Slashdot Mirror


Electric Vehicle Kits for the Masses?

Aciel asks: "I just finished watching 'Who Killed the Electric Car', and was quite impressed. I'm too poor to buy anything but an old clunker, and not eager to pollute the atmosphere (or empty my wallet) with gasoline. The movie inspired me: I think I'd like to convert an old car (or perhaps a motorbike) to run on electricity. Have Slashdot readers attempted such a thing before? What experiences have you had, and what would you recommend or not recommend?"

177 comments

  1. ethanol? by name*censored* · · Score: 1

    It might be easier/cheaper to convert the car's existing engine to accept ethanol, and ethanol is reasonably enviromentally friendly.

    --
    Commodore64_love: I don't comprehend people who're so frightened of death that they'll bankrupt themselves to stay alive
    1. Re:ethanol? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      Just use bio-diesel.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
  2. Modern EV's by webmistressrachel · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The project is basically a huge audio amplifier (seen in the movie) amplifying a signal modulated by an embedded computer. This signal is similar to that which drives your speakers, but instead it drives the motor(s) in such a way as to not damage them with acceleration and braking forces.

    The expensive components in this amplifier are large bucket capacitors and rediculous huge transistors or valves.

    The whole rig would cost roughly the same to build as a small radio transmitter, plus the cost of modding the car itself (connecting the motor(s) to the drive shaft) and building the computer and controller.

    It would be great to see the following prices suggested by traders or users below:
    10KW Transistors / 100MV Capacitors / 10KW Motors / Embedded controllers i.e. ARM7 / etc...

    P.S. Thanks for asking the question, I was thinking EXACTLY the same myself. The cars currently available are beyond my financial reach, but the fuel isn't ...

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    1. Re:Modern EV's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's spelt "ridiculous". this must be the most misspelt word in the world, because EVERYONE on slashdot seems to not know how to spell it.

    2. Re:Modern EV's by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      lol, Fair Cop Guv! I have terrible spelling, it took about 10 minutes to post the parent!

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
    3. Re:Modern EV's by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Amplifier? I guess you mean a "Variable frequency drive".
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Frequency_Dr ive
      AFAIK this is the state of the art for electric cars. Digging something up on Google...
      Unfortunately, I could not find a system made specifically for cars on the quick. But for an example of a complete VFD, the following should give you a rough idea of prize, size and weight:
      http://www.joliettech.com/abb_acs-550_ac_drive_ove rview.htm
      Note that the ABB ACS550 AC is somewhat different from what you want in a car. It takes power from a 3-phase AC line, so it will have a rectifier and some big buffer capacitor that would be unnecessary in a car system where you draw DC from the battery. OTOH, you might want energy recovery when braking, which is not specified for the above and would probably cost extra.

      I'll leave the search for motors and batteries to someone else ;-)

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    4. Re:Modern EV's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The word "ridiculous" is spelled with an i after the r. If you use it to modify an adjective, append "ly": ridiculously.

    5. Re:Modern EV's by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

      Upgrade to firefox 2. It has a half-decent spell checker, as you type into a form.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
    6. Re:Modern EV's by mazarin5 · · Score: 1

      One of my professors drives an old truck that he converted to an EV. He gives a short overview here (towards the bottom): http://home.earthlink.net/~alcompaan/

      --
      Fnord.
    7. Re:Modern EV's by nebbian · · Score: 1

      Most VVVF (Variable voltage, variable frequency) drives used in heavy industry use something called "Dynamic Braking", where the back EMF from the motor is fed to the big DC rails, to slow the motor down. So in other words, regenerative braking comes built-in. I'm pretty sure you can get VVVF drives without the AC parts, as some of the machines I worked on used DC rails to get their power.

    8. Re:Modern EV's by Mr.+Hankey · · Score: 1

      FWIW, in electric RC and sometimes robotics we use what are called "electronic speed controllers" (ESCs). They're basically what you're describing. ESCs have been getting fairly sophisticated in the past few years, especially the brushless models, and would doubtless be a good model to work from.

      --
      GPL: Free as in will
    9. Re:Modern EV's by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

      Since I'm using a nightly Mozilla build, "upgrading to Firefox" would kind of defeat my goals. Don't need to preach here, sonny. We're all converted. But thank you!

      --
      This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  3. Missed the first point... by bbsguru · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Your first qualification takes you out of the race: The cost of components, motors, controllers, (and especially batteries) are much more than the cost of a gas-sipping clunker. As much as people want to save gas/the world, the economic reality for most is that the total cost of electric is much more than conventional alternatives.

    That said, I love my Prius. I can justify it with a long daily commute, as I get a more comfortable drive in it than a similarly thrifty gas-powered car. Overall, I could have saved money with gas, and the environmental difference is negligible. As a /.'er the coolness factor is what really matters anyway.

    1. Re:Missed the first point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's refreshing to read an honest appraisal like this.

    2. Re:Missed the first point... by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      Yeah. First off, an older car isn't what you want - too heavy. And as bbsguru said, to do this on the cheap? Not likely. this guy converted a junked Hyundai Elantra, doing all of his own welding/fabrication and buying everything piecemeal from EBay (no kits here), and still spent $6000 to get a 25 mile range and 'pretty darned slow' acceleration. Of course, its a work in progress, but that should give you some idea of the bare minimum. For that money, you can buy a nice well-maintained diesel VW and get 45-50mpg just fine.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    3. Re:Missed the first point... by usrusr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      older cars would not be that bad for a project like this, since they used put way less steel into tunring the car into a crash-proof tank 20 years ago than they are doing today (at least speaking of european cars like the smaller ranges of VW, a 50ies US cruiser with cast-iron tail fins would probably be a different story). "passive security" might be nice for people who are even scared of walking, but it poses a bad hit on fuel economy.

      but that aside, i question the whole idea of converting cars to electricity. as long as most of our energy comes from fossile sources, it is the most environmentally friendly thing to allocate that fossile fuel to mobile applicatoins, where their high energy density makes a real difference in overall energy consumption.

      hybrid is a different story, it still sources from the dense fossile fuel but uses some electric components to kind of "low pass filter" the overall energy demand over time, leading to more efficient burning of the primary energy carrier.

      that all being said, there are electric cars that are very friendly to the environment (like this), but they are friendly to the environment because they use less total energy thanks to being extremely lightweight and low-powered and not because of being electrically powered. i would really love to see a hybrid built on a base like that, with a low-powered, high-efficiency primary power source based on fossile/bio high density liquid fuel. could give amazing range of operationat extremely low cost, but i guess there is not enough money in developing a sufficiently small engine far enough to reach the efficiency of modern diesel engines.

      --
      [i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
    4. Re:Missed the first point... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      R.e.: as long as most of our energy comes from fossile sources, it is the most environmentally friendly thing to allocate that fossile fuel to mobile applicatoins, where their high energy density makes a real difference in overall energy consumption.

      This isn't really the case. There are large efficiencies available from stationary powerplants. And the excellent efficiency of electric motors and battery charging allows that edge to be largely preserved. A modern gasoline ICE is roughly 20% efficient, IINM. The worst powerplants are 35% efficient or so. Grid electricity also includes clean hydroelectric, high efficiency combined cycle natural gas, wind and nuclear power.

      Line loss might take 10% if the powerplant is far away. Battery charging and leakage another 10-15%. Electric motor another 10-15%. So that worst case 35% coal plant is whittled down to 22.7% efficient. Add in the other better grid power sources and the picture is much better than mobile generation.

      Stationary power production also allows improved control of emmissions, so that a modern coal plant is going to be far easier on the air than mobile power plants whose emission control equipment will lose efficacy as the ICE and emission control equipment age.

      What has been holding battery electric vehicles (BEVs) back has been battery technology. NiMH is becoming somewhat affordable finally as production for hybrid cars ramps up. NiMH enables a decent city car. Witness the RAV4 EV and the EV1.

      But mass produced cheap Lithium Ion will be the battery that enables a no compromise BEV. Cutting the weight dramatically while greatly increasing the energy storage means that the weight and volume of the battery pack becomes quite manageable. 250 mile range and 15 minute recharge times would enable extended highway use including full day cross country trips.

      The technology for that is here, mass produced and commercialized in the DeWalt 36V power tools. It's safe, unlike mainstream Li-ion, but it's not cheap. Give it 5 years, and the price should come way down.

      BenSolar

    5. Re:Missed the first point... by Medievalist · · Score: 1
      Overall, I could have saved money with gas, and the environmental difference is negligible.
      I've actually saved money on my Prius. I've had it since 2001, and the rise in gas prices has paid for the difference in cost between the Prius and the Echo (comparable non-hybrid car of the time). That's mostly a product of how much I drive (lots) and the circumstances (very much stop'n'go). I certainly didn't expect to break even on gas, and honestly I wouldn't have except for smilin' George Bush and his "war to keep Texas oil expensive".

      You're wrong about the environmental impact, though; your individual impact is certainly negligible, but the impact of all us Prius drivers is astonishingly large (after all, we've got 90% less emissions than similar cars) and more than outweighs the environmental costs of building the vehicles.
  4. Conversions are not that hard by Crazy+Brian · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/ for over 800 examples of electric cars, most of which are conversions or kit built.

    --
    "Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
  5. Not a solution by Drasil · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Unless your electricity is generated in a way that doesn't damage the environment you are simply moving the pollution from your car to the power station. A conversion to run your existing car on methanol or something similar would do more to help the environment. The simple truth is that private vehicle ownership will have to end one day, and the ideal time for it to end would have been 30 years or so ago.

    1. Re:Not a solution by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      you are simply moving the pollution from your car to the power station
       
      an oft-repeated fallacy. Larger = more efficient. Why do you think hardly anyone has bread-making machines at home?

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    2. Re:Not a solution by Helix150 · · Score: 3, Informative

      This is true except it is not a good analogy- it would be true if the power plant required the same quantity of fuel and released the same by-products as a car engine to generate the same amount of power. This is not the case. Power plants are FAR more efficient, as I recall it uses about 10% the fuel if not less to generate the same amount of power.

      Remember, power companies have a (somewhat) vested interest in making their plants efficient, because they pay for fuel and get political flak for polluting. They are also willing to spend far more $/KW of output than a car buyer is. Car companies don't buy the fuel, so as long as it's decently efficient and not too bad on the air they sell it.

      If you flip that around, and make people willing to spend $$ on hyper efficient cars, all the cars would have gas turbine engines, perhaps in some sort of electric hybrid mode. They'd cost $80k for a Honda, but they'd get awesome gas mileage.

      --
      --IronHelix
    3. Re:Not a solution by Drasil · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are economies of scale involved, the actual details are much more complex. Bear in mind however that the transmission of electricity over power lines is inefficient. I wouldn't be surprised if electric cars would cause more pollution that their petrol or diesel driven counterparts. Is there an expert here that knows the answer?

    4. Re:Not a solution by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      I agree, I'm not an expert. Someone needs to run the numbers.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    5. Re:Not a solution by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, I'm not an expert, but maybe I can sound like I make sense.

      Transmission over power lines is about 85% efficient (over very long distances). A good internal combustion engine is (if I recall correctly) about 10-20% efficient. Plus, it takes a whole lotta batteries to equal the weight of the engine block plus the half-full gas tank.

      Peeking around the tubes, the estimates I've been finding for EV fuel efficiency is about 1 or 2 cents per mile (compare to 7.5 cents per mile for a car that gets 40mpg at $3.00/gallon). Another benefit is that your electric car becomes more environmentally friendly every time someone puts up a new wind farm. Finally, slapping pollution controls on a handful of power generation facilities is much much more efficient than trying to convert a fleet of millions of vehicles.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    6. Re:Not a solution by cunniff · · Score: 2, Informative

      From the article found here, in California (which has generally pretty clean power plants), "Over the course of 100,000 miles, CO2 emissions from EVs are projected to be 10 tons versus 35 tons for ICE vehicles". Even on the East Coast, which has much dirtier plants, "EVs in the Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as much as 60 percent".

      One interesting comparison in the article takes power line inefficiences into account, starts with raw BTUs from the carbon product used for power generation and comes up with an equivalent "69 MPG" for a pure EV. So, you'd have to get an ICE up to 69 MPG (average!) to match it. Note that you cannot directly compare the "200 MPG" of plugin hybrids to this number, since "200 MPG" does not include the petroleum/coal used to generate the power.

    7. Re:Not a solution by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      Stationary pollution treatment equipment is much more effective than mobile pollution treatment equipment. Electric cars damage the environment less than gasoline cars.

      http://www.ruf.dk/ is a dual-mode transportation system that uses the best characteristics of electric trains and cars.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    8. Re:Not a solution by thsths · · Score: 1

      > Another benefit is that your electric car becomes more environmentally friendly every time someone puts up a new wind farm.

      From a marketing perspective, wind farms are the best thing since sliced bread. You can sell the environmental friendliness many times over: to the investor giving the money, to the area where you put it up, to the customer getting the electricity, to the electric car using the electricity. Everybody involved even a tiny bit will claim that they are responsible for less polution or a cleaner environment.

      Thomas

    9. Re:Not a solution by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      "Why do you think hardly anyone has bread-making machines at home?"

      Nearly everyone has bread making machines at home.

      Of course, not everyone knows how to use their hands, a few mixing bowls, and an oven.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    10. Re:Not a solution by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Electric cars damage the environment less than gasoline cars.

      So long as you properly dispose of used batteries.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    11. Re:Not a solution by PaulRivers · · Score: 1

      Unless your electricity is generated in a way that doesn't damage the environment you are simply moving the pollution from your car to the power station.

      Yes - an electric car run from coal-produced electricity produces about the same amount of pollution over it's lifetime as a normal car - http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html

    12. Re:Not a solution by Eccles · · Score: 1

      I'm not an expert, but have seen analyses that have. But I would also make one other general observation: price generally has a good correlation with energy use and thus emissions. If gasoline costs more per KwH than electricity (and it does), it's highly likely burning it in your car causes more pollution than having a power plant generate it and transmit it to you.

      Along these same lines, you can generally guess at the pollution impact of (for example) selling your old gas guzzler and buying an econocar. If you don't save money overall, the pollution from building the car probably more than outweighs your reduced emissions.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    13. Re:Not a solution by Twixter · · Score: 1
      While this is true, electrcity generated by a turbine engine is much more effeciant at doing things like sitting in a power plant running at full speed than the traditional stop and start of the good ole piston engine. Then switching to methanol or another alternative fuel would allow us to take advantage of the allready implace power grid as the distribution mechinism and would aliviate the distrubution problems associate with alternitive fuels.

      As far as eliminating private vechial owner ship, I think we'd have a better chance at enchanting broomsticks to fly than eliminating the private ownership of the car.

      --

      -Todd

      Put down the sig, and step away from the computer.

    14. Re:Not a solution by nurb432 · · Score: 1

      "private vehicle ownership will have to end one day?"

      When they pry the keys out of my cold dead fingers. Dont tell me when i have to give up my 'private vehicle'. You may like mass transit but some us REFUSE to deal with it. i you want to ride the bus, go ahead but leave me out of it.

      And you are somewhat incorrect about moving the pollution:

      1 - central power stations are cleaner then all the cars it could replace. Are they 100% clean, no of course not. But they are cleaner.
      2 - coal plants are really clean these days AND use domestic fuel
      3 - nuclear is even cleaner, and is the future.

      --
      ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    15. Re:Not a solution by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Moving the pollution to a location where it may be precisely controlled has advantages over dispersed sources of less-controlled pollution maintained by their owners. When improved, less-polluting energy sources become available, it is vastly more efficient to replace individual power plants than a dispersed vehicle and vehicle support infrastructure. A central plant can be micro-managed easily.

      "The simple truth is that private vehicle ownership will have to end one day, "
      Nice asserted conclusion, but there is no simple truth to solve the different transportation needs of communities and individuals.

      "A conversion to run your existing car on methanol or something similar would do more to help the environment."
      Unless the methanol is produced by agribusiness who use corn which is fertilized heavily with petroleum products.
      Ethanol ICEs use conventional crankcase oil and anti-freeze, both sources of pollution that require periodic replacement and servicing.
      Batteries OTOH are easily recycled (the lead-acid variety can be scrapped at any recycler) and their material efficiently reused.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    16. Re:Not a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Says who? Private ownership of vehicles is not the problem, the fuel source is. I'm not the least bit interested in ever giving up the absolute freedom (aside from fuel and time) that owning my own car gives me. Sure, would I ride an adequate mass transit solution to work and back as a daily routine, yes. But, it would need to be policed and safe enough for my wife and child to do it unattended too. Until that happens, I'm not interested.

    17. Re:Not a solution by Drasil · · Score: 1
      When they pry the keys out of my cold dead fingers.

      I think most people in the developed world feel like you, I've given up on changing minds but I still like to voice my opinions here on /. which seems to have a fair proportion of intelligent readers. I don't drive and I never fly, not because I think I will change the world by my (in)actions but because I prefer a clear conscience. Throughout human history cultures have damaged their host ecosystem to the point that they can no longer survive, it seems to me that this is now happening on a global scale. It may well be too late to fix already, and I can't see serious action being taken until it is definitely too late.

      The native Americans had a saying: we don't inherit the world from our parents, we borrow it from our children. For my children's sake I wish people would stop destroying the planet.

    18. Re:Not a solution by pyrote · · Score: 1

      I'm all for the trees, but to be honest, I'm with the parent post.

      This whole discussion started because there was question as to how to make an electric car from a gas. I've now dived through piles of steaming replies and nothing addresses this issue. If there was a conversion for my Prelude Si 4 wheel steering driving machine, I'm all for it. Until then, I'll wave when your waiting at the bus-stop.

      Public/mass transit is a great idea in concept, but I'll be honest, I'm weirded out by contact with public facilities. Maybe I'm neurotic and need to see a shrink, but i can bet alot out there dislike the distinct urine smell of most public transit.

      Mod me down/up, whatever. it would be nice to have something eco-friendly, I just don't see this guilt trip getting us there.

      --
      THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!! eventually.
  6. Batteries by j35ter · · Score: 1

    Todays batteries are not good (and cheap) enough for the market. Li-ion,poly,whatever and NiMH batteries can be charged only by a small current, taking an eternity until you're back on the road again.
    High capacitance capacitors, on the other hand, seem to have a huge problem with storing energy over a longer period of time and voltage drops proportional to theammount of stored energy. All of these problems with capacitors can be circumvented. btw. short-circuiting one of those might give you a bad (suborbital flight) experience :)

    As for the rest of the stuff, brushless motors can give you up to 95% efficiency.
    check this out: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Electric_Vehicle_Conv ersion

    --
    Delta-Mike November Bravo Tango
  7. Zap makes electric cars by VGfort · · Score: 2, Informative

    You might take a look at some of the used ones they have: http://www.zapworld.com/cars/salecars.asp

  8. I am not an expert, but by Flying+pig · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I do have a little knowledge of the field and may be the best you will get posting here. The short answer is that it depends how you define pollution. The oil industry, for instance, does not want to define carbon dioxide as pollution, but the alternative energy and nuclear lobbies do. I take that viewpoint, myself, because I have grandchildren and I don't want them to die in one of the global warming induced wars from about 2030 on.

    A properly designed small direct injection Diesel powered car (VW Golf in the 100HP version, say) is probably about as good as you can get in terms of fuel plus lifetime costs (pollution arising from manufacture and disposal). Hybrids like the Prius don't seem to factor in the batteries in the equation. If it was possible to build high capacity batteries with a low manufacture and disposal energy footprint, an electric car deriving its power from nuclear, wind or wave energy would do much better. But it is not yet possible. Some forecasts suggest that significant benefits from technologies like fuel cells are probably in the 30-50 year timeframe.

    So, right now, I suspect the best you can do is a VW, Toyota or Peugeot small Diesel. In any case, buying the smallest vehicle that meets your needs and renting if you need bigger is plain environmental sense. In a few years, perhaps Diesel hybrids will do better for high mileage. Electric cars - don't hold your breath.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:I am not an expert, but by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      There is also an interesting breakthrough that hasn't made much news UPS (which has a lot of stake in the cost of driving around) has invested in a new technology. Hydrolic hybrids http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/06/epa_and_pa rtner.html No battery needed.
      They are implementing this as a test right now. But from another article I read the technology is applicable in street cars as well.

    2. Re:I am not an expert, but by supasam · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd like to see one of those high pressure accumulators get punched by a soccer mom in a suburban.

      --


      Suck a lemon?
    3. Re:I am not an expert, but by Drasil · · Score: 1
      I [...] may be the best you will get posting here.

      I'll drink to that!

      After my initial post I did a little investigating. It seems electric cars may well lead to significantly less carbon dioxide emmissions than the current gas guzzlers, perhaps as much as a threefold reduction is possible (although that's optimistic). The best you can do is to not drive any car at all, I don't.

    4. Re:I am not an expert, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I certainly respect that philosophy, and would even promote it myself. However, not having a car is simply a poor solution in 90% of the U.S.

      Many communities aren't dense enough to warrant a comprehensive public transportation system, and many that are just have poorly implemented ones. Here in Indianapolis, I rode the bus for a week once while my car was in the shop. I will NEVER do that again.

  9. ethanol ? Air ! by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

    just to shift the debate a bit...

    Ethanol and bio-fuel pollute a little bit less, but do still exhaust CO2.

    The cleanest alternative seems to come from a little known company that created a compressed air motor. They use it in conjuction with a standard engine for starting the vehicle

    Few pollution whatsoever, you need a little bit of electricity to run a compressor, and get almost 2000 km in one go...

    here : http://www.theaircar.com/

    Maybe we should start getting interested in the technology, the drawback in electric cars being the pollution you create in actually producing the batteries and the electricity to feed them.

    Also, as it uses very few fuel, the big petrol/car companies doesn't show any interest in the technology...

    Da5Id

    --
    It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    1. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by da5idnetlimit.com · · Score: 1

      Small addendum : the most advanced company on this technology seems to be korean : http://www.energine.com/

      D.

      --
      It takes 40+ muscles to frown, but only four to extend your arm and bitchslap the motherfucker
    2. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The point of ethanol, (CO2-wise) is that before it's manufactured, growing plant matter is supposed to pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere, and burning it just puts it back in.

      But at least with corn-based ethanol, oil is pulled out of the ground and turned into fertilizer to grow the corn. So never mind.

      Cornanol is a sucker's game.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    3. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      There's also the question of Nitrogen

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    4. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Just curious... how much petroleum based fertilizer is used in the US? I am from a farming area of Michigan (mainly corn, soy beans, and sugar beets) and in my experience only fertilizers used are potash, nitrogen, magnesium, and phosphates.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    5. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by alienw · · Score: 4, Informative

      A little bit of electricity? Just so you know, air compressors are not very efficient devices. They waste a lot of heat. If you want to store 2 kWh of energy as compressed air, you'll need to use maybe 10 kWh of electricity to compress it. Second, compressed air takes has extremely low energy density. A small shop air compressor (compressing to about 150psi) usually has a 10-20 gal tank just to store enough air to run something like an air drill for a minute or two. This is for a tank made of very thick steel. Even if you increased the pressure in the tank 100 times (which is completely impossible from an engineering viewpoint) it would still not have nearly enough energy to power a car (although you could run a drill for an hour). Not to mention, a compressor that can dump a few hundred kWh into a tank even overnight would take up more space than the car and would be loud enough to hear from a mile away. You'd need like a 100hp compressor, those generally take up a large room. Here is a picture of one.

      Not to mention, running a car on compressed air is pretty simple, provided you have a source of compressed air. You could even use a regular gas engine without any modifications -- simply force high pressure air into the intake. The reason nobody does it is because doing so would require an ungodly amount of compressed air. There's not much you can do to improve the efficiency, either.

      My conclusion: the site is a scam, attempting to extract money from dumb investors. Note how they are focusing on silly things like the benefits of not using gas (obvious) and how they will arrange the seatbelts (irrelevant) while thoroughly avoiding any description of the actual technology. Their tanks are supposedly good to 300 bar (~4300 psi), which is realistic (that's what scuba tanks or CNG tanks are rated for). However, this is not nearly enough energy to power a car. Hell, it's barely enough energy to power a car if you store NATURAL GAS in the tanks and BURN IT.

      300 bar = 30 MPa = 30 MJoules / m^3 = 8.3 kWh/m^3. If you somehow managed to put 3 cubic meters of air tanks on that thing (that's about 800 gallons -- a HUGE air tank), you would have as much energy as ONE gallon of gas. To compress that air, you would use up several times that amount, because going from atmospheric pressure to 4500 psi will release a ton of waste heat. You would also never be able to get that energy out in any reasonable length of time because the air will become very, very cold when it expands.

      If that technology really worked, we would have had air-powered cars 150 years ago -- it's a steam engine that's hooked up to an air tank instead of a boiler. The problem is, there is no way it could possibly work.

    6. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by jnik · · Score: 2, Informative
      only fertilizers used are potash, nitrogen, magnesium, and phosphates

      Nobody's actually spraying oil on the ground (that I know of!) But the reactions that produce it are energy-consuming and require fossil fuel as reagents. e.g. Haber-Bosch process.

    7. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a scam indeed. I threw a throw-away email address their way, and it received other, even less realistic, 'investment opportunities' soon enough.

    8. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Ahh! Urea is used heavily around here, so that makes sense. Thanks!

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    9. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Rockinsockindune · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that it is absolute proof that the idea is not a scam, but I did see this air car on either 'Discoveries this week' or 'Beyond Tomorrow' on the Science channel. They had two different companies with air powered cars, and the other one looked (technologically) slightly better. I believe that I did see them drive both, and it sure did sound like air powered.

      --
      I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.
    10. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by alienw · · Score: 1

      Well, there is no reason you couldn't make an air powered car if you wanted to. Higher pressure and lots of heat exchangers would allow you to use compressed gas to power an engine. The problem is that getting the required efficiency and range is nearly impossible. It would be cheaper and far more efficient to use batteries rather than compressed air.

    11. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I stopped being interested in compressed air powered cars when I asked a slashdotter who seemed to be in the know to give me some technical information. He exploded into a gigantic ball of rage and hate and told me that it's skeptical people like me who are preventing his project from getting off the ground.

    12. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by arivanov · · Score: 1

      The energy density of compressed air is abissmal. It is also noisy as hell.

      Besides little known Korean Companies there are well known European companies which have this as an option. There was a compressed air engine for Peugeot 106. The range was sub-30 km on one charge and the noise exceeded current maximum allowed EU limits. AFAIK its only use is in some French industrial installations where petrol and electrical are restricted for safety reasons. While at it, there is also an electric version of 106. In fact, off the top of my head this is the only production vehicle by a large scale car manufacturer which has petrol, diesel, electric and pneumatic versions. The first three actually available for purchase from a dealer (I do not think you can buy the pneumatic via the normal dealer network). It sucks as a car, but it is a demonstration that you do not need a super duper ultra special platform (Toyota, Honda, etc) to deliver an electric car and it is possible to do that on a standard commodity chassis.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    13. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      This is for a tank made of very thick steel

      Usually Sch. 40 carbon steel pipe + pipe caps, buttwelded.

    14. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by NoMaster · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying the Matchbox "Zoomy Balloonie" I had as a kid was a toy, not a prototype?

      Damn. Best toy I ever owned (well, tied with the Billy Blastoff I also had). I got it as a present after being in hospital...

      --
      What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
    15. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by budgenator · · Score: 1
      Not quite
      Producing a gallon of ethanol gas from corn requires 95 percent less petroleum than producing a gallon from fossil fuels, a new study finds, ... Ethanol could be even more energy efficient and 95 percent free of greenhouse gas emissions, Kammen said, if produced from woody plants instead of corn. "It is better to use various inputs to grow corn and make ethanol and use that in your cars than it is to use the gasoline and fossil fuels directly," said Daniel Kammen of the University of California, Berkeley. Ethanol Fuel More Advantageous Than Thought

      The real benefits I'd think come from multi-usage such as growing hemp, extractinting the oil from the seeds to run in the farmers tractors as biodiesel, then feedin the seed cake to the cattle, planting field corn, extrcating the oil for biodeisel, extracting the carbohydrates and cellulose for ethanol, feeding the Distiller's dried grain back to the cattle, running the manure through a Thermal Depolymerization Unit to make TDP to run the tractors on ect.
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    16. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by djh101010 · · Score: 1

      The cleanest alternative seems to come from a little known company that created a compressed air motor. They use it in conjuction with a standard engine for starting the vehicle Few pollution whatsoever, you need a little bit of electricity to run a compressor, and get almost 2000 km in one go... here : http://www.theaircar.com/

      Ah yes, the air car. One of the all-time classic recurring vaporware schemes. These guys have been claiming, for about a decade, to be having it ready "real soon now", yet they won't let anyone actually inspect their prototype, and the math doesn't work. Other than that, yuppers, it's sure a _clean_ alternative. Just not so good if you want to actually buy one.

    17. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by djkswiss · · Score: 1

      Now I know that there is probably an obvious answer to this, but I can't think of it off the top of my head. Perhaps it is to expensive to create. Since pure oxygen is combustible, why can't we use it as an alternative energy source? Is it too explosive and not possible to control? Or perhaps it takes more energy to create than it puts out? Or some other reason?

    18. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by philwx · · Score: 1

      Not sure if it makes a difference, but they run on both compressed air and fuel. I believe when they run on fuel they actually efill the air tanks at the same time, and then run on the air later. They seem to have a pretty innovative system that reuses energy. Not a phsyics or chemistry major though so I can't make a fair judgement, though at first glance at the site it appears to be a bit more involved than your post indicates.

      http://www.theaircar.com/howitworks.html

    19. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by bbcisdabomb · · Score: 1

      Wait. . . I am not a farmer, but wouldn't extracting the carbohydrates and cellulose from the cattle feed lower the quality ofthe feed? Seems to me like the whole point of feeding your cattle is to help them survive, and to do that they at least need carbs. . .

      --
      Please put some pants on before you post again.
    20. Re:ethanol ? Air ! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean for you to take it so absolutely, any system needs a few adjustments to find it's optimum effiency. Most cattle are fed much extremely high protein low fiber feeds now that they develope digestive problems if they were given an oppertunity to graze.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  10. This is getting ridiculous by checkyoulater · · Score: 1, Troll

    You can't afford to buy anything but an old clunker, yet you are inspired to convert a car to electricity? Am I the only one confused here? Do you think that converting a car to electricity is free? I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but first you need to acquire an automobile - which costs money. Then you need to convert said car to electricity - which also costs money and probably more than the car is even worth.

    How about asking this instead: Dear Slashdot, does money grow on trees? Because I want some expensive things for free.

    --
    Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
    1. Re:This is getting ridiculous by Kalak · · Score: 1

      DIY is frequently less expensive than paying someone else to do it. You don't have to pay for the labor in many cases and can use less expensive alternatives if you're willing to be your own maintainer.

      Have you built anything before or do you only buy consumer made products? If you haven't built anything yourself (hardware or software), leave your geek card at the door on your way out.

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    2. Re:This is getting ridiculous by hb253 · · Score: 1

      Amen brother! or sister? :-)

      --
      Self awareness - try it!
    3. Re:This is getting ridiculous by rjstanford · · Score: 1

      DIY is frequently less expensive than paying someone else to do it. You don't have to pay for the labor in many cases and can use less expensive alternatives if you're willing to be your own maintainer.

      Oh, absolutely. But in this case, paying someone else to do it gets you access to all sorts of R&D write-offs and tax incentives. Check out sites like this 914 where the owner has spent over $10k, plus the cost of car, and hasn't even really started yet.

      Doing an expensive endeavor yourself is often cheaper than having someone else do it for you, even if you end up paying more for materials. But getting a $20k product for $15k doesn't make it cheap. It makes it less expensive. The GPP was making the point that if you're having a hard time coming up with a clunker car then you're probably not going to be able to afford an electric conversion. This is almost certainly true, and your attack didn't address it at all.

      --
      You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
    4. Re:This is getting ridiculous by checkyoulater · · Score: 1

      DIY is frequently less expensive than paying someone else to do it

      This is assuming that your time is not valuable. If I can pay someone to do something that would take me 10 times as long, it is money well spent. I have very little free time as it is.

      And of course I have built something before. I just can't imagine someone who can barely afford a crappy car being able to afford a car + the electric conversion.

      --
      Is that a real poncho? I mean, is that a Mexican poncho or is that a Sears poncho?
    5. Re:This is getting ridiculous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people don't realize the intial expense--and the ongoing expense--of an electric car. First, to buy the system for a car will be anywhere from $3k to over $25k. And I can tell you now, you're going to be disappointed with the performance of the $3k system. Next is the batteries. You'll end up replacing (lead acid) batteries as you do now, every five years or so. The problem is you'll be replacing 30 batteries instead of 1. Say you go the exotic battery route, after all they're lighter and hold more energy, the added expense of these batteries is atleast an order of magnitude higher to replace.
      I really wanted to do this to a car I'm building right now, but the added expense of doing it right(~$40k) just couldn't be justified. When I say doing it right, this is an AC system with all the bells and whistles. The performance of DC systems is nowhere near the AC systems, and you can't do things like regenerative braking (easily) either.
      It sounds cool, but really requires a light car and heavy wallet...

    6. Re:This is getting ridiculous by usrusr · · Score: 1

      true electric cars have a very big part of the money in their batteries. good luck at DIYing huge lipolys.

      and don't even think of the cost of replacing them every few years.

      --
      [i have an opinion and i am not afraid to use it]
  11. Suggestions: e-volks, Valence, a123, and more by MickLinux · · Score: 4, Informative
    Someone else suggested ZAP. I don't know what they are like for other things, but I converted my bike over to electric power with one of their ZAP XPress kits. On the one hand, the kit had a bunch of plastic parts that broke almost immediately. When I tried to contact their warranty department, they said "please write in." So I wrote in, and the required warranty request bounced Adressee unknown. Also, on the negative side, the company seems to do all its work in China, which implies to me unjustified profits and possible slave labor. On the other hand, once I replaced the parts with alternative, stronger parts, the kit did last me for a year and paid itself off.



    But they do sell a bunch of $1500 electric mopeds, if you're interested in going that route.



    There are some other vehicles out there, too -- you'll have to look for them, though. Some are only in development, like the x-cycle, while others are incredibly expensive, like the Sparrow.



    Here's my suggestion.



    I'm going to assume that you can get under the hood of a car, remove the engine, and essentially work on a car without killing yourself.



    In that case, you probably want to get a street-legal old vw-bug or Ford Fiesta (or Yugo)... anyhow, something that is small and aerodynamic, and then convert it to electric with a $3000 conversion kit from e-volks. (They also have a $1500 conversion kit, but I'd go with the better one if I were you.) This is Wilderness Energy (which sells hub bicycle conversion kits, unfortunately also of Chinese manufacture and easily broken) expanded to automobiles.



    Just... I'd go ahead and make the electric supply/recharge system separate from the vehicle, for the reason that you'll want to change it over later as you get more money.



    Initially, you'll want Sealed-Lead-Acid batteries as can be had from Wal-Mart in the Bike section. They're cheap but heavy, and you string up enough of them to get whatever distance and speed you need.



    But later, you'll want to convert to Lithium-ion phosphate, since it is lightweight, extremely efficient, long lasting, and doesn't blow up like a DELL.



    Two sources for those are A123 and Valence.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  12. Drive electric. by supasam · · Score: 1

    Here's a couple of cornpones putting together a 3 wheeled electric car.
    br> http://www.driveelectric.org/cars/index.html

    There's a lot of good links to other sites with parts and kits and the like.

    --


    Suck a lemon?
  13. Forget this question by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I want to know how to go about converting my 18-speed. Going thirty miles an hour uphill would be teh aw3some.

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    1. Re:Forget this question by n2rjt · · Score: 2, Informative

      Electric bicycles are, IMHO, more ready for prime time than electric cars.
      I commute on an EGo (www.egovehicles.com) 17 miles each way.

      Conversion kits for road bikes such as your 18-speed are easy to find online.
      Checking google, I see ZapWorld.com among others.

      You won't go 30 miles an hour uphill, though.
      15-18 MPH on the flat would be good for a conversion kit.
      Electric motors have high torque, so you'll not slow down much up hills.
      Before getting something fast, like your desired 30 MPH, check licensing laws in your area.

  14. Another question: by Mishotaki · · Score: 1

    "Would America be able to make enough electricity to power up every car if they would use electricity as an energy source?"

    Sadly, i highly doubt it, there is a lot of cars and they would need a huge amount of electricity to make them all run...

    1. Re:Another question: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry wrong try again..............

      If you used a turbine style setup to burn your petroleum product, you can achieve about a ten fold increase in power genration if you use it as an electicity generator.

      It's not exactly practical to run such a thing "IN" a car (you dont want to walk in from of THAT exhaust), you can however use one at home to turn your petroleum into electricity to charge your car at a MUCH higher efficiency.

      Since using DC power in and of iteself carries a higher efficiency - if all the world cars converted, it would mean that we would burn FAR LESS to produce THE SAME end results (speed / range).

      Think before you click.

  15. Well by StarKruzr · · Score: 1

    oil is pulled out of the ground and turned into fertilizer to grow the corn.

    This isn't *strictly necessary*. There are other options. And with algae-derived biodiesel, it isn't necessary at all.

    The point is to be carbon-neutral. As long as we can stop pulling NEW carbon out of the ground, we'll be okay.

    --

    +++ATH0
  16. I wish by StonyCreekBare · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've looked pretty hard at this question myself. But, sorry to say, electricity to drive a vehicle doesn't make much sense. The problems are two-fold.

    (1) The electricity. Here in California, paying PG&E rates, the cost to drive a mile with a given vehicle size/weight is much less for gasoline than electricity. I have seen this argued endlessly, but it is simply true. Even if you are willing to pay the cost, availability isn't there either.

    The electricity infrastructure is teetering on the edge of failure now. Adding a bunch of electric cars would collapse the system. If the public would encourage the building of a bunch of new nuke plants (I think the Pebbel-Bed reactors being designed now are very promising) we might be able to meet the demand, but realistically that isn't going to happen. Adding new coal plants to charge electric cars seems just WRONG on several levels.

    (2) The vehicles. The technology for electric vehicles simply isn't there for anything more than a glorified golf-cart. The best batteries are nowhere near good enough, are way too expensive, and don't last near long enough. Heck, we can't even build a good reliable battery for a laptop computer yet. And as for avoiding pollution, not only does most current electricity generation use fossil fuel and thus pollute at the generation site, but the manufacture and disposal of large numbers of toxic batteries is not exactly green either. And think those exploding Sony batteries have been a headache to laptop owners, wait until the scenario repeats itself on the scale of an automobile sized battery. Can you say "Car Bomb"?

    I honestly think the best solution is to buy an older, small and efficient car from a manufacturer known for producing reliable and efficient cars. I bought a 20 year-old Toyota MR2. Cost, under $500.

    Pollution? First, when buying an older car, simply budget putting a new catalytic converter on it right away, even if the one on it is working. Ditto, a good tune-up. I did, and then when I registered it the state mandated a smog test at speed, under load on a dynometer. The numbers returned were so low, the tech was blown away. He actually re-tested it a second time before believing the numbers. He said I could qualify as a "Super Low Emission Vehicle" based on the numbers alone. But since the make and model wasn't endorsed for that category, I couldn't officially do so. But new catalytic converters do work very, very well.

    Mileage? Around town, grocery store runs and the like, it gets 37-39 mpg. On the road, between 43 and 48 depending on various factors. Plus, it's fun to drive. Plus, it's been dead-bang reliable.

    It ain't a Prius, but it's darn close in terms of overall pollution and mileage. Cheap to buy, cheap to run, low impact on the environment, and reliable. Downsides? Well, it's getting a little long in tooth, appearance-wize. I probably should budget some paint and trim sometime soon, and because it's so tiny, I keep banging my head when I get in and out.

    I keep hoping to put up a bunch of solar panels and charge my own electric car and declare my own personal fuel independance some day. But it isn't practical, and may not be for a long time, if ever. Ask me again in 20 years or so. Like it or not, the old-fashioned gas-buggy is the overall best solution. Just pay attention to what you're buying, buy just what you need and no more, and arrange your life to require as little driving as you can, and you will know you are living a life in harmony with both society and the environment.

    Stony

    1. Re:I wish by RancidPickle · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I bought two old 3-cylinder Geo Metros for my business and painted them industrial safety yellow. One gets 54MPG and the other gets 50MPG. Odd thing is the one with the air conditioner gets the better mileage.


      I also thought about converting them to electron drive, but the cost and technology isn't there yet. I'm actually researching switching over to propane or compressed natural gas. The mileage drops a little, but the cost is less, the engine runs much cleaner and it's far better for the environment.


      CNT and propane powered conversions are particularly big in Canada. There's a lot of research on the net on the benefits. The conversion isn't too bad either - converting an old Toyota pickup (22R engine) to CNT is less than a grand. Luckily, there are filling stations around me, and if you re-setup for propane, you can get a fill-up anywhere they refill bar-b-que tanks.

      --
      "First things first, but not necessarily in that order."
      - Doctor Who
    2. Re:I wish by theBike45 · · Score: 1

      I would imagine that yanking a drivetrain out and putting in an electric motor and a bunch of batteries would violtae all kinds of vehicle highway safety rules. The car was neither designed nor approved as an electric vehicle, much less as the Rube Goldberg concoction that you'll end up with. As far as the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" is concerned, you have to remember that when Hollywood makes a movie they claim is a documentary, that doesn't mean that it isn't more or less a total fiction. The only claim made by the movie that I found actually truthfull was when it stated that General Motors dveloped an electric car car called the EV1. Everything else was total fantasy, most especially liar Ed Begley's big whopper that an electric car "satisfies the needs of 90% of the people." People need to go on vacation and visit others who live more than 30 miles away, which is about the furthest you could dare travel in an EV1 after a few years and hope to get back home. A very large number of people don't even have a means of recharging an electric car. The EV1 cost a very hefty $44,000. The Toyota Rav 4 electric cost $43,000 and the Hinda EV electric cost over $50,000. You can't own JUST an electric car. Anybody got that kind of money for a grocery getter. And that doesn't even mention the cost of those 5 year batteries - the EV1 Version II battery pack cost over $10,000. The Tesla lithium ion battery pack costs $20,000. It would be more accurate to say that electric cars satisfy the transportation needs of zero percent of the population, and ever since the Detroit Electric built its first cars in 1907 can tell you exactly why electric cars failed : there haven't been any practical electric batteries. Fuel cell cars being developed by many of the auto manufacturers are electric cars, but powered from a fuel cell's output rather than a battery. But there is hope. Altair Nanotechnology has developed a type of lithium ion battery that will take over 10,000 recharges (as opposed to regular lithium ion batteries that can only be recharged 750 times), is completely safe and non-toxic and, most importantly, can be recharged in 8 to 12 minutes. Without an ability to be recharged quickly, public electric car recharging stations will never be feasible. A pickup truck by Phoenix Motorcars will be using the new batteries and goes on sale later this year. And Alcoa will be using these batteries in the hybrid battery packs it supplies to many of the auto makers. These are the batteries that electric cars have waited 100 years for.

    3. Re:I wish by StonyCreekBare · · Score: 1

      Yes, I considered the Metro.

      I know a fellow who did the same thing with old Chevy Vegas, many years ago. Only the fact that he was his own mechanic and was very familiar with them let him get by at all. And he spent a lot of time fixing the Vegas what should have been spent running his business. He finally went bankrupt as a result. Had he bought a better vehicle, he might still be in business. The Metro is basicly a (slightly) better Vega.

      Reliability is a prime criteria, IMHO, with mileage secondary, and Metros are not known for being very reliable. Plus the 25,000 mile disposable motor is kind of a turn off. My MR2 has 10x that many miles on it and is going strong. I expect easily another 100k, or more, and nothing in the drive train has been touched not counting wear items like brakes and clutch, etc. No matter how fuel efficient a vehicle is, if it don't run, it's worthless.

      Buy a Toyota of any model, except the jury is still out on Prius, with the idea of driving it until it falls apart, and you will drive it a very very long time. They claim a ten year battery life in the Prius, but that's insufficient, IMHO. The basic drive train of ANY vehicle should be good for 25 years if cared for. Anything less than that and I'm not interested. The only time I expect to get rid of a vehicle in less than ten years, is if I really, really don't like it.

      Around here Propane is a lot more expensive than gasoline, especially if you take the reduced mileage into account. When I buy it for my home heat, I avoid paying road taxes, and it's still a lot higher. Add in the road taxes one would have to pay to use it in a vehicle, and it makes $3 gallon gasoline look cheap by comparison. And you CANNOT fill-up anywhere they refill bar-b-que tanks. Not legally. That motor vehicle tax thing again. And getting caught using any fuel (diesel too) for which road taxes are not paid, you will really wish you had stuck to gasoline.

    4. Re:I wish by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The electricity. Here in California, paying PG&E rates, the cost to drive a mile with a given vehicle size/weight is much less for gasoline than electricity

      That's just wrong. The RAV4-EV requires around 30KWh for a full charge and has a range of around 110 miles. PG&E's highest tier for energy usage is $0.21 per KWh, meaning it costs $6.30 to "fill up" your vehicle. At the current national average gas price, $2.27/gal, that's equal to 2.76 gallons of gas. Thus, the RAV4-EV gets 39.9 equiv miles to the gallon, which is significantly higher than the gas-powered variant (28-30MPG).

      It looks even better at CA's average residential electric price, $0.14/KWh.

      The electricity infrastructure is teetering on the edge of failure now. Adding a bunch of electric cars would collapse the system.

      That's a crap argument based on overdramatized supposition. Yes, we are running the grid closer to capacity than we have ever done - but that's because unused capacity is inefficent. Everyone points to the energy shortages in CA (which were caused by market factors) and the 2003 blackout (which was caused by a number of factors, including poor maintenence and inadequete staffing by FirstEnergy).

      The grid is more complex than it has ever been. We need more power and we want it at a lower price and with fewer emissions than ever before. Better control systems, tighter monitoring, and better maintenence are necessary to keep the grid operational. The trade-off is that the grid is far more efficent.

      As for adding capacity, our electricity usage has more than tripled since 1970. More plants will need to be built to support electric vehicles, but that's not a problem at all. We just have to keep doing what we have been doing for the past 100 years - building enough capacity to meet demand.

      The technology for electric vehicles simply isn't there for anything more than a glorified golf-cart.

      Wrong. The technology is there, it was just abandoned by the auto-industry. Current conversion EVs may have poor performance, but that's because they were never designed as integrated systems and generally run on low-voltage DC. High-voltage multiphase AC systems (like the system in Toyota's Rav4 EV and GM's EV-1) had no problems maintaining highway speeds and normal acceleration, and achieved ranges of up to 140 miles - that's useful for a lot of people.

      Assuming that the tehnology isn't there because conversions don't act like traditional vehicles is foolish. Inverter, motor, and battery technologies are mature and on the road today (Toyota Prius, anyone?). Electric cars may not be economically feasable currently, but that doesn't mean that the technology doesn't exist.

      And think those exploding Sony batteries have been a headache to laptop owners, wait until the scenario repeats itself on the scale of an automobile sized battery. Can you say "Car Bomb"?

      Ni-MH batteries don't burn when abused, nor do Lithium-Ion-Phosphate batteries. And every time someone says something like "car bomb", I just have to laugh - you're driving around with 10+ gallons of highly flammable fuel as is. Ford Pinto, anyone?

      but the manufacture and disposal of large numbers of toxic batteries is not exactly green either

      This is a misconception. Ni-MH batteries are not particularly toxic, and they recycle well - there are both economical and ecological reasons for recycling. Toyota, for example, pays $500 for every dead Prius battery packs.

      Any production has environmental impact. Oil exploration and refining, for example, requires a huge quantity of energy and carries significant environmental risks.

      And as for avoiding pollution, not only does most current electricity generation use fossil fuel and thus pollute at the generation site

      Absolutely. But even modern coal power plants are considerably more efficent than the

    5. Re:I wish by theLOUDroom · · Score: 1

      That's just wrong. The RAV4-EV requires around 30KWh for a full charge and has a range of around 110 miles. PG&E's highest tier for energy usage is $0.21 per KWh, meaning it costs $6.30 to "fill up" your vehicle. At the current national average gas price, $2.27/gal, that's equal to 2.76 gallons of gas. Thus, the RAV4-EV gets 39.9 equiv miles to the gallon, which is significantly higher than the gas-powered variant (28-30MPG).

      Now figure in $26,000 cost of the battery pack and try again.

      At $2.60/gallon, that's 10,000 gallons of gasoline or 300,000 miles you could drive the gas powered version for the price of ONE battery pack.

      --
      Life is too short to proofread.
    6. Re:I wish by gurps_npc · · Score: 1

      Air conditioning is strange. Mythbusters did a couple shows, showing that depending on the speed you are traveling and the outside air temperature, sometime turning on the airconditioner uses up less fuel than opening the window to cool yourself off. (reduced aerodynamis.)

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    7. Re:I wish by PaulRivers · · Score: 1

      Overall, electric cars still produce less CO2 than today's hybrids, even when the power is generated from fossil fuels.

      No.

      "...Coal-based electricity leads to CO2 emissions nearly as high as for a gasoline-powered car! Yet hydropower results in dramatically lower CO2 emissions. If you want to make an impact on CO2 emissions with your next car purchase, you need to know how the electricity in your region is generated before making your choice. And if in doubt, the best advice is once again to go hybrid, as we indicated in the last issue of the Leaf."

      http://www.ilea.org/lcas/taharaetal2001.html

    8. Re:I wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both problems are easily solved. Use solar panels and/or a wind generator to charge your car... no load on the grid, no pollution, and after startup costs, no gas bills!

  17. One word for you by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    Vespa.

  18. Ethanol != environmentally friendly by r_jensen11 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    No, it really isn't. You're basically trading one bad (more greenhouse gases) for another bad. The production of Ethanol requires significant amounts of water, the vast majority of which (especially in places like Minnesota, where ethonal is becoming more and more popular) comes from groundwater. Groundwater is already a scarce resource, and with a dramatic spike in usage because of ethanol refineries places like the Midwest will turn into deserts. The best power sources that are feasible right now are true renewables like wind and solar. The next best are nuclear, both fission (because that's all we have right now) and fusion (think ITER.) Hydroelectric power is devastating on the environment because of the drastic changes over the extremely short amount of time, which can (and does) severely disrupt the ecosystems for both the areas upstream as well as downstream. One of the most recent examples of this is in China, where they just finished/are building the largest dam to date.

    1. Re:Ethanol != environmentally friendly by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      The problem with Wind and Solar in the US is that, in order for us to build enough to completely replace all our fossil-fuel baseline, we will need grid interconnects across the US large enough to ship all the power across the country several times. It's not unfeasible, but it will cost as much as building a ton of nuclear reactors, which are also really expensive. I'd say that if money weren't an issue I'd go with Wind and Solar though. But since the southwest is our biggest source of solar and the midwest is our biggest source of wind, we'll have to ship power through our nonexistant grid interconnects. There's a book by Vaclav Smil called _Energy at The Crossroads: Global Perspectives and Uncertainties_ published by the MIT Press in 2003 that has a huge in-depth discussion and analysis of energy problems, if you're interested.

      --
      SRSLY.
    2. Re:Ethanol != environmentally friendly by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      I think that's really only true if you're stuck in the meme of centralised production. The really great thing about solar is that rooftops are almost always effectively unused space, and that space is generally adjacent to the need, minimizing transmission cost.

      Another common misconception about solar is that it's only useful in the southwest. Actually, while there is generally a lot of sun here, it comes with a lot of heat, which reduces the efficiency of the panels. Solar is actually more effecient in areas that are cold, but have clear skies.

      I don't know nearly as much about wind generation, but similarly, the windiest places are not the best places to put them, since higher winds place generate much stronger forces that have to be engineered for. I often see wind generators shut down on the windiest days.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    3. Re:Ethanol != environmentally friendly by Circlotron · · Score: 1

      Solar panels on the roof have another benefit in that they shade the roof from the direct sun, lowering the heat load on the air conditioning. For houses that have a tiled roof, the radiation from the underside of the tiles through the roof cavity onto the ceiling is a significant path for heat to find it's way in. Hey, even if the solar panels were not even connected they would still save electricity this way :-)

    4. Re:Ethanol != environmentally friendly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "is a significant path for heat to find it's way in."

      It also seems to be a path for extra apostrophes to find their way into "its", which is the possessive pronoun you wanted to type, I'm sure. Because "it's" stands for "it is".

    5. Re:Ethanol != environmentally friendly by DeadChobi · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I'm sure that the panels have gotten less expensive than 15 or 20-thousand for a 1 or 2 kWh system too. I wasn't really talking about central or decentral production. The problem with renewable energy without the grid upgrades I mentioned is that there's no way to move power from areas of surplus to areas of need. If we didn't upgrade our grid, even with decentralised production there would still be times of power shortage because of a lack of power in one area. We could alleviate this by building a lot of non-renewable power plants, like we have been doing, or we could ship power across the currently non-existant grid to other parts of the US. Read Smil's book. One of the things he mentions is the nonexistance of any substantial grid connections between the different localities in the country. Say, for instance, that it was sunny across the entire eastern seaboard such that they were generating a huge surplus of energy. Now, say that it's dead in the northwest. How are you going to get the surplus from the east to the northwest without any grid? This is the issue that I'm attempting to point out.

      --
      SRSLY.
    6. Re:Ethanol != environmentally friendly by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's not like the water can't be recycled, I'd think EtOH producers would think quite a bit greener than most other industries.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  19. Are you joking? by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    Most of that electricity is generated using plant that is at best 40% efficient (The "65%" you sometimes see quoted includes heat recovery in cogen plants - work fine in the winter in cold places, but the heat is pure waste in the summer.) If you allow that, you also need to allow for "free" vehicle heating in winter from the waste heat.

    The electric vehicle needs electric motors, which have weight. It currently needs hundreds of kilos of batteries to get a reasonable range, far more than that maybe 100kg penalty of IC over electric + 30kg of fuel. Charging and discharging batteries is far from 100% efficient - if I am lucky, with low discharge rates I get about 80% recovery output to input for my marine battery bank, which has advanced charging. So your baseline is something like 40% * .8 transmission loss * .8 charge and discharge loss * .7 electric motor efficiency = approx 18%. I will allow you a recovery on that for the percentage of electricity which is nuclear generated, so say the fossil fuel efficiency of the current electric route is around 25%.

    This is approximately the same as a DI turbocharged Diesel achieves in practice. However, it requires less oil to build a Diesel engine (mostly made of iron) than the electric system plus batteries (a lot of Al, which requires huge amounts of electricity to extract, plus Li, polymers.) Then there is the additional power loss due to dragging the huge batteries around. Look at the weight of the Prius - which has only a short electric range - compared to an equivalent Toyota TDi. So, overall, the equation is still biassed in favor of the IC engine. However, this will change - in quite a long timescale, IF we build nuclear plants and plenty of wind and wave plants, IF we build the infrastructure for lots of recharging points, IF we accept that vehicles for passengers need to be smaller and lighter so we don't spend most of the generated energy moving around the vehicle rather than the occupants.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Are you joking? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      If you allow that, you also need to allow for "free" vehicle heating in winter from the waste heat.

      Also, a Prius has a smaller ICE than a conventional vehicle of similar power. The Jetta TDI, for example, outweighs the Prius by ~100 kg. (Granted, the body styles are different enough that the comparison isn't great, but the Prius isn't especially heavy for a car of its class. I don't think Toyota sells diesels in the U.S., thus I went with the VW.) The Prius's electric batteries aren't that large, esp. compared to a purely electric vehicle.

      The TDi will run on 100% biodiesel, though.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
    2. Re:Are you joking? by Eccles · · Score: 1

      Oop, editing screw up.

      If you allow that, you also need to allow for "free" vehicle heating in winter from the waste heat.

      My response was meant to be, this is largely cancelled out by the cost of air-conditioning in summer.

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  20. e-volks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Considering they charge 45 dollars for a twenty dollar bilge fan.
    http://www.e-volks.com/catalog.0.5.html
    http://www.shipstore.com/SS/HTML/ATT/ATT17314.html
    Charge close to 300 dollars for a 200 dollar charger.
    http://www.e-volks.com/catalog.0.2.html
    http://www2.northerntool.com/product/340592_340592 .htm
    And totally get their math confused when talking about KW/Amps/Horsepower, to the point they make no sense.
    And suggest running their motors through your existing drive train?

  21. Why build when you can buy? by skids · · Score: 1

    Though it isn't in the price range of the OP, this company here has demonstrated that the motors and control system (including ABS and traction control) to convert any small car into a 4wd EV can certainly be made available to DIYers:

    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/08/the_hybrid _mini.php

  22. Easily impressed by movies... by joto · · Score: 0

    "I just finished watching 'Who Killed the Electric Car', and was quite impressed.

    Ok, so you're easily impressed, then!

    I'm too poor to buy anything but an old clunker, and not eager to pollute the atmosphere (or empty my wallet) with gasoline.

    You can try walking, or biking. Preferably with environmentally friendly shoes and/or bike. Or take the bus. But if what you want is a cheap, environmentally friendly car, your best bet is to just get one that uses little gasoline. Morris Mini or 2CV?

    The movie inspired me: I think I'd like to convert an old car (or perhaps a motorbike) to run on electricity.

    Well, good luck. The marketplace has pretty much proven that electric cars aren't viable at this time. Huge companies have tried, and failed. Some electric cars have been produced, but they are mostly novelty items, like the Think Car.

    But sure, go ahead, waste your money. Only don't claim it's environmentally friendly. The batteries and money you waste on this project will contribute more to global pollution than all the gasoline you would have burned in your car had you just driven it.

    Have Slashdot readers attempted such a thing before? What experiences have you had, and what would you recommend or not recommend?"

    There are so many idiots on /. that it is likely that someone here has probably already attempted to remove stains by using paint. I would recommend to get a small car with low mileage. Make sure its engine is tuned correctly. And just drive it.

    1. Re:Easily impressed by movies... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      So, what is your rebuttal to the movie? You've claimed, despite the movie, that the market has "proven" that people don't want electric cars. You've claimed that the guy is "easily impressed" for being impressed with the movie. You've ignored that there is a small but avid bunch of people out there who want these converted cars desperately enough to do it themselves. You've even claimed that the batteries alone will cause more pollution than all the gasoline they were meant to replace.

      Seriously, these statements each require justification. I would especially love to see a trustworthy source for the last one.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  23. Golf cart by HarryLeBlanc · · Score: 1

    Someone on this thread remarked disparagingly about a "glorified golf cart," but given your budget constraints you should seriously consider a street-legal electric golf cart. They're cheap, and reliable. Of course, they're golf carts, so they're slow, and don't have a great range. But as a second car, or for someone who doesn't travel much every day, it can be a practical solution. Watch out for cold weather, though -- it'll drastically affect battery performance unless you warm your batteries.

  24. Re:Suggestions: e-volks, Valence, a123, and more by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    In that case, you probably want to get a street-legal old vw-bug or Ford Fiesta (or Yugo)... anyhow, something that is small and aerodynamic ...

    Apparently you've not driven an old VW Beetle. Small? Yes. Aerodynamic? Not so much.
  25. Geo Metro by Colonel+Panic · · Score: 1

    I'd have to agree that the conversion route probably won't work out too well. You'll end up with a car that can go 30 MPH and has ~20 mile range.

    Get yourself an old GeoMetro (or even older Chevy Sprint if any still survive). They get at least 50MPG on the hiway and 40 around town. It's too bad they don't make them anymore...

    I'm waiting for the Toyota Aygo that's supposed to be available in the US next Fall (2007). As it will have a 3 cylinder, 1 liter engine in a SmartCar-sized package I suspect that the milage will be in the 50's. Price will hopefully be much better than the SmartCar and it should be a lot more durable than a Metro as it's a Toyota.

  26. mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did you reply to alienw's post, after ignoring his very simple math.
    Compressed air is a horrible energy storage medium, regardless of where you saw an air-powered car. The very real limits described in the post you responded to are physical limits, not ones which can be overcome by new technology.

    1. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Rockinsockindune · · Score: 1

      I replied because of the impression that I was given by the show, that both of the technologies, while not as powerful as gasoline, or other fuels, were feasable. One stated that you could get about 300 miles from one full tank of air.

      I didn't respond to his math, or state that the whole thing wasn't a scam. However, all I stated was that I _saw_ this exact company with this exact car on the show. While I know that the Science channel may not be the most accurate place to receive scientific information, as well as the fact that they themselves could be tricked by a company trying to use the promise of an air-powered car to scam money from investors, I do, however think that they have people evaluating the items that they put on their shows that are at least, if not more qualified than the general population of /.

      Now, an argument could be placed that this type of thing is alarmist propaganda as part of a larger goal of the company to spread Al Gore's version of global warming and it's effects. I would be more apt to agree to that, given that I saw a show, just today, on global warming, followed by "What happens when the oil runs out."

      --
      I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.
    2. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In one breath you claim you didn't defend the crazy claims of the "air car" people.
      In the next you assert
      I do, however think that they have people evaluating the items that they put on their shows that are at least, if not more qualified than the general population of /.


      Then you go on to bring in the idea of "alarmist propaganda as part of a larger goal of the company to spread Al Gore's version of global warming and it's effects." out of left field.

      The simple fact is that medium-chain hydrocarbons are used as vehicle fuel due to their energy density. Nothing else comes close. Almost any technology which is developed to allow vehicles to reasonably use lower-density energy storage mediums can be translated to ICE based platforms.

      Not to mention the fundamental point of alienw's post. Air is a horrible energy storage medium, in terms of efficiency (compression costs), energy density (tank size and weight per unit of energy), and practicality (massive heat exchangers to prevent "fuel" line freezing, difficulty refueling safe and quick).
    3. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Rockinsockindune · · Score: 1
      I find it quite amusing that you are unwilling to leave your name attached to these posts. Also, I don't quite understand your reaction to my posts, it really seems that you just like to argue with people.

      In one breath you claim you didn't defend the crazy claims of the "air car" people.
      In the next you assert
      I do, however think that they have people evaluating the items that they put on their shows that are at least, if not more qualified than the general population of /.
      Then you go on to bring in the idea of "alarmist propaganda as part of a larger goal of the company to spread Al Gore's version of global warming and it's effects." out of left field.

      You keep replying as if I am asserting that this is not a flawed idea. If I state it more plainly, maybe you will understand me. I make no assertion as to the feasability of these engines that use air as a fuel. I did however see the exact car mentioned in alienw's post on a televison program. The people who produced the television apparently think that this is a feasable idea. The only assertion that I made was that from the demonstration given, it sounded like it was air powered. I then stated that the network has fact checkers, and that I believe at least some of them are more qualified than the general population here. My intentions in making that statement was not to wholly validate the "air car" people, or to say that if it was on the network, it must be true (illuistrated by the fact that I later called into question wether or not the network has an extremist environmentalist agenda, which you were unable to understand), rather to say that if this is a scam, they, through demonstration, as well as other information, have managed to convince some people who have more information available to them about this specific application than either you or me (again note that I called into question wether or not the network has ulterior motives for painting environmentally friendly technologies in a good light).

      The simple fact is that medium-chain hydrocarbons are used as vehicle fuel due to their energy density. Nothing else comes close. Almost any technology which is developed to allow vehicles to reasonably use lower-density energy storage mediums can be translated to ICE based platforms.

      Not to mention the fundamental point of alienw's post. Air is a horrible energy storage medium, in terms of efficiency (compression costs), energy density (tank size and weight per unit of energy), and practicality (massive heat exchangers to prevent "fuel" line freezing, difficulty refueling safe and quick).

      Those are very good points. On the show, they did not touch on those areas, and as I do not have the knowlege to make any I can not offer any counterpoints. I am simply providing information that I received from the show that I watched, which only demonstrated the technology, and offered less information on the engine than is available on the companiy's website.
      --
      I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.
    4. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by alienw · · Score: 1

      Let me just reiterate that my point is not that it is impossible to use compressed air to store energy and perhaps power a car. It's possible. My point is that fundamental thermodynamical constraints impose hard upper limits on the efficiency of that process. As in, it won't scale. With the pressures they are using, the energy density is horrible -- their car has a range of something like 50 miles moving less than 30 miles per hour, and that's without headlights, windshield wipers, ventilation, air conditioning, radio, and other things we expect from a car. Adding those things would reduce the range even further. This isn't something you can easily solve -- the tanks are already state of the art, so you can't jack up the pressure. On top of that, the efficiency is horrible and cannot be improved. When you are running the compressor, a large part of the energy input is dissipated as heat (this is proportional to the difference in pressures). If you want to increase the pressure to get better energy density, even more energy gets wasted by the compressor. This cannot be avoided in any way. In fact, this car is probably already far less efficient than an ICE when you consider losses in the compressor. They say it takes $2.50 to drive 50 miles, which is even worse than a much larger Prius.

      In comparison, vehicles powered by batteries have much higher charging efficiency, far better energy density, and far fewer parts. Lithium-ion batteries can easily give you a range of a couple of hundred miles. Electric motors are pretty much maintenance-free. It's easier to add things like power steering or air conditioning. It's easy add regenerative braking, which boosts efficiency by a lot in stop and go traffic. Not to mention, you don't have tanks with enough ultra-high-pressure air to level a small building.

    5. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Murphy+Murph · · Score: 1
      I'm the AC.
      The people who produced the television apparently think that this is a feasable idea.

      The people who produced the television show apparently think that this is an interesting enough show to get ratings.
      There is no reason to believe the network has fact checkers which do anything more that a cursory look. I really got turned off in the first place by your apparent willingness to trust the supposed fact checkers of a sensationalist "science" show over the (very easy to check) math of the post you replied to. Then to add insult to injury you use that fucking line saying basically you assume the network has fact-checkers more qualified than /. posters.

      I understood your attacks on them possibly having an "extremist environmentalist agenda." What didn't make sense was how an air powered car is better for the environment. It burned my ass again because it appeared to be an out-of-the-blue attack on a nonexistent foe.

      (bye bye karma)
      --
      I dub thee... Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
    6. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by dattaway · · Score: 1

      Television is all about entertainment. I bet owning an air powered car would be entertainment too! No one mentioned maintenance of a compressed air system. Compressing air creates condensation inside the iron tanks. Note that tanks have a lifespan. An air dryer is required. Often this would be a heat exchanger and a molecular sieve to reduce the dew point down to -40F. 100 horsepower is going to need 74,600 watts by definition assuming 100% efficiency. Since we are dealing with compressed air, multiply that by 10. So you are going to need about 1 megawatt from the utility. Bring in the electrical switchgear. The support center for a single car is going to end up into one big industrial megaplex with three phase oil filled transformers.

      People have tried this. Its not science, its not practical, its fun. If you enjoy waste.

    7. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Glad to see you responded non-AC. Always the better approach. My only criticism of your view is that you assume that there AREN'T fact checkers who work for television who give things more than a cursory glance. Having worked in network television in the past, I can very easily, and with authority, tell you that you are wrong. The so-called "fact checkers" are continuity personnel. Not only are they responsible for making sure that everything in the show flows properly, but they also need to make sure that the show doesn't come off as people "talking out of their asses". They spend a good deal of time on thoroughly checking fact with experts when they can, or by doing reasonably heavy research. The reason why? To keep the know-it-all windbags in their places (Seeing that /. is the realm of the know-it-all windbags, I can see why a lot of Slashdotters would be offended by this notion). It was also my experience that when the continuity folks couldn't gain access to experts, the fact checking dropped in quality to a point where a snivveling windbag would complain, but the general population (including some knowledgable people) wouldn't. Some of us are very happy to overlook slight amounts of wrong information if it's not damaging. This is one of those case. Unless you're some kind of know-it-all windbag... ;P Just kidding.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    8. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Murphy+Murph · · Score: 1

      Fact checkers or not, the show allowed a company to make erroneous (if not fraudulent) claims. To claim a vehicle running off of compressed air is a suitable replacement for an ICE or battery powered consumer vehicle in all but the most extreme of cases is ludicrous.

      Ailenw's math is simple, sound, and correct - as are the simple conclusions he draws.
      No one seems to be willing to attack his math - everyone keeps defending the idea of an air car because it passed the muster of a frickin' TV show.
      That is what compels me to continue this debate. Point out the flaws in his math or reasoning. Stop using the TV show as any sort of defense.

      --
      I dub thee... Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
    9. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Murphy+Murph · · Score: 1

      They wouldn't use steel (iron) tanks. They most likely would use some sort of blown thermoplastic (HDPE?) tank wrapped nine-ways-to-Friday in fiber composite.

      --
      I dub thee... Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
    10. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Face it. This is the modern world where TV has more power to move people than fact. If you want something different, your time is over. The only way to change this is to dismantle the progress of the previous century. Once we hit the 21st century in 2000, the time to pine away for the old days and the old ways was all gone. I'm not going to try and disprove the math because I don't understand it, nor do I want to. I also don't think most people care. IF you want to argue about something your best bet is to argue against the entire culture of humanity since television is more powerful than any force (internets aside) that has ever impacted civilization. Or you can just join the 21st century and watch what really matters on TV...

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    11. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Murphy+Murph · · Score: 1

      WTF?
      I'm not rallying against TV. Where you got that I don't know.
      I'm saying that I had good reason to question the existence of fact-checkers on that program.
      I don't understand how this conversation went from:

      alienw: "air cars aren't practical - here's the math why"
      to
      whatshisname: "yeah huh, I saw it on TV"
      to
      me: "Forget what you saw on TV - the math is sound"
      to
      whatshisname: "I believe the TV program checks it facts"
      to
      me: "I can't believe they do, or if they do they don't care - for the math is sound."
      to
      you: "Trust me - TV programs have fact checkers - good ones."
      to
      me: "Then they messed up (if they exist) - for the math is sound."
      to
      you: "Why are you wasting your time rallying against TV. I don't understand nor care about the math."

      --
      I dub thee... Sir Phobos, Knight of Mars, Beater of Ass.
    12. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would say the number of us Ph.D.-holding lurkers here on slashdot far outstrip the number of liberal arts BA's who work for television stations who work as "fact checkers." Remember the NBC "exploding pickup trucks"? Or you can check out the many examples James Randi can cite from his own experience of what TV shows do and how they take license or just make stuff up.

      Science and technology as presented on "science channels" can be about as informative as that presented in Popular Mechanics and such.

    13. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Well in general you got it right. Who cares about the math? If it's on TV, then it must be true. That's the general perception of the world. We don't need people on crusades to try and enlighten the masses if the masses are too stupid to know what's true. If TV says air powered cars are feasible, then they are and the math can go take a hike. How do you think we got to where we are today? Education? Get into the 21st century groove dude!

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    14. Re:mnb Re:ethanol ? Air ! by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Actually I thought that if you compressed the air enough, and it lost enough heat, that liquidification might increase effeicency from "laughable range" up to the "chuckle-snicker" range. Using ambient heat to boil the liquid air would help; and I'm too lazy to do the math.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  27. Here's what I did. by edunbar93 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Years ago, I read the book Divorce Your Car!

    It tells the reader about how even if cars ran on pollution and planted flowers everywhere they went, they're still a big pain in the ass and really, not worth the trouble. They're hard to maintain, expensive, deadly, hard to find parking for (and when we build more roads and parking, traffic and parking problems just get worse), and expensive to society as a whole.

    The book also tells of two possible solutions to the problem, that you can implement right away. There's the car-lite life, and the no-car life. Because I was young and living in a big city with good public transit (where I still currently live, but not for much longer), I chose the no-car life. Instead of buying a car, I found an apartment closer to rapid transit, which gives me a direct route to work. I get my groceries delivered to my door - I can do this over the internet or any one of the many local grocery stores. If the trip is short, I just walk or bike. And if I *need* a car, I call for a cab.

    The car-lite life means using your car as little as possible. 90% of all trips are less than a mile anyway, so why not walk or bike them? And yes, you'd be amazed how many shops will deliver, but I'd bet you hadn't had the need to ask before, have you? If your city has rapid transit in one form or another, it more than likely lets you park at the nearest train station, so that you can keep the trip distance down. Or perhaps you can lock up your bike there. There's not always a need to bike the *whole* way to get where you're going.

    Either option is also good for your health, by the way. Not only are you contributing less to smog, but you're getting more exercise. And no doubt, your doctor knows how that's a good thing.

    --
    "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    1. Re:Here's what I did. by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Just curious, but how did this affect your weather-down day ratio?

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    2. Re:Here's what I did. by drsquare · · Score: 1
      90% of all trips are less than a mile anyway, so why not walk or bike them?


      100% of my trips are more than five miles away. And even a mile's walk in a storm is a misery.

      And yes, you'd be amazed how many shops will deliver, but I'd bet you hadn't had the need to ask before, have you?


      I don't buy food unless I've picked it myself. This goes double for fruit and vegetables, triple for eggs and bread. And I doubt independent butchers have delivery services. Unless you like eating supermarket crap, then it might be viable.

      If your city has rapid transit in one form or another, it more than likely lets you park at the nearest train station


      Supposing I don't live in a city? Or travel outside of a city? Or work or travel at times where public transport is unavailable (i.e. before 8 in the morning or after 6 at night), or unviable (in the evenings when they're full of criminals).

      Either option is also good for your health, by the way. Not only are you contributing less to smog, but you're getting more exercise.


      Walking or cycling short distances (a few miles or less) isn't exercise unless you weigh 300 pounds. And how much smog do you think a bus with two people on puts out?
    3. Re:Here's what I did. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It tells the reader about how even if cars ran on pollution and planted flowers everywhere they went, they're still a big pain in the ass and really, not worth the trouble. They're hard to maintain, expensive, deadly, hard to find parking for (and when we build more roads and parking, traffic and parking problems just get worse), and expensive to society as a whole.

      This is really stupid.

      1) Cars aren't hard to maintain, if you have a little mechanical knowledge. Just make sure you buy either a Honda or a Toyota, and not a Ford or GM, or else you'll be spending a lot of time and/or money doing repairs.

      2) Cars aren't expensive if you buy used ones that are 5-10 years old.

      3) Riding a bike and getting hit by a car is far more deadly than getting hit by a car while driving a car. Same goes for walking, but walking is so slow it's impractical.

      4) Parking isn't a problem if you live someplace that has plenty of parking.

      5) Expensive to society as a whole? Probably, but that's the choice we've made, and now we have to live with it.

      Because I was young and living in a big city with good public transit (where I still currently live, but not for much longer), I chose the no-car life.

      Yeah, that's fine if you live in Manhattan. I spent a week there at a friend's apartment, and you can certainly live there with no car. If you live anywhere else in the USA, though (which is over 99% of the population), the practicality of being car-less goes way down.

      Instead of buying a car, I found an apartment closer to rapid transit, which gives me a direct route to work.

      I don't know about you, but I like to do other things in life besides just stay at home and go to work.

      I get my groceries delivered to my door - I can do this over the internet or any one of the many local grocery stores. If the trip is short, I just walk or bike. And if I *need* a car, I call for a cab.

      I don't know of anyplace where I live that does that, and if they do, it's probably pretty expensive. My car is 12 years old and has been paid for for years, so my only costs are insurance and gas (and the very rare repair/maintenance--it's a Honda). I seriously doubt my monthly cost of car ownership is greater than delivery costs and cab fares (which are very expensive here in PHX).

      90% of all trips are less than a mile anyway, so why not walk or bike them?

      Why? Because this is a total lie. 95% of my trips are more than a mile away. There's a nice mall that happens to be located about a mile away from me, but work, grocery stores, other restaurants, and anything else I might want to do is more. And count me in with the other responder who likes to actually pick out his fruits and vegetables himself. I don't want some moron delivering me a bunch of bruised apples and bananas.

      If your city has rapid transit in one form or another, it more than likely lets you park at the nearest train station, so that you can keep the trip distance down.

      Train? What's a train? Trains are used for hauling cargo cross-country, not for people to ride on (unless, again, you live in Manhattan).

      Not only are you contributing less to smog, but you're getting more exercise. And no doubt, your doctor knows how that's a good thing.

      Biking is only good if you can find a low-traffic route, or if you ride at 5AM before the drivers are out. Otherwise, riding on city streets with cars going 50-60 mph (typical speeds where I live) is definitely hazardous to your health. Cyclists get killed regularly here in PHX.

      You sound like someone who is very naive, or maybe lives in another country. Going without a car is pretty much impossible in most of America, unless you've gotten yourself some kind of setup where you live in a city center and don't have to travel far to work. Unfortunately, this kind of thing is rare, since most city centers in this country are ghettos. The ones that aren't are extremely expens

    4. Re:Here's what I did. by Profound · · Score: 1

      It seems that the parent poster generalised, assuming he was talking to someone who lived in an urban area. You are one of the small percentage that doesn't, so it doesn't apply to you.

      >> Walking or cycling short distances (a few miles or less) isn't exercise unless you weigh 300 pounds.

      Are you joking? You can ride pretty easily on a bike, but it takes a lot more human exertion than pushing accelarate/brake and turning a wheel.

      >> And how much smog do you think a bus with two people on puts out?

      Probabvly the same amount as if three people catch it, so make sure you're on it!

    5. Re:Here's what I did. by Profound · · Score: 1

      >> Riding a bike and getting hit by a car is far more deadly than getting hit by a car while driving a car.

      Cars kill 1 million a year in accidents and 1.5 million a year in air pollution (cars make up 50% of pollution which kills 3M globally)

      Everyone riding bikes would cause FAR FAR less deaths, but the trouble is, if everyone does the right thing, the defectors (in game theory terms) who do the "wrong" thing get the payoff in personal safety. By driving a car for safety you gain personally, at the expense of everyone else.

      >> Parking isn't a problem if you live someplace that has plenty of parking.

      X isn't a problem if you live where X isn't a problem.

      >> Expensive to society as a whole? Probably, but that's the choice we've made, and now we have to live with it.

      Here you are expousing a horrible idea that seems to have gained mind-share (especially in politics): If you make a bad decision, don't admit or try and fix it but instead keep going down the wrong path as to change requires effort or to admit a past mistake.

      We can be better than this.

    6. Re:Here's what I did. by drsquare · · Score: 1
      It seems that the parent poster generalised, assuming he was talking to someone who lived in an urban area. You are one of the small percentage that doesn't, so it doesn't apply to you.

      I'd think it would be a rather small number that both live in the heavily urbanised areas where public transport is viable, and work and travel at the right times. Most people live in light urban areas or the suburbs.

      You can ride pretty easily on a bike, but it takes a lot more human exertion than pushing accelarate/brake and turning a wheel.

      Not much more exertion. I cycled to work for two years and it didn't do me any good at all. I'd say I get more benefit from ten minutes in the gym than ten hours cycling. It's really overrated.

      Probabvly the same amount as if three people catch it, so make sure you're on it!

      I can walk to work quicker than the bus. That's not even counting the hour it takes to show up. If it shows up at all. The problem with public transport is if your route is cancelled, you're completely fucked.
    7. Re:Here's what I did. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Cars kill 1 million a year in accidents and 1.5 million a year in air pollution (cars make up 50% of pollution which kills 3M globally)

      That's right, cars kill a lot of people. Now, take 25% of those people, stick them on bikes, and what do you think will happen to the death toll? The ones who are still in cars will be slaughtering the ones on bikes.

      Air pollution can be reduced by more effective anti-pollution laws and enforcement. I see lots of crappy old cars spewing out pollution driving around; it's well-known that you can get past emissions checks with a well-placed bribe. Cars that are high polluters are known as "gross polluters", and produce hundreds of times more pollution than clean, newer cars.

      Everyone riding bikes would cause FAR FAR less deaths, but the trouble is, if everyone does the right thing, the defectors (in game theory terms) who do the "wrong" thing get the payoff in personal safety. By driving a car for safety you gain personally, at the expense of everyone else.

      That's exactly right. If everyone rode bikes, almost no one would be killed in traffic accidents. The problem is, how exactly are you going to convince everyone to start riding bikes? If you only convince 10%, it's not going to work. It has to be all-or-nothing. The fact that all our cities are now designed around cars makes this impossible; how exactly are you going to suddenly make it feasible for everyone to bike to work? And what about people who live in places where it rains, and that can't afford to show up at work in dirty biking clothes? And what about out-of-shape or disabled people who can't physically pedal themselves around?

      You're talking about changing the entire culture and infrastructure of a 300-million-person country in one fell swoop. This is impossible.

      Here you are expousing a horrible idea that seems to have gained mind-share (especially in politics): If you make a bad decision, don't admit or try and fix it but instead keep going down the wrong path as to change requires effort or to admit a past mistake.

      We can be better than this.


      No, we can't do better. Yes, it may have been a bad idea when people came up with the idea of personal vehicle ownership in the early 1900s, but it can't be changed overnight now. There's an entire culture and an entire infrastructure built up around this whole paradigm (damn managerspeak...). You can't make cycling a viable method of transportation without tearing down all the cities and building all-new cities with cycling and public transit in mind. The cost to do this is unimaginable, and you're certainly not going to convince a majority of the population to do anything even remotely approaching this plan. This isn't just "admitting a past mistake", or "changing paths"; it's making a change so disruptive that it would cause untold economic destruction.

      Therefore, when the majority of people have chosen a specific way to live, if you want to live among them, you need to fit in, even if their transportation system is all based around a bad idea. Otherwise, you need to move somewhere else where things are more to your liking. I wouldn't mind living in Manhattan, but I'll never be able to afford it, and there's no jobs there in my profession anyway (and I'm not about to make a career change into advertising just so I can live there). If transportation is so important to you, then you should move somewhere where the transportation situation is more to your liking.

    8. Re:Here's what I did. by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      This is really stupid.

      Is it? Or are you just a bitter, closed-minded jerk? Just because what I propose doesn't apply to *you* because of the choices *you've* made, because you're not willing to think differently from the people around you... well, I guess that makes me really stupid, doesn't it?

      1) Cars aren't hard to maintain, if you have a little mechanical knowledge.

      I suppose that depends on how you mean "hard to maintain." When was the last time you had to make repairs that did not cost several hundred dollars? New tires? New brake shoes? Alignment (which I'm sure you do on your own)? I suppose the regular changing of oil and oil filter doesn't cost a lot, but that's about the only maintenance project I can think of on a car that doesn't cost stupid amounts of money. And then there's things like replacing your head gaskets (while not *technically* difficult, is a something that takes up much of your weekend) or your oil seals, or your headers or muffler, or... well, ask yourself something else. Do you maintain anything else around the house anywhere *near* as much as you maintain your car?

      My dad relies on his car. He can't live without one. His nearest grocery store and bank is 60 miles away. He's a very good shade-tree mechanic and does all his own work. He even likes doing it. And *every* time I suggest to him that I might want to get a car, he has this to say: "Don't." Why? See reasons above.

      And then you say something totally counter your own argument:

      2) Cars aren't expensive if you buy used ones that are 5-10 years old.

      Sure, okay. Do you have $5000 lying around in your bank account? No? How did you pay for that again? Oh yeah, you pay the bank 6% while you pay that off. If you need a loan from the bank for something, it's expensive. Oh, and don't forget that most of the cost of a used car is in maintenance. So on top of the $100 a month you pay the bank, you pay $100 a month in insurance, and then $300 every few months when you *least* expect it, because the repairs you've been putting off suddenly need to be done or the car doesn't work.

      Because this is a total lie. 95% of my trips are more than a mile away. There's a nice mall that happens to be located about a mile away from me,

      See, this is the crux of my argument that you are a bitter jerk. Instead of choosing to live somewhere even remotely close to that nice mall, you chose to live as far away from anything as possible. And because I come along and suggest maybe there might be another way, well, then my argument doesn't apply to anyone else in America, and therefore I'm a moron.

      Well, I just bought a townhouse in the suburbs. You know what my criteria were? Close to transit, close to shopping, maybe close to school, and if I'm really lucky, close to work too. And what do you know, as I'm walking to work from the train one morning, I notice that there's these townhouses being built. A couple blocks from a grocery store and a dozen other shops. Heck, I even get a yard and a playground just outside our door for our kid in the deal. Maybe I'm just lucky, or maybe I planned it that way.

      I can bet what your criteria were when you bought your house in the suburbs. "I have a car, so I can live anywhere. Just so long as the land is cheap, I don't care." So now, you're *dependant* on your car, and when some pot-smoking hippie dickhead comes along to suggest that you don't need your car, you get pissy with him and tell him that everyone else in the world is just like you. What about the people living in the hundreds of houses in the few blocks around *your* mall? Or the thousands of other malls in every city in America?

      *You* need your car. Other people do not need their cars. Some people still have the opportunity to make the choice, like I did, so I plant the seed in their heads.

      And your argument that it sucks to walk or bike in the rain? What did you think I meant when I said "If I need to, I'll call a cab"?

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    9. Re:Here's what I did. by Profound · · Score: 1

      The move to the suburbs and mass adoption of the car took place in only a decade or two, post WWII. It might take 20 years to turn around, but not doing so will fuck the planet for ever.

      The best way to get people onto bikes is to create the equivalent of bike freeways that cyclists can travel along without any cars. This can be very cheaply done by putting a bike lane next to a river. The river running East-West in the city of Adelaide has this path, and every year or so the local paper has people from 5/10/15km out from the CBD leave home by car or ride along the river and every time the bikes win.

      http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=adelaide&i e=UTF8&z=13&ll=-34.921267,138.599396&spn=0.095993, 0.21698&om=1

      A grid of these bike-only paths (requiring only a 2m wide concrete path) at reasonable spacings across the city (so that say, someone only has to ride a max of 2-3km on the road) would make cycling safer, less polluting and quicker than car travel.

      The only trouble is, until bike shops and sports-energy-bar manufacturers give more cash to politicians than oil & car manufacturers, this will be vigorously resisted.

    10. Re:Here's what I did. by Profound · · Score: 1

      >> it's making a change so disruptive that it would cause untold economic destruction

      I think this is the crux of the issue. To solve the looming problems in the world we may find that life gets harde and we have to make sacrifices, but surely we can afford this? Why not have the same number of TVs than people, rather than more? Why not use your own effort to get around more, or read on the bus rather than burn fuel sitting in a multi-tonne vehicle carrying a 70kg person?

      I work as a software developer. In coding, it's pretty cool to be able to build complex stuff, get it to work with things and even have programs write programs. Over millions of years, another form of code has developed, via randomness where some things do better than others, and thus make more copies on and on and on.

      When I compare what systems we humans construct compared to what nature has done, it is truly humbling. And as each species becomes extinct, we are losing millions and millions of pieces of source code that ingeniously solve problems. In a few hundred years, the loss of biodiversity (in effect, trillions of years worth of computation) and the unbalancing of natural systems will be revealed as the true economic loss of these times.

      We can either be cursed by the people who have to use smaller cars, get out of cars onto public transport or onto a bike, or we can be cursed forever by our decendants, who single out our generation as the worst... sure others destroyed the earth, but we KNOW we're doing it, and keep going, because we like our lifestyles too much.

      >> If transportation is so important to you, then you should move somewhere where the transportation situation is more to your liking.

      I already have :) I walk and ride everywhere. Someone will give me a lift in a car once every 1-2 weeks, if that. It's a bit harder, sometimes, but I like the feeling of using my own body to get around, rather than being carried around by fossil fuel powered machines.

    11. Re:Here's what I did. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      It's a bit harder, sometimes, but I like the feeling of using my own body to get around, rather than being carried around by fossil fuel powered machines.

      Yeah, I do too, which is why I ride my bike around the subdivision on weekends, in the evenings, etc.

      I think this is the crux of the issue. To solve the looming problems in the world we may find that life gets harde and we have to make sacrifices, but surely we can afford this?

      We could, if enough people were willing to make these sacrifices. But go almost any place in America and propose that we start building everything in bike-friendly, but car-unfriendly ways, and I guarantee you won't get much support. Many places are doing the token step of putting bike lines on main roads, but this only helps the really hardcore cyclists who don't care much about their personal safety; most people are not going to ride a bike next to traffic going 60+ mph, with many very poor drivers not paying attention, talking on cellphones, etc. It's simply too dangerous.

      I work as a software developer. In coding, it's pretty cool to be able to build complex stuff,

      I'm a software engineer, and one big difference between software and the real world is that software is easily changed. You can rip up whole sections at will and replace them. Not so with the real world; it's possible to bulldoze entire communities and start over with a truly bike-friendly design, but it's expensive and you won't get much agreement.

      We can either be cursed by the people who have to use smaller cars, get out of cars onto public transport or onto a bike, or we can be cursed forever by our decendants, who single out our generation as the worst...

      Yep, I'm afraid that's what's going to happen. Unfortunately, people are notoriously short-sighted, and that's why we have problems like this. The only way you get a population of people to do wise, long-sighted things is to have an authoritarian government with really great rulers. It just won't happen with a democracy because the general populace would rather vote for the guy who gives them what they want instead of what they need.

    12. Re:Here's what I did. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The move to the suburbs and mass adoption of the car took place in only a decade or two, post WWII. It might take 20 years to turn around, but not doing so will fuck the planet for ever.

      It's not as easy as you think. Things are a little different in Australia than in the US; here, there's 10 times as many people, and things are a lot more developed. WWII was a long time ago, and the population was much smaller back then. Since that time, things have expanded, and people have moved west. Where I live, Phoenix, was really a small town back then, and now its a metropolis with 4 million people.

      The best way to get people onto bikes is to create the equivalent of bike freeways that cyclists can travel along without any cars. This can be very cheaply done by putting a bike lane next to a river.

      Not all cities are laid out along a river. We have one river running through Phoenix (if you can call it a river; most of the time it's completely dried up), but the city itself is more like a grid.

      I agree that more "bike freeways" are needed; this would be very helpful for people who'd like to bike, but don't because it's too dangerous to share the road with cars. However, I'm not sure how this can cheaply be done when all the property is already developed. Municipalities like to call themselves "bike friendly" by putting bike lanes along major thoroughfares, but this is pretty stupid as I've pointed out before. Only people with a death wish want to ride next to 60mph traffic, especially with the idiot drivers we have here in America. Even worse, there's actually few penalties here for killing other people (in cars or on bikes) in traffic, even if negligence is proven.

      link - this woman's husband was killed by a driver. His fine? $1000. Kill a biker with your SUV and you only have to pay $1000.

      But even if "bike freeways" were installed, this would only help a small percentage of people, most likely: those lucky enough to live close enough to their job to bike (10 miles or so, at the very most). Because cities are already laid out with so much distance between places (i.e., residential areas are usually not close to industrial and commercial areas where the jobs are), many people simply won't have this option. Of course, some stupid unmarried Slashdotter will probably chime in here and say "move close to the job", but this isn't an option for many people, especially those who are married. It's nearly impossible for two people to arrange it so that they both live 5 miles or so from their workplaces.

      The only way you're really going to get any serious change along these lines is to build a whole new city designed around bikes and public transit. But this requires 1) businesses to come in and provide jobs, and 2) people to come in and pay for home construction. Good luck getting all that buy-in. We have a development a little like this here in Arizona, just outside Phoenix. It's called "Arcosanti". It's an interesting little place to visit, and you can buy some artsy stuff there, but it's been around several decades now and hasn't exactly turned into a metropolis.

    13. Re:Here's what I did. by Profound · · Score: 1

      Even worse, there's actually few penalties here for killing other people (in cars or on bikes) in traffic, even if negligence is proven.

      link - this woman's husband was killed by a driver. His fine? $1000. Kill a biker with your SUV and you only have to pay $1000.


      I know, this makes me really mad.

      Kill someone with a few grams of metal, in the form of bullets, or knives, and you go to jail.
      Kill someone with a tonne of metal, in the form of a car, and you get a slap on the wrist.

  28. Electric Automobile Association Rally by billstewart · · Score: 1
    Electric Automobile Association, and Links to Local Electric Auto groups. You just missed the Electric Automobile Association of Silicon Valley annual rally in Palo Alto - there were a bunch of homebuilt cars, a few commercial cars such as the Tesla and standard or hacked hybrids, a range of motorcyles and scooters, and a lot of electric bikes, some of which can be souped up to go freeway speed... I've been going to these on and off for about a decade, and it's evolved from being almost entirely hobbyist stuff to having a reasonable fraction of consumer gear. There are some cars that are essentially a fully-built commercial vehicle, but to deal with legal issues they sell it mostly-assembled it and let you finish it, making it officially a kit car.

    Before thinking about building your own electric car, think a lot about what you need to do with it.

    • Do you do most of your driving locally, or do you commute 50 miles to work?
    • Would a scooter that can go 35mph be good enough,
    • or an electric bike that can go ~20mph?
    • Do you live somewhere that it rains a lot, so you really need a closed car, or do you live in California where it's dry 9 months of the year and only heavily rainy for two months, or do you have to deal with snow in the winter?
    • Could you do half or most of your driving on an electric scooter/bike/etc. and use a gasoline car the rest of the time?
    • How good are you with machinery, welding, steering mechanisms, etc.? Most cars that are cheap enough for you to junk the engine are also going to need body work, including suspensions that can carry the battery weight.

    The conversion cars I saw there mostly used about 15-20 batteries if they used lead-acid or 10-15 if they used more expensive NiMH, so you're looking at at least $1500 in batteries, plus motors and anything else you need.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  29. Re:Suggestions: e-volks, Valence, a123, and more by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Apparently you've not driven an old VW Beetle. Small? Yes. Aerodynamic? Not so much.
    That's because you weren't driving it backwards.
  30. Ev conversion question by tina+juarez · · Score: 1

    DO it! Bill Stewart's advice was good. I got good stuff off of the austinev trading post. Join EVEAA, go to meetings, ask for spare parts for sale, you may be able to get a battery discount & share a pallet with someone else to bring down battery cost. After you've figured your needs, look in the freebie ads for a car. YOu want a low Coefficient of Drag (googleit)weight under/around 2500# The most expensive item is the transfer plate between your emotor & trannie so consider a car type thats already been converted. VWs are popular but bugs are too small, and the gear ratios suck- Be sure the frame and vanity stuff is in good shape whatever you choose- the rubber details on my VW cost as much as the conversion b4 batteries. I saved $3000. in gas the first year & my conversion cost $3K. Adaptation is survival, this project you are considering saves considerable amounts of CO2 emissions ... there may be other social benefits too, but I am not interested in all the attention from women.

  31. TDI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Get yourself an old GeoMetro (or even older Chevy Sprint if any still survive). They get at least 50MPG on the hiway and 40 around town. It's too bad they don't make them anymore...

    Or a 2003 VW Golf TDI. It also gets 50+ mpg highway, and better than 40 mpg city. It's also a bit bigger so it carries people much more comfortably, and more cargo, and it's actually a really safe car, unlike the deathtrap that is a Geo Metro. (Have you ever been in an Geo Metro at 70 or 80 mph? Dear god...)

    But like the Metro, it's too bad they don't make them any more: in 2004 they switched to a more powerful, less efficient engine. (Starting in 1995, the Metros had a more powerful engine, but it drops the mileage down to 35 mpg.)

    It's probably easier to find a 2003 Golf than a 1994 Metro.

    1. Re:TDI by Colonel+Panic · · Score: 1

      Or a 2003 VW Golf TDI. It also gets 50+ mpg highway, and better than 40 mpg city. It's also a bit bigger so it carries people much more comfortably, and more cargo, and it's actually a really safe car, unlike the deathtrap that is a Geo Metro. (Have you ever been in an Geo Metro at 70 or 80 mph? Dear god...)


      true, but I doubt you can find a 2003 VW Golf TDI for less than $10K and the OP was looking for cheap. I suspect you can easily find a metro for $500.

  32. mnb Re:I wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to mention that the mileages quoted in that movie were based on southern California temps.
    Move up north into a colder climate and you'll get less than 50% of that range.

  33. Inefficiency by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    Compressed gas is fundamentally an impractical way to store energy. In theory you could get 100% efficiency by reversible adiabatic compression of the air into a compressed cylinder, followed by a reversible decompression, where all your energy comes back out.

    The problem comes from the irreversible process in between. When you compress air it gets hot. As the hot air sitting in the cylinder slowly cools, energy is lost to heat the surroundings. When you come back to draw on that power you will find that the pressure has dropped significantly. When you buy compressed CO2 cartridges for example, you are getting much less energy out of them than was put into them at the time of manufacture.

    This could be mitigated by wrapping lots of insulation around the gas to keep it warm but you see what the fundamental problem is.

    1. Re:Inefficiency by salec · · Score: 1

      When designing energy conversion facilities, we should always predict the use for "junk" energy. I.e. if ICE exhaust is hot enaugh, it should be used to extract more power from it (power some sort of ECE, steam- or stirling-engine, to generate electricity or pre-compress the ICE air intake). In this case, the air compressing facility should sell heat too, or power another ECE that would run the first-stage (lower pressure) compressor for better efficiency.

    2. Re:Inefficiency by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Noise is energy too, I've seen it porposed to put piezo-electric crystals in the exhaust of ICE to convert wasted sonic energy into electricity

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  34. Link-Tastic by Rockinsockindune · · Score: 1
    --
    I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.
  35. Link-Tastic by Rockinsockindune · · Score: 1

    While the synopsis is the same as the last link, the link to the Austrailian company's site is below the pictures, rather than the French "Air Car".

    --
    I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.
  36. Woops! Link-Tastic by Rockinsockindune · · Score: 1
    --
    I abuse commas, I cannot help myself.
  37. Part of a solution by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    At least solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, ethanol, etc are all possible at the plant (or in your house). It may be expensive, but we could actually switch them over to clean energy. You can't do that at all if everyone's driving gas cars.

    --
    Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
  38. $6,000 worth of batteries is not for the masses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i dont know who made this comment/title, but they have obviously never worked for $20,000 a year, while supporting kids, which is what the actual 'masses' you speak of do in this thing called 'the real world', that you may notice as you drive by on the freeway.

    1. Re:$6,000 worth of batteries is not for the masses by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Anyone working for $20k should invest part of their paycheck in something called "condoms". Don't have kids if you can't afford them. And if you get pregnant anyway, there's millions of people looking to adopt.

  39. Disgusting Cars by Nazmun · · Score: 1

    Nice link, those cars however that they rebuilt were disgusting. Old bodies, poor range, poor performance, and poor price. The positive thing is it rules out remaking an old gas powered car into electrical. As many have suggested going for a more efficient gas or diesel car is your best bet.

    --
    Hmmm... Pie...
  40. Make an electric bicycle first. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

    I think converting a bicycle is a good first project. It can be done for a couple hundred dollars and is pretty nifty as you can race around at a decent clip, you have almost no fuel cost, you can pedal if you run out of charge, and you can throw it on a bike or in the back of a car if you need to go long distances. Not at all bad for a weekend project and less than buying a XBox.

    --
    At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    1. Re:Make an electric bicycle first. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Electric bikes aren't that good either. I've ridden a couple of production ones, and it seems that the battery+motor is strong enough to propel the extra weight of the battery+motor.
      A regular bike has effectively unlimited range, while the electric is really bad if you have to pedal those extra 50lbs around if the battery runs down.

      With that extra weight, you lose significant qualities of the bicycle. Throwing it in the back of the car is problematic when the thing weighs 80lbs. And most bike racks can't take that weight either. Forget abour carrying it upstairs to your apartment.

      They have their place, but there are significant disadvantages.

    2. Re:Make an electric bicycle first. by MikeFM · · Score: 1

      I've never seen one that weighed an extra 50 lbs because of the conversion. Can I assume you're using some heavy form of motor and battery? The ones I've owned I'd say were probably less than 20lbs heavier for the conversion. They can wimp out sometimes if trying to make the thing take you up a big steep hill without any pedaling.

      I'd say the weight depends on the rider. I know a lot of people who have trouble carrying a normal bike up stairs or throwing it into a car but I don't really have that problem (being a big scary guy). Maybe you could try a smaller lighter bike and a smaller conversion kit. As always, size everything according to your needs. Most likely it'll always be a lot lighter than a car or motorcycle. ;)

      --
      At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
    3. Re:Make an electric bicycle first. by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      With newer Lithium Ion batteries, the penalty has gotten a lot better. But the Giant LaFree I rode specifically weighed in at around 75lbs. 45-50 more than a regular bike.

      Here is a recent list of some of the elec bike offerings and kits. Addon kit weights range from ~28-50 lbs.

      I like elec bikes. But have never really seen a net gain over just pedaling.

  41. Many EV projects around despite trouble by Thomas+Henden · · Score: 1

    Seems like Wikipedia covers EV conversions in this article

    Since a lot of the Beetles still run in South-America, an electric conversion kit for it could be a good idea.

    The demand for EV conversion kits, even though many of them are not that well designed, is another indicator, that the traditional car (and oil) industry, do not want to fill the people's demand for electric cars, since they obviously will earn less on them, because of the lesser demand for servicing, and the obvious need for uh, no oil.
    Oh, even replacing the batteries, and even if they really were expencive, wouldn't make the automobile industry's day, since the battery is (or should be) ONE component you can replace fairly easily, if the car is reasonably well constructed, for a quick replacement of the batteries. (Few are, to this date, however unless you use lead acid batteries, the batteries can last much longer than you would expect, or they really should!)

    And who says you would want to buy a new battery from the original manufacturer, if this were priced after the same scheme as ink cartridges? The batteries would be subject to a price competition, and maybe you would stick to cheaper battery technology with a lower range, if your needs for driving were not that big, or maybe you replace electric components or batteries yourself, 'robbing' the automotive industry for even more bucks they'd planned to earn on service?
    Therefore also, GM owns the patent on the NiMH battery-patent (they are in a patent dispute with Toyota), and control it, so that cells over something like 10AH cannot be licensed for production (Which, in turn, make them unpractical for homebrew EVs) Guess they somehow 'ask questions', if your little EV-factory suddenly order 10000s of these ones, to connect 10 or 20 by 20 in parallel and series for a hefty EV-battery, or they simply give you a price which simply isn't affordable for your 'project'. NiHMs are very good batteries, but need close monitoring, not to be under or overcharged, so they get damaged, which means, you want battery packs with fewer, larger cells, not many smaller cells, for your EV conversion.

    How about other alternatives?

    Sturdy wet electrolyte filled NiCd batteries from SAFT are heavily overpriced, though they are as easily made, as ordinary lead acid batteries, and for some 'mysterious reasons', there has been much more trouble with them in our electric cars in Norway, than there probably is with them in airplanes, trains, submarines etc. If you have a lot of money and know what you do, you could use NiCds, but must first be able to get hold of them. (Which might prove difficult in countries outside those who have many EVs which use them, like Norway)

    Litium ion batteries are not so much in the hands of the automobile industry, but need very well constructed circuits, to protect them from over or undercharge, plus you need to keep them not too cold during charge, are still expencive to buy (but not to produce) and is still no real option for those who want to convert their electric car 'at home', which means most people in practice are left with ordinary lead acid batteries as their only option, if they are going to do a conversion to electric.

    Which means, you will probably not get the best range out of your lead acid electric converted automobile, which together with the less resources those who make electric cars have, compared to the regular automobile industry, makes people falsely believe that electric cars is doomed to be something awkward, golfcart-like, only two seats, and only a short range, novelty item.

    The truth is, as many Californians, and some Norwegians do know, that really good electric cars WERE made some years ago, like the Toyota RAV 4 EV, GM EV1, Ford Ranger EV, Peugeot 106 EV, Citroën Saxo EV, Berlingo Partner and not the least - Think City, although it has only two

  42. The Air Car Scam by ishmaelflood · · Score: 1

    If you dig around on their site you'll find that the only documented range for their car is 7 km (from memory). That is less than 5 of your Earth miles. They then demonstrate that this can be extrapolated out to several hundred kilometres by multiplying it by a series of numbers. That is pretty funny.

    Note that vehicles powered by compressed air have a long history, it has been used in a shunting lococmotive, and many early torpedoes. I am quite sure they have a running vehicle, what they don't have is a useful solution for most people.

  43. Re:Suggestions: e-volks, Valence, a123, and more by jamesh · · Score: 1

    From the literature i have read, putting the batteries in the front adds a bit of weight which helps balance the thing a bit, and also is better from a safety point of view. Those lead acid batteries are nice and crumply(sp?) too, which helps in a frontal collision. Not sure if using unexploded li-ion batteries would give you the same benefit though... might want to improve the firewall a bit.

    So aerodynamics aside, they aren't a bad choice for a first ev.

  44. Re:aerodynamics by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    Old Beetles (and Squarebacks and Fastbacks, if you can find them anymore) are surprisingly simple and effective vehicles. Many of the parts are stamped or welded stampings (don't *ever* let the hamfisted towtruck operator sling your old Beetle.) They're pretty simple to work on, though you should expect to hack yourself a couple of times on the engine air shroud. As an EV donor, it's probably a pretty good choice.

    However, I've driven them on the New York Thruway in winter, and lemme tell ya, the things dart around something fierce at highway speeds in the slightest of crosswinds. Ballasting with lead batteries up front will definitely help keep the nose pointed where you requested. A friend of mine, who's an Aero professor at U of Texas, described the old Beetle as "one of the most abominable aerodynamic designs ever." He'd done wind tunnel testing to back up his statement. Hopefully I got the quote right.

  45. Re:so you support abortion? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Dude, you need psychological help.

  46. Re:Suggestions: e-volks, Valence, a123, and more by mfarver · · Score: 1

    and then convert it to electric with a $3000 conversion kit from e-volks. (They also have a $1500 conversion kit, but I'd go with the better one if I were you.)

    Please don't.. the e-volts kits are fantastically underpowered for a car. Despite their claims, a 72V series DC vehicle will not do freeway speeds. Best practice in hobbiest conversions has been closer to 120VDC for awhile. The absolute minimum for a freeway EV is 96V and a small car (Geo Metro). Top end at 96V will be 60-65mph, and a 29+ second 0-60mph time. Most Americans will not be comfortable with that level of acceleration. Also e-volks is using a 6.5" diameter motor. Once again 8" motors are the minimum, and most conversion choose 9" motors. A 6.5" motor will be prone to overheating on long grades, and will not live long.

    Expect to spend about $8000-$10,000US on the parts and hundreds of hours of labor on a hobbiest conversion. There are a few kits to simplify the process. Canadian EV has an S-10 and Geo kit, and Electric Automotive has Porsche and Rabbit kits.

    I have been working on a kit for the 2003-2006 Mazda 3. It is still in the early stages, but if a customer wants to purchase the parts I will do the conversion work for free. I have done a few others, including a 99 Ford Ranger, 1987 Toyota MR2, and assisted in several others. Some notes from my conversion can be found on my website
    and TV segment showing the MR2 on the road from the show Austin Now! (about 2/3 thru). Please feel free to email if you have more questions. evinfo AT mindbent.org

  47. Asking the wrong question by DennisInDallas · · Score: 1

    The energy needed to move my car with electricity is roughly the same as the energy needed to move my car with infernal combustion. The right question is "How much energy does it really take to haul my ass to the office/groceryStore/brothel and why do I continue to bump it when I try to fly?"

    There is a reason that we call moving freight around shipping even when it gets done in a truck.

  48. Electric Car by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would suggest going to EVCO and discussing any of your necessities on our digest. check out http://www.evco.ca./ Personnally I've been told that you are better of to by an already made electric car. Most EV enthusiate sell them for less then what they paid to build it. Cheers. CyclePat!

  49. 15-18 in the flats - whimpy by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1

    I can do 18-20 in the flats on my road bike with just me providing the power. If that is all the power that the electric kit will produce - why bother. Just get into shape and do it yourself.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
  50. EV Dreams by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

    You're wondering the same thing I was not too long ago. Should I? Could I? I WILL!

        I recently bought a 40' bus to make into an RV. I started considering various things about it. The bus has huge spaces to store batteries. It has a whole lot of real estate on the roof for solar panels. I could use the solar panels to charge the batteries, and replace the heavy diesel engine with an electric motor at a fraction of the weight.

        I started crunching numbers on my own. Then I talked to some folks who are already doing EV conversions. The bus only has about 250hp and gets almost 10mpg, which is comparible to many SUV's, although it weighs a whole lot more (roughly 30k pounds). The gearing allows that seemingly low horsepower to move the heavy weight.

        If I stuffed the lower sections of the bus to a reasonably heavy weight (roughly 8 tons), it would take days or weeks to charge the batteries, and even then I would only get about 100 to 200 miles out of it. The cost would be more than I could possibly spend in the rest of my life on diesel fuel, even at the recent high prices.

        You can convert a car. There are several companies offering kits of some variety. You will lose a good bit of storage space to the batteries, and a lot of the performance due to the added weight. You'll most likely only get 100 miles or so on a full charge in ideal conditions.

        A conversion car should be small and light. Unfortunately, that means you don't have a lot of room for batteries, which means you'll need to recharge more. Don't plan on going far from home, or you'll be catching a ride with a tow truck.

        The worst part is, unless you are really close friends with someone willing to sell you parts under wholesale, or you have a rich friend willing to finance your project, you'll put more into the car than it'll ever be worth.

        Now, with all that said, I *DO* eventually plan on building a small electric car to run to the grocery store with. It'll be a matter of when the price of solar panels drop more, and I have some free time on my hands. A sand rail / rail car / dune buggy with something resembled an enclosed body is what I'm thinking of. It won't be practical for much, but it'll be a fun hobby. Don't set your expectations too high if you start building one. There are garages all over the world where people have started all kinds of fun projects and never finished.

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    1. Re:EV Dreams by topical_surfactant · · Score: 1

      I've helped build two electric conversion cars as an undergrad project, and I can attest that it is a _HUGE_ undertaking, even with a full garage at your disposal. Lots of welding and bolt-turning required. The result is hugely rewarding though. One of our conversions can do about 15 miles a day completely on the mounted solar panels: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/838 The other one is just a complete gas (no pun intended) to drive: http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/837

  51. This may be a bad idea for you. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

    "I'm too poor to buy anything but an old clunker, and not eager to pollute the atmosphere (or empty my wallet) with gasoline."
    First where do you live?
    Electric cars do not do well in very cold climates. The cold can really shorten their range.
    Also if you are in a very hot climate and if you put in AC you will shorten your range.
    How far do you have to drive a day?
    Is it all flat or do you live in area with a lot of hills?
    What is the maximum distance you will need to drive?
    Anything over about 35 miles and a do it yourself ev will not work.

    Might I make some other suggestions.
    How about an old VW golf diesel? They get 40+mpg and you could try and locate a source of biodiesel if you want to be extra green. Not only that you would be supporting a new fuel source.
    How about Propane? There are conversion kits available that will allow you to run off clean burning propane. Hank Hill will thank you.
    You could also try and ride a bike as much as possible. It will help keep the air clean an you healthy.
    A nice Ninja 250 motorcycle is also an option. You can buy one new for 3000 and used for about 2500. If you don't crash it you will get close to what you pay for it when you sell it. Did I mention it gets over 70MPG and is a lot of fun to ride?

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  52. Places to find EV conversion kits and How-To's by Compunexus · · Score: 1

    I have been watching the EV conversion market for a long time. I have amassed a few quality web sites links for advise on converting a car to EV and some of them sell the parts. The arguments about moving the pollution from tail pipe to smoke stack are just arguments. As long as you don t expect an EV to totally replace an ICE car and want to save energy and money on your daily commute, an EV is great way to go.

    Most EVers have one EV car for the daily drive and one ICE or hybrid for longer trips. All of the EVers I have read about get a kick out of sneeking up on friends with their silent cars and out running sports cars from a standing start at the light. Electric motors can provide max torq at any RPM. ICE motors only supply max torq at a very narrow range of RPMs.

    The only reason I don t build one myself is the lack cash to buy a host car and materials to convert it. If I had the cash, I would go with an AC based system with nickel metal hydride batteries and maybe some ultra-caps for enhanced acceleration and regenerative braking. AC systems do the best job at regenerative breaking even without ultra-caps. DC systems require special circuits and the motors requre an extra set of brushes for regenerative breaking or reverse.

    The sites listed here have complete guides and step-by-step pictures of their examples conversions. The hardest part is understanding how to size the motor you need and the battery pack to run it and where/how to mount the pack. Otherwise anybody that can change a waterpump or alternator can do one of these. It just takes longer and lots of planning.
    AC drive systems for electric vehicles
    Electro Automotive Catalog
    Electro Automotive Electric Car Conversions
    High End AC Drive Systems and Power Electronics for Electric Vehicles
    AC Propulsion Home
    EVA-DC - Build an EV Choosing a Car

  53. Re:Easily impressed by movies...-green shoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preferably with environmentally friendly shoes and/or bike.

    Shoes did you say? How about a greentoe?
    Simple!

  54. Electricity isn't good for the environment either. by Uart · · Score: 1

    Electricity is made by burning fossil fuels -- the more you consume, the more the environment is polluted.

    So don't bother...

    Unless you plan to run your car on duracell's....

    Convert your car to run on either pure ethanol or biodiesel instead. You might actually save the environment that way.

    --

    Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
  55. E-volks are not street cars, do a voltsrabbit! by Medievalist · · Score: 1

    If you are OK with a vehicle that has a 30 mile range, a top speed under 50 mph, perhaps the e-volks is for you. But in general the frameless construction and torsion bar suspension of the old Beetles makes them an extremely poor choice for electric vehicles (you wouldn't know this from the amazing number of people who've done it... unless you actually talk to those people, that is!).

    The Porsche 914, Chevy S-10 pickup, and the Volkswagen Rabbit, on the other hand, all make for excellent conversion vehicles with good range and no "disintegrating suspension" problems from excessive battery weight.

    Look for Bruce Parmenter's S-10 or Michael Brown's Voltsrabbit. Or just go to Shari Prange's Electro Automotive site and look at the fine, well supported, time-tested kits for sale there. Shari, Bruce and Michael have been driving electric conversions daily for a decade or more.

  56. You're not the first to propose a better way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The real benefits I'd think come from multi-usage such as growing hemp, extractinting the oil from the seeds to run in the farmers tractors as biodiesel, then feedin the seed cake to the cattle, planting field corn, extrcating the oil for biodeisel, extracting the carbohydrates and cellulose for ethanol, feeding the Distiller's dried grain back to the cattle, running the manure through a Thermal Depolymerization Unit to make TDP to run the tractors on ect.


    Sounds like you are channeling Dr. Diesel. Or possibly Nikola Tesla, who pointed out the stupidity of burning petroleum in 1915.

    Welcome to the very small community of people who are not total idiots.