burning vehicle, but it was going up a real treat! That said you'd certainly want some sort of protection so that one catastrophically failing battery didn't take the rest with it.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  62. The batteries have to be in series/parallel banks by wbean · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The motor is going to need a lot higher voltage than a laptop. This means that the batteries have to be organized in series/parallel banks. 6831 is a plausible number since it is 23 x 11 x 3 x 3 x 3. This gives you a lot of flexibility in arranging the banks. You could have 99 banks of 69 batteries in series, presumably giving you something like 345 volts. That sounds about right for a DC motor.

  63. I hope this thing has an iPod dock by pigwin32 · · Score: 1

    Cos you know it's going to need some aftermarket sound effects. Who wants to own a silent sports car.

  64. Except... by xlsior · · Score: 1

    ...A one or two year old laptop tends to have a fraction of the battery life of a brand new one. Now look at the replacement cost of not one, but thousands of batteries.

  65. That's a Lotus Elise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I first started looking at the photos, I thought to myself "that looks just like my car". Then I realized it is.

    Their "prototype" chassis, body, and even interior is all Lotus Elise S2, probably 2005.

    Looks like a scam to me.

    1. Re:That's a Lotus Elise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a scam. A close friend works there, and I've followed their development in the kind of gross detail he could reveal since he started.

      Their prototype car is an Elise because it is considerably cheaper to simply build the drivetrain components as a proof of concept than it is to build everything from scratch. Then you show the working car to people and get more funding to do a whole car based on a existing body pan and suspension but with your own interior. Even supercar builder do this, expecpt it is usually the other way around, they design the body and coachwork but use a tuned engine from an established car company. Why waste money building everything from scratch when you can use off the shelf?

  66. Re:Yeah, but how much oil does it take to build? by wordsofwisedumb · · Score: 1
    I bet a lot of that is for the oil (and other forms of fossil fuels) it takes to mine, transport, process etc the raw materials needed to build the car. A $10,000 petrol-powered car would probably use less oil over its lifetime than this thing.

    So your $10,000 petrol-powered car grew on a tree?

  67. Do the math by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The top speed of the car is around 130 MPH, and the max range is around 250 miles, so at top speed you get around 1.92 hours of driving (if you don't get pulled over). Furthermore, it takes around 3.5 hours to recharge, so at top speed the drive time to charge time ratio is around a half. For every hour of evading the cops you spend about two hours charging up and drinking beer.

    I have no idea what this means, it just seemed like an obvious thing to compute.

    1. Re:Do the math by palndrumm · · Score: 1

      Except if you're doing top speed, you're unlikely to be getting maximum range out of it.

  68. It IS a Lotus Elise! by Dr.+Ion · · Score: 1

    The pictures make it pretty obvious that this was built on a Lotus Elise frame.

    Which is a fine place to start, considering the Lotus weighs about 1900lbs with the Toyota 4cyl motor.

    1. Re:It IS a Lotus Elise! by Quila · · Score: 1

      I had one (an S1 bare roadster, not the cushy S2 that arrived in the US). Looking at it, it is definitely built off the S2 frame, which itself only weighs around 60kg.

    2. Re:It IS a Lotus Elise! by swaq · · Score: 1

      If you RTFA you'll notice that Lotus is actually building the car. Also it is very obvious from comparing pictures of the interiors that it is based off the Elise. Basically it is an Elise with a slightly different body and an electric engine.

      For well under the electric version's cost of $80k you could buy an Elise and turbocharge it (http://forcedfed.com/elise/turbokits.html) and create a much faster car. (But of course then it wouldn't be the cool electric car...)

  69. 0-60-0 in 9 secs, not 0-60 in 3! by gvc · · Score: 0, Troll

    60 mph is about 100 km/h, or 27m/s. G is 9.8 m/s. So 0-60 in 3 sec is about 1G. Street tires don't do that.

    But the 0-60 in 3 is McLuhanesque's fantasy. What the article says is 0-60-0 in "about 9 seconds." So let's say that "about 9" is really 10. 0-60 in 6 secs is about half-a-G, which is strong acceleration, and 60-0 in the remaining 4 secs is still most-of-a-G.

    Why inflate damned good performance into a preposterous claim?

    1. Re:0-60-0 in 9 secs, not 0-60 in 3! by kemo_by_the_kilo · · Score: 1

      Why inflate damned good performance into a preposterous claim?
      Marketing and investors......

    2. Re:0-60-0 in 9 secs, not 0-60 in 3! by ruiner13 · · Score: 1
      60 mph is about 100 km/h, or 27m/s. G is 9.8 m/s. So 0-60 in 3 sec is about 1G. Street tires don't do that.

      It is 0-62PMH (100KPH) in 4.0 seconds. Why do you think this is unreasonable? The Bugatti Veyron does 0-60 in 2.7 seconds, and the Corvette Z06 does it in 3.7 (on street tires). There are several cars that can pull well over 1G on the skidpad (Lotus Elise, Nissan Skyline GT-R, Porsche 911... I could go on), why should forward acceleration be an exception? I'd think the way tires are designed, they'd be able to handle more straight-line force than the lateral force in cornering. Where are you getting your claim from?

      --

      today is spelling optional day.

  70. Batteries suck. by Moofie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what do you do when you've done 100 or 200 discharge cycles, and you're left with a couple hundred pounds of useless lithium ions? Oh well. Time to buy a new car, right?

    Maybe you could design a clever little nozzle to get a boost from your on-fire battery packs. That'd be AWESOME.

    --
    Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  71. quick recharge... by kemo_by_the_kilo · · Score: 0, Troll

    Some one said: You want to know why pure-electric cars are incredibly unlikely to become popular? Answer: it's not possible to get a full battery charge in 2 minutes. When you run out of gas, you can fill up again in 2 minutes. Traveling cross-country, it simply is *not* acceptable to have to sit around for 3 hours at the gas station waiting for your car to get enough juice to continue. Nor is it likely to be possible to improve on this, until someone invents some radically new battery technology - no existing battery technology will allow charging at this kind of speed without the batteries exploding. So we need a new battery technology which will, at which point Exxon-Mobil and their battery won't matter a damn. The world and their brother is working on that, because everyone knows that whoever gets better tech is going to be in the money big-time. Trouble is that nothing's coming along - the best bet so far is fuel cells, and we're back to fossil fuels again (or hydrogen, which will be produced and distributed by the same folks anyway). But this is easy to solve, capacitors!!!1! Caps are quick to charge/drain but you could "trickle" energy back into the batteries and don't forget you could always upgrade the alternator so that it generates more electricity..... Basically I don't know anything about cars or electrons and i got that one. I remember reading somewhere that caps will one day replace batteries. if someone else has read that and knows a url please post, I'd google but i'm lazy (-1 something or rather) (My English is bad please forgive, i am a product of Los Angeles public schools ;) )

    1. Re:quick recharge... by s800 · · Score: 0

      It's called a supercapacitor, and yes, people are working on it. Talked about for the Honda HSC and some other Hondas that escape me right now.

    2. Re:quick recharge... by mh101 · · Score: 1

      Or why not swap out your discharged battery for a charged one? Then the service center can take as long as necessary to get the battery recharged and ready to go for their next customer.

      Either that or someone needs to create a real-life Mr. Fusion.

      --
      Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
  72. Burning oil. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You do know, I hope, that by burning that much oil, you're probably doing far more damage to the environment and to the health of other people around you than you would if you just drove a Hummer H1 that actually ran properly and cleanly...

    2/3rds of a quart of oil per tank is way over the 1 qt per 1,000 miles that's considered acceptable by most standards; I'd be surprised if your car was even passing emissions standards, if it's been doing that for a while. (And the emissions standards in most places in the U.S. are so lax as to basically be a joke anyway -- you car has to be grossly polluting to fail, generally.)

    There are lots of tricks you could probably do with an engine to boost its efficiency and power at the expense of cleanliness, if that was desired; however, there are good reasons why that tradeoff isn't often made, or allowed. And, it's older cars that are the most polluting; practically any new car, regardless of its gas milege, would probably be more environmentally friendly than one that's 20 years old, even when you factor in the 'pollution overhead' incurred by its manufacture.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    1. Re:Burning oil. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      True, but all the money I save by not buying a new car means I have more money to spend on herbicides to spray on my land to kill the weeds.

      Also, I'm saving up so I can afford to get the transmission fixed on the old 1970 Chevy C-10 pickup truck. Now THERE is a machine that makes that fricking Hummer look clean. Plus I can haul a LOT of herbicide in the long bed of the thing.

      (not that we have that much land, just a lot of weeds to spray at the moment)

  73. I was all for it till... by Traiklin · · Score: 1
    I was all for it till this line
    Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop type lithium-ion batteries.
    anyone remember the exploding batteries stories a couple days back? the ones where they would just blow up in flight? or while in use?

    Imagine driving down the road when all of a sudden your whole back end suddenly blows up for no reason.
  74. Who Killed the Electric Car? by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

    I just watched this movie yesterday: http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectricca r/

    I thought the movie was quite biased and didn't show enough of the other side, but I still found the the movie somewhat interesting and informative.

    Just interesting that this article came out just when the movie is in theaters.

    1. Re:Who Killed the Electric Car? by A*OnYourA** · · Score: 1

      I saw it yesterday too. Thought it was great. The movie needed to focus more on COST. The lease of the GM EV1 was for a car around $30,000. Did it really cost $30,000?

      The movie hinted that the car's parts were off the shelf and they were producing 5 a day in a factory (according to the GM insider). Maybe they couldn't talk about manufacturing costs for fear of being sued for 'trade secrets.'

      Tesla Motors needs to learn from this movie. Everyone knows the oil companies make at least $1 billion in profits every week. How much do you think they are spending this week to stop electric cars from being on the road? Maybe $5 million this week? Whatever they are doing, oil companies are influencing someone, and 'Who Killed the Electric Car' is the first movie to confront that truth.

      I'd actually be surprised if the National Transportation Safety Board didn't block Tesla's car from being 'unsafe for highway.' The current politicians are owned. Any electric car company needs to understand that reality before they can be successful.

  75. Big Three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It is odd that the big car companies aren't more on this track!"

    Not really odd if you consider that MOST OF US CAN'T AFFORD AN $80,000 CAR!!!!!!

  76. the demographics... by liuyunn · · Score: 1

    Since driving a hybrid is more of a personal statement for suburbanites to proclaim how environmentally sound they are...I guess a 80K price tag would be going after...rich, mid-life crisis suburban men who need to drive to walmart once in while? Unless they're able to charge the car at work, I doubt it can even reliably used to commute any substantial distance. I am fully supportive of doing something about the fuel and energy issues, but these kind of cars don't seem to be cost-effective yet for the masses

  77. Two comments by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    Driving 250 miles in a really zippy car followed by waiting 3 hours to recharge isn't most people's idea of a good strategy for long distance driving. (This is one place where hydrogen fuel cells have a big advantage over batteries: you can refill a hydrogen tank quickly. I'll not go into the disadvantages of hydrogen here.)

    On the positive side: if you have a large installed base of batteries plugged into the power grid (recharging electric cars) then you have the possibility to use them to even out power fluctuations from wind/wave generation. On windy days, power is cheap an everyone tops up their batteries. On windless days, power prices rise, and many people sell back some of that power for a profit.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  78. Flywheel Energy Storage by alohatiger · · Score: 1

    Whatever happened to the idea of using flywheels (built from exotic materials and spinning at crazy speeds) to store energy. There was a Discover Magazine cover story about it a few years ago--the flywheels floated on magnetic bearings in a vacuum.

    Killed by big oil?

    --
    Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
    1. Re:Flywheel Energy Storage by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      I worked on that project in the 1970s. Garrett Airesearch on Los Angeles built a flywheel-electric hybrid. A fiberglass wound flywheel spun at high rpm in a high vacuum on magnetic bearings and energy was coupled magnetically in and out, so no moving parts breached casing. In an accident, the vacuum would be lost and the entire stored energy would be harmlessly expended when the flywheel tore itself into dust. Imagine the force needed to rip fiberglass cord to particles. The car used regenerative braking too. However, the cost of manufacturing was high and the Big Three automakers had absolutely no interest in unconventional technology. Plus, a rotating flywheel exerts a lot of gyroscopic force, making turns handling weird sometimes.

    2. Re:Flywheel Energy Storage by spindizzy · · Score: 1

      Why not use 2 counter-rotating flywheels then? That would seem like an obvious solution to gyroscopic issues.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
    3. Re:Flywheel Energy Storage by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      By having a rigidly mounted flywheel, you might place too much stress on the magnetic bearing and it could make contact with the bearing surface (and thus destroy itself).

      I saw one solution was a flwexible battery compartment where the batteries could pivot from an overhead hanger.

    4. Re:Flywheel Energy Storage by alohatiger · · Score: 1

      Could they use this for stationary power systems, like home solar/wind power?

      --
      Bigtime Consulting - "We're the best because we cost the most"
    5. Re:Flywheel Energy Storage by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      Yes, flywheel energy storage has been proposed for home use but is not very practical. Too expensive and limited in how much energy it can store. (kw/hrs) A fiberglass flywheel is not practical for home-scale energy storage, you need a big big mass. Manufacturing a precisely-balanced large rotating mass is not that easy and cheap to do. Metal is too expensive, and a big steel-reinforced concrete wheel is a bitch to balance and can't be spun all that fast anyway. Energy proportional to square of velocity. Best you could do is store enough to keep lights on in the evening. Not enough to run appliances except perhaps a microwave, which uses very little total since it is not on all that long usually.

  79. You got it wrong, dude by melted · · Score: 1

    That's not how corporate America works. You should have said:

    The owner of the company that employes whoever comes up with a significant advance in battery technology will die a very rich person. Heck, at the best inventor will get his name on a patent and $500 cash.

    1. Re:You got it wrong, dude by loose+electron · · Score: 1

      you need to go work for yourself. Anyone can start their own company.

      --
      www.effectiveelectrons.com "chips that work" Analog, RF, Mixed Signal
  80. Re:Nice but do not throw out the internal combusti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Morale?" I do not think it means what you think it means.

  81. Attractive by omeomi · · Score: 1

    Wow, finally an electric car that isn't ridiculously ugly!

  82. MS English *Vista* by Onuma · · Score: 1

    You can take the word out officially, but people will take years upon years to actually realize that it is no longer a valid word, or doesn't mean what it once meant. The same goes for adding new words. "Y'all" is not a damned English word, but every American south of the mason-dixon line seems to use it in singular and plural terms. I'm just as guilty, being from NJ. I occasionally take the common word "You" and pluralize it with an 's'. "What the fuck do yous thing you're doing?!"

    Then there are the differences and commonalities between American English, and the rest of the English-speaking world. I've tried to talk to a couple of Brits and Australians, but sometimes I just don't under-fucking-stand a word they are speaking!

    --
    What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
  83. Sure looks like it was based on a Lotus Elise by ScooterBill · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the Elise(I have one) is pretty much a bare minimum track car. There are no frills, sound insulation or comfy electric seats. In fact, it's pretty darn uncomfortable for the long haul. While it may compete with the high end exotics on the track, it gives up a lot of comfort to do this. One the other hand, I would love to drive an "electric" Elise. Bring able to plug it in at night is so cool. The Elise barely gets 250 miles on a tank anyway. $80k is a lot but 0 to 60 in 3 seconds? Holy cow batman!

  84. Tesla VS porsche video by genevaroth · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Tesla VS porsche video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's an Ariel Atom in that video, which is an ultra light, petrol engined sports car. It's not the tesla.

    2. Re:Tesla VS porsche video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correction: that's an electric ariel atom. See wrightspeed.

  85. Premium? by epp_b · · Score: 1

    So would a Dell laptop battery be the electric equivalent to premium gasoline?

  86. Range by rs79 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The 250 mile range is almost a non-starter though. It'll get relegated to "commuter car" or "city car". I have to drive 300 miles one way next week. I'm supposed to stop in the middle for 4 hours while this thing charges at a non-existant 220V 70A charger?

    How bout a little (bio)diesel generator so you could have the option of charging while you drive. I doubt one small enough not to be stupid would not make electricity as fast as it's used but it should extend the range enough to be useful.

    I also worry, frankly, about the lack of noise. How many times, as a kid, did you hear a car coming and get out of the way? Sure you can see it too, but anything else that helps you aviod a human-vehicular collision is a good thing. And this is a car that can get to 60 in 3 seconds? I have a bad feeling this fuckker is gonna kill people with its silence.

    Damn cool car though. Me want.

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
    1. Re:Range by AGMW · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I also worry, frankly, about the lack of noise.

      That's gotta be the simplest thing to resolve. Bung a subwoofer in the vehicle somewhere and a bunch of little speakers and before you set off decide what you want your car to sound like. I think I'll drive a Cobra today. Lovely.

      Even more fun than downloading ringtones to your 'phone, downloading car sounds. It could be made to sound like anything!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    2. Re:Range by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Already covered at the end of the article. "Eberhard suggests it would be easy enough to pump MP3s of prerecorded engine roar into the car's Blaupunkt stereo. And for those with even older tastes, the sound of horse hooves could be substituted. But damn if that horse isn't going to sound strange at 13,500 rpm."

    3. Re:Range by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      I know what I want mine to sound like- George Jetson's car (^^)

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    4. Re:Range by AGMW · · Score: 1
      I know what I want mine to sound like- George Jetson's car (^^)

      How about the car(s) out of The Flintstones, with the sound of bare feet slapping the floor, and the screech when you hit the brakes! You wouldn't be able to see where you were going from laughing too much.

      There was a company in the UK that offered a system similar to this, in concept, about 5 or 10 years ago, but it obviously only provided the sound to the occupants - I googled for it but couldn't find any references! Definately not rocket science to have speakers on the outside and some feeds from the "engine" to drive the acceleration/overrun/etc sounds, which could also be used as part of an alarm system (Step away from the car! You have three seconds to comply. [sound of large gun being cocked] You have two seconds to comply).

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    5. Re:Range by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just like the little clicks and whatnot a digital camera maks.

      --
      It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
    6. Re:Range by paanta · · Score: 1
      With modern cars driving around city streets, I think a good bit of the noise is coming from the tires and wind. Engine noise seems to be something you really only hear from inside the passenger compartment or BEHIND the car. With some big, sticky tires on this thing, it's going to be plenty loud.

      I got a chance to drive a hydrogen fuel cell powered focus a few weeks ago. While it was really quiet inside the car, there was still plenty of road noise outside the car even with the low rolling resistance tires and fancy carbon fiber bits to make it more aerodynamic. It was a nice car, but that part about having to gown up in an anti-static uniform and safety glasses just to refuel? That kinda sucks.

    7. Re:Range by schon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Man, just like a techie to overengineer something. That seems like a real lot of work.

      My solution?

      Baseball cards in the spokes. :)

    8. Re:Range by hugzz · · Score: 1

      Kids/people are careless because they expect to be able to hear cars. Once cars start becoming silent people wont expect to hear them anymore so they wont be so careless

      I know when i'm wearing headphones I cant hear cars so i'm always sure to look both ways before coming near to a road

    9. Re:Range by SoCalChris · · Score: 1
      I also worry, frankly, about the lack of noise. How many times, as a kid, did you hear a car coming and get out of the way?
      I think at lower speeds (Like you would see on a residential street with kids playing), most of the sound from approaching cars comes from the tires on the road.

      On a side note, what happens when it's cold out in the morning? Most batteries lose most of their power when it gets close to freezing.
    10. Re:Range by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      From the Tesla website:

      Will the Tesla Roadster work on a cold day?
      Yes, the Energy Storage System (ESS) has a heater that will keep the batteries warm in a cold climate.



      Also, I'm listening to Tesla (older band that is still around) as I post...

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    11. Re:Range by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I also worry, frankly, about the lack of noise. How many times, as a kid, did you hear a car coming and get out of the way?

      Good point, but don't forget about the noise tires make, which at highway speeds can easily top engine noise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roadway_noise

  87. Blue Rhino.. by aero2600-5 · · Score: 1

    Anyone ever heard of Blue Rhino? I know I have.

    It's a simple concept really. You take your empty propane tank to the corner store, you give them you're empty old one, and they give you a full one. Very simple.

    Now, I realize you can't exactly throw 6,831 Li-Ion batteries over your shoulder and walk into the store, but it really wouldn't be that difficult to have an attendant with a tool do it. What's an attendant? Stop by new Jersey sometime, as all fuel stations there are still full service only, or were until recently.

    With a standardized method of mounting and unmounting a battery, even a robot could do the replacement for all vehicles in 5 minutes or less. Imagine this simple process:

    1. Drive into a typical garage with an in and out like a car wash.
    2. Robot removes battery using standardized mount.
    3. Robot verifies the battery is in good working condition. (Other options would be available if the battery failed testing, such as additional fees for repair..)
    4. Robot inserts the new battery and tests to make sure installation was successful.
    5. Drive away, fully charged in less than 5 minutes.

    Now, I realize that I left out a step (Profit??), but it wouldn't be that difficult to make money on this without raising the cost of a recharge too much. I'm sure most of you have seen those car washes, self done or drive through, that have no attendants and are open 24-hours. This could easily operate exactly the same way.

    This is not that complicated and can be easily done. This is a solution to the long charge time. We're already doing it with propane tanks just for the sake of convenience.

    Aero

    --
    Please stop hurting America -- Jon Stewart
  88. Re:but are coal plants worse than millions of cars by rainman_bc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    (not to mention it's a lot more efficient, as technology progresses, to upgrade emissions controls on a few power plants, than every car on the road)

    Have you a clue how many power plants will have to be built in order to satisfy demand for electricity needed if the entire US converted to electric cars? I don't, but I've heard it's lots.

    Ever driven from Salt Lake City to Reno? There's an entire valley with a permanent cloud over it in the desert. Absolutely disgusting. Consider the environmental damage that one plant is causing.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  89. Nice idea, but... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    ... after about a year you'll be unable to find replacement batteries for the ones that fail and you'll have to drive the car while it's plugged into a wall outlet limiting your range to whatever length of extension cord you can get at your local hardware store; typically 100'. Of course, enterprising hackers will increase the range by building their own extension cords but this won't be a popular solution and the cars will be pulled from the market once the general public finds that electrical outlets aren't plentiful along expressways and few drivers can afford an new $80,000 car every year or so.

    Keep tryin', though, guys. I expect to be in the market for a new vehicle in about 4-5 years.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  90. Cars can handle corrosive ethanol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    rubycodez wrote:
    ethanol corrodes pipes, can't pipe it around like gasoline. Using cellulose to make sugars and then butanol would let us use an entire plant rather than just the sugary fruit, and would require no modifications to gasoline engines to use.


    There's an interesting site written by the late Robert Warren which addresses this concern, at http://runningonalcohol.tripod.com/id1.html:

    6. Isn't ethanol bad for certain fuel system components in fuel pumps and carbuerators?

      No. Todays cars are built to be compatible with ethanol-blended fuels. When ethanol was first introduced in the 1980s, some cars experienced deterioration of some elastomers (rubber-like parts) and metal fuel system components. Very quickly, manufacturers upgraded their fuel systems so that today, they are now all compatible with ethanol fuels.


    The site also has blueprints for building an ethanol distiller, but you have to pay $30 for it. Maybe somebody could point to free plans?
    1. Re:Cars can handle corrosive ethanol by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      car systems and engines aren't the concern (they do eventually would corroded by ethanol but the useful lifetime of a U.S. vehicle is short thanks to planned obsolescence and rabid consumerism), but the thousands of miles of pipeline and expensive pumping systems used to move gasoline are the issue. Good for truckers and railroads though.

  91. Quote from Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Warning

    Lithium-ion batteries can easily rupture, ignite, or explode when exposed to high temperatures or direct sunlight. Never store them inside of a car during hot weather. Short-circuiting a Li-ion battery can also cause it to ignite or explode. Never open a Li-ion battery's casing. Li-ion batteries contain safety devices that, if damaged, can cause the battery to ignite or explode. See example: Dell laptop explodes at Japanese conference"

    Like 6,000 dell laptops traveling at 60mph

  92. Li-ion for cars, fuel for notebooks by nightsnack · · Score: 1

    So that's why they are trying to get mobile phones and laptops to use fuel cells, Tesla bought all them Li-Ion batteries

  93. 6,831? I don't think so... by SinGunner · · Score: 1

    Am I the only one who read this and said "bullshit"? The article says there are 11 sectors possessing of 621 batteries. The first word of the next sentence is "Each". That gives you your 6831, but only if you really think this car weighs 3 tons but manages to hit 60 in 4 seconds. gg editors.

  94. Re:Exploding Batteries? (sorry had to) by Criliric · · Score: 1

    Flammable means inflammable? What a country!

  95. Incredibly dangerous. by DrStrangeLug · · Score: 1

    What do we teach children in school about road safety? Stop, Look, Listen. Unfortunately with the Tesla Roadster listening wont get you anywhere.

    Other than the minor problems of charging and mass child slaughter it looks like a nice car. Maybe they can use a clothes peg to stick a playing card in the wheels or something.

    1. Re:Incredibly dangerous. by Alioth · · Score: 1

      There will still be plenty of tire roar, it'll hardly be silent.

    2. Re:Incredibly dangerous. by nasch · · Score: 1

      You think the only reason kids don't get killed by cars in mass numbers is because they're listening for them? Actually there's this thing inside the car that can help prevent that from happening. It's called the DRIVER. I regularly have the opportunity to mow down many children in my neighborhood, and believe me the reason I fail to is not because they're so quick to get out my way.

  96. Re:Nice but do not throw out the internal combusti by spindizzy · · Score: 1

    True. But with Lotus doing the handling this car would probably be better point to point than the Z06. Reading the Euro car magazines take on the Corvette it really doesn't handle well when pushing on, especially on roads that are anything other than smooth. The opposite can be said of Lotus' efforts, the harder you go the better they get.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur
  97. Re:The batteries have to be in series/parallel ban by Shanep · · Score: 1

    You could have 99 banks of 69 batteries in series, presumably giving you something like 345 volts. That sounds about right for a DC motor.

    It's an AC motor.

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  98. Wrong Name for Car by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:Wrong Name for Car by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      If it were, it would have no batteries at all.
      It also wouldn't work, and it would die flat broke and bitter.
      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Wrong Name for Car by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, it it were'nt for Thomas Edison and Marconi we'd all be driving microwave powered flying cars by now.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    3. Re:Wrong Name for Car by starrcake · · Score: 1

      You may want to read a little history about all of Tesla's inventions, and what was stolen from him. Not to mention outright sabotage. We use Tesla inventions every day.

    4. Re:Wrong Name for Car by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      Nor would run on DC.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    5. Re:Wrong Name for Car by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Why would a man that patented 1200 things, not patent the alledged device used to power a car?

      But man, if I could get my hands on plans that did it, I'd be rich, RICH!

      1) build time machine
      2) get plans
      3) Profit!
      4) Kill future self who comes back to stop me.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:Wrong Name for Car by Dr.+Cody · · Score: 1

      Just like how you reap karma from thin air with a Wikipedia link.

    7. Re:Wrong Name for Car by mwilliamson · · Score: 1

      ...and the world's power distribution grids use Edison's DC.

    8. Re:Wrong Name for Car by cr0sh · · Score: 1

      Actually, if you knew anything of Tesla or his patents, you would know that he did patent it - only it wasn't a specialized patent for powering cars only. Tesla envisioned a world in which power generation and use was "free", only when Westinghouse, his financial backer, learned of his plans, he pulled the funding. Tesla envisioned that electricity would be generated to run what were essentially overgrown "Tesla Coils", which would be tuned to the earth's resonant frequency (there was also something about the ionosphere and such in this "trick"), to "pump" the earth with potential energy. People would then be able to use similar, though smaller, Tesla coil-like devices in their cars, homes, etc - to extract this potential energy to power whatever devices they wished to. Wardenclyff was meant to be the first testing tower (Tesla did quite a few experiments in Colorado which proved the viability of the idea). In addition to power, Tesla also envisioned sending information as well. Note that a radio (also invented by Tesla) is essentially a very miniaturized version of all of this. Particularly a crystal-radio (which has no power source other than the electromagnetic radio waves which power it). In theory, you could take a metric-ton of crystal "radios" (believe me, it would take a lot of them) and have the resulting rectified power run a small motor or light an LED (might make an interesting science fair project)...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  99. People are thinking?? by TroopaCabra · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see something more than a xebra car as a solution as most of us need a car that goes over 40mph. Besides the price tag of the Tesla being out of range to %90+ of the population, the technology is there- or at least close enough to pay attention to. We as a nation tend to not push towards what we know is right in a lot of cases....or maybe it's just too difficult of a process. I don't know- I'm not a scientist...but you know the whole man on the moon and living in space project involved brains- right? Do we need to get Silicon Valley to lead us into the next generation of transportion?? Again- I don't know...but it's great someone is thinking as I'm sure most of us agree. Options to explore?.... I'm not an expert, but I know that $$ can hush brilliance, and as you know- it's all about $$...yes? If I can suggest, let's discuss what we know and don't know about alternative fuels and possible viable solutions already in progress.... Biodiesel 101- Anybody can make biodiesel. It's easy, you can make it in your kitchen -- and it's BETTER than the petro-diesel fuel the big oil companies sell you. Your diesel motor will run better and last longer on your home-made fuel, and it's much cleaner -- better for the environment and better for health. If you make it from used cooking oil it's not only cheap but you'll be recycling a troublesome waste product. Best of all is the GREAT feeling of freedom, independence and empowerment it will give you. Here's how to do it --[http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html ] ....It's being done. People have converted cars to run on refined grease that you would get from a such a fine american corporation as McDonalds. Wouldn't it be nice to get a re-fuel with your McApple pie? Now that is patriotism! Less arguements would arise regarding occupation of territories that contain oil. We might even synergistically blend our love of the fast food lifestyle with a more "green" and localized method of fuel production. ....now there's a thought! ***not to mention that McD's is in pretty much every country, so it could be a international solution even. (If someone gets rich off of the process- otherwise, forget it. Oil companies have power and influence here, so we'd have to pay them off for awhile.) Another biofuel possibility: HEMP "Hemp car was an alternative-fuel project car that utilized hemp biodiesel for fuel. Industrial hemp would be an economical fuel if hemp were legal to cultivate in the United States." "The car toured America, with stops in Canada, frequenting alternative-energy, environmental, and hemp-legalization events. The car departed from Washington D.C. on July 4, 2001 and returned home on October 2, 2001. We provided the public with information about biofuels, hemp, their uses, and current American laws. We established a world distance record for a vehicle utilizing hemp for fuel: 10,000 miles." [http://www.hempcar.org/] Hmmmm 10,000 miles....I guess that's pretty good, but what other factors are involved in acheiving that feat? We of course have biodiesel blends currently in use that we have yet to perfect as an alternative fuel also. ELECTRIC CARS: Still some kinks for the average US consumer. Most electric cars don't have what the average US resident needs in the area of speed and mileage per re-charge. Since past and present trends continue to show a love for the SUV- it's likely that the smaller electric powered vehicle options we have now will not suffice for the average US consumer. The good news is obvious as the article points out. Technological solutions might be advancing into markets that you don't expect, and we have some intelligent folks (with backing) trying to perfect a worthy technological advancement IMO. The above is just a tip of the iceberg. If we can adapt and create solutions to live in outer space, it just seems plausible that we can figure this issue out rather quickly. Alternative fuel and power supply research is nothing new....as is the struggle for those that have broken even smaller barriers and have not been heard or recognized. Am I way off base? I don't know. Maybe it's best we return to our tv's. American Gladiator is on. 150 Channels of...

  100. Unfortunately by Flying+pig · · Score: 1

    It isn't, because you have to take into account the losses in generating the charging power, getting it to the car, and then the charging losses themselves (run 10-20% on most battery technologies.) Generating plant is only around 40% efficient, add in 30% transmission loss,15% charging loss and 20% motor loss and that is under 20%. Factoring in transport costs for fuel, transmission losses etc., a decent modern Diesel car can manage around 25-30%, the same as hybrids achieve in practice. The Diesel has the lowest manufacturing energy cost, followed by the hybrid, followed a long way off by the electric car (huge energy input just to make the batteries.)

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Unfortunately by Anomylous+Howard · · Score: 1

      According to the Tesla Mortors "white paper" (grain of salt required) the "well-to-wheel" kilometers per mega-joule of various kinds of fuel breaks down thusly:

      Natural gas: 0.32 km/MJ
      Hydrogen Fuel cell: 0.35 km/MJ
      Diesel Engine: 0.48 km/MJ
      Gasoline Engine: 0.51 km/MJ
      Hybrid (gas/electric): 0.64 km/MJ
      Electric: 1.14 km/MJ

      Here's the PDF URL: http://www.teslamotors.com/media/white_papers/Tesl a%20White%20Paper_2006_07_19.pdf
      (Yes, I purposly make all my Slashdot links unclickable)

  101. People are thinking?? by TroopaCabra · · Score: 1

    It's nice to see something more than a xebra car as a solution as most of us need a car that goes over 40mph. Besides the price tag of the Tesla being out of range to %90+ of the population, the technology is there- or at least close enough to pay attention to. We as a nation tend to not push towards what we know is right in a lot of cases....or maybe it's just too difficult of a process. I don't know- I'm not a scientist...but you know the whole man on the moon and living in space project involved brains- right? Do we need to get Silicon Valley to lead us into the next generation of transportion?? Again- I don't know...but it's great someone is thinking as I'm sure most of us agree.

    Options to explore?.... I'm not an expert, but I know that $$ can hush brilliance, and as you know- it's all about $$...yes? If I can suggest, let's discuss what we know and don't know about alternative fuels and possible viable solutions already in progress....
    Biodiesel 101-

    Anybody can make biodiesel. It's easy, you can make it in your kitchen -- and it's BETTER than the petro-diesel fuel the big oil companies sell you. Your diesel motor will run better and last longer on your home-made fuel, and it's much cleaner -- better for the environment and better for health. If you make it from used cooking oil it's not only cheap but you'll be recycling a troublesome waste product. Best of all is the GREAT feeling of freedom, independence and empowerment it will give you. Here's how to do it --[http://journeytoforever.org/biodiesel_make.html ] ....It's being done. People have converted cars to run on refined grease that you would get from a such a fine american corporation as McDonalds. Wouldn't it be nice to get a re-fuel with your McApple pie? Now that is patriotism! Less arguements would arise regarding occupation of territories that contain oil. We might even synergistically blend our love of the fast food lifestyle with a more "green" and localized method of fuel production. ....now there's a thought! ***not to mention that McD's is in pretty much every country, so it could be a international solution even. (If someone gets rich off of the process- otherwise, forget it. Oil companies have power and influence here, so we'd have to pay them off for awhile.)

    Another biofuel possibility: HEMP
    "Hemp car was an alternative-fuel project car that utilized hemp biodiesel for fuel. Industrial hemp would be an economical fuel if hemp were legal to cultivate in the United States."
    "The car toured America, with stops in Canada, frequenting alternative-energy, environmental, and hemp-legalization events. The car departed from Washington D.C. on July 4, 2001 and returned home on October 2, 2001. We provided the public with information about biofuels, hemp, their uses, and current American laws. We established a world distance record for a vehicle utilizing hemp for fuel: 10,000 miles." [http://www.hempcar.org/] Hmmmm 10,000 miles....I guess that's pretty good, but what other factors are involved in acheiving that feat?

    We of course have biodiesel blends currently in use that we have yet to perfect as an alternative fuel also.

    ELECTRIC CARS: Still some kinks for the average US consumer. Most electric cars don't have what the average US resident needs in the area of speed and mileage per re-charge. Since past and present trends continue to show a love for the SUV- it's likely that the smaller electric powered vehicle options we have now will not suffice for the average US consumer. The good news is obvious as the article points out. Technological solutions might be advancing into markets that you don't expect, and we have some intelligent folks (with backing) trying to perfect a worthy technological advancement IMO.

    The above is just a tip of the iceberg. If we can adapt and create solutions to live in outer space, it just seems plausible that we can figure this issue out rather quickly. Alternative fuel and power supply research is nothing new....as is the struggle for those that have broken even smaller barriers and have not been heard or recognized.
    Am I way off base? I don't know. Maybe it's best we return to our tv's. American Gladiator is on. 150 Channels of...

  102. This is so sad! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [..It is nice to see more companies serious about helping to getting rid of our oil dependency..]

    Where do you think comes the elctricity from?!? And how much chemicals and energy do you need to first produce 6000 laptop batteries?

    think first!

  103. Politicians are taking advantage of ignorance. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Politicians are taking advantage of the ignorance of the average person. "Alternative energy" such as wind and geothermal plants and rivers that have not already been obstructed with dams can provide only a very small percentage of that required.

    1. Re:Politicians are taking advantage of ignorance. by killjoe · · Score: 1

      Again you are talking about the US. In other parts of the world "alternatives" provide a much greater percentage then the US. The US has cheap and plentiful coal so that's what we use. We just don't care about global warming and the future generations all that much.

      --
      evil is as evil does
  104. Re:Exploding Batteries? (sorry had to) by AGMW · · Score: 1
    Flammable means inflammable? What a country!

    Does that mean it won't catch fire? That's unflammable!

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  105. Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    Facts are facts, mister. If it can't yet be done, you're out of luck - screaming and bouncing like an angry chimp won't change that. The point at which you can change the world, practically, is "today". To do that, you have to show a present-day solution. Not try and arm-twist the world into throwing away what actually works for alternatives that are fictional, theoretical or inadequate.

    "Seeing past today" is like seeing through walls. You'd run into what you couldn't see, and smash your nose flat.

    1. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by AGMW · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Facts are facts, mister. If it can't yet be done, you're out of luck

      I'm not sure that's right. Let's look at the Wright Brothers first flight shall we. Well, that's obviously such a useless machine. Range measured in hundreds of yards? Only carry one person. Likely to die.

      The 250 mile range is perhaps too short for many people, but I bet the majority of car journeys are well within this range. If people started purchasing such vehicles as second/third cars then the technology would improve. As the number of units sold increased, the unit price would come down. Competition would be encouraged, inovation would be rewarded and some of the bigger players would start looking into it. It's already happening because Toyota/Honda have decided it will happen and want to be first with the hybrids. They are expensive, but some people are buying them. It happens in all new technology. Mobile phones, digital cameras, everything new - they start off really pricey and the early adopters buy 'em. Soon though, economies of scale bring the prices down, and the technology improves as the market expands.

      I don't think anyone expects everyone to immediatly chop in their beloved gas-guzzlers for some electric golf cart and start hugging trees, but this vehicle probably does have a market. If the Gov could give tax breaks - such as allowing tax free re-charging whilst at work, it could further encourage the take-up of the technology by reducing the cost of ownership.

      ... and finally, in TFA itself, they talk about a "sedan" in a few years, and they are saying they reckon that battery tech will have progressed sufficently by then to make it feasible. They realise the batteries are the (only!) weak link, and that's why they are riding the wave of laptop battery style technology because there's already a lot of people with a vested interest in making them smaller, lighter, quicker to charge, and able to hold a bigger charge for longer.

      This might even mean that in a few years when you have to get new batteries for your Tesla, the new ones will be cheaper, lighter, and provide a greater range because the tech has moved on.

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    2. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by WinDoze · · Score: 1

      This might even mean that in a few years when you have to get new batteries for your Tesla, the new ones will be cheaper, lighter, and provide a greater range because the tech has moved on.

      This is an excellent point. I don't recall ever taking my car into the dealer for service and being able to drive it twice as far on a single tank of gas afterwards. That would be nifty!

    3. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by inKubus · · Score: 1

      Plus you're going to do a rest stop/lunch break every 4 hours anyway (250mi/70mph=3.5 hours). Why not stick the thing on a charger while you eat? 15 minutes is no big deal if you're inside.

      Does anyone have the numbers on trucking in America? How many gallons do they use vs. passenger cars?

      --
      Cool! Amazing Toys.
    4. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by iamlucky13 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      When connected to a special 220-volt, 70-amp outlet, recharging takes about three and a half hours.

      15 minutes on the charger might get you another 15-20 miles. And 220 volts at 70 amps is a pretty hefty 15 kilowatts, so to have a dozen cars sitting at the local McDonalds charging is going to be draining about 180 kW from their coinpurse. That is a serious amount of juice. Also, I'm skeptical that you'll be getting 250 miles at 70 mph. If I remember right, electric motor efficiency and power typically increase with load, but fall off with speed, which makes them awesome for say, a 0-60 run in 3 seconds, but marginal at best for high speed cruising. That 250 mile range estimate is probably at significantly lower speeds.

      Big rigs generally run around 5 mpg, but it varies quite a bit around that number depending on the truck, the load, and the speed. Few truckers drive at the most efficient speed because it increases the labor costs significantly.

      If you're suggesting running commercial trucks on electricity, forget it for the foreseeable future. It's definitely been considered. Not only is there the conflicting speed issues I mentioned above, but you run up against the energy density limitations of batteries fast. Assuming the numbers from the article are correct (I doubt it...something isn't quite adding up according to my gut) and unrealistically taking the charge/discharge at 100% efficiency, it's storing up 194 MJ. Gasoline holds about 120 MJ/gallon, so the 1000 pounds of batteries (according to the Tesla website) are equivalent to about 1.5 gallons of gas (6.3 pounds/gal). Divide that by an efficiency of around 30% and you've got a 32:1 energy density ratio in favor of gasoline. For a truck to haul the equivalent of 150 gallons of fuel (actually diesel, not gas, but close enough), it would need about 30,000 pounds of batteries. But then you have to go farther and take into account that 2/3's of its cargo capacity has been replaced by fuel, so you need to make 3 times the number of trips. And you've got a lot of trucks either sitting idle recharging or having their 30,000 pounds of batteries swapped out every few hundred miles.

      Obviously these are really rough numbers, but other engineers have already looked at the idea in more detail and rejected it.

      I'm not trash-talking the Tesla. It looks like a lot of fun, but like all sports cars, it's a toy and not a good comparison for commercial trucking. Most of a car's weight is itself, be it gas or electric. Most of a truck's weight is it's cargo.

      For the record, I think electric can work extremely well for short range commuting (5-10 miles on city streets), but if you travel far, you'll realistically be looking at gas.

    5. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is an excellent point. I don't recall ever taking my car into the dealer for service and being able to drive it twice as far on a single tank of gas afterwards. That would be nifty!"

      That's because it's impossible, or at least very impractical, to change the fuel tank for a bigger one. How about an oil change?

      I'd be concerned about the battery life though. If they're using laptop batteries, shouldn't the battery life degrade drastically during few years?

    6. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      snip
      I'm not trash-talking the Tesla. It looks like a lot of fun, but like all sports cars, it's a toy and not a good comparison for commercial trucking. Most of a car's weight is itself, be it gas or electric. Most of a truck's weight is it's cargo.

      /snip

      The soloution, then, is to rework the transport infrastructure so you are railing cargo in containers for any distance greater than @100+ miles. Then you can power the *trains* with electricity. That is OldTech. The main reason the electrification was pulled out on the railroad from Chicago to Seattle, USA was that the company that owned the line was doing poorly in the 1970s recession. Accounting decided that they could make more money from selling the copper than the fuel cost difference.

      Electric long distance rail is efficient. We simply are too lazy to do what needs to be done.

      Transport should be done using more efficient rail, period.

    7. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

      My point being, when people talk about "seeing past today", they don't generally mean "we'll design, detail, prototype, and COST a solution that actually will work and do the job better", nor do they mean "we'll proceed with promising but blue sky research". Both of those are "today", for all they're new. What they generally mean is "lets all adopt the impractical" - as if force of rhetoric could make it work. Or, indeed, as if they KNOW it will fail, and they don't care; they'd rather have everyone suffer and "do the right thing" before it's ready.

    8. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by geekoid · · Score: 1

      there is no garantee that any technology will improve.

      Mass production will lower costs, but it doesn't mean someone will discover a usable battery that will go 1000 miles and charge in under 10 minutes in a car that carries 4 people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by really? · · Score: 1

      I was just talking to a few of my friend - yes, I know it's a small sample - but EVERY single one I talked to said they would buy this car if it was priced the same as, or, perhaps, just slightly above a hybrid. I would too, and I bet a lot of people feel the same. (No, I would not give up my GD300, but I would need drive it way less.)

      --

      "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
    10. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by pcjunky · · Score: 1

      Remember that although gas may have 120MJ/gallon most of this energy is waisted as heat. Most gasoline engines produce so much excess heat they need hefty water cooling/radiator systems to get rid of it. The electric system is much more effcient. Regerative braking makes electric even more effcient in city driving.

    11. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was taken into account in my estimations (30% efficiency...that's ballpark, but not unrealistic). That's approximately made up for directly in the 60-70% reduction of load a semi would be able to haul. Like I said, it works out much better in cars than in semi's.

    12. Re:Today is where it's at, like it or lump it by Moth+Boy · · Score: 1

      "The soloution, then, is to rework the transport infrastructure so you are railing cargo in containers for any distance greater than @100+ miles. Then you can power the *trains* with electricity. That is OldTech. The main reason the electrification was pulled out on the railroad from Chicago to Seattle, USA was that the company that owned the line was doing poorly in the 1970s recession." Um, aren't most current trains already electric (using diesel generators)?!?!? http://travel.howstuffworks.com/diesel-locomotive. htm

  106. 20% of US oil imports from mideast by majid_aldo · · Score: 1

    The US has vast reserves of coal. We wouldn't have to rely on the Middle East.

    the US isn't 'relying' on the middle east for oil. us oil imports have never been more than 20%.
    however the US is interested in the mideast's CHEAP oil.
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html/

    --
    --- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme, ..etc.
    1. Re:20% of US oil imports from mideast by Alioth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since the US more or less uses 100% of the total oil it gets, if the Middle East oil went away, you'd immediately have a huge shortfall. This would make fuel prices in the US rocket - until the price causes a reduction in demand by 20%.

      I suspect that a loss of 20% of the oil and the consequent increase in fuel prices would cause a very severe economic impact - so yes, the US *is* reliant on that oil. Unless the US can do without 20% of its oil tomorrow with no consequences, then it's reliant on it.

    2. Re:20% of US oil imports from mideast by samkass · · Score: 1

      Traditionally the United States bought more oil from Venezuela than any middle eastern country. Of course, now that we are trying to undermine their (democratically elected) government, we've shifted some of that buying to our (authoritarian) middle eastern allies.

      --
      E pluribus unum
  107. Recharging is not neccesary by fedyaZero · · Score: 1
    I'm curious what sort of possibilities there are for rapid charging

    I think that eventually "gas" (or whatever they'd be called) stations will provide precharged batteries service: they will remove drained battery (or part of the battery, if it is not monolithic) from car and install a fresh, charged one. Probably, it won't take more time than refueling with gas, as soon as car makers will provide the easy/standard way to install/deinstall car batteries. Also these "gas" stations will be responsible for properly recycling the old ones.

    The car makers could develop a standard interface to batteries, and battery and car industries could be totally decoupled. It could be like low voltage devices and AA batteries we use today.

    Consumers still can use a long "wall outlet" recharging if they want to, for example, if "precharged batteries service" is not available in their area.

  108. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these... by ribuck · · Score: 1

    Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these all catching fire at the same time!

  109. toxic laptop type lithium-ion batteries by Kanasta · · Score: 1

    times 6,831
    @2-3yr lifespan

    hrm..........

  110. I call bullshit by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

    There's no way they can sell that thing for $80k, the batteries cost more than that even in bulk.

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  111. Short Term Solution by MrRee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I work at one of the "Big 3" automakers and I have to comment. The electric car is a short term solution. While it does reduce the consumers dependence on oil it does little to reduce polution. Why? Because most of the power produced in this country is done with coal or oil. So in essence you are merely displacing who is poluting. Additionally, the batteries themselves are hazardous waste and most be replaced and disposed of. For these reasons the electric car is a short term solution.

    I'm intrigued with the fuel cell ideas but am worried that they will be too complicated and expensive to maintain. Hydrogen looks good until you consider it takes more energy to produce hydrogen then what you get out of hydrogen. I believe steam is the proper way to go but haven't seen any development in this arena. Anyone who thinks a steam car is impracticle or unworkable should look up the Doble steam cars.

    1. Re:Short Term Solution by cr0sh · · Score: 1
      Kinda late post, but I had to. While what you say is true, that running cars off of electricity moves the pollution to the generating station, arguably it is more efficient and less polluting to do that. The reason is because by centralizing the pollution generation, you are able to centralize the pollution cleanup/reuse. The scrubbers for the pollution are much more efficient than the catalytic converters on individual cars, plus you can potentially do interesting things with the various exhaust gases that you can't do as easily, if at all, in individual vehicles - for example, with the CO and CO2 output, turning it into liquid/solid form for industrial/commercial uses. Of course, this requires that there be laws, regulations, and inspections of powerplants to make sure said scrubbers are in place and are working, but it can (and has) been done. Also note that what you are saying can be turned on its head - if it is so much more efficient and environmentally friendly for us to have engines in each of our cars than electric motors being supplied by a centralized source, why don't each of us run our houses using individual generation systems?


      As far as hydrogen is concerned, unless we come up with a good, easy to fill, easy to use, nearly foolproof storage system (for production, transport, holding, and use), we won't be using it any time soon as an energy carrier (it isn't a fuel). Furthermore, we won't be using platinum-based catalytic fuel cells either, as there isn't enough platinum in the world to do so. Unless a breakthrough is made (by being able to use much less platinum as a catalyst, or a different catalyst is found), fuel-cell based vehicles are likely a dead end. That doesn't rule out the possibility of a hydrogen vehicle - I can easily imagine a hydrogen-based vehicle doing direct-burn - either in an ICE-type engine, or gas turbine (perhaps in hybrid mode on either)...

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
  112. mmm, electric Lotus Elise... by sl8anic · · Score: 1

    I didn't realize that Lotus was selling "OEM" versions ;)

  113. Laptop batteries need to be replaced too quickly by s_p_oneil · · Score: 1

    After a year, their capacity is usually half what it started as. And they're way too expensive given how short their useful life-span is. They also take too long to charge. One technological advance we need to make "battery-based" cars viable is the super-capacitor.

  114. It is just a modified Ariel Atom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is just an Ariel Atom with the motor removed and an electric and batteries put in.
    http://www.arielmotor.co.uk/04/frames.htm

    That being the case, I have seen this car put up against a sport bike on a closed course... and out did the bike in the TURNS. First turn the car went under the bike and never looked back.

  115. Can i get by dotdevin · · Score: 1

    Dell's Complete Care with that car?

  116. tesla coil nascar by mindserfer · · Score: 2, Funny

    I had this image of a giant Tesla coil tower in the middle of
    a fuel-less nascar race....

    little electric screammers....

  117. Re:Double Sigh by A*OnYourA** · · Score: 1

    Yep, the true greens still hate nuclear power. Why? Pragmatism... not idealism.

    Have you read any of the arguments presented by the NRDC, FOE (Friends of the Earth) or Greenpeace? Here's a couple (sorry for the pdfs):
    NRDC
    FOE

    Nuclear power is an unrealistic way to slow down global warming, poses more safety risks, is a national security threat and costs way more than switching to 100% renewable energy. Unfortunately, the US Government has a habit of illegally blocking renewable technologies such as wind power. Despite what the mainstream corporate media says we can meet the energy needs of the entire US with wind and solar power. Both the cost of wind and solar are rapidly dropping. Why should we punish taxpayers to support nuclear, when you can let clean renewable technology take over without doing anything?

    P.S.
    F--- the F---ing birds that are stupid enough to fly into wind turbines (or into the side of buildings for that matter). True environmentalists don't give a shit about birds when our oceans are turning to acid.

  118. Laws of physics prevent much of what people think. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "As I see it, this technology is coming."

    In general, the laws of physics prevent much of what people think can be done. Solar power for New Jersey, for example, would require covering a large part of New Jersey with solar cells, and even then it would not provide enough power for all the vehicles.

  119. Coal is NOT a centralized problem by Frankenbuffer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nat Geo magazine had a great feature article on this about a year ago.

    Go look at how coal is obtained some time. Coal formation are often like a thick blanket draped over large areas, covered with pesky overburden like hills, forests, towns, and rivers. To get to the coal, first you need to strip away the overburden.

    My understanding is that most coal formations in the U.S. require extensive removal over overburden to access. In the southeast, whole mountains have been leveled and valleys filled in with waste material in the quest to reveal coal. The moved material is often unstable and prone to slides, it changes natural watershed patterns, it releases silts and toxic minerals into the watershed (a common mining-related problem), and it just plain disrupts entire ecosystems.

    So I'd hardly call coal a centralized problem. We need to look at the whole picture, including the inconvient bits.

  120. Cool! Imagine this one with ... by q.kontinuum · · Score: 1
    the new alcohol powered electricity generator! You could actually use the car without being dependant on a power outlet! Instead you could start to use some liquid fuel, which is even easier to transpot. Just imagine! Or ... oh, wait a minute ... Oh, forget it.

    PS: I think the technik might become more interesting when electricity generation becomes cheaper and less harmfull for our environment one day. Nuclear fusion somewhere in the far future may be?

    --
    Trolling is a art!
  121. Re:Double Sigh by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    F--- the F---ing birds that are stupid enough to fly into wind turbines (or into the side of buildings for that matter). True environmentalists don't give a shit about birds when our oceans are turning to acid.

    Right! Except that many people that consider themselves "true environmentalists" don't think like that. They also include people like Ted Kennedy, who think that wind power's great, as long as a wind farm doesn't interfere with the view from his particular private compound in New England. I'll hazard a guess that the windfarm NIMBYs are worse than the nuke NIMBYs, if you take into account that you'd need to cover half the country with wind farms to even put a dent in the growth in power demands over the next 50 years.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  122. Laptop batteries? by gerald626 · · Score: 1

    I hope they're not the same ones that make the Dell and Apple laptops explode. Imagine driving at highway speeds when your car spontaneously combusts 8O

  123. Re:Laws of physics prevent much of what people thi by AGMW · · Score: 1
    In general, the laws of physics prevent much of what people think can be done. Solar power for New Jersey, for example, would require covering a large part of New Jersey with solar cells, and even then it would not provide enough power for all the vehicles.

    OK .. not wanting to nit-pick, but your example doesn't really indicate that the problem is due to breaking any of the laws of physics that I am aware of. I agree that much of the (so called) green solutions are impractical, and I think that is what your example is successfully indicating.

    What if the solar arrays were put somewhere more sensible like the middle of the USA where the population is lower and the climate perhaps more suitable. I'm not saying that solar is the answer, but it might be an answer, in some areas, for some people.

    What if every house had a small solar panel on the roof. Probably just collecting the sun to warm/heat water rather than actually generate electricity as it is (I think) far more efficient. Sure, this doesn't charge your batteries, but it does mean you're not drawing the current from the grid to heat your water. Cold/dull climates might opt for a small wind generator on each property, or maybe even a mixture of the two.

    Even then, I hear you say, that wouldn't be enough. True, it wouldn't, but it would take some of the pressure off the large generation stations which might be able to burn a lot less carbon based fuel to generate the rest of the power needed.

    New Jersey has some coastline (if only the Hudson) so maybe some tidal power generation too. It's all probably more expensive than just burning coal or oil of course, but if you think global warming is an issue at some point it should be worth spending a bit extra.

    I think the point is that once we have some viable electric vehicles we can expend more effort in cleaning up the power generation, and that might involve generating some using "alternative technologies" such as wind/sun/tidal/geothermal.

    Is this a viable electric vehicle?
    Not for everyone, but certainly for some. The more that buy it the better, and cheaper, the next generation will be.

    --
    Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
    handmadehands.co.uk
  124. carrying the generator/think of the children! by beaverfever · · Score: 1

    There are Dutch buses which utilise this idea (as featured on Slashdot some years ago). The buses also feature an original approach to motor/drivetrain efficiency.

    The diesel engine the bus carries drives a generator, which charges batteries which power the electric motors. This allows the diesel engine to run constantly at its optimal RPM, instead of revving and idling in stop-and-start conditions, increasing efficiency and reducing noise. Perhaps one day this can be adapted for smaller vehicles such as cars.

    As for your worrying about the lack of noise, I think that's a ridiculous issue to hold against electric vehicles. I can imagine how much nicer cities would be without the constant drone of gasoline-powered vehicles. Somebody think of the children!?! What about the children's future? Shall we attach noisemakers to the front of electric vehicles just to warn absent-minded kids to get off the damned road? Which noise will be most effective? Shall we fill the air with the constant drone of raspberries, or would a loud beeper be more efficient?

    1. Re:carrying the generator/think of the children! by ebh · · Score: 1

      Locomotives have been built this way for decades. The win there isn't the efficiency, it's that your driveline doesn't need a transmission or a clutch--electric motors don't stall and can generate pretty much full torque at zero RPM. IIRC, the diesel engines are V-16s that displace something like seven liters per cylinder and redline at eight hundred RPM.

    2. Re:carrying the generator/think of the children! by AGMW · · Score: 1
      the diesel engines are V-16s

      Some of them were deltic rather than "V" configuration. Fascinating engine configuration, and there's even a Deltic Preservation Society. A mate of mine actually owns a share of one of them - not sure if that's good or just sad!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  125. increases global warming by peter303 · · Score: 1

    About 55% of the US electricity grid comes from burning coal. Coal releases twice as much CO2 per unit of energy generated as octain burning. Nuclear, wind, and hydro are much clean, but aren't increasing their share of the US electric grid.

    1. Re:increases global warming by Teancum · · Score: 1

      And what is your point to this? That the USA is evil and all Americans should be killed in one mass genocidal orgy?

      The fact is that burning coal for useful energy is a very dirty process that makes sense only for very large scale energy production needs, such as for ships, locomotives, or electric power plants. Even ships and locomotives have stopped using coal simply because of the transportation logistics needed to deliver the energy, and coal is comparatively low in terms of energy density per pound (or kg).

      This means that in terms of energy/$$$ you are going to be doing pretty good going with coal.... if you have the logistics necessary to get the coal to a reasonable energy production facility.

      One of the nice things about coal is that it is very abundant in the USA (I've heard estimates of over 500 years worth of coal production at current rates of consumption), and there is no real need to import this energy from politically volitile regions of the world like is done with oil.

      I won't get into the politics of nuclear energy, but hard-core environmentalist have shut down the nuclear power industry completely in the USA, and the energy/$$$ simply is not justified for building nuclear plants if all you do is deal with demonstrators and environmental legislation compliance alone.

      I won't even get into the environmental impact of hydro and wind powered projects, but it important to note that the environmental impact is rather significant and again is something that has been effectively shut down by hard-core environmentalists. Or do you think building a larger version of Lake Powell to be a good thing?

      The current energy source that has been tapped for almost all new electric power plants in the USA is none of the sources you have mentioned. It is instead methane, usually in the form of natural gas. The reason for this is that methane can burn quite effeciently, has comparatively low pollutants beside CO2, and can be put into places that residental neighborhoods usually don't complain about, and is easily scalable to provide spot power needs. Of course that has also driven up my home heating costs because of this as well by over 100% in the past 3 years.

      Perhaps I need to replace my furnace with a coal furnace instead?

  126. As the price of gas goes up by Yogs · · Score: 1

    (which it will, due to demand from China/India, though the timescale and severity is a big ?)

    What will happen?

    In the short term:
    Traditional cars, but smaller, lighter, and with more efficient drivetrains?
    Hybrids
    Diesel in some mix with Biodiesel
    Gasahol

    In the long term:
    Does anyone honestly really claim to know?
    There are options, but there are bigger problems with infrastructure, distribution, and Joe the mechanic. That, and people (at least in America) will be very slow to give up the freedom to go anywhere, continuously enclosed, and on there own schedule.

    Electric cars are an interesting possibility, I like the idea because of the flexibility it gives to use any means to generate the power. However, this latest announcement doesn't change me from being a skeptic. I suppose battery tech is getting better, but even a 250 mile range is going to limit adoption, heat tolerance and battery disposal are important concerns, and replacement cost on batteries is bad. That, and unless you can just plug your car into a standard outlet, there's a highly distributed infrastructure problem. Another poster made a pretty convincing case that limitations in the supply of lithium are a killer here. Finally, you wonder about the state of the power grids... you probably need to program a scheduler so it only pulls at night.

    In the meantime, I'm doing fine in my regular grade sipping Focus.
    It's only been costing me about 15c a mile and I'm being inclusive (gas, insurance, taxes, depreciation, maintenance, repairs).

  127. Conservation of energy by contiguously · · Score: 1

    Did anyone see the Discovery channel special that was on the other day? The average US home produces about 5 tons of CO2 a year. This can be cut by 60% if you changed your life style a bit... using energy efficient light bulbs, unplugging appliances when not in use, etc. We can probably sustain electric cars if people would just make a better effort at conserving energy. i.e. shut off your comps once in a while...

  128. argue all you want by sgt+scrub · · Score: 1

    What is with all of the arguing? Coal boo hoo, gass boo hoo... Who cares?!? Someone just tell me how I can convert my 91 MR2!

    --
    Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
  129. Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Languages change and evolve. People in different regions use words differently and often their use is not "proper". We in the US don't speak the King's English so we all are "backwards" in their eyes. Eubonics and Nucular are regional. Words like these are changing the language, for example ain't is now more or less accepted as a word. Is the word "often" spoken with a silent T or voiced T -- many voice the T (including many with roots related to eubonics).


    Those with a Northeast liberal education who was taught proper grammer and speling in a good skool :) will flame those of us who grew up in the drepressed South who had to attend less than excellent schools (primary and secondary, mainly). Our regional accents are still viewed as backwards by those in the North (for example red neck). BTW, much of this is the legacy of the War for Southern Independence and the inability of the US to rebuild its own states after the war (but we DID rebuild Japan and Germany).

  130. Riding the Tesla Roadster! by Jolly_Fat_Man · · Score: 0

    The best chance at an electric car is probably with those nano capacitors /. spoke about a while back. The expected improvements were amazing. Even tho it's still in dev stage... Petroleum is too much of a dependency for the worlds economy. So many things are made out of it's derivatives that we should be saving it as much as possible. Otherwise we face it running out when we're not ready for it. Electricity is far better of an option when compared to Petroleum. So far it's been obstructed or chalenged as a replacement for Pretroleum because most interested in the development of electricity are making more money from petroleum. This world is not sustainable how it's being run. We might still save it from destroying us if we stop and correct our mistakes. I dought that, tho. Personally I think all this save the world talk is too late, and we are ice creams waiting to happen. Not before the earthquakes, tornados, volcanos, blah, blah, blah... You all know the drill! Kiss your own ass goodbye, 'cause you stepped on some big shoes and they're about to squish you...

    --
    Blind are we who do not know that we are blind. The world has been boring ever since I got here.
  131. Are those Dell batteries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I sure hope they aren't the exploding Dell laptop batteries we've all been readin about... or >1500 of them can be quite the road hazard!

  132. Tesla motors on a DC powered car? Blasphemy! by brainchill · · Score: 1

    Someone forgot to tell these guys that Tesla was a proponent of AC current and it's kind of wrong to brand a DC powered car with his name!!!

    1. Re:Tesla motors on a DC powered car? Blasphemy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's an ac motor that gets power from a dc battery supply. so there's ac in there.

  133. Re: KEYSER SOZE!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    KEYSER F---CKING SOZE!!!

    The industry that keeps environmentalists up at night, the butcher of the environment. A peerless, psycho, butcher who lights flames at night, nonchalantly dumps thousands of litres of black death on the environment and has been known to buy out, sue, and even kill to maintain its dominance over the entire world.

    Who is Keyser Soze? ... Nobody believed he was real. Nobody ever saw him or knew anybody that ever worked directly for him, but to hear Kobayashi tell it, anybody could have worked for Soze. You never knew. That was his power. The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. - From the 1995 movie 'The Usual Suspects'

    Note: This is from my highly speculative blog that no one reads or knows about.

  134. Electric cars could work by youfail · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who drove only 3 kilometers to work today, and left my car in the sun for 8 hours? Make a hybrid car, and cover it with solar panels for additional recharging. Many people use their car just for driving to their workplace and back, maybe stopping at a store on the way home. And as far as I know, electric cars use little or no electricity while not using the engine ( so no electric current draw). So no trouble getting through traffic jams with your loaded battery. And IF your battery runs out, you always have your backup combustion engine ready to work. Using energy from braking and the sun your battery will be charging. And even on longer trips, you're probably going to be driving when the sun is up, so your battery is charging a bit. In my opinion a lot of normal traffic is between home and workplace, which normally means your car is in the sun most of the day. Even in countries like mine, where the sun shines through the day only for about 1/4th of the year, it would be a huge saving in fossile fuel usage. Yes, there are problems with this idea, but i think they're not so difficult to solve compared to a lot of other ideas like Cold fusion or dealing with greenhouse gasses. First of all, the main problem is aesthetics. The indrusty is going to have to come up with a way to make the solar panels look good or "not-there", and make them more resistant to outside damage. Batteries are always a problem, but the technology is getting better. Battery technology will be getting better, and not only because of portable computers and cell phones, but because ALMOST everything runs on electricity these days. Solarpanel tech is expensive. BUT if these cars were mass produced, it wouldn't be a problem. Through mass production everything is cheaper. And through this mass production, there would be an incentive for every car company to better the technology. Why would anyone waste their time on niche technology, that's even more expensive and uneffidient than their current technology. At least when it's bringing in profits. In my opinion, governments should fund this new tech, and put harsh taxes on polluting technologies. The fact that most governments don't give tax breaks to green tech makes me believe the bullshit about oil companies bribing people. So the only major problem seems to be the Oil companies who have too much money. I can't think of any excuse why properly made hybrid cars wouldn't work, except for the greed of the oil companies. Over and out

    --
    People who have a clean conscience are happy. People who don't have a conscience are the happiest motherfuckers alive.
  135. Alternative energy sources can supply only... by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately I was not able to find a link, but the alternative energy sources can actually supply only a small percentage of all the energy used in cars, for example. People often live 30 minutes from work, and drive alone in a 1,000 kilo automobile a total of an hour a day.

    Modern buildings depend on air conditioning.

    There are things like that which cannot be easily changed.

    1. Re:Alternative energy sources can supply only... by AGMW · · Score: 1
      I'd agree with that. Certainly anyone who thinks wind/wave/solar/etc are going to supply all our power needs in the future are likely living in a dream world, but where appropriate they can be added to the mix.

      I think the big saving, maybe only for city dwellers, is to have clean air because the vehicles run on electicity that was generated elsewhere. It is also true that whereever that "elsewhere" might be, they should endeavour to make the generation process as clean as possible though!

      How about cabs and buses all running off electicity. Cab ranks could have charge points. The busses could take electricity from overhead wires where possible, maybe reverting to batteries or even bio-diesel in the suburbs.

      As for the people who live 30 miles from work, aren't they the very people who should be in electric cars? Granted, it'd be nice if they could car pool, but giving or getting a lift to work is actually a right-royal pain in the arse most of the time - and I know because I've done it whenever I could!

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  136. Re:Big car maker behavior surprising? No... by nasch · · Score: 1
    Frankly, if one of the "Big Three" ends up being swallowed by another car company
    Such as... Chrysler?
  137. Re: 'lack of noise' by Presence1 · · Score: 1

    "I also worry, frankly, about the lack of noise."

    Yes, but there's nothing much new with the Tesla car -- engines are generally so well muffled that most car noise is from the tires and wind. Stand near a road and listen; unless you are standing on an uphill or acceleration section, the sound isn't that different from a car coasting at speed. And, cars will continue to get quieter, regardless of the Tesla car. noise==inefficiency and efficiency is the key to engineering cars today.

    Of course, it has been pointed out many times, including in the article, that speakers and selected sounds are easy (and fun) to add.

  138. Winds biggest problem... by daniel422 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, winds biggest problem isn't that it isn't reliable -- I've seen many windmill farms set up in permanently windy mountain pass areas that work great -- its the environmentalits who scream about the number of bird kills on windmill blades and the homeowners who feels windmill farms are unsightly (a la Cape Cod hippocrites). Never mind that bird kills occur in the same amount for any tall structures....

  139. They're also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    very effective gyroscopes.

    1. Re:They're also by suggsjc · · Score: 1

      Why did parent and grandparent get modded down? Or did they just have bad karma and start at -1?

      I don't know if I fully understand the technical implications of using flywheels or gyroscopes, but they do seem as though they could be useful...maybe even used in parallel with other technologies.

      --
      When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
    2. Re:They're also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, my point was that gyroscopes tend to stabilize the attitude of the car. So in slippery conditions (or even not so slippery) you get the folowing scenario:
      Brake for corner,
      Flywheel spins faster (regenerative braking),
      Turn in and plow straight on,
      Because the flywheel is also a very effective gyroscope.

  140. lithium ion can be dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although gasoline burns, it doesn't explode. What happens to a chain reaction of overheating lithium ion batteries? I would rather have the 3 or 4 seconds to clear my gasoline car in an accident. A stack of damaged lithium ion batteries would give me much less escape time. Open a Lithium Aluminum hydride battery sometime and see what you can do with the stuff.

  141. Most oil imports from Canada by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

    Most of the oil US imports is not from Saudi. It is from Canada. Then you have Mexico (Gulf of Mexico), but Canada is the only country in the top 5 that can double, tripple, etc... its production.

    http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_ publications/company_level_imports/current/import. html

  142. big car companies? by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1
    ...odd that the big car companies aren't more on this track.

    [slap slap slap]

    Wake the fuck up, Dude!

  143. Re:but are coal plants worse than millions of cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've driven from Salt Lake City to Reno (several times) and never seen this cloud. On the other hand, I've driven in LA and in the CA central valley. Talk about disgusting.

  144. Ferrari Testarossa and Lotus Elise by booch · · Score: 1

    Oh, you said "Tesla Roadster". I thought you said "Testarossa". I wonder if the name is supposed to sound similar.

    From the pictures, it is apparent that the car is a modified Lotus Elise. The base Elise costs $45K, so the modifications are only $35K. Not all that bad for cutting edge, actually. I'm sure there are plenty of Elise drivers who would spend that kind of money to get an even more exotic car, and to improve the 0-60 mph from 4.7 seconds to 3.1 or so. (There's an $18K kit that one tuner is working on.) They'd probably even order it with less batteries to lighten the car and improve the speed/acceleration.

    --
    Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
    1. Re:Ferrari Testarossa and Lotus Elise by dukerobillard · · Score: 1
      I'm sure there are plenty of Elise drivers who would spend that kind of money to get an even more exotic car, and to improve the 0-60 mph from 4.7 seconds to 3.1 or so.

      I don't think so.... The Elise isn't about power & torque, it's about lightness & handling. This car weigh 500lbs more than the current model Elise. That's 25% more (2000lbs vs 2500lbs).

      I know I wouldn't trade my Elise for a heavier car with better acceleration.

    2. Re:Ferrari Testarossa and Lotus Elise by booch · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of owners who would NOT trade the handling for the extra speed. That's also why I mentioned the option of choosing less batteries. I don't get much chance to drive on too many windy roads in my Elise, so I'd probably be willing to give up a little handling for some boosted torque. Luckily I can't afford the extra $35K, so I don't have to spend much time thinking about it.

      --
      Software sucks. Open Source sucks less.
  145. Tesla Roadster by Michael+Hollandeer · · Score: 1

    The person who suggested that the Tesla Roadster uses "laptop batteries" is incorrect. The high-performance sports car does use Lithium-Ion batteries (Li-ion), but they're not "laptop batteries." The person who suggested that batteries needed to be replaced annually is incorrect as well. The batteries have a finite life, but it's not "one year." The person who suggested that the Roadster could go 0-60 in three seconds is optimistic by one second. The actual 0-60 time is estimated at 4 seconds. If you have more questions, please feel free to ask. Gov. Schwarzenegger and a number of reporters, photographers and customers/potential customers for the car went for rides last night. And for the people who claim that "eBay" is behind this car, that's not accurate either. Elon Musk, who was a co-founder of PayPal, is the major investor in Tesla Motors. The company is not seeking other investors. Martin Eberhard is the CEO of Tesla Motors. For the person who suggested that a "real" Tesla car would have a wireless microwave source, the company's name has nothing to do with any of Nikola Tesla's experiments, but honors a scientist who made early breakthroughs in electricity. For more information on the company, please visit http://www.teslamotors.com/ .

  146. Hummus by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

    http://www.answers.com/hummus
    If you never made hummus with your food processor, it's really easy. Replacing the lemon juice with lime juice or grapefruit/orange juice makes for really tangy or sweet hummus suitable for breakfasts.

    Cheers

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
  147. Hydrogen by TheStonepedo · · Score: 1

    There's more than one way to skin a cat. By controlling the stoichiometry of a gas reaction, a mixture of gases can be used to produce hydrogen much more efficiently than through electrolysis of water. It still takes a fair amount of heat energy input, but that's really not a big deal. Hydrogen itself would be a pain in the tuchus to transport; it would have to be compressed and is a little on the flammable side. Carrying methanol for use in hydrogen production would be both safer and simpler. With good catalysts and control of waste output, fuel cells which rely on hydrogen from wood alcohol in microreactors could be a viable alternative.

    --
    I'll be your candy shop of infinite deliciousity if you'll be my discotheque of endless rump-shaking.
  148. Re:Laws of physics prevent much of what people thi by Damvan · · Score: 1

    I am not familiar with New Jersey in particular, but isn't a large part of the state covered with buildings? Put the solar panels on top of the buildings, and presto, you have a large part of New Jersey covered with solar panels, and no land lost.

    Granted New Jersey probably isn't the best place for using solar, but there are plenty of places that are. There isn't one unified green solution for everyone, everywhere. But every little bit helps.

    Why not use it in places where it is practical? Just because solar is not a solution for New Jersey means we should ignore it in Arizona, Nevada or California?

  149. Range In a Snowstorm by jimcooncat · · Score: 1

    OK, so this gets a 250 mile range in California Suburbia. Wonder what it would get in Buffalo NY during a snowstorm with the heater on? Or climbing the Rockies in the hot summer with AC?

  150. tlc ... by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

    What is the total lifetime cost ... not dollars but gallons of crude oil. Or the equivalent for your choice of power generation. Don't forget it takes a lot of energy to manufacture all those lithium cells that need repalcement and that the weight of those batteries contributes to the weight of the vehicle associated with propulsion. A gasoline drived relatively high performance two seater could be made for around 1 quarter the cost and achieve 30 or so miles to the gallon. Over the life of the vehilcle if properly maintained replacement parts manufactureing cost in terms of energy use is relatively small. When you start replacing the cells of something like the litium cells with over 6000 of them then you best also have sophisticated technology to assure charging correctly to avoid reverse charging if some cells go bad, identify the bad cells, etc. They would be better off making a few larger cells to deal with the problems that come about from such a huge number of individaul cells. This is just not real viable technology from a overall including manufacturing energy usage and recycling cost yet.

    More power too 'em for the effort though as we have to get real alternatives to get real numbers. Personally I'd rather see them crack gasoline more efficiently into better burning fuels that can be processed with less harmful emissions and that can allow better efficiency in terms of energy extraction from the fuel. That like the somewhat dubious better efficiency of electric cars (the electric current to charge them comes from the same fossil fuels in a large number of cases) would result in transferrence of the energy use to a larger scale and might result in significant efficiency gains...

    --
    - Tjp

    I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

  151. Re:Global "Dependencies" (net zero greenhouse gas) by Eddy_D · · Score: 1
    Personally, I'm more interested in diesel power (utilizing vegetable-based fuel). The technology is already 100% available, very well developed, mass produced, and it can utilize the existing distribution infrastructure without serious modifications (I think that oil pipelines would need some help, however). Burning vegetable-based fuel also releases zero net greenhouse gas, since all carbon released into the atmosphere was originally metabolized from the atmosphere

    I like that, thats funny. Of course you realize that oil is mostly plant-based. So using your arguement, by burning it we are also releasing net zero gas... it just took a little longer to return it... and the net result is that the world climate will be back to the condition it was when those plants were alive.

    [Extrapolation] Maybe the climate change was not caused by a meteor or anything, maybe the plants just removed enough CO2 to weaken the greenhouse effect... enought to cause the climatictic shift that killed them off...

    Just thought that was an interesting point to make...

    --
    - I stole your sig.
  152. NOS? ;) by MirrororriM · · Score: 1
    So would the equivalent of running NOS in a battery-powered car be like a row of 1-farad capacitors that could be connected with a push of a button? I'm no electrician and I'm only sort of joking...sort of...but I am genuinely curious.

    Aside from that, Detroit needs to get on the ball with electric cars and quickly. If they would make a Cavalier that ran on battery power like this and priced it at around $25,000 (more than an average Cavalier), I would buy one tomorrow.

    IMO, I think the reasons why we keep seeing "hybrids" and not thoroughbred electric cars is because big oil and the big 3 are in bed together *takes off tinfoil hat*. Just keep researching the hell out of making better batteries and get these electric-only cars on the road!

    --
    Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
  153. nuke waste disposal by j-beda · · Score: 1

    If we used various breeder reactor designs we could take more of the energy from the mined uranium before junking it - right now we use systems that only extract a few percent of the available energy. It is possible to get more fuel out of a fast breeder reactor than you put into it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder.

    Anyhow, you don't want to toss out the "waste", because it contains good stuff - you want to process it, and extract the useful stuff and store the rest until you figure out a use for it. A few big facilities in the middle of the desert would be able to store the things we don't want people to touch for a while.

  154. match and gasoline? How about a cigarette? by j-beda · · Score: 1

    There is some interesting reading at the "bad movie physics" webpage where the author explores how easy it is to light gasoline with a lit cigarette - he basicaly found that it was very difficult to do. See http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/mpmain.html#c igarettes for details (note that is a link to frame within a page - the page itself is at http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/ - hit the link on the left to "cigarettes" to get it displayed as the author intended.)

    From the page:

    Lighting puddles of gasoline with cigarettes in movies is a common device. The character takes a few puffs and tosses the glowing cigarette in the puddle. Immediately, the gasoline ignites. However, numerous readers have written us and said it isn't so. Some have cited experiences where they saw it attempted. Others have said that cigarettes don't get hot enough.

    We searched the web and found several sites that say cigarettes do get hot enough. In other words the glowing tip of a lit cigarette is well above the autoignition temperature of gasoline. Normally this information would have convinced us, but as mentioned before, some of the people writing in seemed to have personal experience. Finally, we decided to conduct an experiment.

    We poured a very small amount of gasoline in an aluminum pie pan or slightly deeper cake pan and placed it in the middle of a concrete slab. The pie and cake pans were chosen because they allowed the gasoline to spread out into a very shallow puddle the way it would if spilled on the ground. It also pretty much guaranteed that the vapors at some point above the pan would mix enough with air to form an ignitable mixture. ....

  155. Yes, gas is safer. by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

    Much safer to use something like 15 gallons of liquid petrolium distillate that is highly inflammable at room temperature.

    Actually yes it is. Ever been involved with a large lithium fire? I'll take a gasoline sourced fire over that any day.

    Lithium fires are nasty
    1. They don't actually need an external ignition source such as spark or flame
    2. Lithium fires can melt metal
    3. Lithium fires put of very noxious fumes requiring self contained breathing apparatus to fight it. Sucks to be nearby.

    In a shipment of closely packed lithium batteries, should one battery catch fire, a chain reaction results. The fire spreads from battery to battery in an explosive conflagration of molten lithium, according to the Technical Center report. The examination of lithium battery fires was undertaken after a pallet of such batteries caught fire on the ground at Los Angeles International Airport in April 1999. The pallet was inadvertently dropped onto the tarmac, and a battery fire resulted, despite there being no external ignition source.

    Lithium fires are very hot and difficult to extinguish unless they are caught early. Lith-X is recommended for lithium fires.
    It acts by smothering the lithium. Because much heat is retained under the Lith-X, re-ignition can easily occur if the Lith-X blanket is
    disturbed before ambient temperatures are again reached. Dense white clouds of caustic and choking lithium oxide are formed when
    lithium burns. A self-contained breathing apparatus must, therefore, be worn when fighting lithium fires. If a lithium fire reaches
    large proportions, nothing can be done but to let it burn. In a sealed room such as a dry room, remember that the supply of oxygen is
    quickly consumed in feeding a lithium fire. ...
    Using a steel test chamber to simulate an aircraft cargo hold, the FAA tests show that a runaway fire involving a shipment of lithium batteries might well result in loss of the aircraft. The batteries involved were those used commonly in consumer electronic products (e.g., video cameras).
    Advertisement

    Batteries were tested singly, and in groups of 32, 64 and 128. Tests also involved groups of batteries packed in rows inside cardboard boxes.

    For test purposes, the battery fires were started by igniting a "fire pan" filled with alcohol. The findings were fearful. To summarize:

    * A relatively small fire source was sufficient to start a lithium battery fire.

    * The heat from a single battery afire was sufficient to ignite adjacent batteries.

    * The outer plastic coating on the batteries easily melted, fusing the batteries together, adding to the intensity of the fire.

    * The chain reaction ignition continued until all batteries were consumed.

    * The molten lithium burned explosively, spraying white-hot lithium to a radius of several feet as the batteries bounced around.

    * The duration of the peak temperature increased with the number of batteries, reaching as high as 1,400[degrees] F (as a matter of interest, the melting temperature of aluminum is around 1,200[degrees] F).

    * The cardboard packing proved highly flammable. The packing delayed battery ignition by about 30-60 seconds, but once ignited, the fire among the close-packed batteries was worse.

    * While thick-wall cargo liners were able to contain the fire (barely), thin-walled fire liners proved ineffective. The battery fire ignited the resin in the liner, and the liner was completely penetrated by molten lithium.

    * Halon fire-suppressing agent, injected in sufficient concentration to "knock down" a fire, proved totally ineffective, even when injected after just the first battery had caught fire. Nor did it have any effect on the peak temperature. The fire continued as if Halon were not present.

    * Lithium

    --
    My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  156. Re:Big car maker behavior surprising? No... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

    How could I have forgotten about that one?

    Good catch...

  157. its TELSA not tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    typo- this car has nothing to do w/ tesla

  158. How you gonna make em cleaner? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cleaner in what way? Mercury emissions from coal are actually very low and it exists in gasoline, too (I suspect in lower ratios, but I couldn't find that info anywhere). More importantly, the first federal regulation of mercury emissions from coal-fired plants was issued last year. For the record, that would be under the current administration. Mercury is the most difficult to control, and technologies for handling it in coal plants are just now becoming feasible.

    Or were you talking about sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides? Acid rain isn't very cool which is why those have been increasingly regulated since 1990. The second phase of reductions for coal plants are just coming into effect now. Plant operators face a penalty of $2000 per ton of SO2 or NOx that they release over their limits.

    Which leaves us with the big emission on everyone's mind: carbon dioxide. But I know you weren't referring to that. First of all, it's not technically a pollutant; it's an essential part of the atmosphere. Furthermore, aside from developing alternative energy sources, I'd love to hear how you think the government should reduce it. You can't exactly require plants to chemically "scrub" it like they do other emissions. The whole point of burning coal is to take advantage of the exothermic reaction of the formation of CO2 and H20. Trying to go the other way takes all the energy you just got and then some.

  159. Bush and Cheney have investments in oil & weap by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    "We just don't care about global warming and the future generations all that much."

    It isn't "we". Bush and Cheney and their friends and families have investments in oil and weapons, and they seem to act in such a way that they maximize the value of their investments.

    --
    U.S. Taxpayer Karma: If you contribute money to kill people, expect your own quality of life to diminish.

  160. Re:6,831? I don't think so... by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I think they where talking about cells, not complete 'laptop' batteries.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  161. Sweet! by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I can finally drive a car that sounds like fingernails on a chalkboard, or the dentists drill!
    My day has arrived!

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  162. Re:Global "Dependencies" (net zero greenhouse gas) by j-turkey · · Score: 1
    I like that, thats funny. Of course you realize that oil is mostly plant-based. So using your arguement, by burning it we are also releasing net zero gas... it just took a little longer to return it... and the net result is that the world climate will be back to the condition it was when those plants were alive.

    You make an intersting point, and your extrapolation sort of gets at some of what I was suggesting. Releasing carbon from burning vegetable-based plants comes from a carbon source which was metabolized from carbon recently. Much of our fossil oil was also from animal sources -- and their carbon isn't necessarily all atmospheric (like that of plant matter). Further, when vegetable oil is pressed, I don't think that all of the carbon is extracted. Perhaps there is a carbon load, but it would be negative in this case.

    In any case, I'm not scientist. I'm not clinging too hard to this one, but it does make sense -- especially when approached in the context of the carbon cycle.

    --

    -Turkey

  163. Re:6,831? I don't think so... by SinGunner · · Score: 1
    "Part of what is different about this is that they are using over 6,831 laptop-type lithium-ion batteries."

    That's from the summary of the article on Slashdot. Even if they meant "cells", the number isn't 6,831. There aren't 6,831 of anything in the car. They just multiplied the total number of sectors times the total number of cells because they read the article incorrectly. Sorry I put "batteries" instead of "cells" in my original post, but I don't think it should have skewed my point.

  164. Re:Laptop batteries need to be replaced too quickl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    my cell phone has a lithium-ion battery. I'll have had it for 4 years this coming August. Same battery for all four years. It's only in the last month or so that the life has started to go downhill enough that I'm considering replacing the phone.

    Batteries can last and last, as long as they're taken care of. Lead-acid chemistries don't like to be drained to less than 20% of capacity. Lithium Ion batteries shouldn't be fully charged... Consistently charging to 95% will allow your battery to last longer than consistently charging to 100%.

    I've gotten my phone battery to 4 years by trying to never let the little red light on the charger turn to green...

  165. Re:but are coal plants worse than millions of cars by ArtStone · · Score: 1

    I did a rough "back of a napkin" calculation on a similar thread a few months ago... To replace all of the oil consumed today by vehicles (which is *not* all the oil we use).. it would about triple the demand for electrical power for the United States.

    In order to triple the capacity with only nuclear power (which don't emit CO2), you would need to build about 12 times the current number of nuclear power plants.

    That doesn't begin to address the issues of electricity distribution. In SouthWest Connecticut, there is already a shortage of transmission capacity. The "I'm going to die from cancer from the power lines" crowd has forced decades of delay in building new power lines or increasing voltages... they finally reached a deal to increase the voltage, but at the cost of having to bury most of the transmission lines.... now the A/G of the State of Connecticut is saying he is going to take the ISO-NE to court because they had the audacity to say that the costs of burying the power lines will result in higher rates.

    And you want this when?

    Any why exactly are we still burning oil in New England to heat homes?

    And how well does an electric car work in Minnesota in February? Possibly a nice idea in Silicon Valley, but imagine how well those ion lithium batteries will hold up overnight outside in the cold... or in Texas out in the sun all day...

    Unforunately, I don't think the submitter thought his ignorant question about the "stupid" car companies was rhetorical. Reality is a real bitch sometimes.

    --
    Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  166. Who killed the electric car? by Quince+alPillan · · Score: 1

    Who killed the electric car? New documentary coming up about how GM had an awesome electric car that everyone wanted...and they canceled it. Then they recalled them and junked them instead of letting people buy them outright like people wanted to. Trailer's on Apple.

  167. Odd? Ehh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It is odd that the big car companies aren't more on this track!"

    Odd that major manufacturers aren't jumping at the chance to market 2-seat cars costing four times as much as a standard model with 2/3 the range? I wouldn't call that odd. I'd call that smart business.

  168. Guess what? by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 1

    It doesn't matter. In fact, most "brushless DC" motors are actually an AC motor with an offboard motor controller.

    Thus, if you consider the motor itself and its control electronics, it effectively becomes a DC motor.

    Whether or not you want to nitpick these details, there are two facts:

    a) The input source to the propulsion system is DC from a battery
    b) The voltage of that DC must be much higher than in a laptop due to the high power levels involved. If the voltage weren't high, resistive losses in the controller/power cables/etc would kill efficiency. It's the same reason long-haul power transmission is done with voltages on the order of tens or even hundreds of kilovolts.

    --
    retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    1. Re:Guess what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thus, if you consider the motor itself and its control electronics, it effectively becomes a DC motor.

      Effectively, if you want to speak practically. It does not make it a DC motor though. The motor is the motor and the drive circuitry is the drive circuitry. I didn't expect an academic to consider something a black box and then ignore what it is made up of.

      I don't see any nit picking there. Just a fact, which is what I expect from an academic like yourself.

      a) Besides the point. Those systems are external to the motor itself.
      b) Irrelevant to whether the motor is DC or a DC powered AC motor.

      It seems that it is you who is nit picking something which was not even in contention.

  169. First serial hybrid: 1900 by jeti · · Score: 1

    AFAIK the first serial hybrid was the Lohner-Porsche Electric Car, which was presented at the Paris Expo in 1900.

  170. Re:$80,000 is only 100 times what I paid for my tr by micrometer2003 · · Score: 1

    Chinese Rural Vehicles (CRV's) are a better deal. $500 buys a nice little truck and it can burn old cooking oil. We just need to change import laws here.

  171. Inflection point? by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 1

    This one car is enough to change my attitude to electric cars as a tech. All of its stats are adequate. It's not some in-town, "there-and-back and recharge all night" souped up milk float for commuting hippies. If you're travelling > 250 miles, you probably don't mind a 3-hour lay-over.

    New tech has an "inflection point", when it's nowhere near mature yet, can't match the old tech for features, still a bit of an executive toy, but you can already see it will inexorably displace the older mature tech. I figure electric cars just arrived.

    It will be interesting if these early generation electrics have non-obvious social knock-on effects. I can imagine for example, an industry of short break stopovers where you can relax, drink coffee, work via wi-fi for an hour or two, and meanwhile recharge the car. Sort of like gas stations, but much more restful.

  172. Re:The batteries have to be in series/parallel ban by tcgroat · · Score: 1

    It's also a reasonable DC supply voltage for an inverter (variable-frequency, variable-voltage drive) generating 240Vrms AC. So the GP has made a reasonable estimate either way.

  173. Carbon Nanotube Capacitors? by Phobos23 · · Score: 1

    Doesn't anyone actually READ /.? There are carbon nanotube capacitors in development right now for replacement of batteries for portable electronics. The use of carbon nanotubes increases the surface area inside the capacitor to the point that the size of the device can be reduced to a battery size. That said, capacitors have the advantage of EXTREMELY quick charge and ability to discharge high currents. They also have no memory, and would outlive any mechanical device they're powering. "Here in Texas" I live in Texas too, and you tell me if you can use your laptop, or start your car in the afternoon. I can.

  174. Range, speed, efficiency by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1

    > That 250 mile range estimate is probably at significantly lower speeds.

    "The LiIon tzero will drive 250 miles in left lane traffic, in LA that means 75-80 mph.
    Alan Cocconi (AC Propulsion founder and chief engineer) drove it to San Diego and back
    without charging. On any type of standardized drive cycle it will go over 300 miles." link

    > If I remember right, electric motor efficiency and power typically increase with load,
    > but fall off with speed

    "Efficiency: 90% average, 80% at peak power" torque chart

    > 1000 pounds of batteries...are equivalent to about 1.5 gallons of gas (6.3 pounds/gal).
    > Divide that by an efficiency of around 30% and you've got a 32:1 energy density ratio
    > in favor of gasoline.

    Internal combustion vehicles are about 15% tank-to-wheel energy-efficient. link
    An all-electric vehicle is about 44% tank-to-wheels energy-efficient. link
    The car's web site puts its efficiency at 2.2km/MJ, vs. 0.6km/MJ for the gas cars (see here).

    So an electric vehicle needs to carry about 30% the energy of a gas vehicle.

    Another way to look at this is to compare to the Lotus Elise, which consensus is saying is the closest regular car on the market. The Elise gets 25mpg, and so would need 10 gallons -- 63 pounds -- to travel 250 miles, giving us a ratio of 16-to-1 in required weight.

    The fuel tanks on this Peterbilt model range from 40 to 150 gallons, with an apparent midpoint of 83 gallons, giving us 525 pounds of gas or 8320 pounds of batteries. The suspensions seem to cluster around 40,000 pounds, suggesting that batteries would need to replace about 20% of the max weight capacity of a truck in order to get the same mileage as a tank of gas (although that's not taking into account weight savings in the engine and similar components).

    That's a lot -- it's probably 25-30% of the freight capacity of the truck. Batteries are dense, though, so it'll take up little of the truck's volume, potentially making the result feasible for cargo that is more limited by volume than by weight. Still, I think it offers a good argument that long-haul trucking is likely to stay a liquid-fuelled activity for the forseeable future.

  175. You are incorrect - google "well-to-wheel" by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1

    Mechanical Engineering Power did a study that came up with much the same results as the white paper already linked -- see here. (gas engine for comparison -- about half the well-to-wheel efficiency.)

    In general, your back-of-the-envelope numbers are mostly wrong. Generating plants often exceed 50% efficiency), transmission loss is about 7%, switching chargers lose in the range of 5-20%, and overall drivetrain loss is around 55% for an electric motor, for a total of about 22% (as above).

    That huge drivetrain loss is known as the "tank-to-wheel" efficiency, and it's what really kills the gas car -- those have about 14% efficiency for that process, giving them 11-12% overall efficiency (also known as "well-to-wheel" efficiency). So in general a gas-powered car takes about twice the energy to run that an all-electric car does, with hybrids somewhere in the middle. Google "well-to-wheel" and you'll find a great deal more on this.

    Manufacturing costs play some role in overall energy requirements, but it's pretty minor. A typical car in the US fleet will see about 160,000 miles; at 22mph (average), that's about $22,000 of gas (at $3/gallon), which totally dwarfs the energy costs involved in constructing the car in the first place. Careful about total-lifespan costs, though -- there was a deeply bogus study that came out a few months ago that used nonsensical assumptions (e.g., "cars last for 100,000 miles, trucks for 250,000" even though the figure as measured for the US fleet is 150,000 vs. 170,000), so there's some false claims floating about.

  176. Average vehicle lifespan by Dire+Bonobo · · Score: 1

    Average vehicle lifespan in the US is 13 years, at which point a car will have been driven 145,000 miles (link).

    Based on that and replacing the batteries every 100,000 miles, you'd be spending $13,000 once in 13 years, or $1,000 a year. Compare that to 145,000 miles of gas at 22mpg at $3/gallon -- $20,000, or $1,500 per year -- and you'll find that anyone moaning that "battery changes are ridiculously expensive!!" just hasn't done the math.

  177. Pieces of the Puzzle by Zobeid · · Score: 1

    "...and it's important to recgonize that the electric car is no panacea for our environmental/political/economic ills. It just moves the problem elsewhere, and would continue to for the forseeable future."

    It doesn't just move the problem elsewhere. It also promises to be much more efficient in net energy usage. I saw one estimate of nearly six times as many miles travelled per barrel of oil consumed, assuming an oil-fired power station. A second advantage is flexibility, since electricity can be produced from a wide range of sources: oil, gas, coal, solar, wind, nuclear. That can't be said of gasoline-powered vehicles. I agree that the electric car is no panacea, but it can be a useful part of the larger solution we're all looking for.

    As for diesel power, and biodiesel in particular. . . I'm a big fan of biodiesel, but the main problem right now is that our methods of producing it aren't efficient enough. We're using too much petroleum -- in fuel, pesticides and fertilizers -- to produce the stuff, and the yields per acre are low. There are people working on that problem (algae looks promising), the same way there are people working on improved batteries for electric cars, and improved solar cells, and improved nuclear reactors, etc.

    It's not going to be one magical technology that cures all our energy ills. I would like to see all these lines of research pursued vigorously.

    1. Re:Pieces of the Puzzle by doom · · Score: 1
      I saw one estimate of nearly six times as many miles travelled per barrel of oil consumed, assuming an oil-fired power station. Where? What's the physical basis of the analysis?

      Greater thermodynamic efficiencies at the plant have to overcome transmission losses and so on. My first guess is that it would be a wash... haven't seen any numbers.

  178. GM EV1 Killed by Its Maker by Hewman1 · · Score: 1

    The battery-replacement canard continues to make the rounds. Toyota RAV4 EVs (NiMH-powered) have rolled 150,000 miles without needing new batteries. RAV4 EVs in California are now passing 100,000 miles with no need for battery-pack replacement. I drove a GM EV1; just like the car mags had said, it took off like a silent rocket, handled like a dream and had all the bells and whistles. GM's cost basis for leasing an EV1 was under $35,000, although GM never sold their electric vehicles (EVs.) If GM had actually mass-produced its touted "most efficient production car in automotive history," it would have sold for $30,000 in a few years as efficiencies of scale lowered unit costs. Instead, GM sued to get out of producing EV1s, along with Chrysler and a group of new-auto dealers. The W Bush Administration supported the plaintiffs with an amicus brief. The zero-emission vehicle mandate was gutted, and automakers began repossessing their lease-only EVs and crushing them. GM soon refused all EV1 lease renewals, refunding attempted renewal payments and taking the cars away from people who wanted to buy them.

    --
    Breathe free,
  179. Re:Big car maker behavior surprising? No... by cr0sh · · Score: 1
    they don't explode into a giant fireball when rear-ended


    You might want to rethink that...

    --
    Reason is the Path to God - Anon