Slashdot Mirror
GM Working on Feasible Electric Car
WindBourne writes "While Ford wants to simply offer cosmetic changes to automobiles interiors and exteriors, General Motors has finally gotten the message about electric autos. They are about to introduce the Chevy Volt, a plug-in hybrid which gets 40 Miles on a charge, but has a generator that can keep the auto going up to 640 miles range. From a styling POV, it is not a tesla, but it is also not a focus or a pinto. From the Rocky article: 'GM did not release cost estimates but said they recognize the Volt's price will have to be competitive. Company Vice Chairman Robert Lutz said in a statement that more than half of Americans live less than 20 miles from their workplace and could go to work and back on a single charge.'"
Also coming from GM in model year 2008 is the full hybrid GMT900 truck platform [1, 2, . This encompasses the Chevy Tahoe and Suburban, the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL, and the Cadillac Escalade and Escalade ESV, among others. The hybrid uses the GM/DaimlerChrysler Advanced Hybrid System 2.
The hybrids will feature:
- 5.3L FlexFuel Vortec V8 (able to run using E85, a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline)
- Active Fuel Management (AFM)/Displacement on Demand (DOD), disabling cylinders as needed for cruising
- Two 30kW electric motors inside of the same physical space as the normal automatic transmission
- A continuously variable automatic transmission
- Conventional 110VAC power outlets on board
- Hybrid system derived from the advanced system on already in use on GM's Allison transit buses
This advanced hybrid system, while not plug-in, will be offered on all model year 2008 GM full size SUVs, as well as pickups and fleet vehicles. The expected fuel economy gain is 30% over today's figures on the gasoline/FlexFuel-only AFM variant, approaching 30mpg for city driving. That's a damned good improvement. And when used with FlexFuel, they're using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions. As the process efficiency increases over the next few years, these numbers will improve.
Whether or not one likes or dislikes SUVs, or thinks people should be able to be told what types of vehicles they should or shouldn't be driving, or think subjective judgments can be simplistically made about what other people "need" or don't need, it's still an excellent step forward. While the Volt is very interesting (conspiracy theorists: think of some way the Volt is really still a GM plot to "keep electric vehicles down" or to assist big oil) and using centralized power generation and leveraging the existing electric grid and production capacity is a necessary step to the future, the full hybrid SUVs will be one of the big things that people buy in the short term, not to mention being one of the major things - if not the thing - that may make or break GM in the next decade.
Who Ignored the Facts About the Electric Car?
GM's EV1 -- Who Killed Common Sense?
Yah, that's great and all, but after reading the specs on a Prius, or even a generic Honda, it is clear that automakers are only interested in their own profits.
Where are the turbine/electric hybrids? Why are we still dealing with pistons?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
GM officials stressed that development of the battery pack is critical to the concept vehicle reaching showrooms, and the technology likely won't be available until 2010 or 2012.
So it's due in 3 to 5 years - assuming GM doesn't change its commitment to the project, and that the battery pack development goes as well as it's hoped to.
So how can Tesla, a startup company with little manufacturing and car experience relative to GM, build an electric car that can make it 200 miles on a charge
The Tesla's sticker price of $92,500 makes it possible.
We're making progress, though. The only real remaining problem with high performance electric cars is battery cost. The necessary energy density is available if you pay enough.
Is this actually true? I would like to ask Mr. Lutz for a cite or three to back this assertion.
It seems reasonable at first blush, after all, unless you just LOVE sitting in your car idling down the freeway for hours a day, you probably want to live somewhere close to work. The average distance from home to work in Los Angeles is 8.2 miles (pdf), which includes claims that this is "consistent" with census data (except that it looks like the Census doesn't report distance, they report travel time) and compares with other metropolitan areas. This (another pdf) says that the average first job for people going off welfare is 6.5 miles away. This PDF claims that work causes people to drive an average of 12 miles per day. This site says that over 1/3 of workers in the 100 largest cities drive more than 10 miles to work.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Don't know yet, but given that the 2007 North American International Auto Show is this week, we might be hearing more. And given that these will all be available for model year 2008, which will occur mid to late calendar year 2007, we'll have to hear something about price pretty soon. GM knows it has to be cost-competitive. And, frankly, buyers need to know that spending a little more up front will be better for everything from the environment, to fossil fuel foreign policy, to their pocketbooks. But even though compact fluorescents are provably less expensive over their lifetime than incandescents, it's still tough to convince people to change.
http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/20 07/01/concept_car.html
My business: Farstrider Studios.
RTFA. Gasoline motor drives electric generator which is what moves the car. This is NO different than how locomotives work today. All trains are moved with electric motors, each engine being essentially a large power generation station on wheels. It's actually rather efficient.
Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
Actually the range for the Volt is 600 miles, not 40 due to the generator. The build cost for that is more reasonable than 5x the batteries, and allows for longer trips. It looks like a smart idea. The electric portion of the car can be generic, while the generator could be gas, diesel, biodiesel, hydrogen or fuel cell. I doubt GM's plan is to sell the car for $100K
Going longer on batteries is nice, but not everyone would agree that going a big further per charge is worth it if it reduces the ability for actual long distance driving. Some people have resorted to pulling trailers with generators for "pure" electric cars for long trips, so this is a much tidier solution. A car only useful for short trips would work for some people, but one that can directly replace an existing car where you don't have to worry about where the next charging location is will have much greater appeal.
Depending on the length of the cable run, up to 50% of the electricity is lost
Not even close.
Transmission and distribution losses in the USA were estimated at 7.2% in 1995 [2], and in the UK at 7.4% in 1998. [3]
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Larger, centralized electricity production is more efficient than having tons of little internal combustion engines running around. On top of that, it's much easier to control pollution at a power plant than it is on all those cars on the road. As I understand it electric cars themselves should be more efficient (fewer moving parts and such, in some designs they can do away with a transmission altogether). Also, we can burn less coal and gasoline, and process less uranium, if more of the power production systems move to renewable sources (solar, wind, hydro-electric).
On top of that, hydrogen is not an energy source. Hydrogen is an energy storage/transmission medium. You have to get hydrogen from something first, and at the moment, I think many producers of hydrogen get it from fossil fuels. So you'd end up with similar problems unless the grid switched to mostly renewable sources. However, I still think it's better than having all those individual little gasoline engines.
GM, just start building EV-1's again. Stop with this "always four years away" nonsense. Just get started. You already have a feasible, marketable car. Just start building it and marketing it.
The EV-1's were by all accounts practical, peppy, fun to drive, reliable, the lease terms were affordable, and when the leases expired the lessees wanted to buy them, and they had a waiting list a mile long of people who wanted them.
The R&D has already been amortized. What's this fixation with needing a 400-mile range? Sure, plenty of people do. Don't try to sell them an electric car. Sell electric cars to the people who don't. Duh. Sell convertibles to the people who want convertibles, sell trucks to the people who want trucks, and sell EV-1's to the people who want EV-1's.
Just get started. Get the things on the market. Get the charging stations in place. Sell cars with an 80-mile range this year, then two years from now bring out models with improved batteries and a 120-mile range, or whatever.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
While Ford wants to simply offer cosmetic changes to automobiles interiors and exteriors
= /20060104/FREE/60103014/1115
Ford is showing a 65mpg diesel hybrid - with supplemental solar power, no less. I'm not sure why 50mpg hybrids from GM are a revelation but a 65mpg diesel hybrid from Ford is "cosmetic", but there you go.
http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID
...will still occcasionally burn the occupants alive, but a sophisticated emmissions system will only release water vapor with a hint of pork.
When they talk about electric/hybrid cars with more nuclear power plants nationwide, *then* we'll have a plan. Otherwise, it's trading one problem for another.
Rest assured, California is not the only state with barely enough power-generation capacity. This could be "just the ticket" to justify hugely higher electric rates nationwide. Has anyone quantified the "recharging load" on the grid? Many people would have to recharge at work during the day to make it back home in the evening. Not all recharging could occur at night. Don't get me wrong. I think it's the right direction. But, the whole system needs to be planned and made to happen. Not just the cars.
"The expected fuel economy gain is 30% over today's figures on the gasoline/FlexFuel-only AFM variant, approaching 30mpg for city driving. That's a damned good improvement. And when used with FlexFuel, they're using less fossil fuels - even including the fully burdened fossil fuel costs of ethanol - than Prius and Civic hybrid drivers, in addition to contributing to lower overall greenhouse gas emissions."
Uh, yeah....until Honda introduces an E85-capable hybrid. Then, SUVs will continue be the least fuel-efficient vehicles on the market.
No matter how you look at this, GM is shining a turd.
"Whether or not one likes or dislikes SUVs, or thinks people should be able to be told what types of vehicles they should or shouldn't be driving, or think subjective judgments can be simplistically made about what other people "need" or don't need, it's still an excellent step forward."
I'll grant that this is an important technological step forward, but I don't grant the greater implication: most people don't need to drive trucks. And no matter how many technoogical improvements are made to make light trucks more fuel-efficent, they'll still be less efficient than a smaller, lighter automobile with the same technology. It isn't a matter of "subjective judgment" -- it's a matter of physics.
(And not incidentally: we don't need to "tell" people what they "need" to drive. We can tax them based on the size and/or fuel-efficiency of their vehicle, and, like true conservatives, we'll "let the market work.")
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
It may not be the best solution for the USA, but still, you do have to admit it should be easier to filter all the pollution at power plants than in millions of cars.
Here in Quebec and Ontario, with all our hydro-electricity, electric cars really would be "clean cars" (or at least incredibly more clean than fossil fuel cars).
They don't have to. The idea is you have a turbine that can be switched on or off to charge the batteries. This turbine is in no way hooked to the drive train. The car then runs purly in electrical mode all the time. The turbine can be run at peak efficiency.
And yes running all electric this way is actually very efficient, several modders have disconnected the drive train on their prius and showed gas miliage improvements.
There, fixed that for you.
... I'm not buying one of these until they've killed it at least three more times.
Then I'll know they're serious!
To put a witty saying into 120 characters, jst rmv ll th vwls.
What's the point of linking to an ugly fuzzy pixelated scanned newspaper photo when the Chevy site has a beautiful photo and lots of information about the car?
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/index.jsp
You can't put an effective muffler on a turbine engine. Most drivers would be unwilling to wear hearing protection to drive to their local Safeway. Plus, the vehicle would violate many city's noise ordinances.
It's not like the hybrid concept is really all that new. Diesel locomotives have been "hybrids" for decades. So has "super-sized" construction equipment, like those gigantic dump trucks. They all use piston engines. If turbines were practical in a vehicle, they'd already be in use.
I think you're picking nits. . .
.from my perspective those other cars ARE hybrids. . .
No. I am speaking of fundamental and critical differences.
. .
I am speaking from the perspective of a designer of electric and hybrid cars; who has some knowledge of the history of the things back into the 19th century.
They are not true hybrids. They are multi-drive source. There is a huge difference, but I might need to sit you down with a pile of drawings/models to make it clear.
The Volt is an electric car... that just happens to carry around it's own backup generator.
You are not quite there, but you have just come damned close to the actual definition of the Combustion/Electric hybrid car.
The Combustion/Hybrid is one that burns fuel to operate a heat engine, but uses the heat engine to turn a generator, not the wheels. The heat engine of a true hyrid is not connected to the drive train at all. The electric motor alone is. Since even when operating as an electric it relies on the burning of fuel as its primary energy source there is no need for the combustion motor to provide drive.
This has, dare I say it, "paradigm shifting" implications. I've covered most of them in years past. I've been extremely ill the past few days; at deaths door and shit, I wasn't even supposed to be here today and I just don't have the energy right now to tread over old ground on a serious technical subject.
So I'm afraid I'm just going to state it as fact and abandon.
KFG
I've mentioned the same thing in previous Slashdot posts. Of course, other posts got modded up by talking about monkey poo and being funny instead of me. Welcome to /. I suppose.
I really doubt it. Why?
* Prius and Civic hybrids get 55 and 50 MPG combined, respectively. The 2007 Yukon XL 1500 2WD gets 15/21 gas, 12/16 ethanol. The 2007 Suburban 1500 2WD gets 15/21 gas, 12/16 ethanol. Even give 'em 30% gain and they're nowhere near Prius and Civic.
* As for the petroleum content of American made ethanol: given that petroleum is used all over the refining process (from fertilizer to transportation), and given that a gallon of gasoline has 124,000 BTU of energy but the net gain in a gallon of ethanol is a mere 20,000 to 40,000 BTU you get to use 6 gallons of E100 for the fossil fuel cost of 3 to 5 gallons of E0 (gasoline). Let's use the 40,000 BTU number: by using ethanol you can use 4 gallons at the "carbon gasoline cost" of 3 gallons of gas.
So, lets do the math: 30% fuel efficiency gain on 15/21 (we'll pretend that we should be working off of their gasoline and not ethanol numbers) gets us to 19.5/27.3. But, don't forget about the "4 for the cost of 3" -- so the carbon release would be equivalent to a car that gets 26/36.4. Now, sure this is back of the envelope, but I've been really generous -- giving the full 30% on the gasoline numbers (not the ethanol numbers), and giving the very highest estimate for BTU increase.
We're still at 26/36.4 mpg for the GM SUVs vs 50 or 55 mpg for the Civic and Prius hybrids. You're still off by a factor of 2, sport.
I hope this isn't more GM vaporware. I hope this stuff works, and sells. I hope ethanol improvements increase that 40,000 BTU gain. I hope the 30% efficiency gains are just the beginning.
But even with those gains, (telecommute / walk / bike) > (bus / train / subway / carpool) > (high mpg) > (mid mpg) > (SUV) in terms of mpg, roughly speaking.
Support a few technologists in Washington.
Something the parent poster may have been getting at is that turbines tend to be rather loud at speed, have to dump a lot of waste heat, and having parts spinning around a thousand times per second in your car may prove to be a safety issue. That's not to say that a workable turbine design couldn't be done, just that there are some formidable engineering challenges to be met.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
I just saw someone on TV same the same thing and I wanted to mention that the best solution would to keep the nuclear power, but using a better process than is currently in use. Here is why we won't be able to switch entirely to those types you mentioned:
The future I would like to see still includes nuclear power; just with more modern processing and recycling. My wish is people who claim to be environmentalists, would simply do some research and then perhaps they wouldn't be so afraid of the technology.
Okay, sure, GM is making another electric car they'll cancel. Why the Ford bashing? The Escape hybrid was a HUGE step for a company that rarely re-designs drivetrain platforms. Just look at how little the mechanics of the Crown Victoria have changed, or the more than a decade long run of the 3.0L Vulcan (Taurus, etc...) engine. Furthermore, it isn't like they are sitting on their hands. They've introduced several new models, some of which are finally starting to show the reliability Ford drivers deserve. It's fine to tout GM's electric car experiment, but why jump on Ford for no reason?
I have been looking at several articles to see if GM followed the modern path of AC motors ala Toyota, and not the obsolete cumbersome DC motors of the past. ( Yes this includes computer controlled brushless DC systems ).
Toyota and ABB of Sweden really have taken the first step in the future of transportation making a 500 volt integrated Variable Frequency Drive ( VFD ) to an AC drive motor.
This 1st step was really only scratching the surface and in the future you will see 400hz and above AC motors where the VFD's DC bus is excited by batteries.
Tesla experimented with many frequencies and found 60hz right for the 1890's bearings and engineering technologies.
Jet aircraft starter motors are usually 400hz AC multi pole motors. These are very light and have tremendous torque.
As computer controls become faster in processing speed, and the IGBT transistors can be switched faster VFD's and AC motors of 400, 600, 1200hz will bring more power and lower weight than ever imagined.
The limiting factor is the processing speed of the VFD cpu's in order to do sensor less torque vector calculations, then fire off the IGBT transistors.
I hope that one of the major VFD makers will have some engineer playing games on a CELL based console and have the brilliant idea that this would solve the intense calculation requirements needed.
If Toshiba ( major VFD maker ) and Nintendo ever merge, this will be the beginning of the electric era and the sunset of the internal combustion time on earth.
Think of the possibilities.
Cheers
* Carthago Delenda Est *
Unfortunately, it's true for most of the rest of the western world - indeed, most of the rest of the world - as well.
Despite all the hydro in e.g. Canada & China, nuclear in e.g. the US & Europe, & natural gas in e.g. Africa & the subcontinent, burning coal is the primary source of electrical energy in the world today by a large margin.
What part of "a well regulated militia" do you not understand?
... would of course be some form of mass transportation, but for some reason this seems to be too Socialist a solution for most Americans to swallow.. ;)
I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
UK electricity generation by fuel: Nat Gas 38.7%, Coal 33.6% (source)
Total world electric generation by fuel: Coal 39.8%, Nat Gas 19.6% , Hyrdo 16.1%, Nuke 15.7%, Oil 6.7% (source)
Nations with high reliance on coal for electric generation (2005 unless stated): Poland 92%, South Africa 92% (2004), Australia 79% (or 85+%), China 78% (2004), Israel 75% (2004), Kazakhstan 70% (2004), India 69% (2004), Morocco 67% (2004), Czech Republic 61%, Greece 59%, USA 50%, Germany 49%
Perhaps you are not aware, but the main cost of driving is subsidized by the government.
If your taxes did not pay for roads, but this was paid for by the drivers (perhaps by a gas use fee), then you probably pay something comparable to $10/gallon.
If we had pay the true cost of driving on an pay-per-use basis, trains and other mass transportation would become more attractive.
And perhaps other vehicles, like flying cars ?, could enter the market.
But when the government effectively only subsidizes one transportation system, you end up with an environment for a natural monopoly and the market stagnates.
For example, 100 years ago, there were electric cars, and Model-T's got 25 MPG.
Look how far we have come.
...not to mention that every mechanic in the country would have to learn how to work on a fundamentally different type of power plant.
my sig's at the bottom of the page.
The Tesla is built on a Lotus Elise. The Esprit was discontinued in 2004.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
No, actually this will mean a much more even load on the grid, countering daily peak/off-peak demands, as the vast majority will be plugged in after work, after the end of the daily peak energy spike.
It will also raise the power draw in the winter, which is much lower than summer (thanks to air conditioners).
These two issues together, will make it much more profitable for current power plants (which can be nearer to maximum capacity for longer periods of time) and faster return on investment, because it's more economical to build/run more new power plants.
And before anyone starts ranting about more coal... California has all but outlawed new coal power plants. Natural gas is much more likely, as well as increased solar and wind production... California is the PERFECT area for large-scale utilization of both, hence Sterling Systems/Edison's plans to build or the largest solar power plant in the world in California.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Well, it's not thousands of revs per SECOND, it's usually around 10,000 RPM (minute).
But the makeup of a turbine is much different than an typical internal combustion engine. (My dad has worked on both for over 30 years in the aircraft industry as an Aircraft Maintenance Engineer).
A turbine does NOT do well with constantly starting up and shutting down, it will work much better if it's just turned on and left to run forever.
If a turbine "blows up", you better run for cover. If a normal piston engine blows ub, meh, no big deal... it's all pretty well contained in that monstrous engine block and is not generally such a big deal... just expensive.
Tolerances on a turbine are much, much tighter than the piston engine. Maintenance is a MUST.
And yes, turbines are LOUD, and smelly, and generate a lot of heat, and won't do well on current pump gas.
Turbines are not yet ready for the general masses, only a select few, IMO.
$0.02 (CDN)
Depends on what you mean by "turbine". There's a big difference between a K27 and a PT6... one is a "turbo charger", the other a full-on turbine engine.
$0.02 (CDN)
There isn't one type of energy source that is the solution -- it is a little of everything. Small wind turbines that can be installed on top of buildings, on roofs, and in backyards will go a long way. Even if all it can do is cover the "base" electric need for most homes (the power a house needs when people are not home), this will be a major help. Solar cells on roofs and buildings will help too, more so now that the tech is starting to get better. Even if backyard generation could provide %15 of needed power, it would be a huge improvement. And most houses could stand to save a considerable amount by basic and cheap conservation. (New appliances, low power bulbs, better insulation, etc.) For large scale production, nuclear seems to be best of the worst. But in the future we need to think about how to get our power form as many sources as possible -- both on a large and micro scale.
Right.
All the airlines in the world are switching back to piston driven aircraft right now because maintenance on the turbine engine is sooooo frequent and burdensome.
Maintenance on a turbine engine the size required for a vehicle of 5000lbs or less is trivial: You remove the power plant, and place a new one in its place.
I agree that maintenance by my average mechanic would be troublesome and/or costly, you need to see where this would actually lead: It is far more cost effective to simply replace it as a sealed unit with a few coolant, fuel, and oil lines attached than it would be to open the thing up and repair a small component to the specifications required for reliable use.
Its pretty obvious that the turbine is a different beast...but it is also a fundamentally more efficient and trouble free beast.
If there were hundreds of thousands of turbine engine vehicles on the road, replacing the turbine powerplant would be no more common or difficult than replacing the alternator and a set of brakes.
Thats my 2 cents...which I'm pretty sure is a bit more enlightened than the parent's cents. I wouldn't trade my 2 for his 5.
Who is this that even the wind and the waves obey Him? Surely this computer must submit also!
someone made one once
Gearing is the thing.
The first naval turbines had the same issues. Running the propellers at turbine speed
cavitated the blades, running the turbine slow meant poor efficiency. There was an
attempt at a fluid coupling ( Foettinger or something like that in Germany ). Between
WWI and WWII, at least the Americans experimented with Turbine electric drives for
ships. ( Lexington or Saratoga ( CV2 && 3 ) powered part of a city in the 1930's because it had
the generating capacity. ). When double reduction gearing became reliable, the wieght
of the electric generating and using gear became a penalty.
So, gearing can change this, or the turbine can run at rated speed, and produce electricity
directly, without any direct "contact" with the drive train. And probably at higher efficiencies
than a conventional piston engine. As noted elsewhere in this thread, the servicability
of the units might be an issue, but I think it one that can be overcome.
emt 377 emt 4
These aren't great solutions anyway. We're at a technological crossing; we have great electrical motors, but we're still stuck with shitty storage (batteries.)
When ultra-capacitors become widely available, batteries will go away, cars will be able to store enough energy to have 300-400 mile ranges, and the only reason to have a combustion engine in the car will be for emergency power (when you run out of electrons, which mostly, you won't.)
You watch. Ten years from now, the idea of having an internal combustion engine in a new vehicle will seem ludicrous.
I'm already vastly cheered by the idea of a car that has a 40 mile electrical range. 99%+ of my driving is under 40 miles cumulative every 7 days or so; if I remembered to plug it in once a week, I'd be covered. Lots of other people around here see the same kind of uses. Drive to work, the grocery store, the post office, occasionally the hardware store... and all of it within 10 short blocks. We only have ten blocks. :)
Bring it on.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
That is, in fact, how diesel trains already work, so it's obviously feasible. They have an electric motor on each wheel, which would result in some interesting car engineering changes if that was implemented, but nothing requires switching away from a traditional drivetrain for now. (Although having four motors would be a great safety feature. If you lost one motor, they could cut out the matching motor on the other wheel, and you'd still have two to drive to safety.)
What would be really cool is if they actually made a car with the ability to remove the turbine, generator, gas tank, everything, for short trips, and put it back in if you needed to drive long distances. I mean, it's just attached electrically, so it's not like there need to be tight mechanical threshholds to hook it in.
It could take up half the engine compartment, and essentially just sticks supports downward, you swing the front bumper open or something, and back up, leaving it in place. Either in your garage or build a way to lock it in place if it's outside, probably by attaching it to rings set in poured concrete. (Not that people would be likely to steal them at first, they'd weigh like 500 pounds and have no obvious way to move it. People don't normally steal car engines sitting on the side of the road for the good reason that it's really really hard. But eventually they'd figure out a way.)
Actually, there's no reason you couldn't do the same thing with extra batteries, too. Think about it. You have once set of batteries that gets you 40 miles, you have another set you can put in that gets you another 35 miles (Reduced because of the added weight), or you can put in a generator instead that gets you 25 miles on the battery but also holds 5 gallons of gas to get you another 150 miles on a single tank, and of course you can buy gas.
And it's trivially upgradable to the 'buy batteries on the side of the road' model of electric cars. In fact, let's just build those cars, with the automated replacement systems and all that, and make sure we can put self-contained generators in in place of batteries. Maybe instead of 50/50 that I was talking about, maybe have a very very small battery, and a large battery swappable for a generator, where the generator is designed to provide enough power to run 75 down the highway and 55 up mountains and essentially runs all the time, and the small battery is just a buffer.
That way the biggest complaint of electric cars, that you need at least one non-electric car to hand driving to grandmothers or whatever, is removed. You can get to work, and you can get anywhere else with five minutes of work. Not only that, but when you drive cross country for a week with the relatives, you can remove your generator there and tool around totally electric until you need to leave again.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Umm, no. Locomotives don't do any stop & go driving, don't have a large battery pack, can't go an inch without the diesel engine running, etc.
While lacking a battery pack, a locomotive is still 'hybrid' in that it has both a diesel engine and electric motors. There are car type hybrids out there right now that can't go an inch without the engine running, with the battery system only providing a power boost, allowing a smaller engine to be used for the performance. Even then, I read an article about 4 months ago that pointed out that they're starting to build true hybrid locomotives.
The nature of a hybrid the size of a locomotive actually allows more efficiency than a transmission of sufficient strength to move the train. See my point about larger electric motors being more efficient. A locomotive of course has some really big ones. That and you can operate and tune the diesel engine for maximum efficiency because you don't have to worry about the RPM range of a convential gearbox mechanical connect system.
As for hooking multiple locomotives together, there's really no reason that you couldn't do that with direct-drive, it's just a bit easier because of the decoupling of speed/engine RPM and force.
I don't read AC A human right
Uhmmm... yeah. You're a moron.
The reason that turbines are used in airlines has NOTHING to do with maintenance... it's all about power produced, power to weight ratios, and fuel efficiency. Go take a look at the maintenance protocols for a turbine vs. piston powerplants and then get back to me.
And explain to me again why it is that most private / pleasure aircraft are powered by piston engines? Oh yeah... they're much more complex and actually DO require more maintenance. And are much more expensive.
Don't get me wrong, turbines are WAY better from a technical perspective, but realistically are not appropriate for automobiles due to their cost, complexity, fuel requirements (they DON'T run on pump gas), noise, heat generation, etc.
And exactly WHERE are you getting this whole "trouble-free" stuff from? I'm getting it from a guy who's worked on both engines for more than 30 years as a bush pilot and an AME working on everything from Beavers to Twin Otters to Turbo Beavers to Caravans to Bell Jet Rangers and LongHorns.
I think you're just pulling shit out of your ass.
$0.02 (CDN)
Not really. They are very lightweight, and therefore will have little inertia. Turbochargers spin between 60,000rpm and 100,000RPM and have a strong, long, proven track record (102 years) and the only time they become unreliable is when there is a lack of lubrication, usually from piss-poor maintenance (e.g., an owner gets an oil change once every 100,000 miles whether it's needed or not), or from running the car at FULL boost, then immediately shutting down (e.g., your average teenager pulling into a mall parking lot), without letting it idle down and cool off.
Turbine generators will be far less prone to the latter. There is no cure for poor maintenance, except that the turbine housings will be strong enough to protect against shattering during a catastrophic failure. Heck, even most turbines on jet aircraft are built to contain their massive, extremely high-speed turbines, and ditto for power plants with their even more massive gas turbine engines which are run at full speed at nearly 100% duty cycle.
And waste heat? They may run at a hotter temperature, but they use far less fuel than a conventional engine. There will probably less total heat output. The fix to lower the temperature of the exhaust? Mix the exhaust with ambient air (like the stealth bombers do to reduce their heat signatures), or reclaim the heat for other purposes, such as thermocouples or sterling engines to further increase efficiency, or during cold weather, heat exchangers for heating the vehicle, rather than relying on electric coils for heat.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
I find it interesting that so many people in this kind of discussion ignore customer preferences. We are not East Germany, whose government said, effectively, "Drive this Trabant or nothing!" We are America. We give people choices. And, I might add, even our biggest SUVs are cleaner than the Trabant was. A LOT cleaner.
So the problem is that most people - at least most Americans - like big, heavy cars and trucks better than small and light cars and trucks.
Many will buy what they want even if it gets 7mpg.
If technology can take a car that goes 7mpg and make it go 27 mpg, that's an enormous win - much more so than increasing an econobox from 30 to 40mpg.
I don't think there's anything wrong with giving people what they want. In fact, I think it's a big virtue of the USA that we do.
I don't like big SUVs myself - my car is the big, heavy Mercedes-Benz S-Class, that flies and gets about 20mpg in my hands. I'll probably drive something like that for the rest of my life, because I love driving that particular kind of car.
And you're not going to prevent me from doing that -- at least as long as we're still America. A hybrid S-Class would give me better acceleration and fuel economy. It would be cool. I'd buy it. And I would save fuel and money doing so.
(Although I might find the Tesla roadster hard to resist thanks to its audacity).
D
You might want to make sure you actually understand what he's saying before you go calling him an idiot. As it is, you're looking a wee bit silly yourself.
His point was that it makes more sense to make SUV's hybrid because it'll make a bigger difference than if you make compact cars hybrid, and he's absolutely correct. The fact that the compact car will still be more fuel-efficient is irrelevant. The fact that my bicycle is still more efficient than your compact car is also irrelevant. What matters is that by making the SUV hybrid you're saving 15+ mpg for those who were going to buy an SUV anyway, whereas by making a car hybrid, you're saving a lot less on a per-vehicle basis.
I call caca del toro on this. The EV1 wasn't even for sale -- GM would only lease it to customers! And when GM finally pulled the plug on the EV1, many of the lessees offered to buy their EV1s but GM flat out refused to sell, choosing instead to repossess every last EV1 and have them crushed (save for a couple that went to museums after being functionally gutted).
Please school yourself before parroting any further GM lies.
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin to slit throats.
You're full of crap. the 0-60 time on the 2006 Accord Hybrid is ~6.7 seconds.
.technomancer
I had no idea about this until recently, when I watched a documentary called Who Killed the Electric Car?, but General Motors already had a fully-electric car on the market: the EV1. This came as quite a surprise to both myself and my father, who has worked either with GM directly or as a GM dealer for many years here in the snowy state of Canadia. I have always had a special place for GM in my heart, and I always will, but I'm not naive enough to neglect some of the information put forth in this documentary. I've yet to do further research regarding the biasedness of this documentary etc., but even still, it seems quite disturbing.
How can so few people, including my own family, have known about this car? It looks like it could have done wonders for modern transporation..
Aikon-
I'm not sure what you mean by "You can't put an effective muffler on a turbine engine." The turbine Chryslers back in the 60s had a waste-heat collection system on them that effectively muffled the turbine. In fact, the complaint from the testers was actually that they sounded like a vacuum cleaner.
I am not claiming that turbines would be good in a family car, just that you can muffle the sound.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
WRONG - Turbine engine maintenance is much more predictable, which reduces unplanned costs. Although actual costs are greater, the predictability allows the aircraft to generate more revenue.
Sort of right, sort of wrong. Piston engines are generally more efficient for a given thrust, but can't operate at higher altitudes, and require large propeller disks for high thrust. Jet engines can operate at altitudes high enough where the reduction in drag allows them to be more efficient on a per mile basis. For example, the air density at 40,000 feet is about a fifth of the density near the surface, so drag is significantly less, and this allows the jet to use less fuel. If a piston and a jet aircraft with identical configurations were flown at the same altitude, (assuming it was an altitude within the piston aircraft'sservice ceiling,) the piston aircraft would use less fuel. The jet engine would be lighter, though, than the piston engine and propeller combination.
For a good comparison, look at the BD-5B (piston), BD-5T (turboprop), and BD-5J (turbojet). Very similar aircraft, with the BD-5J having the least range with identical fuel.
And yes, piston engine maintenance costs will be cheaper than the jet engine, on a per engine basis alone. Commercial operators have to consider more than repair and overhaul costs, however. Airlines just pull and replace the engine prior to a major maintenace requirement so that the aircraft can still generate revenue, which allows the predictability of turbine engine maintenance to more than offset the cost savings of piston engine maintenance.
Hope this helps.
You're talking about 2 different operational modes... car travel vs. airline travel.
A jet's turbine will typically run at a constant RPM for long periods of time, whereas a car will be variable RPM and be used for (generally) more frequent, shorter duration trips. If you compare the maintenance required/performed on long-haul (transatlantic?) flights versus short-hop commuter planes (Dash 8's, etc), the transatlantic flights usually require less maintenance. Maintenance is not just about engine time, it's about past performance dynamics.
Such usage behaviour has a LOT to do with the wear and tear on the engine, and the required maintenance as a result. The absolute BEST thing you can do for a turbine engine is to start it up and never shut it down... it will last almost forever. As soon as you start cycling it, thermal expansion/contraction over time plays hell with the tolerances and causes problems.
You're also talking about 2 totally different atmospheric conditions... "ground level" vs. 30,000+ feet. That also has drastic implications with respect to longevity and capabilities. Running a piston engine at altitude will have issues with it running rich, etc. That's one of the advantages of a turbine; it compresses the air before ignition, so that the air:fuel ratios are better maintained, allowing you to get higher efficiency at altitude... in short, more thrust/distance per lbs of fuel.
If you were to put a turbine engine into the operational conditions required by a car, I still think that the turbine would require more maintenance.
Mind you, I'm also talking about existing turbine engine technology, and not taking into account any potential turbine development that could come about. For instance, taking a look at the variable vane turbo technology that Porsche has just developed that they've implemented on their new 997 turbo, the way may very well be paved to allow turbines to sustain the speed and operational temperatures required by "pump gas", etc. They were successful in taking something that typically would only work in the (relatively) low speed, low temp environment of a turbo-diesel environment and implementing it in the gasoline internal combustion environment. (It has a lot to do with the material of the turbine vanes, their size/rotational speeds, and the exhaust heat generated, etc).
My main point, though, is that as things stand right now, a piston engine is much more forgiving of poor or no maintenance, and while it may have more moving parts than a turbine, I think it's generally easier and cheaper to maintain by and for the masses.
$0.02 (CDN)
you may want to look at this site:
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html
They worked with turbines before, conspiresests can fill in the rest.
Point taken.
I shouldn't have said the decision has "nothing" to do with maintenance, as it's a part of the big picture.
But forgetting maintenance, it's much more efficient and cost effective to run turbines at altitude. Throwing maintenance factors into the equations and it's still a better ROI to run turbines than pistons.
Especially when you're talking about ETA for the customer.
For short hops (commuters, etc) turbo-props are more cost effective, for long-haul (cross country, intercontinental, etc), turbojet is the way to go.
A number of executive "jets" are now going to turbo prop (Piaggio P180 for instance) due to their cost effectiveness. Not as fast getting you there, but way cheaper. Not having to deal with domestic air carriers is enough of a reward to justify the slightly longer ETA.
$0.02 (CDN)
Try again (no trailing slash): http://www.starrotor.com/Engine.htm
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011
You are so wrong with that - as long as both locomotives pull in the same direction, one of them will pull harder. That's no problem at all - the speed of the train is based on what the two locomotives can pull the entire train, not on what each locomotive could do with half the train.
Have you ever pulled a cart with someone else weaker (or stronger) than you? Have you seen tandem bicycles? When there is just one rider, the chain should snap because one rider will pull forward, but the lack of the other will force zero speed?