Nanotech Battery Claims to Solve Electric Car Woes

rbgrn writes "A123 Systems claims to have invented a Lithium Ion battery that not only can discharge at very high rates of current but can be recharged very quickly without damage to the cells or overheating. From their website: 'A unique feature of A123Systems' M1 cells is their ability to charge to high capacity in 5 minutes or less. That's a significant improvement over traditional Li Ion, which typically requires more than 90 minutes to reach a similar level of charge.' Using this technology, General Motors has announced a plug-in hybrid SUV and Venture Vehicles is developing a fully electric 3 wheel vehicle. Politics aside, the main technological hurdle to mass adoption of electric cars has been a fuel station replacement when driving distances beyond a single charge worth of range. Will we finally be seeing high current recharge stations in the next decade?"

Comments

conservation of energy

[tomstdenis]

While i'm all for new tech, let's take a second to re-examine this. We're going to take electricity and power our cars... ok but this has to come from somewhere right? And it isn't like we're going to generate it on the spot. So we're going to put MORE strain on the existing power grid to power these recharge stations.

The power itself is made from something, usually not nuclear because "oh noes it's unsafe!" [note the sarcasm] but instead things like coal. So now we're gonna have to burn more coal (which pollutes more than nuclear) to power this. Keeping in mind the entire process is lossy.

I'm all for electric cars, but we'll need a lot more than a good battery to make it practical.

Tom

Re:conservation of energy

[dretay]

I believe the problem with nuclear power has a lot more to do with disposal and storage than with the safety of the reactor. Plus if the CO2 emissions are centralized at power stations rather than spread across the entire country (as is the case with cars) emission reduction techniques will probably be a lot easier.

Re:conservation of energy

[soft_guy]

I think you raise some valid concerns, but still this is a step in the right direction. Plus, improved battery tech is always welcome for many uses.

Re:conservation of energy

[jabii]

The problem with coal-generated electrical power lies not only with the pollution and co2 emissions--it's wasteful as well, since roughly half the energy stored in the coal simply goes up the stack at the generating plant.

Re:conservation of energy

[Teresita]

So now we're gonna have to burn more coal (which pollutes more than nuclear) to power this.

Ah, yes, but America is the Saudi Arabia of coal. The whole idea is to wean America off the Saudia Arabia of oil, which is Saudi Arabia.

Re:conservation of energy

[MinusOne]

I'm not sure why someone has to ask these exact same questions every time an electric car article shows up.

Yes, of course you have to recharge you car from the grid. The amperage required is not any more than typical household service, particularly if you are willing to let it charge overnight. 220 volts is even better than 110 for charging cars, and it really doesn't take more than your house already has.

As far as the generating issue, it is much cheaper and easier to clean pollution from a large single source than it is millions of mobile sources which are poorly maintained by their owners. Coal might not be that clean, but new coal-fired plants are better than old ones, and they are probably better than the number of gas powered cars it could replace. It is also more efficient, even with transmission losses, than the gas cars. Finally, if you want to make your power plant cleaner at some point in the future it is a bit easier than retrofitting a large number of cars.

These things have been discussed to death all over the net, you obviously have not read anything about this subject at all.

http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml

Re:conservation of energy

[AaronW]

This has been discussed many times in different circles. Even with coal power plants, the amount of pollution created by electric cars is less than gasoline cars. For one, pollution needs to be controlled in a few centralized sources, and with the proper equipment, which modern plants are required to have, coal power plants emit less pollution than the gasoline and diesel vehicles it could replace. Also, the efficiency of electric cars is higher than internal combustion powered cars, even taking into account the line losses. It is not unusual for batteries to reach 90% efficiency, and electric motors also are able to get into the high 80's and 90's in efficiency. Plus, there's much less drive train with electric, often requiring no transmission, or like the Tesla, a 2 gear transmission. Many power plants are at least 40% efficient, which is much better than what an ICE is capable of. And when power comes from sources like hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, solar or even natural gas, the pollution is significantly reduced or eliminated. Also, most people would be charging their cars at night, where there is often a vast surplus of electricity since power plants can't just shut down for the night, and hence it is a lot cheaper.

Batteries also have come a long way and are fairly efficient for storage. It's much better than, say, hydrogen powered cars.

The main drawback right now for electric cars is the cost, and even so they remain popular. I know a couple of people at Tesla Motors and they have already sold out their allotment of cars for the first two years, and these are going for $100K each. It sounds like they will be coming out with a 5 passenger vehicle at around $50K around 2009. With the rapid rate of battery evolution I expect they will become more and more affordable.

One final note, the cost per mile for an electric vehicle is much less than gasoline, even without the large deductions EV owners can typically make. Last I looked, it worked out to something around $1.50/mile even with the very high cost of electricity where I live (where I often pay over $0.20/kwh).

The solution I see for our energy needs is to not only continue to invest in solar and wind, but to also build nuclear breeder reactors and nuclear power generation. The breeder reactors will significantly increase the amount of nuclear fuel available and eliminate much of the nuclear waste which they want to bury in Nevada. And modern nuclear power plants are far safer than the ones of the past. Solar and wind alone will not solve our energy needs though they will help. Hydroelectric is mostly tapped out, though there's still a lot of room for geothermal.

Re:conservation of energy

[Teresita]

The problem with coal-generated electrical power lies not only with the pollution and co2 emissions--it's wasteful as well, since roughly half the energy stored in the coal simply goes up the stack at the generating plant.

Well, then, if you insist on all the negative vibes, then we should abandon research into solar energy too, since silicon arrays have a lower albedo than the Earth's average of 0.39, and this will result in man-made climate change if implemented on a large scale. Roughly two-thirds of the energy stored in the sunlight simply goes to heating up the array instead of knocking electrons down to wire to your local substation.

Re:conservation of energy

[jfengel]

It does take more than a good battery, but a good battery may be a necessary step. There are only a limited number of ways to deliver power to a vehicle. Gases are hard to contain and not very dense. Liquids are great, but they're expensive to ship around, and the most effective liquids we know are limited in quantity (and those quantities are concentrated in some politically unstable places.) Alternative liquids like ethanol and biodiesel are difficult to produce, and there may not be enough farmland for it even if it is a net energy producer (and there's some question about that).

Electricity is great: you can pump it around easily, and we already have the infrastructure for it. And you can make it many different ways; we can have coal AND nuclear AND wind AND solar AND something we haven't thought of yet (burning switchgrass maybe?). But as with gases, density is a problem, and until you've mastered that the flexibility of electricity for transportation is lost.

The real alternative is finding ways to use less energy overall for transportation (better public transportation, better design of cities, etc.) But those problems present political and social problems at least as big as the technological challenges of building better batteries.

Re:conservation of energy

[trimbo]

You bring up a good point about generation, but we know how to solve that (build nukes). So to use electricity in cars, the main problem is storage on the car. We have an infrastructure we know how to improve if we want to use electric cars.

With all other alternatives, the problems are generation, distribution and/or storage on the car. For ethanol, we know how to distribute it (just like gas), but it's not so clear how we're going to grow all of that corn and process it (imagine all of the required pesticides, water, etc). On the other end of the spectrum, we know how to produce hydrogen, but have no idea how to distribute it and store it in the car safely. There's no infrastructure for these.

Electricity has a clear infrastructure for all of these needs once the storage problem is solved. It will take years to get there, but at least we know what to do.

Re:conservation of energy

[Planesdragon]

I'm all for electric cars, but we'll need a lot more than a good battery to make it practical.

The only piece missing from either all-electric or "real hybrid" is a good* battery. Every Other Problem is a question of just putting existing technology into practice.

(By "good", I mean a battery that will let the vehicle run for at least 20 miles between charges, without adding unreasonably to the battery weight.)

Re:conservation of energy

[mark-t]

You know, this point always gets brought up as an argument against electric cars.

But it fails to consider that centralized energy sources can still be more effectively controlled with regards to pollutants than independent mobile sources, and, more importantly, it is far easier to incrementally upgrade such centralized facilities over time to progressively use possible newer and cleaner methods of energy production when it would be impractical to distribute said measures effectively in a majority of vehicles.

Re:conservation of energy

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Finally, if you want to make your power plant cleaner at some point in the future it is a bit easier than retrofitting a large number of cars.

Also, the power plant is not sitting in traffic on the street next to sidewalks and apartments full of people. Even if the only benefit were to relocate pollution, even if none of the other advantages existed, there'd still be a benefit.

Re:conservation of energy

[drsquare]

The amperage required is not any more than typical household service, particularly if you are willing to let it charge overnight.

Great, so you have to lay a cable all the way down the street to your car to charge it up? I can't see that taking off.

Re:conservation of energy

[shmlco]

Of course, if that solar cell wasn't there the light/heat would simply go into the ground, with a portion reflected back up into, and absorbed by, the atmosphere. Net effect? Neglible.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually see a better use for this technology than just plain electric cars (which are a waste) and the obvious (laptops, cell phones, etc)

hybrid fuel cell cars, Honda has a hydrogen powered car that is a fuel cell car, but it basically powers an electrical motor. so that car's still electric, to save on hydrogen, (and thus the energy required to extract so much from water) apply one of these batteries to the system. voila. a truly efficient hybrid. make use of LEDs for interior lighting save energy.

Re:conservation of energy

[jmorris42]

> The amperage required is not any more than typical household service, particularly if you are willing to let it charge overnight.
> 220 volts is even better than 110 for charging cars, and it really doesn't take more than your house already has.

Yes it would add a hell of a lot of load to the grid if everyone had an electric car cooking at home every night, but that problem is probably managable, since night time is normally lighter loaded.

The big question nobody wants to look at is Interstate recharging. Take a look at a big fscking Roadrunner station with twenty plus 'pumps' recharging batteries in five minutes and run those numbers. Put the sucker out in the boonies between cities and ask yourself where they are going to get the power from? Now imagine everyone is running away from a hurricane/terrorist attack and those 'pumps' are going to have to be able to hammer away for 12 plus hours with a line at every pump. Onsite storage isn't an option for that kind of demand and the grid as it currently exists simply can't do it either.

Everyone wants to think it just because 'big oil' doesn't want electric cars that the infrastructure hasn't magically appeared. It isn't. Even if the demand existed to justify it, nobody currently knows HOW to build it. These are hard problems, but we do need to keep trying to solve them because buying oil from our enemies isn't the brightest idea even if you think 'global warming' is a communist plot.

Re:conservation of energy

[RallyDriver]

People are already making very practical electric cars using existing off the shelf battery technology from laptop computers.

Re:conservation of energy

[am 2k]

The point of the tech this article presents is that the battery only takes 5 minutes to recharge. You could just install a power outlet at the fuel station. Plug your car in, browse the shop during those five minutes (regular refueling isn't really faster than that anyways), and you're back on the road.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, where the nuclear material is packed into dense solid wastes that can be disposed of carefully instead of farted into the atmosphere.

Re:conservation of energy

[picob]

True, but another problem is that the supply of coal/oil/gas is limited. Efficiency is important.

Re:conservation of energy

[Clockwork Apple]

Dude, if I could get safe gasoline piped into my house then I would be happy to use a hose to get it all the way out to my car. Consider the convenience of fueling up without waiting in line for the pump, without worry that some asshole on a celphone will run you over when you walk in to pay, without waiting in line while some dickhead screws with writing a paper check to pay for his one pack of smokes, without getting short changed by the clerk or involved in a hold up.

Shit man I can think of lots of reasons dragging a hose or cable to the curb is better than always having to go to a public service station. The fact that you already have an electric bill just sweetens the deal.

C.

Re:conservation of energy

[rothlmar]

Finally, if you want to make your power plant cleaner at some point in the future it is a bit easier than retrofitting a large number of cars.

I think it's safe to say that the replacement cycle on cars is a bit shorter than the upgrade cycle of power plants, so this particular benefit probably won't materialize.

Re:conservation of energy

[HiThere]

So the question becomes "How much range does this electric car have?" (If the batteries are good enough, then on-site storage DOES become an option, at least as a hefty ballast load.)

I wonder how much charge a tanker-truck sized truck could carry as cargo? This might actually be cheaper than maintaining lines if the losses were lower than line loss. (Don't know how to figure that?) (And depending on how expensive the batteries were.)

Also, the obvious way to go, if one can work out the mechanics, is to charge the vehicles by swapping batteries. It might not be the best...but also it might. This would, however, require:
a) standardization of size, shape, and connections, and
b) a meter built into the battery which would display how many watt-hours it was storing.
This probably won't happen because any economic benefit would probably be marginal, and also because getting companies to agree on a standard is...dubious.

Re:conservation of energy

[j00r0m4nc3r]

Why does it need more than a good battery to be practical? Are you saying you couldn't be bothered to plug your car in when you get home at night? Or even at work. Who cares if taxes the electric grid? We can deal with that. Emissions? It's easier to deal with emissions at a few centralized locations than 1,000,000 independent units. As long as it gets the Saudis' cocks out of our asses, I'm all for it. 100%.

Re:conservation of energy

[Dutch Gun]

The real alternative is finding ways to use less energy overall for transportation (better public transportation, better design of cities, etc.) But those problems present political and social problems at least as big as the technological challenges of building better batteries. Not trying to flamebait here, but every time I hear words to this effect the hairs on the back of my neck raise up. In essence, you're saying "The real solution isn't to invent some new technology to solve this problem (its not like we have a history of innovation or anything). The real solution is to completely re-invent our society because it's completely dependent on a vast supply of affordable energy.

In general, mankind's attempt at science-based engineering has proven far more successful and reliable than attempts to "engineer" societies.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

The EV1 already had around 100 mile range at least, and that was a 10 years ago. The range really isn't a factor unless you live in a rural areas.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

The gains you might see in pollution reduction/energy generated would be possible, you're right. However, the gains in terms of miles traveled or work done/pollution outputted STILL depends on the end use maintaining their vehicle properly. If somebody doesn't grease axles and maintain their electric motor (whatever goes in to that, I'm not personally knowledgeable enough to speak specifics) and the efficiency on their EV starts to plunge, then they'll be using more electricity per mile and consequently recharging more often, getting less work per parts of pollution.

Granted, I'm slowly coming around to the idea of electric vehicles being a good way to unhitch the consumer economy from dealing with changing fuel sources. Just please, don't spread the myth that suddenly pollution and efficiency wouldn't depend on the customer. It still would, and the energy loss in generation + transmission of energy combine with an unmaintained vehicle could potentially add up to pollution and efficiency that's just as bad.

Re:conservation of energy

[prefec2]

Car electric or otherwise are the inefficiency in person. They weigh between 1000 kg and 2000 kg (not counting SUVs) and are used to move 100-200kg (1-2 Persons+some extra) around. I let you do the calculus, but that is not very efficient at all. In addition to that, a decelerating vehicle has to transform movement energy into heat. Compared to that, a (modern) streetcar is able to convert the energy back into electricity. Also they utilize less mass to move one person around, can go faster in cities (60-80 km/h instead of 50-60 km/h). And they have not to bother with traffic jams.

If we want to solve our energy problem we have to do two things:

1. Use technologies to generate and store energy which are not harmful to nature. This includes nuclear plants. As they have two problems. a) They produce radioactive waste, we cannot handle properly and b) the usable amount of nuclear materials is also limited. Beside that, fusion will not work (at least not for another 100 years) and is also pointing in the wrong direction. Decentralized energy production make more sense.
2. We have to consume less energy. We are able (based on technology) to reduce our energy usage by 80%. Without loosing comfort. We have just to change some behaviors and production methods. For instance a PC consumes more energy being build, than over its lifetime. Similar things apply to cars, modern home electronic, etc.

We could save a lot of energy, when we could run our equipment longer than today. Therefore these tools have to be reparable. Recycling is a good thing, but even better is not dumping it, but repairing it.

As good as this new battery is, it is not solving our energy and resource issues.

Reminder: We run into a copper shortage, when we stay with todays technologies. Electric cars, will need even more copper. So this shortage will come sooner.

Re:conservation of energy

[KonoWatakushi]

I believe the problem with nuclear power has a lot more to do with disposal and storage than with the safety of the reactor. Well, good news, the Integral Fast Reactor solves this issue. It recycles the "waste" until it is entirely consumed and all the of the really dangerous elements are burned up as well. There is very little actual waste left over, and it is far far less dangerous than what is produced by conventional reactors. They only extract a few percent of the energy from the fuel, and throw out an enormous amount highly dangerous and useful material. By recycling this material, the IFR can actually consume existing waste! It would be a long time before any new Uranium would need to be mined.

Another feature is that it is a passively safe design; meltdowns simply aren't possible. Anyways, the interviews in the external links of that wikipedia article are very interesting and informative.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully with the new Third Way movement springing up in the Democrats, they'll be willing to quit bawling over nuclear power and get on with it. Even with this IFR, we're still decades behind in practical application experience.

Re:conservation of energy

[c6gunner]

Take a look at a big fscking Roadrunner station with twenty plus 'pumps' recharging batteries in five minutes and run those numbers. Put the sucker out in the boonies between cities and ask yourself where they are going to get the power from?

While the rest of your points are pretty good, this part at least has an easy solution. Large stations within cities would more than likely run their own dedicated power lines, which would hook into a private generating plant. This would be the perfect way for modern oil companies to go - just build yourself a power-plant, run cables to your existing stations, and you're good to go. As for ones in the boonies, you have an even better solution. Being in the boonies means lots of open land. Why not build a bigass windmill or some solar panels for each station? It's a steep initial investment, but you can sell the electricity at a premium, and over time you'll make a nice profit. This wouldn't even necessarily involve todays oil companies - you can bet that farmers would want a piece of the action. If we had viable electric vehicles, every farm would have at least one windmill, and many would have charging stations available for travellers. The key would be in raising the cost of electricity while providing tax-breaks to help cover the initial costs of solar/wind setups for private individuals and small businesses.

Re:conservation of energy

[P_11]

There are lots of possible energy solutions. The idea of growing algae in giant fresh water lagoons has been well studied. See http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/18138/ Sewage from large cities could be used to promote algae growth and the advantage of CO2 recycling and central energy production as well as sewage management would bring cost efficiencies that should keep costs reasonable. The biggest hurdle has been a suitable energy storage system. This kind of advance will be a major step in realizing an energy production system that does not rely on foreign oil.

Re:conservation of energy

[maxume]

For entertaining values of practical. They are expensive and hard to refuel. Compare and contrast with a used Camry, for example.

Re:conservation of energy

[ray-auch]

Not so much can't be bothered as can't see how. For me (and many others who live with on-street parking) I'm lucky to get my car within 50yds of the house when I get home at night.

Sure, I could buy a really long extension cable and run it down the street. Wonder how much I'll get sued for when someone trips over it ? Probably won't last that long though - the passing drunks who usually swing on wing mirrors will find it far too tempting...

Re:conservation of energy

[theshowmecanuck]

Yes, but you're assuming the earth is made of silicon... ummmm... never mind.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Carefully is very subjective when dealing with radioactive waste. Since this stuff will be around for quite awhile it's not always clear the best method to 'dispose' (ie, entomb). While we're pretty good at building a building to last for a century or two, sometimes longer, we don't have a ton of experience building structures rated for complete containment over 10,000+ years. There's also the issue of building enough containment and situating it where it won't cause problems down the line. Oh, and marking it in some sort of universal language so that in the event civilization collapses and we revert to a new stone age some hapless hunter gatherer doesn't try to eat it.

Re:conservation of energy

[Walt Dismal]

I don't buy this 5-minute recharging. A car takes between 20 to 200 horsepower to run. One horsepower equals about 750 watts. So that's about 15KW to 150KW per hour of running time. First of all, if you pump energy in that range into a battery in 5 minutes, the heat loss due to resistance in the system will be fairly large. I.e. the battery will get very hot. Cutting the lifetime. Second, if you try to put in enough energy to power the car for more than one hour, that's even more of a problem. Let's say you pump in enough for 3 hours of driving. That's 45KW to 450KW in five minutes. That's serious energy transfer. Even if the battery is a high voltage battery, i.e. the charging current flow will be less than with a lower voltage higher current battery, you're not going to put nearly half a megawatt into the battery quickly. Maybe my rough numbers are wrong. But this scheme looks bogus.

Re:conservation of energy

[Score Whore]

$98,000 is not practical. Nor have they actually built a production model car that meets their specs. See the note on their front page:

"* We are currently in the midst of the important and time-consuming safety and durability testing for the Tesla Roadster. While we are confident of our numbers, this testing may require design changes that affect the final specifications. Mpg is for the EPA highway driving cycle. Conversion from electric consumption to gallons of gasoline equivalent is calculated using the EPA conversion factor documented in the Federal Register: June 12, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 113), Rules and Regulations, Pages 36985-36992. Cost calculated using PG&E Schedule E-9 off-peak rate."

When they've got several thousand cars on the road with their 135 mpg equiv. and 250 miles per charge, then I'll be impressed. Otherwise you might as well be pointing at the solar cars that students are building for their annual solar races.

Re:conservation of energy

[ds_job]

Except that I heard from http://www.sciencefriday.com/ (but can't remember exactly where) that there are issues with vitreous storage of nuclear waste. When the alpha radiation occurs what effectively happens is there is a kick on the atom releasing the alpha particle and this shakes the crystal lattice and over time it degrades the glass into something which is much less durable.
I'm all for Nuclear Power to play a part in the over all power generation system (maybe even a huge part) but we need to come up with more and better ideas about storage.
But even if we ignore that, a 20 minute drive to work in an electric car followed by recharging over 8 hours would be fine by me. But now we get the ability to travel hundreds of miles and get the car recharged whilst we stopping off at the services. Because I live in the UK, all I need now is some way of recharging overnight by catching the rainfall with a water wheel and I'll be able to drive for free. ;-)

Re:conservation of energy

[adrianbaugh]

In 2004 there were over 200 million cars in the US. Average mileage is of the order of 10,000 per car. Using energy density figures from wikipedia and assuming 100% efficiency (I only care about orders of magnitude) those 200 million cars will draw 8.6X10^12 MJ per year, or 273.7GW. The Russian GRES-2 power station, one of the largest coal powered generators in the world, produces 4GW. So you'd need at least 68 extra of the largest power stations in the world to keep the US car fleet running. Better get building!

Re:conservation of energy

[light_rock]

Consider also what this might mean to Solar Power.

If batteries take a long time to charge, a cloud might come along...

I have to imagine that this ought to help out there as well big time.

Re:conservation of energy

[wytcld]

You don't need to retrofit cars because most cars are only on the road for 5 to 10 years, and the car makers just love it if those who can buy cars can be attracted to the latest model. You need to retrofit coal power plants, because they can keep going with the same old equipment for decades and decades, but the owners of the plants are politically powerful enough to avoid doing the upgrades, and plant component makers are already selling everything they can produce for new coal plants in China - without having to invest much in upgrading the technology, since half the plants going up in China don't even bother with the minimal permitting requirements they pretend to have in place there.

So drivers and car makers both want to replace the fleet as often as they can; and coal plant builders and operators want no upgrades at all. We've got to just shut down coal.

Re:conservation of energy

[edwardpickman]

The point is electric cars are far more efficent. Something like 5X more efficent than a gas engine. Even if you had to use petroleum for the power plants and allowed for line loss there's still going to be a drastic reduction in CO2 released. When you consider you need a 1/5 of the power then alternative methods get interesting.

Nuclear isn't a magic bullet and we all end up paying for the clean up since power companies would prefer the government deal with the mess. Just because nuclear doesn't release CO2 doesn't mean it's clean. It's not just the fuel rods there's contaminanted water and other wastes that need to be stored. Remember you don't have to bury a coal fired plant when it's decommissioned. I don't like coal either. If the CO2 could be stored it is safer although there are bigger threats that also need to be removed like mercury. Coal plants are the primary source of mercury in the environment.

Re:conservation of energy

[drsquare]

Dude, if I could get safe gasoline piped into my house then I would be happy to use a hose to get it all the way out to my car. Consider the convenience of fueling up without waiting in line for the pump, without worry that some asshole on a celphone will run you over when you walk in to pay, without waiting in line while some dickhead screws with writing a paper check to pay for his one pack of smokes, without getting short changed by the clerk or involved in a hold up.

Maybe I go to the wrong places, but I've never had to wait at a petrol station, nor been run over, no had a queue whilst inside, or been held up.

A cable going across a road is pretty dangerous as well. Imagine if you only managed to park 100 yards away, across two streets! You'd also have your window open all night to get the cable out, not very useful in the winter.

Re:conservation of energy

[BobZee1]

please stop: http://web.uvic.ca/wguide/Pages/UsAnyway.html

Re:conservation of energy

[Eternauta3k]

On the other end of the spectrum, we know how to produce hydrogen, but have no idea how to distribute it and store it in the car safely. There's no infrastructure for these.

Isn't it like compressed natural gas?

Re:conservation of energy

[Perp Atuitie]

Nonsense. What do you think the Interstate highway system, the broadcast spectrum, telephones, cities, farming, politics, and so on and so on and so on are, if not engineering societies? Car culture is no less social engineering than public transportation. Badly designed cities are no less social engineering than cities designed to be more efficient and accessible.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd also have your window open all night to get the cable out, not very useful in the winter.

Or mount a plug outside the house. Are you honestly that stupid? You might as well just give up now.

Re:conservation of energy

[Firethorn]

A car takes between 20 to 200 horsepower to run. One horsepower equals about 750 watts. So that's about 15KW to 150KW per hour of running time.

First, you forget that a car doesn't use all of it's power constantly. A gasoline engine has a huge margin over what's needed to maintain a car's speed just to enable quick acceleration. Second, Watts are a power measure, not an energy measure. The only reason you need to worry about power when it comes to batteries is that they can only release so much power at a time.

Still, due to the wonders that is the efficiency of a electric motor(90+%) and regenerative braking, you can generally get by with 1/2 - 1/3 the horsepower rating for an electric vehicle over a gasoline one. The problem has always been one that the amount of energy you can stuff into a gas tank is orders of magnitude than a similar size or weight of batteries. Electric - Great motor, lousy storage, Hydrocarbon - Fantastic storage, lousy motor.'

Another wierdness is that gasoline engines are rated by their maximum horsepower, whereas an electric motor is rated at it's continous duty cycle. That means that you can 'undersize' the engine even more, because it's quite possible to run many motors at 300% for short periods of time. This is because the main problem with overdriving an electric motor is simply the motor's capability to disperse heat. You can safely overdrive it for short periods, as long as you don't fry the engine. Larger engines use heavier wire, reducing heat generation and increasing heat dispersion capabilities. Larger motor's are also more efficient on average though, so reducing below a certain level doesn't gain you much.

So an electric car can get by with a much smaller engine than a gasoline one(just overdrive during acceleration, controlled by the computer).

As for the wattage required, the tesla roadster takes 110 watt-hours on average for a kilometer. As the article noted, the roadster is 'performance tuned', not 'economy tuned'. Still, it's a smaller vehicle, incabable to holding the cargo average users would ask of a primary car.

That would be .176 kw/h per mile. For a 300 mile charge(It's what my 30mpg car with a 10gal tank can do), you'd need a battery capable of holding 52.8 kw/h. Let's call it 60 kw/h. To charge that in 1 hour would require 272 amps @ 220 volts. Yuck. Hello 0000 wire. 3.3kA for a 5 minute charge. Now we're talking silly. Let's kick it up to 600Volts. Ah, much better @100 amps for a 1 hour charge, though 1.3kA is still high. A 1% waste at that level would still be 13amps@600volts=7.8kw, or about 5 hairdryers. Doable with fans. Wouldn't want it to be much higher though.

I think they're counting on an activly cooled extremely high voltage battery, that's still more efficient than stuff on the market today.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you must consider that an electrical motor is *considerably* more efficient than a traditional internal combustion. Therefore, regardless whether you're powering your car on gasoline, or electricity that is generated by coal (worst case scenario) you still have a considerable net energy/CO2 savings with an electric motor.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

English is a hideous language, and trying to make sense of it with rules is a futile effort. The only thing that matters is usage and understanding. Anyways, "Anyways" is in my dictionary. The language is beyond repair, better to simply accept it.

Re:conservation of energy

[Dutch Gun]

Badly designed cities are no less social engineering than cities designed to be more efficient and accessible. Perhaps we have differing definitions of "social engineering". I'm not talking about "urban planning" or "engineered systems". None of what you describe, at least to me, falls under the most definition I'm familiar with (maybe in a very round-about way, but I think that's stretching the definition a bit). Yes, they do influence society to a degree, but many examples of those were not engineered with the purpose of transforming societal behaviors in a specific (political) manner, and that is the distinction.

Regarding car culture as social engineering: in this case, there was no outside influence - the society itself wished to embrace this, and the capitalist engine of our society was more than happy to provide the means to do so. I consider capitalism (and by extension, advertisement and consumerism) to be an integral part of our society, and so wouldn't consider it to be social engineering in the classical sense. I'd probably describe it as a natural social evolution.

Hopefully this clarifies what I meant - just that the force required to alter a society's behavior always has the inherent danger of eroding liberty, and thus should be used cautiously.

Re:conservation of energy

[cephal0p0d]

Why cant they have a gigantic buffer battery onsite at the fueling station that can trickle or suck from the grid as needed?

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if there is no change, or an increase, in carbon emissions overall, these kinds of vehicles will clear up LOCAL air pollution.

Re:conservation of energy

[putaro]

Oh, and marking it in some sort of universal language so that in the event civilization collapses and we revert to a new stone age some hapless hunter gatherer doesn't try to eat it. Who cares? We should spend billions of dollars in order to ensure that one poor hunter gatherer far in the future doesn't go digging around in one location? The damage we're doing to the environment by burning fossil fuels far outweighs the possible hazard to anybody from a nuclear dump. There's lots of ways to make yourself dead if you go digging around in something.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the CIA Factbook, the US produced 4 trillion kWh in 2004. I think the cars could be handled.

Re:conservation of energy

[Nefarious Wheel]

Very long term storage has been dealt with by Larry Niven in a funny but somewhat flippant style -- put a bunch of signs around the site saying "Trespassers will die" in all available languages; let the stupidly curious remove themselves from the gene pool (or have them mutate, which is effectively the same thing). A more interesting method was embodied in Arsen Darnay's "The Karma Affair" where protection of radioactive storage was forced into a rather novel arrangement of religion and uh, conditioning.

Really though, the stuff should be put aside for re-use later. The sun, hopefully, isn't making any more heavy elements for us soon and we shouldn't throw away the ones we have in the rather arrogant opinion that future generations won't have any better ideas than we do wrt. storage, such as storing excess Polonium in expat Russians.

I think entombing the waste is a good idea, and the back side of the moon sounds like a good storage place for me.

If we ever bother to re-use it, that is -- it may be a very long time before we run out of asteroidal feedstocks.

Re:conservation of energy

[Nefarious Wheel]

Isn't it like compressed natural gas?

Nothing, but nothing, leaks quite as enthusiastically as hydrogen gas. So if it's compressed, it's exactly like a compressed natural gas (what's more natural than hydrogen? Good ol' H2...) but there are major differences in handling light gases than heavier ones. Some don't store well on their own at all -- for example (sorry if I'm drifting off topic here, but this is Slashdot?) Acetylene isn't typically stored in it's compressed form at all, but is bubbled into liquid acetone because it can decompose spontaneously if pressure exceeds 15 PSIG. Bang. You do not want to drop an acetlyene tank.

The problem with hydrogen is that the small size of the molecule makes it very adept at sliding past barriers that would inhibit the passage of heavier gases. Porous bronze valves are right out of the picture iirc.

YMMV I haven't done any welding in a very long time.

Re:conservation of energy

[pkulak]

The "long tailpipe" argument has completely dried up by now, yet every time there's an EV story on /. or digg, about 40 people bring it up. Please actually look into your argument before you slap it all over the web. http://teslamotors.com/display_data/21stCentElectr icCar.pdf

Re:conservation of energy

[DaoudaW]

There's this new architural feature being built into many homes called a garage in which a person can store a car. Some of them even include electrical outlets within feet of the aforesaid vehicle. Futurists envision a retractable cord being used to charge the vehicle from the outlet although the technical aspects of this connection are unresolved. Note to moderators: +1 humorous.

Re:conservation of energy

[drsquare]

Yeah well most houses don't have garages, there's no room for them.

Re:conservation of energy

[MtViewGuy]

I can understand your concerns, but thanks to nanotechnology, the day of every home being its own power generator could become reality within 15 years. We are starting to see the cost of solar panels to generate electricity drop drastically using nanotechnology, a drop that could soon make it possible to do a solar panel installation costing US$2,500 instead of the US$25,000 current cost. Combine that with recent breakthroughs in high-density electrical power storage and the whole idea of a big centralized electrical generation plant could be rendered obselete by 2030. And that home electric power generator will be how your recharge the battery in your all-electric car by then, too.

Re:conservation of energy

[leoc]

Keep in mind that even taking into account the full energy cycle of both technologies, ICE (gasoline) vehicles are significantly less energy efficient than electric's:

http://www.evadc.org/pwrplnt.pdf

Re:conservation of energy

[Clockwork Apple]

You might have to do some of those things, but I, being smarter than the average bear (and not living in a city) would put an outlet/pump outside my house right next to the driveway where I park my car. The switch/valve would be in the garage so nobody could drive by and fill up on my dime.

Might not work for you but for most home owners or house renters I think it would work great.

As for you never being in one of the situations I gave as examples, does that mean those things NEVER happen to ANYONE?

C.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

"While i'm all for new tech, let's take a second to re-examine this. We're going to take electricity and power our cars... ok but this has to come from somewhere right? And it isn't like we're going to generate it on the spot. So we're going to put MORE strain on the existing power grid to power these recharge stations.

The power itself is made from something, usually not nuclear because "oh noes it's unsafe!" [note the sarcasm] but instead things like coal. So now we're gonna have to burn more coal (which pollutes more than nuclear) to power this. Keeping in mind the entire process is lossy.

I'm all for electric cars, but we'll need a lot more than a good battery to make it practical."

For those like this person who STILL don't know...

The US eletric grid is currently mainly coal powered. These coal plants run on coal delivered by train on a schedule and have have a 5 day startup time. As such, they are never turned off, or turned down. During the day, they supply all our power needs. During the night, power demand drops dramatically. All night long eletricity is literally wasted, much like bandwidth. The US government has released a report that if all cars in the US were electric, it would only increase the overall burden on the eletrical grid by 10%.

Aside from that, the overall efficiency is much higher, especially with the new coal plants.

So no, all we need for electric cars are good batteries, nothing more.

Re:conservation of energy

[ncc74656]

Yeah well most houses don't have garages, there's no room for them.

What color is the sky on your world? Here, it's blue, and you'd have a hard time finding a house that doesn't have a garage (where "house"=="single-family dwelling," though most townhomes and some condos have them too).

Re:conservation of energy

[Whiteox]

Don't have to rely on Coal.
Try more hydro power stations.

Re:conservation of energy

[mattcasters]

Personally I don't care at all for the poor soul that tries to open up a vault with all kinds of danger symbols like skulls on it.

However, that is IMHO besided the point. The big problem as far as I see it is polution of the environment, especially the water.
If ground water gets contaminated, it will surface one day. Then it will not just be the individual at risk, but complete populations and regions of the planet.

Storing something with a looong half time for thousands of years is not trivial folks...

Besides, I thought that one of the drawbacks of nuclear energy was also the limited supply of uranium.
Has that problem all of a sudden gone away?

Re:conservation of energy

[putaro]

Storing something with a looong half time for thousands of years is not trivial folks... Actually, things with loooong half lives are not a problem because they are not very radioactive!

As far as contamination of the ground water, consider: they found contamination moving from the nuclear bomb test sites. It's moved a few miles *and* and the amount in the water is well within safe limits. This is next to a place where they set off a NUCLEAR BOMB. The materials in the nuclear dump would be encased in glass which is not really water soluble. The dump is designed to remain dry. And people will be monitoring it for the foreseeable future.

Consider that many chemical pollutants remain toxic forever - they do not have half lives. Right now China is putting more and more coal-fired power plants on line. In addition to CO2 they also pump out tons of mercury which is contaminating the oceans and the food chain. Coal is also being pushed as the solution to US energy independence because of the vast reserves of coal in the US.

The supply of uranium is limited mainly by the demand. There has been little demand for uranium and hence we've put in little time to look for it.
[url]http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/ura nium.html[/url]

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Better to burn coal somewhere isolated than gasoline 10 feet from my lungs.

Re:conservation of energy

[noigmn]

I know reactors these days are pretty fool proof, but so was Chernobyl. They had all the guide lines in place and it was safe as all hell if they were followed. The only thing they got wrong was they underestimated the possible negligence of the fools running it.

I disagree with the grandparent though on the electric cars and coal. It is far easier to make an effective solar or wind power station on the ground than in a car. So if you want them to be reliable and run off renewable energy, then batteries and power from the grid would be the go.

Re:conservation of energy

[MightyYar]

It's not that I disagree with you, but the two issues are really not related at all. It is senseless to limit progress on one front by artificially tying it to progress on another. Switching to electric would improve air quality, even if all of the increased demand were supplied by new coal plants. Further, local pollution from the gasoline infrastructure is horrendous. Leaks pollute drinking water, evaporation causes smog, and tailpipe emissions are expensive to control, and seem to affect health.

Besides that, there are other reasons to switch to electric cars that have nothing at all to do with the environment. Our foreign policy could be somewhat more sensible if we didn't have an addiction to oil. Also, right now we maintain a crazy oil redistribution infrastructure that is sort of redundant if the electric grid can be used.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry to post as Anonymous Coward but I am just a lurker here most of the time. But, this post is just WRONG. Chernobyl was not "fool proof". It was by design unstable and required constant control rod movements just to compensate for normal demand fluctuations. This was accomplished by computer. The final catastophe was cause by human intervention, but that was a relatively small intervention for the amount of damage done. Water was a poison to the reactor and rapid insertion of control rods caused the removal of this poison and spike in power production which contributed to the "meltdown".

Thanks for your time.
K

Re:conservation of energy

[budgenator]

Chernobyl was far from fool-proof, it's control rods were tipped with graphite in a graphite moderated reactor, in a car it would be like stepping on the brake pedal also pushed the accelerator pedal.

Re:conservation of energy

[schnibitz]

I've heard this argument many times, but it simply doesn't wash. Internal combustion motors have an efficiency of 25%ish, which basically means that 75% gets wasted in heat, friction etc. The battery/electric motor design is much more efficient, to the tune of 90%, and that was for some of the older technology. Therefore we'd have far LESS pollution, because a greater percentage of energy would be put into the movement of the vehicle.

This says nothing about the fuel wasted getting fuel from one place to the other. So now you have all the pollution from cars, and all the pollution from tanker trucks that bring cars their gas to add into the mix. But then there's oil rigs, there's the large oil tankers that of course never run aground, and never ever spill . . . So we have all of this polluting infrastructure that delivers fuel to an engine that gets 25% efficiencies at best, but we're worried about any batteries causing more pollution? In light of all of this, that seems a bit silly don't you think?

I won't even get into coal pollution recapturing devices which are beginning to make a dent in the problem . ..

Beyond all of this though, it's possible to power an entire house with solar shingles. You can literally take your house off the grid in most areas of the world with solar cells on your roof. You can't tell me that solar-cells wouldn't become more popular if electric vehicles did too. This would MORE than offset any demands placed on our "grid" as a result of battery technology.

Seriously, GM actually has the right idea with this one. Forget hydrogen, forget the idiocy that is ethanol, and lets use something we have here, now, today that works, and works WELL.

Re:conservation of energy

[budgenator]

He may be European, in a lot of places in European cities homes touch each other. There is no garages, unless the homes builder was rich enough to want a horse stable. I used to drink in a bar that was there in a painting dated 1647! There is a saying,"Europeans are people who think 200 miles is a long distance and Americans are people who think 200 years is a long time" for a reason. In Germany, I once ran into an "outlaw" motorcycle gang complete with club colors, riding Mopeds.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Electric - Great motor, lousy storage, Hydrocarbon - Fantastic storage, lousy motor.'

You are a genius. No, really, you are, no sarcasm. You just flashed the lightning of insight: instead of trying to solve two wrong, "dead horse" problems, we need to dump the trash and integrate the best of both worlds: research toward goal of efficient conversion of all (or as much as possible) of fuel's chemical energy directly to electricity, without going through chemical to thermal energy conversion first. In other words, we need a major breakthrough in (heavy, for better energy density) hydrocarbon fuel cell efficiency and scalability. Cold fusion is great, but "cold fuel cell" would do just exactly what we want and need.

Re:conservation of energy

[Jeremi]

Onsite storage isn't an option for that kind of demand and the grid as it currently exists simply can't do it either.

Well, in the worst case (hurricane emergency, all the power lines are down), you still have those big underground gas tanks... use some of that gas to power a generator to make the electricity you need. Inefficient, but doable.

Re:conservation of energy

[Jeremi]

Great, so you have to lay a cable all the way down the street to your car to charge it up? I can't see that taking off

A lot of people (particularly the kind of people who can afford an electric car at the moment) keep their car in a garage where there is usually an electrical outlet.

That said, most streets also have power available for the street lights, etc ... it might be feasible at some (distant) point to add curbside electrical outlets as well.

Re:conservation of energy

[Jeremi]

Regarding car culture as social engineering: in this case, there was no outside influence - the society itself wished to embrace this, and the capitalist engine of our society was more than happy to provide the means to do so.

In the USA, at least, the Interstate Highway System was (and still is, IIRC) the most expensive government project ever undertaken. It wasn't just the free market that made cars so practical, the government played a huge part. If that's not social engineering, I don't know what is.

That said, both you and the other poster are half-right: finding more and better energy sources is "the solution", but finding more efficient ways to use the energy budget we have now is also "the solution". They aren't mutually exclusive; we can (and will probably need to) do both. One way or another we will live within our energy budget -- the laws of physics demand it. Whether we make that happen gracefully or not depends on how innovative and flexible we are.

Re:conservation of energy

[RallyDriver]

By "practical", I was responding to the prior poster's comment that electric vehicles could only go a short distance. Perhaps "viable" is a better way to put it ;-)

The Tesla is certainly not ready for the mass market, but they are going about things the right way by bootstrapping their business and producing a sports car first, something for which people are prepared to pay the kind of money that it currently costs to build an EV. The use of off-the-shelf battery tech (where the artcile brought us in) is also critical to business success.

Re:conservation of energy

[c0ppert0p]

So, where the hell do all the other countries store their waste?. I know the US used to drop drums filled with the crap out near the Farallons. -(Gee why did that stop?)

Re:conservation of energy

[Rei]

They're not valid concerns.

Millions of cars enter the US fleet each year. Even though that may sound like a lot, it's a drop in the bucket compared to our 200 million total. The average car's lifespan is 9 years and climbing (relatively quickly). Then factor in that vehicle energy consumption is still significantly smaller than industrial and commercial energy consumption. If you believe that electricity production, which can be generated from countless sources, can't keep pace with even a 100% instant adoption of electric cars (nobody buys another gasoline car) on the first model year, I don't know what to tell you. Not to mention that such instantaneous adoption is ludicrous. Not only will manufacturers not produce their first models in that great of numbers, but you only need to look at hybrids (many if not most of which now are cheaper, factored over the car's average lifespan, than non-hybrids), whose adoption rate is, what, 1-2% of the market? Adoption of new technology on something as expensive as a car takes time. People are rightfully cautious.

As for pollution, centralized power plants are more efficient and have better pollution controls -- even coal. They're also cheaper to produce power there, since they're a centralized location for converting fuel to energy and don't rely on stressed petroleum markets. Last time I checked the numbers, electric cars tend to get something like 20%-30% less CO2 emissions and about half the particulate emissions as a conventional ICE when the electricity source is coal, often running for something like $0.80 per gallon-of-gasoline-equivalent (sorry for the lack of specifics due to time constraints; google if you're interested).

Anyways, as for this company, they're yet another in a long line of companies to announce "revolutionary" battery breakthroughs. How many will actually hit the market with a real product is yet to be seen. Also, I'm always a bit skeptical of lithium-ion battery breakthroughs that don't mention lifespan, since lithium-ion batteries have a (relatively short) finite lifespan even without use. That's what I want to hear about first. Who's going to buy a car with $10,000 of lithium-ion batteries in it (they're pretty expensive...) just to have to replace them a few years down the road? Sure, the lithium can be recycled, but you'll still be left paying a pretty penny.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhat self-defeatingly, charge stations could burn gasoline in emergency situations to generate electricity.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

French have tried this, and the sodium seems to be extremely difficult problem. Therefore I would not say "solves the issue". Perhaps "can solve the issue", but that sounds somewhat optimistic too.

Re:conservation of energy

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, in an evacuation, the average speed is slow, less than 5MPH on average. Now with IC engines, most of the gas is burned off just idling. With battery power, you use nothing just sitting there. And very little going walking or jogging speed. Your average 30MPG economy car, for example a Ford Focus or a Toyota Camry, uses 2 gallons per hour at 60MPH. At 30MPH, it uses 0.75GPH and 0.2GPH at idle. That translates into roughly 20HP at 60MPH, 6HP at 30MPH and 1HP at idle. With electric drives, each wheel is independently powered and goes through just one gear with about a 4% effeciency loss at the transmission and 2% loss in the AC 3 phase induction motor. This compares to the 70-80% efficiency of the engine to wheel powertrain for manuals and 65-75% for the automatics. So the electric car needs about 0.5HP to idle (run power steering, brakes, lights, fans, A/C, radio, etc.), 2.5HP to go 30MPH and 11.5HP to go 60MPH. Thus a battery sized to go 60MPH for 5 hours, needs about 43KWH (5 * 11.5 * 0.746 = 42.9KWH). That same battery will go 692 miles (43KWH * 30 / (2.5 * 0.746) = 692) at 30MPH. At 10MPH, it uses about 0.75HP giving a range of (43KWH * 10 / (0.75 * 0.746) = 769 miles. If you turn off the fans, lights, power steering, etc.) that would drop required power to 0.25HP effectively tripling range at 10MPH to 2307 miles. With that range, you could go from LA to Detroit on one charge.

By redesigning the car for minimum aerodynamic drag, friction and idle power, you could drop the numbers to 50W Idle, 130W at 10MPH, 575W at 30MPH, 3500W at 60MPH and 6565W at 75MPH and still carry 4-5 adults. This yields ranges of 0, 3307, 2243, 737 and 491 miles respectively. 3307 is far enough to go from LA to NYC on one charge taking about two weeks of continuos driving. To fully charge a 43KWH battery, takes about 52KWH or about $5.20 at 10 cents per KWH. Most homes can supply 200A at 220VAC which can recharge the battery in 75 minutes. With a 50A 220V circuit, it just takes 5 hours. Most electric dryers use that type of socket.

If you don't believe the average evacuation speeds, just look at how fast Bouston was evacuated prior to Rita and New Orleans prior to Katrina.

Re:conservation of energy

[noigmn]

Comment retracted :)

But in a sense what I was getting at is people are always going to push the boundaries no matter how safe the design is. If the reactor was under normal conditions with normal safety regulations followed properly, it wouldn't have happened. I agree the design was somewhat inferior to todays though.

Re:conservation of energy

[noigmn]

All comments retracted, I'll post informed next time, no point arguing it :).

Re:conservation of energy

[adrianbaugh]

But aren't they already struggling? I remember power blackouts in California not so long ago; that makes it seem to me that however much power the US generates, it uses nearly all of it (ie it's near capacity). So it's a huge amount of extra power that's needed and I still say "get building!"

Just the beginning

[zappepcs]

There was recently a story about a company in Texas that has similar claims for this type of technology. Not sure what happened to them, but if either or both of them gets it right, I'll be converting my car to electric very quickly after the technology is proven not to be a huge maintenance bill waiting to happen, or worse.

In fact, I will probably invest in solar/other technology to supplement my use of electricity for the vehicle(s) as well. There are a couple of tax cuts for this, and I would like to not be dependent on fossil fuels. Yes, I know that electric generation does rely on them to some extent, but if I'm using solar it will reduce that dependence even further.

I hope this is true. I'd gladly charge up at a station that is currently selling gasoline if I was going to have to travel more than a single charge, but I'd like a single charge to go for more than 30-40 miles. Storage technology is the real hindering factor right now. I hope they are right, and not wanting to charge too much for the storage systems.

Re:Just the beginning

[spirit of reason]

The difference between that company and A123 is that A123 actually has a product. The teams at the MIT Vehicle Design Summit used ones with cosmetic defects in an electric-assisted human-powered vehicle, a fuel cell car, and a battery-powered electric car (single-seater, unfortunately... but I wasn't in charge of how high the goals were set). They don't have the same levels of specific energy nor energy density as standard Li-Ion batteries, but they don't have the same level of dangers (esp. with fires and explosions) and have that nice, fast standard charge current.

The range you want can be achieved at the cost of a lot of weight, but really, 30-40 miles is very low. The Tesla Roadster isn't really the very best design, but it has a 250 mile range (note: it uses standard Li-Ion batteries, not A123's -- the weight would be significantly higher for the same capacity from A123). I'd hold off on converting, though. It's an extremely expensive endeavor, as the batteries have enthusiast-level prices, and the lowered capacity is a little too significant. Hopefully, the next round of battery technology will solve this issue, as I don't see fuel cells becoming viable anytime soon (extreme price issues for those, not related to economies of scale, plus the system --generation of hydrogen to exhaust-- isn't nearly as efficient).

And since I'm on the subject of replacing gasoline, anyone that thinks biofuels can do more than substitute out a little portion of oil dependence is a fool. I'm sure the farmers would love to have increased demand for their corn (or maybe they'd like to grow switchgrass, which is much better for biofuel production), but there's just not enough land to grow the crops to satisfy the energy demand. Unless you're living in Brazil or a similar type of country, it isn't going to work. It's just a stopgap solution.

Another three wheeler

[mdsolar]

Here's another three wheeler one of my customers told me about http://www.zapworld.com/ZAPWorld.aspx?id=188. They are doing this with lead acid.
--
Run you car from your roof. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Probably not

[Flying pig]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this particular development. But the sort of power you are looking at to charge batteries at that rate is enormous. Figure it out. If you have a battery that can, say, deliver 50KW for one hour, then to charge it in five minutes will require to deliver about 20% more than you get out (conversion efficiency) or a charge rate of 720KW. That's nearly 1000 horsepower in Library of Congress units. You aren't going to be passing that through a handy, easy to use electrical circuit any time soon.

On the other hand, overnight charging of the batteries (when power stations have spare capacity) is an extremely good idea, and indeed the dual hybrid concept good at good write up last year.

So my suggestion is: Yes, this is a really good idea, yes it is progress in terms of better flexibility of power supplies, yes it goes some way to resolve the problem that you cannot easily store electrical power by allowing it to be stored in a big distributed network of vehicles - but ten years is for too soon for it to take over as a technology.

The progressively replacement of gasoline engines by Diesel in Europe has been going on for over 20 years now, and that's probably a realistic timeframe. 20 years to get market penetration of battery vehicles, and then, only if renewable fuels turn out to be a failure, the progressive development of very high power charging stations.

Re:Probably not

[Richard Kirk]

A similar calculation...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Energy_conte nt we see that a litre of petrol yeilds 30 MJ energy. Filling a tank of a small car with 40 litres of fuel takes perhaps 2 minutes to put 1.2 GJ into the the tank, which works out as a power input of 10 megawatts. A bit surprising for something so familiar, but there it is. If you are charging your car at home, you are unlikely to match that.

Re:Probably not

[cheesybagel]

Most of that energy is wasted by the internal combustion engine. Most are between 20 to 30% efficient. Even more is lost in the transmission. Every time you brake in a conventional vehicle, you are throwing kinetic energy away by converting it to useless heat in the brakes.

So an electric vehicle does not need to go full hog. You probably need something like 10-20% the energy in that gasoline at best.

Re:Probably not

[p.gogarty]

Yes, yes, of course we will all charge overnight

My girlfriend has a hard enough time remembering to charge her mobile phone every night and often ends up with a dead battery.

Give her a batery powered car and I'll need to buy something with an auxilary generator to rescue her every time she forgot to recharge the car last night. Anyone know somone selling an old fariground truck?

Re:Probably not

[mcrbids]

But the sort of power you are looking at to charge batteries at that rate is enormous. Figure it out. If you have a battery that can, say, deliver 50KW for one hour, then to charge it in five minutes will require to deliver about 20% more than you get out (conversion efficiency) or a charge rate of 720KW. That's nearly 1000 horsepower in Library of Congress units. You aren't going to be passing that through a handy, easy to use electrical circuit any time soon.

Assume a "gas station". (energy station?) Assume that, in 24 hours, it can "refuel" 1,000 cars. That means that, over a 24 hour period, it must get and transfer the power to move 1,000 cars.

Now, your average 15 amp circuit has nowhere near the juice to sustain this kind of load. But there are high-voltage circuits that do. And there are hand-held insulators and the like that can make this work.

The trick is to essentially put a high-capacity capacitor at the fueling station. It can "refuel" cars in a burst, while drawing a continuous amount of power from the grid, like a large water tank with highly variable output at the spigot.

This can work, if the storage of energy is compact and efficient enough. If the actuality is anywhere close to what they claim, this solution just might be.

Re:Probably not

[Jeremi]

My girlfriend has a hard enough time remembering to charge her mobile phone every night and often ends up with a dead battery.

Does your girlfriend get stuck by the side of the road because she forgot to put gas in the tank? I don't see how an electric would be much worse in that regard... there will still be a charge meter (nee fuel gauge) that will tell her when she is getting low on juice.

It could actually be easier than the current situation, if some clever person invents an auto-charging mechanism -- i.e. all you have to do is park your car in the garage, and a charger in the floor engages automatically. Dunno if that's at all practical, though.

Re:Probably not

[Anonymous Coward]

Use higher voltages to bring down the current. Most feeder lines for residential service are between 7.2KV and 14.4KV 3 phase with the average in the Midwest of 13.2KV. That delivers 22KW with 1A RMS 3 phase. Then 720KW only needs 33A which dryer type cord is good enough. The insulation needs only be a few mm thick to keep the 13.2KV 3ph inside. Interlocks could make sure that the cable is unpowered when switching it between sockets. Only when a good and safe electical connection is made on both ends, would the controls allow the cable to transmit power.

The easy way to get this into the car is using a high frequency magnetic feed. In this type a iron core is split into two with one half being in the car and the other half under the car. The second half is brought close to the core under the car by various means say either a robotic arm or the car is driven over the buried core. In either case the coupling is done magnetically. To keep the core size down, high frequencies hundreds of times higher than the 60Hz power are used. A 10Kg core allows for about 1KW at 60Hz to be moved across it, but allows 1,000KW at 60KHz. 720KW needs a frequency of about 43.2KHz. And since both halves are isolated from each other electrically, there is no stray voltages to shock people. In fact, if high frequency AC is used with no low frequency components, then a person could touch a bare cable and not get electrocuted. HF AC flows over the surfaces of objects but, not deep within where it can get to the heart or brain.

Hybrids will be the bridging tech

[Harmonious Botch]

All of the schemes for a high capacity, fast charging battery paired with fast charging stations suffer from the chicken and egg problem. The car buyers won't buy cars until there are lots of stations to stop at, and the service station owners won't convert revenue generating gas pumps to chargers until there are lots of cars that need them.
The solution is to build hybrids with fast charging batteries. Then car buyers can invest without fear of getting stranded. Once a large fleet is on the roads, service stations will start to convert.

BTW, this all asumes that TFA and similar techs are not vaporware.

Re:Hybrids will be the bridging tech

[maxume]

People with commutes that make electric practical will convert, hybrid or not. It is likely that gas stations would simply add charging stations without removing pumps once they thought they would profit by having the charger.

Re:Hybrids will be the bridging tech

[Deliveranc3]

Make battery changing manual...

Simple, put the battery on the car as a bumper, make 1 or 2 available to be changed manually at a service station (better mechanical systems to follow) and have the service techs plug it into a wall socket after changing it.

If the service techs find a battery that is worn out have them ship it back to the manufacturer for cost + 5% ( recycling, research on defective batteries etc.)

Or just put a massive capacitor in each fueling station, but meh that's too easy.

Actually I've been thinking of a new system for hydrogen, put solar panneling tied to hydrogen production (And the city's abundant water supply) in the centre of intersections and put nozzles and credit card readers at the corners. Surely hydrogen can take you a few blocks, and once the infrastructure is in place it's only maintenance costs.

Gasoline is so efficient that we've stopped being creative about distribution methods, when were the first gas stations set up? The 19th century? We've got robots now :)

Re:Hybrids will be the bridging tech

[macmurph]

when were the first gas stations set up?

I don't know when they were setup (Im guessing the 20th century), but this is a clue:

I believe the first gas station was located in Seattle on E. Marginal Way S. according to a plaque on the west side of the sidewalk. I think its a parking lot now... heres the map of roughly where I think the plaque is/was:

http://www.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=+Seattle,+W A&ie=UTF8&z=17&ll=47.585283,-122.34081&spn=0.00681 ,0.011566&t=h&om=1&iwloc=addr

The plaque says something like "This is the site of the first gas station....built by Standard Oil Co.".

Incidentally the first oil well was near Petrolia, CA. Hence the name.

Re:Hybrids will be the bridging tech

[greg_barton]

The car buyers won't buy cars until there are lots of stations to stop at...

What are you talking about? There's tons of filling stations. It's called "home" and you go there every day...

High current recharge stations?

[bogaboga]

"...Will we finally be seeing high current recharge stations in the next decade?..."

Personally, I doubt that will ever happen in USA and here's why:

Huge influential oil companies like EXXON-MOBIL made profits of close to US$90 million per day in profits last year. Racking in almost US$33 Billion for the year. Now, who in their right mind can allow such a revenue stream to get suffocated by so called new technology?

I am of the opinion that we'll begin seeing this in "more pragmatic" Europe than here in these United States.

Re:High current recharge stations?

[Shivetya]

because not all their profits are from gasoline.

hell, quite a few oil companies don't even own refineries anymore. A lot of the gas people buy today comes from independant refineries.

I don't think we will outgrow carpet, plastic bags, and the millions of other items that currently use oil.

Plus, they have all that land now, think about it, ready made recharging stations :)

Re:High current recharge stations?

[drsquare]

Huge influential oil companies like EXXON-MOBIL made profits of close to US$90 million per day in profits last year. Racking in almost US$33 Billion for the year. Now, who in their right mind can allow such a revenue stream to get suffocated by so called new technology?

Who says it'd be the oil companies pioneering this? There are many other companies who'd love to get into it, such as power companies.

Re:High current recharge stations?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oil companies are not scared of electric or hydrogen cars. They are afraid of efficient vehicles, but as long as people want to drive SUVs (hybrid, electric, or whatever), they'll be selling the energy that powers them. Natural gas already provides a large amount of the electricity consumed. They aren't shipping that from Russia.

Re:High current recharge stations?

[TheSuperlative]

Good companies are agile. Exxon-mobile and its kin have the assets to become a power company tomorrow if it wanted to. They will try to slow the move, yes, but ultimately, they will follow demand or perish.

Re:High current recharge stations?

[MrZaius]

Also, nearly all of the major gasoline/diesel retailers have either a tiny margin or no margin at all on their fuel, making the vast majority of their profits from the candy-store side of the operation. Also, most such outfits in the United States are franchises. If the major oil companies throw a fit when the retailers feel the need to offer high voltage electrical outlets, they can and will de-brand.

Re:High current recharge stations?

[c6gunner]

*sigh*

Congratulations, you've just won both the "Really stupid comment" and "Fear-mongerer Extraordinare" awards with a post that clocks in at under 500 characters. You are a truly talented individual.

You'd have to be totally ignorant of how capitalism works in order to make such a silly comment. It's almost as bad as all the dumbasses who claim that drug companies have developed the cure for cancer, but won't sell it because of the amount of money they're making by selling the current crop of cancer-fighting drugs. It's just plain silly. Capitalism doesn't work that way, and science DEFINITELY doesn't work that.

Also, I think you fail to realize just how many oil companies Europe has, and how unsuccessful they are. Either that or you're just another one of the "Europe roxors j00 Amerikkkans" idiots.

Re:High current recharge stations?

[daviddennis]

Europeans will pass laws to protect the business of the gas stations. They are more afraid of the destructive impact of new technology than its promise.

Exxon et al cannot prevent people from buying electric cars. If the electric product is superior, it will be used.

I highly recommend the Tesla Motors web site - http://www.teslamotors.com/ as an example of a compelling electric car that's already sold out its production for the next year - at $100k a pop. They plan to extend their line to cheaper vehicles in the next couple of years.

Reading of their blog and comments are especially recommended.

D

Re:High current recharge stations?

[p.gogarty]

Big oil isn't just about fueling your car

What about petrochem (plastics, lubricants, etc)?

What about air travel? The practicle top speed of a propeller powered airoplane is ~470Mph, because the propellor tips approach the speed of sound at ~470Mph and stop working efficiently. And I don't want to sit next to an ion thrust engine for any lenght of time thanks

Re:High current recharge stations?

[arthernan]

I think you are underestimating the power of the consumer and reality.

Ford and GM did the same thing. And now look at them.

Sadly I don't think EXXON-MOBIL will ever do as badly. But they are not all powerfull.

Cost?

[NorbrookC]

While this is interesting, I have to wonder about the cost of these batteries. I've seen many of these stories before, about some wonderful electric vehicle that's going to replace the gas-burner real soon. Except that the batteries needed cost more than any vehicle currently on the road. But it'll be practical "as soon as we get the costs down!"

I'll get excited when someone announces a reasonably priced, high-density, quick recharge battery. Until then, I'm going to regard it as yet another prototype - an interesting idea, but one of many.

You don't need Exxon-Mobils permission.

[HornWumpus]

Build one today. Go broke tomorrow.

You're going to need some 2 gauge wire for the charger cable.

But Henry Ford didn't ask the buggy whip manufacturers permission to start building cars. The eventual replacement won't ether.

Re:You don't need Exxon-Mobils permission.

[Firethorn]

2 gauge? Try 000 or better for fast charging.

2 gauge would be for your home charger that takes ~8 hours.

Makes me wish for room-temperature superconductor wires.

I wonder...

[slowness]

how we'll end up refering to these stations in american slang.
Will it be, "I'm going down to the charge station..."
Nah, that doesn't work.

slons

Re:I wonder...

[HiThere]

Shocks. As in "I need to get a shock." "I'll be right with you, as soon as I get a bit of a shock." etc.

Re:I wonder...

[slowness]

I gotta zap my car at the power station...

slons

Whats the expected battery lifetime?

[Anonymous Coward]

What is the expected battery lifetime? If you have to keep replacing batteries every year or two, this isn't a very good deal either.

Re:Whats the expected battery lifetime?

[WindBourne]

Typical li-ion is about 500-1000 charges. Assuming that you cycle through the batteries so that you have an equal amount of charge. For grins and giggles assume that you charge everyday (not likely), then it will last 1.5-3 years. OTH, if you charge every couple of days, then most likely it will last 5-8 years. By then, there will be a number of new batteries and/or capacitors to replace these. All in all, this is actually a very good idea.

Removable battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

A standardized rechargeable battery that could be slipped out of the vehicle and replaced seems like a possible alternative to the obsession w/in-vehicle recharging. Customers would be charged for energy, depreciation of battery, plus a profit. The vendor would maintain an inventory of batteries in charged/charging condition. For price, product differentiation batteries could retain standard form while being populated with different capacities. Meanwhile the actual swap-out could probably even be handled by a simple robotic mechanism at the vendor location.

Too bad it'll never happen. I suspect that if we were starting all over again w/liquid hydrocarbon fueled vehicles we'd get stuck at "what shape should we make the nozzle?"

Re:Removable battery?

[slickwillie]

That's what I have envisioned for decades now. You pull into the "fueling station", swap out battery packs and go on your way.

Re:Removable battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wno1KotxT7k

Re:Removable battery?

[westlake]

A standardized rechargeable battery that could be slipped out of the vehicle and replaced...the actual swap-out could probably even be handled by a simple robotic mechanism at the vendor location

I don't think exchanging a half-ton battery pack is going to be all that simple.

It has to be an all-weather solution. It has to meet peak demands. The charging station needs to be a "drop in" replacement for the gas station. The exchange has to be as fast and reliable as the self-service pump.

How much land does this require? How much power?

Your suburban neighbors won't welcome an industrial-sized sub-station out back.

Re:Removable battery?

[mtaht]

Whew. I read this whole thread and without someone suggesting removable battery packs for EV, I grew worried. Finally - the very last message - suggested it.

Why is it that the average slashdot reader can envision charging systems requiring truly dangerous/absurd amounts of voltage/amperage... but can't imagine a system that could swap out a 1 ton battery pack in five minutes?

I'd be much happier with charging stations that charged up 1 ton battery packs overnight (and during the day to meet demand).

How much volume underneath the ground is currently occupied by fuel tanks that could instead be used for batteries, charging?

Ever notice how many service bays are shuttered across america these days? Ever see how fast someone can get a car on a lift and change a tire?

Ever notice how fuel actually GETS to the service station? Those big tanker trucks, yes? Wouldn't it make sense to load up a truck with a bunch of batteries and take them to a central station to be recharged?

Heck we could start using the railroads again. Drive up to a train terminal, with one train full of fresh batteries and the other waiting for old batteries. Each stack of batteries on the railroad car on a spring + lift - drive over the railroad car, you "squat" to deposit your dead battery, get towed to the next (just like in a carwash). Done.

(incidentally I really like the above idea. I shoulda patented it instead of posting it on slashdot)

All we need is:

A standard size for such batteries. (several sizes is ok, but one to start would be a good idea). Everybody is designing a custom enclosure for their battery packs and that's not useful.

A standard foolproof way to latch them in place. Zillions of these exist.

Good ways to keep (and/or monitor) them for damage. Arguably SUV's as they stand higher off the road, are actually a better choice than the low-slung performance cars in this respect.

Various people competing to create ways to further automate the swap-out.

Etc.

Re:Removable battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

And if they're not going to accept a sub-station, they sure as hell aren't going to accept a monsterous hydrogen station that will level their house if it blows up. You ever seen what happens when Propane tanks go up? Yeah, multiply that by "Hindenburg" and imagine the chaos.

Re:Removable battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

the technology has been there for years but was squashed by those who stood to lose : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSBykAngDpY

Re:Removable battery?

[Anonymous Coward]

Battery pack would not be anywhere near one ton in any case. Better yet, the capacity (hence weight) of the pack could be optimized (without changing dimensions) for anticipated use of the vehicle. Smaller capacity, weight for daily commute of 40 miles, larger capacity, weight for more distance. A further gain in efficiency as no need to accelerate over-sized battery pack.

As to the delay of changing batteries, how long does it take to actually put 20 gallons of gas in a car? Measure and you'll find it's several minutes...

General Motors?

[walter_f]

Har, har.

Technologically, GM lagging behind like almost no other car company.

Same as the old boss

[Hao Wu]

So there will be a new limiting factor.

Rather than fuel oil, we will have wars over platinum/copper/aluminum or whatever the new technology is made from.

Energy crisis "solved!" But at least one material will always be scarce.

Lesson: Be happy with what you have, and don't invent fake crises.

Charge a flywheel over night

[mdsolar]

If the issue is quick charging during the day with electriciy generated at night, why not use a flywheel at the charging station? This system http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/beacon_pow er_re.html#more (thanks Ron Backman) is well along in development. A bank of these should provide both the amperage and the capacity to run a commercial charging station with load shifting.
--
Make you car run on the Sun. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

$1.50 a mile? WTF

[HornWumpus]

That's supposed to be cheap?

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[AaronW]

I meant the equivalent of $1.50 per gallon of gasoline. Brain fart.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[David Horn]

What's going to happen when it's cold? I mean, even a small heater for a car is going to draw about 1kW, which isn't going to give long battery life?

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right, like the heat in a gasoline powered automobile is coming out of nowhere... ;)

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[Sparr0]

Insulate the fucker. 1kW is more than I use to keep my entire apartment heated (an 800W space heater with a thermostat, plus a fan). Try 100W or less to heat a space the size of a car, assuming you put a little extra money into some decent glass (insulating the non-glass parts is trivial).

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[josquint]

There's an intersting point.

I live in quite cold climate(last week's high was -15F), and getting gas powered cars to start and warm up is a challenge. The number ONE problem we have is batteries going dead overnight in the cold. You can trickle charge them or put a warmer on them to prevent it, but if the entire car runs on battery I would imagine the battery life to be very poor.

Then, tack on the heater issue... Sounds pretty infeasible around these parts. Although, a possible solution would be to do what is currently done with gas cars, and pipe whatever excess heat is made by the motor into the cab. I'm not sure how much that would produce, but it would increase the efficiency a bit.

I've seen a few cold weather tests for hybrid and turbo desiel around here. The hybrids seem to crap out about -10F to -15F and a few of the TD seem to drop out about -35F. The gas, assuming it starts, don't have issues running in cold.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[HiThere]

Actually, I believe the heat from most auto-heaters is waste heat from the exhaust. (I trust they use a heat exchanger!) If so, then having the heater on may actually make the engine a bit more efficient.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[josquint]

Engine coolant is piped from the radiator to a small radiator in the cab which air blows over. Thus cooling the engine a bit faster in the process and using waste heat for something usefull.

TIP: if your in a traffic jam and your engine overheats, turn on your heater.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[0100010001010011]

No. Not at all how cars work. There is no heat exchanger in the exhaust. The only time the exhaust is used is for turbos (and some BMW prototype engines).

You could say that autos use 'waste heat' in the same way that lightbulbs are great heaters by using 'waste' heat from lighting the bulb.

The heat is ICE inefficiencies. This is why diesel engines (Like my TDI) take forever to heat up on the road and will never warm up at idle. They're much more efficient than gasoline engines.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[David Horn]

I know how a normal car is heated - that's my point. Conventional cars heat the cabin through waste heat from the engine. No such source on an electric car, so the energy is going to have to be piped directly from the batteries.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[mlrtime]

Don't electrical motors and batteries get hot as well? Why can't they use a similar system?

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[hammock]

No the heat is from the engine coolant, as most people that have had a heater core explode under thier dash can attest to. The fact is that most energy in a combustion engine is wasted as heat and is removed throught the coolant/radiator. The cabin heater is just a small hose off the cooling system which uses a small radiator under the dash.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[Dun Malg]

No. Not at all how cars work. There is no heat exchanger in the exhaust. Unless it's an old air-cooled VW! Of course, those of us who've had them know how well THAT works. If the exchangers weren't rusted out, then there was plenty of hot air--- pumped in from the engine compartment and smelling of burning oil, of course.

This is why diesel engines (Like my TDI) take forever to heat up on the road and will never warm up at idle. They're much more efficient than gasoline engines. VW had an experimental TDi powered vehicle that was so ridiculously efficient that it required an auxiliary electric heater, as the engine never developed enough waste heat to effectively heat the cabin.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[0100010001010011]

True. I wouldn't say that they actually used exhaust air. The exchangers sat over the headers...

I had a scraper on the INSIDE of my '65 when I drove it in HS. Just so that I could scrape off the inside.

My dad said that his first one had an auxiliary heater.

Next winter I'm definitely getting a coolant heater.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[Firethorn]

Generally you get the same advantage with an electric during operation as gasoline engines, though not as much. The very fact that it's operating generates heat. Still, in our areas electrics will remain the providence of people who own garages or as summer vehicles for the time being.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[karnal]

If your car (diesel or not) doesn't warm up at idle or takes forever to heat up on the road, I'm guessing your thermostat is stuck open. Even though diesel engines are more efficient, there's still quite a bit lost to heat, and if your thermostat is allowing coolant to run through the external radiator when the engine is cold, you will have issues heating the passenger compartment. Not to mention that usually engines are tuned (probably more of a concern for gas engines) so that they'll run in a specific temperature range.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[MasterGwaha]

I live in Bemidji, wanna give me a jump!?

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[budgenator]

You could get electric electric heater booster for the older air-cooled VW's, I had a type 2 and the heater duct rusted out and I replaced it with PVC pipe which helped quite a bit because it was better insulated; still the bus was a lot of volume to heat with a 1.6 L engine.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[Jeremi]

The number ONE problem we have is batteries going dead overnight in the cold. You can trickle charge them or put a warmer on them to prevent it, but if the entire car runs on battery I would imagine the battery life to be very poor.

Keep in mind that on an electric car, the battery is MUCH bigger than the battery on a gasoline-powered car. That means that (a) the battery's capacity is much larger, and therefore the percentage of that capacity required for the battery to keep itself warm is much less, and (b) the battery's volume-to-surface-area ratio is smaller, therefore the battery won't lose heat as rapidly. So in a "pure" electric car, this may be less of a problem than you'd think.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[0100010001010011]

I can guarantee you that my thermostat is working perfectly.

If you would like to take a look at http://forums.tdiclub.com/ you will see that this is a common "problem". Larger engines sometimes will run a high idle when they're at truck stops, but getting to operating temps from just idling takes quite a while. This is also why larger diesel vehicles will sometimes have a cover to go over their radiator. The engines don't produce enough heat to keep themselves warm in the winter.

Yes. I do know what I'm talking about. I've had a TDI for 5 years and a I work for a small diesel engine company, Cat.

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[bhtooefr]

Actually, the auxiliary heater is on the production 5th-generation Golf and Jetta TDIs, as well. :)

Re:$1.50 a mile? WTF

[karnal]

Awesome. Just throwing out my inexperienced ideas :)

Lithium is supposed to be mellow

[mdsolar]

I voted against this one in the firehose because I thought it got the technology wrong. The company web site mentions phosphates first, but later says they are doing lithium ion. I'm still not completely clear on what the technology is, just that they are announcing some supply contracts. In any case lithium is not that hard to come by, so your resource war might have to wait.
--
Solar: distributed energy: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

The real deal

[g00bd0g]

These A123 cells are already in production and use. They are standard in the DeWalt 36V industrial battery pack. Most of the model airplane guys find it cheaper to ebay these and pull 'em apart for the cells than to buy them individually from A123.

They do perform extremely well, with about 2/3 the energy density of Li-Po, but with the dis/charge abilities of a good Ni-Cd. They are also supposed to have a very good service life, over 1000 complete charge cycles. At about 1/2 the price of Li-Po's I'm looking at picking some up for an upcoming EV project.

http://www.a123systems.com/html/home.html
http://www.a123racing.com/

My EV project:

http://www.easyracers.com/pod/

Gabe

Re:The real deal

[shmlco]

"They are also supposed to have a very good service life, over 1000 complete charge cycles. "

Not even three years of overnight charging? For a car that's not very inspiring...

Re:The real deal

[Anonymous Coward]

>> "They are also supposed to have a very good service life, over 1000 complete charge cycles. "

> Not even three years of overnight charging? For a car that's not very inspiring...

How often do you replace the Die Hard you currently have in your car?

Re:The real deal

[neomunk]

... or the fuel filter, oil filter, air filter, engine oil, transmission fluid, coolant....

Re:The real deal

[shmlco]

Your examples are, for all intents and purposes, consumables. Go ask a dealer what it costs to replace batteries on a Prius or Insight. You can get al oil change for $36. An Insight battery is $3,600; several orders of magnitude difference.

BTW, hybrids use all of those things as well.

Re:The real deal

[g00bd0g]

First off, I said "at least" 1000 cycle. I forget the exact rating but it's like 1000 full cycles and the batteries are still over 90% rated capacity. So you can run them longer than that.

2nd. Those are full dis/charge cycles, most of the time you'll probably need less. On top of all that they are waaay better than any other high-energy-density battery avilable. You're lucky to get 500 cycles out of Li-Po batteries.

3rd. These are brand spankin' new cells and technology. They already kick the snot out of pretty much all previous batteries and they can only improve.

I think an EV using these cells could reasonably expect a 5 year service life and maybe as much as 10 years depending on useage.

Re:The real deal

[blincoln]

These A123 cells are already in production and use.

Maybe with all the profit they're going to generate, they can hire a marketing team to come up with a name that doesn't sound like they're a fly-by-night, back-of-a-van scam.

Pretty cool information, by the way.

I doubt it will work for that.

[Flying pig]

That's a load regulation technology. It's there to absorb and give out relatively small amounts of power to maintain frequency and harmonic performance of power systems. In other words, it's a capacitor rather than a battery.

The root problem is this: it makes far more sense to store surplus energy in batteries than in some intermediate, but that implies relatively slow battery charging since otherwise you have fluctuating high loads. Your solution would mean that, at any moment, the flywheels are being charged by or discharging energy greater than the average power output of the entire EV fleet. You would, in fact, need to install well over 2KW of electrical power transformation for every KW of output required. That is hardly economic.

Re:I doubt it will work for that.

[shmlco]

Just because it's possible to charge at that rate doesn't mean you must. To me this sounds as if the battery technology is a lot more robust, which in turn means you might not have to "baby" it as much as you do existing batteries in hybrids (never discharge below 40%, never charge above 70%).

And to me, for the near future, pure electric cars aren't going to be practical. Give me a high-efficiency plug-in flex-fuel/diesel hybrid. Overnight charging covers most driving, and the hybrid is good for longer trips. Make it reasonably affordable and I'll be happy.

Re:I doubt it will work for that.

[mdsolar]

I'm not sure I see the problem. The issue was how do you do a quick charge, and for that a fast out supply like a capacitor or a flywheel makes sense. Both of these can trickle in so that basically solves the problem. Are you worried that there would be loss during storage? The design specs on the flywheel say it is to deliver 100 kW and hold 25 kWh, so that's a full discharge in 15 min.

The BESTsource for emerging battery tech...

[g00bd0g]

The model airplane guys are on the bleeding edge of battery tech.

Check 'em out,

http://www.rcgroups.com/batteries-and-chargers-129 /

You Don't Need to Replace Gas Pumps

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple comments referred to gas stations needing to replace their pumps. Actually, a car that runs primarily on electricity with gas/diesel as a backup would be ideally suited to get charged at grocery stores, movie theatres, shopping malls, restaurants, etc.

Plug in, order amount of electricity, go do your shopping/etc. and come back to a car ready to go. Employers could also do this at their offices, at first offering it as an employee perk and down the road as an additional revenue stream.

This could create competitive advantage in the near team and additional revenue long term for many companies.

Re:You Don't Need to Replace Gas Pumps

[ray-auch]

Not suitable at all - see the many comments on the high current / power electric infrastructure you'll need to put in place for fast charging. Not going to happen except for dedicated charging stations (aka gas stations...).

Sure, you can charge some EVs from a "normal" power socket - OVERNIGHT. When was the last time you went to shopping/movie/restaurant overnight ?

Re:You Don't Need to Replace Gas Pumps

[matt21811]

A 12 hour charge is the same as a full tank of fuel.

You can insert sarcastic comments here about how it always takes me a full tank of fuel to get to the cinema or go to work or drive to the shops.

In reality the cinema is often less than 20kms away (,mine is only 2kms), which is takes less than a movie to re-charge. This means the grandparents suggestion is totally suitable.

Re:You Don't Need to Replace Gas Pumps

[Deideldorfer]

Even better, convert parking decks into parking deck/recharging stations. Park your car, plug it in, work all day, unplug, and settle the cost at the already existing pay booth.

What?!

[Tatsh]

General Motors has announced a plug-in hybrid SUV and Venture Vehicles is developing a fully electric 3 wheel vehicle.

I do not like either vehicle here, especially the SUV. Do they plan on making normal or small cars? Why waste technology on moving big hunks of junk or "strange" vehicles?

Re:What?!

[MoOsEb0y]

Chevy is also in the midst of putting together a normal sedan car. It's called the volt and is a serial hybrid, meaning that the drive system is all-electric with a gasoline generator supplementing the battery pack when it's drained. The thing gets 50 mpg off gasoline and much much more off electricity (I remember hearing 600 mpg equivelent for the electric component). You can read more about it at chevy's website at http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/ . The batteries discussed in the article are going into it and are basically the only bottleneck at the moment.

Re:What?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This may come as a surprise to you, but people buy SUVs because they want to drive SUVs. The EVIL AMERICAN CAR COMPANIES aren't pointing guns at anyone, and believe it or not, they have had full car lines all along. Consumers wanted and still want SUVs. So they sell them.
Your comment that making an electric SUV is a waste is idiotic. People will buy SUVs regardless of pollution, that much is clear. Why is it a waste to convert high-selling and high-polluting vehicles to high-selling low polluting vehicles?

Extremely high power requirements

[G4from128k]

Fast charging sounds great until you look at the power levels.

Based on some of the numbers floating about it looks like a 100 mile charge requires on the order of 30-50 kWhr (depending on vehicle size, efficiencies, driving patterns, etc.). Delivering this level of charge in 5 minutes means delivering between 360,000 to 600,000 watts to each "pump" at the station -- that's 600 to 1000 amps at 600 V. Delivering enough electricity to service station (a single road-side recharging station might need 3 to 6 MW of peak power to cover 5 to 10 "pumps") will probably tax the local distribution network and require construction of a lot of new power generation and distribution capacity.

As long as electric cars are an oddity, they won't tax the power grid, but any serious level of adoption could make things interesting.

Re:Extremely high power requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you mean "they won't tax the power grid" as in The cars won't put stress on the power grid or the government won't slap huge taxes on electricity. I'd expect the latter comes before the former.

(Yes I'm in the UK where petrol tax is ridiculously high)

Re:Extremely high power requirements

[mdsolar]

There just seems to be something wrong with this argument. We already deliver that kind of power to fuel stations by tanker, yet when we generate electricity, we like to centralize it in 500 MW chunks. Could it be that it is cheaper to deliver power by aluminum conduit than by tanker but we just don't do that because we don't have batteries for the cars? In any case, there is room below gas stations for power storage already excavated so building in some fast charge capacity should not be too hard.

Re:Extremely high power requirements

[G4from128k]

Two issues back my argument. First, gasoline is very energy dense. A single gallon of gas stores about 44 kWHr (of which a car engine maybe extracts 12-15 kWhr).

Second, we already have the gas delivery infrastructure - all those filling stations, refineries, and tanker trucks. You may be correct that aluminum electron pipes may be cheaper than big-rig tankers, but we don't have the aluminum pipes or the power plants to supply them yet.

The U.S. used 390 million gallons of gas per day in 2006. This means that to replace gas with electricity we need on the order of 5.4 billion kWHr per day. This comes to at least 225,000 MW of new generating capacity or about 450 more of those 500 MW chunks. It would require about a 36% increase in total U.S. generating capacity.

It can be done, but it won't be easy or cheap.

Re:Extremely high power requirements

[mdsolar]

OK, so let's say that everyone is a cheap as me and keeps a car for 13 years. The same thing happens if people sell their cars as used. Assuming you can build out the auto manufacturing immediately, that means you have to get about 19 GW/year while replacing $30 billion gas costs per year. If a 500 MW/year solar production facility costs about $700 million, you can pretty much pay for the 40 you would need with the replaced gas costs over the 13 year transition period. Since the solar cells last more than 20 years, you get the other decade to cover the cost of raw materials and the whole thing looks like a better deal than what we're paying now, plus the 40 solar plants can keep producing to replace coal and nuclear power before needing to recycle the worn out solar cells they first made.

Seem's to me the bottle neck would be at the auto factories, not with the power supply.
--
Switch to solar: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Re:Extremely high power requirements

[G4from128k]

Maybe, although that doesn't include the costs of new distribution infrastructure. My (very limited) understanding is that the U.S. power grid is near its limits. Even if we build the added power generation capacity, we'd have no way of getting the power to the cars (especially since the solar power plant would be in some sunny sparsely populated area such as Arizona and the demand would be in cloudy populated areas such as New York).

Its all very doable -- your analysis of the slow turn-over in the vehicle fleet is 100% correct. We don't need 450 new power plants tomorrow, we need them slowly added over the next 20 or more years. It's just a matter of a lot of money and a lot of political will to prevent NIMBYs from obstructing construction of power plants and high tension lines.

P.S. We would need at least 160 solar power plants per year ($122 billion per year in capital expenditures + distribution) to supply 19 GW because the power requirements represent the 24-hour-per-day power consumption figures and I'd imagine that solar plants average 100% output for only about 6 hours per day.

Re:Extremely high power requirements

[mdsolar]

Sorry, I was not clear. By plant, I meant a fabrication plant. If it porduced half a Gig a year of capacity then in the next year it would do the same and so on. You're right that we need to define terms and peak watts is what is usually used. On the other hand, since the solar cells are close to where the cars are, there may not be such a need for a lot more long haul transmission. With electric cars being more efficient than gas powered cars we might not need so much, but I think you may have included that in your fisrt response. The main thing is that it is cheaper than oil for transportation so long as there are adequate batteries. That's the big holdup.

Re:Extremely high power requirements

[sunspot42]

This means that to replace gas with electricity we need on the order of 5.4 billion kWHr per day. This comes to at least 225,000 MW of new generating capacity or about 450 more of those 500 MW chunks. It would require about a 36% increase in total U.S. generating capacity.

Well, that's one way to meet increased demand. Another way might be to decrease demand by increasing efficiency. Replacing inefficient appliances - such as old refrigerators and hot water heaters - with newer, more efficient models could lead to a substantial decrease in power use per-capita. So could replacing inefficient incandescent lights with compact fluorescent or LED-based lighting. Improving insulation, increasing the efficiency of electronic devices like computers and televisions, installing low-flow showerheads and deploying newer, more efficient air conditioning technologies could also contribute to increased efficiency. California has enacted legislation over the past 30 years or so to encourage all of these things, and the state is now substantially more energy efficient than most other states in the nation. There's no reason why the rest of the country can't follow that lead.

I don't know if it would cover the entire 36% increase in generation capacity a switch to electric vehicles might require, but it could certainly cover much of it.

A lot of it might happen anyhow, as technology advances and as increased demand drives up the price of electricity nationwide.

Remaining nuclear fuel

[mdsolar]

Even reprocessing is not leagal in the US, so getting to a breeder program is going to be tough. Without that, shifting transportation to nuclear is pretty pointless since the available fuel will be exhauted before the new reactors are used for long. It is also doubtful that a useful breeder program can be done at even the rather horrendous safty record of the non-breeder program http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nucl ear_accidents. So, what you are suggesting is both hugely expensive and very likely to lead to mass casualties.

Wind and solar plants, on the other hand add to energy genertation capacity every year they operate, not just fuel supply as with a breeder. And, there are no fuel supply constraints with wind and solar, just timing issues which can be handled with energy storage. The batteries in electric vehicles would be a small portion of the storage solution. These solutions are much cheaper and safer and because of this they'll very likely lead to early decommisioning of present day nuclear plants http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/why-renewables -displace-nukes-first.html.
--
Go solar! http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Re:Remaining nuclear fuel

[cameldrv]

That's not true. There is enough uranium in the earth to last us billions of years at our current rate of consumption. The only issue is how much it costs to get it out. If the price of uranium were to go up by a factor of twenty, the supply would increase by about a factor of 2000. This price difference in raw uranium would only make a small difference in the overall cost of electricity.

Re:Remaining nuclear fuel

[mdsolar]

Putting fuel prices up by a factor of twenty is a sure way to swap the roles of alternative and conventional energy supplies. Let's do it!

Re:Remaining nuclear fuel

[cameldrv]

It won't be necessary until we've constructed thousands of new reactors and run them for decades, and even then, one would have to assume that we didn't figure out a better way of extracting uranium. I have no problem with solar per se, but it's expensive, takes up a lot of space, and if it were widely used, it would require a lot of extra technology to keep a cloudy day from shutting down the grid.

Re:Remaining nuclear fuel

[maxume]

How much of it is extractable at a net energy gain? That matters a whole lot more than how much there is.

Re:Remaining nuclear fuel

[mikerich]

The Earth does contain billions of tonnes of uranium, but almost all of it is locked away in uneconomic quantities - you just can't get your hands on it for a reasonable amount of money - and never will. That's not to say it's uncommon; according to 'Uranium 2005: Resources, Production and Demand'; global uranium reserves that can be mined for less than $130/kg amount to about 4.7 million tonnes. At current rates of consumption and no reprocessing that's about 85 years of supply. Include fast breeder reactors and reprocessing of spent fuel and you can spin that out to about 2,500 years. Non-conventional reserves such as low-grade phosphates could be as high as 35 million tonnes. Of course these numbers get more complicated since deposits aren't uniformly distributed around the globe and the length of time they will last will go down if we choose to expand nuclear power generation. And we mustn't forget that there are political questions over whether we are prepared to allow countries that we disappove of to generate nuclear power. The latter problem becomes even more pressing if we want to make a decision about reprocessing; any country that can reprocess spent fuel into reactor grade plutonium can make a perfectly serviceable bomb. Uranium reserves could be supplemented by thorium breeder reactors; the Indian Advanced Heavy Water Reactor and KAMINI programmes are designed specifically to use that country's massive reserves of thorium rather than its relatively small supply of uranium.

Re:Remaining nuclear fuel

[mdsolar]

Hum, you want to drive up the cost of nuclear energy, which is already expensive, while solar, which can now compete with retail electric power, can only come down in price as it takes its scale advantage. Seems to me that nuclear power makes space unavailable since it needs room to store waste, while solar fits in nicely with the way we use space already. I agree though that energy storage, such as the batteries under discussion, needs to be a part of a renewable powered grid.
--
Real Energy http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Re:Remaining nuclear fuel

[GreyFlcn]

Thats a blatent lie.
No successful Fast Breeder Reactor exists.

Assuming we switched the entire grid over to Light Water Reactors.
We'd only have 6 years worth of uranium supply.
Assuming no new reactors are built, we'd only have 50-65 years.
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications /briefings/energyfactsheet4_fullreport_2006.pdf

And then you get into the issue that the lifecycle carbon emmisions of 3/5ths the uranium releases more carbon than a natural gas firepower powerplant.
http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/climatetalk _mary_un_050306.htm

And if we had enough Light Water Reactors for the entire world grid, we'd need a Yucca Mountain worth of waste disposal every 4 years.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606 .pdf

And each new plant would cost a 4 billion to 2 billion dollars to build.
Which is many times less than all US solar research funding for an entire year.

Nuclear looks rather foolish to me.
Especially when we could spend far less on renewables and achieve the same ends.
As is, energy effeciency costs 7 less than Nuclear.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2 005/08/07/ING95E1VQ71.DTL

_

Besides which enriching uranium in the US is the biggest emmitter of CFCs in the nation.
CFCs are banned by the Montreal Protocol.
Only reason our existing enrichment locations exist is because they were grandfathered.

Fat chance of expanding enrichment without flaunting the Montreal protocol.
http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/nukesclimatefact606 .pdf

Re:Remaining nuclear fuel

[Jeremi]

There is enough uranium in the earth to last us billions of years at our current rate of consumption. The only issue is how much it costs to get it out.

That's not the only cost. There is also the cost of refining the uranium, transporting it, keeping it secure against natural disasters and human mistakes and misbehaviour, the cost of safely storing the waste products (presumably forever), and you have to factor in the increased potential risks of nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism and environmental catastrophe. As always, the devil is in the details, and it could well be that once all the costs are factored in, nuclear ends up being more expensive than the alternatives. (I'm not saying it is, just that you have to look at the big picture)

Less like a gas station than like a substation

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Cruising down the freeway takes on the order of ten kilowatts or a little less. As Flying Pig points out, getting a quick recharge puts you close to a megawatt.

Every electric drive system I've seen from the Prius to electric dragsters winds up at a design optimum of 200-400 volts. We're therefore talking 2500 to 5000 amps, which is out of wire territory and into busbar territory, before allowing for inefficiencies.

Which may be the real problem. Pump a megawatt through something, and every percentage point of losses means ten kilowatts of heat you have to manage somehow. Some battery charging technology brags of "up to" 95% efficiency. Is there any way to handle that without liquid cooling?

Re:Less like a gas station than like a substation

[drinkypoo]

Is there any way to handle that without liquid cooling?

Is liquid cooling necessarily a problem? If the system is in the car, then supply the car with water while you charge it. You can do it with any old connections, garden hose is fine (adapters abound.) If the system is installed in place, then a cooling tower can be used where you have a lot of water, and a (more expensive) heat pipe system or some other solution can be used where you don't, and you need a closed system.

The grid IS more efficient

[Alwin Henseler]

Your post is modded insightful, and I suppose many are inclined to agree. But lets do the math, shall we?

The Wiki, has this to say about modern, large, fossil-fueled, thermoelectric power plants (look for combined cycle):

"The efficiency of a combined cycle plant can approach 60% in large (500+ MWe) units"

Roughly matches a number I had in my head. Basically, burn coal/oil/gas and get 100 units of heat. Power plant puts out 60 units in the form of electric power, and the remaining 40 units of heat gets dumped into the environment (or a place where that waste heat can be used!).

Let's factor in, say, ~4% losses during transmission over the electric powergrid. Then at the charging station, you have 0.96 x 60 = 57.6 units left.

Then there's losses in charging and discharging a battery. Let's take the suggestion of another poster and place this around 20%. Then you get 0.80 x 57.6 = 46.1 units out of the battery during your ride. That is pure electric power after all losses between burning fuel in the power plant and what you draw from + and - at the battery. An electric motor combined with modern power electronics will convert this into mechanic power (movement) with very high efficiency. I don't have a typical number here, but think >90%. Factor that in, and you get over 40% efficiency for the whole process.

Now I also don't have exact numbers for modern gasoline/diesel cars, but 40% of the heat from fuel turned into movement power? Maybe modern cars are that good, but I doubt it. If anyone has some more numbers on that: please fill us in.

And there's always the option to draw that electric power from a solar panel on your roof, a windmill in your backyard, or other sources (nuclear?). In case your electric car has a fuel cell onboard, that output can bypass the battery charge/discharge cycle -> losses in that cycle disappear.

So if I have my math right, modern gasoline/diesel cars have to be damn efficient to beat an electric vehicle. Indeed, the battery/storage still IS the problem here.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[ishmaelflood]

Good. A step in the right direction.

First why would you cherry pick the efficiency of the most efficient plant, surely the least efficient would be the next one to get turned off? That is, you need to consider the marginal (or perhaps average) efficiency of the powerplant.

A diesel is around 40% efficient, of which maybe 75% gets to the ground.

The real reason that electric cars use less energy is that they are designed around a limited energy storage system. This biases the design towards high efficinecy. An oil powerd car is not so constrained, so if the choice is between fitting heavier electric chairs for example, and low weight, then there is less pressure to go for light weight. It is much easier to compensate for that by increasing the size of the tank, than it is to increase battery mass in an EV car.

It would be entirely possible to design diesel engined cars using the rigour that defines an electric car, but it is not worth it while oil is so cheap. Check out the Audi A2 for example.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[ray-auch]

Now I also don't have exact numbers for modern gasoline/diesel cars, but 40% of the heat from fuel turned into movement power? Maybe modern cars are that good, but I doubt it. If anyone has some more numbers on that: please fill us in.


For petrol, you are right - down around 30% - but for diesels (which most modern cars are in high fuel cost places like Europe) you are wrong.

Modern fuel diesel ICEs are 40-50% brake thermal efficiency.

Quote from wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_autom obiles:

Diesel engines have maximum energy efficiency of 45% and Petrol engines of 30%

To go closer to real references (rather than just Wikipedia), figure 4 in this http://www.llnl.gov/tid/lof/documents/pdf/237490.p df paper shows thermal efficiency hitting 40% for a 1990s VW TDI engine (newer PD & common rail diesels are even better).

Looking to near future, people are pushing ICEs (diesel of course) that can hit 50%+ and meet 2010 emissions targets, eg. from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/pdfs/ deer_2006/session3/2006_deer_aneja.pdf we have:

50.2% Peak Thermal Efficiency at a Single operating Condition
  EPA 2010 Emissions Regulations over Steady-state and Transient Operation

Now, that's for larger vehicles first but the tech will likely work it's way down to car-sized engines (maybe sooner in the US where everyone drives truck-sized cars...).

So, maybe electric isn't the clear cut winner you thought.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[maxume]

ICE are somewhere near 30%. They do heat for free and can be 'rescued' with a 30 pound can of liquid when they go dry though. The one is pretty much an overwhelming advantage where it gets real cold, and the other means the electric had better be cheaper or better in some other very measurable way.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[neomunk]

In the GP's defense, he DID include losses all the way from the station to the wheels, and the efficiency stats you mentioned have nothing to do with how much energy is spent getting it to the car, just from tank to wheels.

This might seem trivial, but it's not by a long shot, not only are there fuel transport costs involved, but a whole laundry list of other side costs to our oil based economy that are overlooked... It seems to me that fleets of trucks carrying flammable liquids would add a significant cost to the system.

I'd like to see an efficiency breakdown from average raw fuel (coal/nuke/crude/gas/whatever percentages and efficiencies for the electric vs. crude) to the wheels for gas vs. electric. I mean the whole cycle, infrastructure costs included.

I think electric might just emerge the clear winner after all.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[init100]

40% of the heat from fuel turned into movement power?

I'd think that it would be interesting to also consider the energy spent in moving the fuels from their sources to the consumers when computing efficiency. In many cases, oil and gasoline are transported long distances to reach the consumers, and that could certainly be computed into the efficiency metric.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[Firethorn]

An electric heater is comparably cheap to the structure needed to utilize coolant for your heating. As for the 'better' part, well - think about this. You just got into your car, turned it and the heat on. In your electric car now you're reducing your range, yes, but you also have heat NOW, not in ~10 minutes when the car's engine has warmed up enough.

Solution - I take advantage of the plugs at work to 'top off' my car. ;)

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[maxume]

The better that I was talking about is that when you brain fart and run out of gas, you can go to the gas station and pick up some gas and bring it to your car. There is not going to be a cost competitive solution for electric cars; at best, a tow truck could come juice you up, but that is going to run a bit more than the $10-$15 that a 5 gallon gas can runs(and that's only if you don't have one).

(topping off all the time would mitigate this, but I figure I am going to be stupid once and a while; I have never actually run out of gas, but I have had adventures related to keys, and I know several people that have run out of gas once or twice, it happens)

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[Firethorn]

Well, that moves into the realm of an idiot light and emergency charger that can plug into a 110 outlet.

The tow truck should be able to charge the car fairly easily to get you a few miles to a more powerful charging station.

Besides, a OMG I ran outa fuel! situation costing more isn't much of a detractor for the idea.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[number11]

The better that I was talking about is that when you brain fart and run out of gas

Nowdays most cars have gas gauges. I think VW was the last to get one, and that was in 1962. I think that in all the years since them, I've run out of gas once. Because I was a moron and pushed my luck. If I'd had to pay $100 for a service call, it would have served me right.

You really think we need to have our transport system designed so that people who are being idiots won't be put to any additional expense?

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[91degrees]

A small additional point (and this does depend on where you're driving). Electric cars don't burn fuel when waiting at the lights, and have additional gains from regenerative braking. This makes them especially good city cars.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[maxume]

No, not really, but it has to compete with the one we have right now for convenience if people don't want to wait and let price make it happen.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[Firethorn]

Convenience - Never have to stop at a gas station for your normal travels. No need to change the oil every 3-6k miles. Brake Pads that can be expected to last the life of the car, assuming a driver that doesn't panic stop all the time. Pay 1/5 the amount per 300 mile charge than 10 gallons of gas. (figures: $.08 per kw/h for 60kw/h, 30mpg@~$2.50/gallon)

No pollution along the path of your drive. Get fancy and you have one hell of an UPS available to power your house during an outage. Add a generator trailor for more storage and unlimited range(as long as gasoline is available) for those long trips.

I'd be driving an electric right now if it wasn't for the extreme price of entry.

Re:The grid IS more efficient

[Cederic]

And road-usage charging, because the government isn't going to want to lose that fuel tax revenue, and doesn't have any other solutions to congestion.

Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[nickull]

What if you could make a standard for the batteries themselves and fuel stations offered quick change (not charge) capabilities where you pull in and replace your battery. A measuring device could credit you back for unused power in the battery you came in with and you would get charged for the power you take. This type of thing would have to be standardized and regulated (proper testing of batteries, quick change system and process, standard interfaces, centralized billing). Another idea might be to make commercial trucks use the same overhead wires that cities use for electric buses. The city would provide the power for free and the trucks would carry a reserve battery to get them to and from places where the wires don't reach. These are two ideas that are within our reach as a civilisation from a pure technical perspective. If the electricity is cleanly generated (wind, solar, hydro electric), it effectively would reduce hydrocarbon emissions.

Re:Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[maxume]

Zinc air. Better power density than li-ion, and if you size the standard battery blocks so that even a small car needs at least 3(5?, etc.), you can just leave the unused capacity in the vehicle and swap out the empty. They have to be reprocessed instead of recharged, but that probably isn't that huge an obstacle.

Re:Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[init100]

What if you could make a standard for the batteries themselves and fuel stations offered quick change (not charge) capabilities where you pull in and replace your battery.

What advantage would such a system have over a system where you plug your car into an electrical outlet for five minutes?

Re:Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[Score Whore]

Why would you suggest the city provide power to commercial trucks for free? You run some kind of trucking company?

Re:Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[nickull]

Most consumers probably want a change of 2 minutes. I am also sceptical that in 5 minutes you can recharge enough battery life to drive a car 150 KM. Still - if the 5 minute claim works, this is good news.

Re:Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[Firethorn]

Uhh... Yes it is. Imagine a battery replacement progam on the order of garbage replacement needs. Then figure the reprocessing... Ugly.

Your average family would go through a battery every week. 2 vehicles@200 miles/week each.

Re:Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[Firethorn]

'Most consumers' would want their charge to be 'instant' or 'not needed'. Still, they'd be able to climb back into their car and listen to a tune or two before they're done. Heck, put the charging station at a restraunt and have a meal while it's charging.

At less than $5 for a 'full' charge capable of going 300 miles, the restraunt could just fold it into the bill, or even offer it free with meal purchase.

Re:Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[maxume]

Theoretically, the reprocessing could happen at the service station(electric power+some equipment). The amount and cost of equipment needed to set it up might be too much, but the energy density and cost issues of the batteries themselves are a lot better than any of the competition. Of course equivalent rechargeables would be better, but there aren't any equivalents right now right?

The complexity would be on the order(but somewhat worse) of the current gasoline distribution system, which most people have no trouble ignoring.

Re:Why not have a pooled battery swap system?

[Firethorn]

Swapping out all those batteries would still be a HUGE investment even if it's done at a service station level. Right now families that refuel their vehicles only spend a few minutes with the teller paying for the gas, if that, what with automated credit machines on most stations today.

Now you're talking about swapping out a battery pack weighing hundreds of pounds and reprocessing it instead of having a tanker pull up and dump more fuel into the tanks every so often.

Re:What woes?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really believe that the USA's standard of living is sustainable? At least, with how we're currently doing things? We're going to take a hit eventually, we might as well do it on our own terms.

EEStor

[WindBourne]

EEStor is not working on batteries, but ultracapacitors. While I am not certain about them, they have perkin Klienes (Sun, Google, and others backing) backing. I would guess that those folks have done their work and believe that it has merit. They are supposedly going to deliver this year.

Personally, I would skip the solar for a residence. They really do not make sense. For starters, you are generally at work with your car during the time that Solar is working. That means that you will send the majority of your energy to the grid. But you will be paid bottom dollar for it. Why? Because nearly all states set the rate and it is heavily waited in the advantage of the power company.

Instead, invest that 15K into alternative energy companies. For a sure bet, check out any of the top wind producers. They will all make money for years to come.

Offhand, I would look into any company that is trying to address the storage of Energy (except for hydrogen). One that I am fascinated by is Skyfuel.org. Basically, save solar as heat and use it to heat salts that are then driving a generator. What is lacking is that they can pair up with Power plants and use the waste heat to increase the initial amount of energy. From there, solar can "top it off" or they could even use extra power from the plant during their night cycle (rather than seeing them slow down the systems). This can also be paired with Wind so that the nighttime electricity is captured as heat and then turned to electricity during the day (i.e. when they are getting 2-5x the rate).

Re:Or The Station Can Refuel Overnight As Well

[DumbSwede]

Of course you if you had fueling stations you wouldn't rely on just tapping the grid in real time, you'll install big batteries to charge continuously. Then you only need scale up your batteries and electrical service as business scales upward. You know, like how they store Gas in the ground to fuel your car instead of materialize it instantly when you fill up.

Yes they'll be additional efficiency losses, but initially these stations will only have to service a few people that normally get their charge at either end of a commute. Once demand really takes off we'll think of something else more efficient.

Nope

[Chmcginn]

Even if the demand existed to justify it, nobody currently knows HOW to build it.

Umm... what? You're just wrong here.

Long-distance (100+ miles) electric transmission is quite common throughout the US. Link

In most states, you're rarely more than a hundred miles away from the nearest power plant, of one kind or another. Another link.

Yes, a commercial recharging station on a major interstate would probably need it's own substation. But the paper mills in northeastern NC I drive past on the way to visit my parents every few months have their own substations. The electric load from those is much higher than any electric roadrunner would ever need. It's not a particularly hard problem, or one that hasn't been solved before. It would put more demand on the electric grid, that's true. And if everyone in the US bought an electic car eventually, we'd definetely need to build more power plants.

But it's not lack of a technical innovation,nor a conspiracy, that is preventing that from happening - it's the chicken/egg problem. Few people will buy electric cars before the infrastructure exists, few companies will set up infrastructure while there's few customers.

Re:Nope

[Belial6]

I have been saying for years that the problem is simple. Build cars that are all electric, but have the power source in the trunk. Make the connection to the rest of the car a simple plug (or two), and you have a perfect vehicle to support whatever future power source we decide to go with. If you just travel around town, you drop in the battery pack. You want to go across country, you drop in the gas generator. You want to head up to the mountains for a ski weekend, you drop in the fuelcell because you know there is are a couple of hydrogen refuling stations between here and there. The electric company has a secret meeting with the oil and hydrogen company? Drop in a propane generator and away you go.

I seems that the auto industry is intentionally trying to force use to stay on oil. Even the prius was obviously designed as a way to prevent the move away from oil.

Re:Nope

[arodland]

Now that's what I call a solution! Run my car on the finest in clean-burning propane and propane accessories!

Re:Nope

[KonoWatakushi]

I present you with the APU.

Re:Nope

[jibjibjib]

Awesome! How long will it be until I can drop in a Mr. Fusion?

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume parent is being sarcastic... mod up! And mod down the stupid grandparent.

don't cross the streams

[drDugan]

Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

Or -- put more bluntly -- how can this be turned into a safe consumer product?

Re:don't cross the streams

[Anonymous Coward]

Check the video on A123's site. It involves a power drill and some batteries. And fire....

http://www.a123systems.com/html/tech/safety.html

Enjoy.

Re:What woes?

[Vulva R. Thompson, P]

Shouldn't we care more about saving the earth than about the huge hit we're going to take to our standard of living?

Obviously if we don't invest in doing the first, the second will be much worse off in the future.

Sorry, in real life sometimes things aren't as warm and fuzzy as mom's basement.

Interchangeable batteries

[sorak]

This may be a noob question, but why can't electric cars run on a system (especially now), where gas stations become changing stations, like what is often done with propane? We show up, replace an existing battery (which would have to be made easier to replace, I admit), with a freshly charged battery and pay the station for the service.

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[cjsm]

The reason this would be impractical is you need a lot of batteries to power a car. Its not like swapping out one convential 12 volt battery, its swapping out a whole bunch of them. Plus, batteries are expensive. Do you want to trade your set of brand new batteries for a five year old set? Would a service station want to trade out a new set of batteries for the five year old set in your car?

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[Dan Ost]

I don't know how strong you are, but I'd have some difficulty swapping out 100+ pounds of battery.

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[swillden]

Its not like swapping out one convential 12 volt battery, its swapping out a whole bunch of them.

So? The cells could still be packaged in one or two large packs. They would be heavy, so some sort of automation would be required to do the swapping, but that's doable.

Do you want to trade your set of brand new batteries for a five year old set? Would a service station want to trade out a new set of batteries for the five year old set in your car?

That's just a question of structuring the economics correctly. Basically, the cost of a "fill up" would be the price of the installed battery (based on its lifecycle stage) less the price of your battery plus the price of the juice in the installed battery. If you swapped a new but empty battery for an old but filled one, the station would probably pay you. If you were on a long-distance trip, where an old battery wouldn't get you far enough, you probably wouldn't find a very old battery acceptable, so I expect a trade between stations that cater primarily to long-distance travelers and those that cater to moderate-distance travelers would spring up, plus a secondary market where stations sell used batteries to car owners who only travel short distances.

Such a structure would tend to put the bulk of battery replacement costs on long-distance travelers -- buyers of new cars (with new batteries) that only use their cars to go to the grocery store would probably immediately sell their new batteries and buy old ones which they would recharge at home until they were too worn out, at which point they'd buy another set of used batteries.

I think it could work. The biggest difficulty would be in finding a simple, well-defined and accurate method for pricing batteries at their various stages of use and abuse.

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[cjsm]

So? The cells could still be packaged in one or two large packs. They would be heavy, so some sort of automation would be required to do the swapping, but that's doable.

Well, you'd need a crane to lift out a couple hundred pounds of batteries, and the batteries would have to be easily accessable for a rapid switch, which would put constraints on the designs of cars. The danger of swinging a couple hunderd pounds of batteries on a crane would lead to huge insurance costs if you let granny and junior and Joe 6 pack do it. So you'd have to bring back gas station attendants to handle the switch, which would also increase cost of a fillup. Its doable, sure, but multiplied by the millions of fillups everyday in the U.S. alone, I don't thinks its an especially convenient or practical way to get a fillup.

Basically, the cost of a "fill up" would be the price of the installed battery (based on its lifecycle stage) less the price of your battery plus the price of the juice in the installed battery.

This idea sounds good in theory, but in reality, this is not some convenient, clear cut transaction, but a somewhat arbitrary confusing mess. In transactions like this, the consumer always gets the short end of the stick. You are not going to come up with a fair, workable system to switch out a set of new $10000 bateries for an old $500 set. I mean, suppose your switching an old set of batteries for a new set. Are you going to get a $7000 bill on your credit card? Can you honestly say you'd be willing to switch out a $10000 set from a brand new car for a $1000 worn out set? I wouldn't. I think a lot of people would be unwilling to do this. Batteries are too expensive and too variable in quality for this to be practical. And how about the station owners? Are they going to make a transaction which might entail paying you $5000 plus, or charging you $5000 or more, gratis, with no additional fee? I don't know of any business that would do this. All in all, with fees, and a station attendant to switch out batteries, this is looking to be a very expensive fillup.

I think this whole idea is one that may sound good in concept, but has a whole lot of problems standing in the way of being a practical real world solution. Is it doable? Perhaps. Is it easy and practical and cost efficient enough to satisfy consumers and business? In my opinion, no.

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[sunspot42]

Well, you'd need a crane to lift out a couple hundred pounds of batteries, and the batteries would have to be easily accessable for a rapid switch, which would put constraints on the designs of cars. The danger of swinging a couple hunderd pounds of batteries on a crane would lead to huge insurance costs if you let granny and junior and Joe 6 pack do it. So you'd have to bring back gas station attendants to handle the switch, which would also increase cost of a fillup.

Huh? We let Granny and Joe Sixpack play with a hose that spews out an explosive liquid. I can't see how this could possibly be any MORE dangerous than today's gas stations (unless Sony supplies the batteries - that could be an explosive combination!).

According to Wikipedia, the batteries in the Prius weigh 45kg (about 100 pounds). Assuming you could divide those into 4 standard battery packs, each roughly the size of a common fire extinguisher, they'd weigh 25 pounds each.

Granny probably lifts bags of cat litter that weigh as much, without any mechanical aid. Joe Sixpack is carrying twice that weight in excess fat around his waistline.

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[cjsm]

Well, the Prius also has a gasoline engine. Those batteries wouldn't be near sufficent to power an all electric vehical, or else we'd already have one. And even following your scenerio, do think people are going to pull into a station, and swap out four 25 lb battery packs on their own every time they fill up? Not going to happen. Most people will not do that. And I guarentee, insurance will forbid it. What if someone doesn't secure the crane to the battery pack properly and drops a battery pack on their foot? What if they drop it and the battery splits open? What if they drop it on their fender and damage their car? With these things being swapped out millions of time a day, every day, the chances of accidents is very great.

But hey, if you think grandma's going to switch out a hundred or two hundred pounds of batteries every time she fills up, well then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[cjsm]

Let me add this. I wouldn't even want to switch out my single 12 volt battery every time I fill up, let alone several sets of battery packs. I tell you what. To prove your point, why don't you put a spare 12 volt battery in your trunk, and every time you fill up, switch batteries for, say, the next 6 months. Then let me know how convenient you think it is. Switching out one battery should be much easier then switching out a slew of them. So it should be a breeze according to your scenerio.

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[swillden]

Well, you'd need a crane to lift out a couple hundred pounds of batteries,

I think making the exchange from below, with a lift, would be simpler, safer and easer.

The danger of swinging a couple hunderd pounds of batteries on a crane would lead to huge insurance costs if you let granny and junior and Joe 6 pack do it. So you'd have to bring back gas station attendants to handle the switch, which would also increase cost of a fillup.

It wouldn't be difficult to automate the system that makes the exchange, particularly if it's done from below. The most complex/expensive part of it wouldn't be the part that actually does the installation and removal, it would be the storage for large numbers of batteries, and the system for automatically selecting one and moving it to the switching machine.

You are not going to come up with a fair, workable system to switch out a set of new $10000 bateries for an old $500 set.

I think you're exaggerating the price differential, but I'll ignore that. Assuming there's a reliable way to measure the utility left in the batteries, then I can see exactly that happening, by people who are quite certain they'll only use the car for short trips. Even those who might expect to go on longer trips later might well choose to make such an exchange and keep the $9500 (or a large part of it) around earning a return. Perhaps more likely, the batteries would be an extra charge when you purchased a car, and you might choose to buy cheaper batteries (either older or smaller) in order to save some money on the price of the car. Effectively, you'd be choosing to buy a cheaper, shorter-ranged car.

I mean, suppose your switching an old set of batteries for a new set. Are you going to get a $7000 bill on your credit card?

Yep, that's exactly what would happen, assuming you went from a very old set to a very new set. In this scenario, your line of credit would almost certainly end up structured to facilitate such transactions (they'd have to be low cost to the vendor). You'd show up at the station for a change and either (a) the station doesn't have any batteries in your preferred price range on hand or (b) you need better batteries because you're starting a long-distance trip. In either case, you'd get the new batteries and a big bill. When you got to another station that had older batteries (or your long trip was over), you would swap the new set back for an old set, receive a large credit, and continue on your way.

I can think of several other ways it could be structured as well, but basing it on credit would work. Some of the other possibilities might be required for people who can't get ordinary lines of credit sufficient to handle such transactions.

Can you honestly say you'd be willing to switch out a $10000 set from a brand new car for a $1000 worn out set?

Sure, if I wanted to do something else with the cash, and if I knew I could always trade back up.

Batteries are too expensive and too variable in quality for this to be practical.

The key to making this work is that there has to be a clear, sure way to evaluate the quality of the battery, and a simple number to measure it, and probably legislation to ensure that it is measured correctly (much as there is legislation about how gasoline and diesel have to be priced and metered).

Is that possible? I'm not certain, mainly because batteries don't just have a simple number of charge cycles remaining -- questions of how they're stored when not used, how far they're discharged, how far they're charged, etc. have an effect. Li-ion batteries, for example, last longest when kept between about 25% and 75% charged, but fully charging them reduces their life less than fully discharging them. For the scheme to work, there has to be a way to query a set of batteries and get a reliable and reasonably accurate estimate of their remaining qua

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[Anonymous Coward]

> Well, the Prius also has a gasoline engine. Those batteries wouldn't be near sufficent to power an all electric vehical, or else we'd already have one.

They are enough to power the Prius for around-town driving, but not freeway driving.

http://calcars.org/priusplus.html

Re:Interchangeable batteries

[sunspot42]

But hey, if you think grandma's going to switch out a hundred or two hundred pounds of batteries every time she fills up, well then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

So, you're worried about the ability of people to swap out 25 pound batteries, even given some kind of mechanical assist, but you're not worried about people pumping ten gallons a minute of a flammable liquid that produces explosive vapors? Because that's what we've been doing for the past 75 years or so, and nobody seems too freaked out about it, even though it's about a zillion times more dangerous than changing batteries.

What if someone doesn't secure the crane to the battery pack properly and drops a battery pack on their foot?

Don't release the battery from its holster until it's securely engaged in the mechanical assist. Again, not rocket science.

if you think grandma's going to switch out a hundred or two hundred pounds of batteries every time she fills up, well then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Well, grandma currently toodles around town in a vehicle that weighs thousands of pounds, thanks to the miracle of the machine. She can hurtle up a shaft in a hundred story building thanks to the miracle of the machine. I think she could probably lift 4 25 pound batteries with the help of a machine, too. After all, she can already pump 10 gallons a minute of a flammable liquid with explosive vapors into her car . . .

Good Idea

[sanman2]

Plug-in Hybrids that are mainly oriented towards the electric propulsion side of things would be a good idea. Because people would naturally be inclined to use the plug-in electric overnight charging, since it's cheaper. But for those times when you're running out of juice on the road, it would obviously be desirable to be able to pull into a fuel station for a quick and convenient refill. If liquid fuel helps you do that refill more efficiently and conveniently than an electric recharging station when you're away from home, then fine. Let the mass market decide which way they find better.

Cold Temperature Performance

[SummitCO]

Since not all of us live in California, how are these batteries going to perform in -20F? Did my vehicle range just drop to 10mi? That would kill the marketability of theh e-car. A lot of this country sees cold temperatures but the people will still expect their cars to work.

Re:Cold Temperature Performance

[IvanCruz]

A123 Systems claims a temp. operation range of -30C to 70C (-22F to 158F).
Check: http://www.a123systems.com/html/tech/overview.html

Ivan.

Re:Cold Temperature Performance

[tina juarez]

While the car on this site, http://sirycars.blogspot.com/, isn't running on A123's, it gives you an idea of how electrics can do in cold. I need to add more H20 to my lead-acids in the winter because I overcharge to keep them warm.[oh for a garage!!]..they may not have the same pep as they do mid summer, but the get me over the hill to work. As for charging while "out" - My line is "If I can't charge, I don't shop" Most places "get it".

Re:Cold Temperature Performance

[Anonymous Coward]

The main killer of Lithium Ion batteries is heat, afaik... so wouldn't that make -20F temeratures ideal for this sort of battery? :)

CO2 Emission Reduction

[Anonymous Coward]

Plus if the CO2 emissions are centralized at power stations rather than spread across the entire country (as is the case with cars) emission reduction techniques will probably be a lot easier.

Uh... there's not much you can do to reduce CO2 emissions when burning carbon-based fuels.... CO2 isn't a "byproduct" or a "side effect", it's the unavoidable end result of combining carbon and oxygen!

The economics don't work yet

[WrongDecision]

INAE, but isn't the dollar-value equivalent supposed to tell us if these various transportation technologies make sense? In other words, if the car initially costs $100K and the total operating cost over 100K miles is $50K ($.50/mi.) then the cost per mile of transportation is $1.50/mi. That can be compared to roughly equivalent types of transportation such as taking the train, riding a bicycle, flying a helicopter, driving a gas or diesel car, etc. In other words, things that get us from point A to point B, granted with differing amounts of utility value, depending on what else you are trying to accomplish (get to/from a job, transport groceries, take kids to school). The cost per mile also can be translated into an equivalent environmental cost. Therefore, the $1.50/mi. electric car has a much higher environmental cost that the $0.10-$0.20/mi. bus. It also has a higher environmental cost that the equivalent, efficient (NOT SUV) gas/diesel car. Wide spread adoption of pure electric or even hybrid vehicles won't happen until their total cost/mi. is comparable to what we already have. On another note, as another poster has already pointed out, there is NO way to transfer that much energy through normal household circuits, to get a 5-minute charge. 50kWH in 5 minutes = 600kW. At 300VDC, that's 2,000A. So we're talking large bus bars or multiple 0000ga. cables. Not in a home, not now, not ever! Plus, I don't care how efficient things are, you're still talking lots and lots of heat in a very short time period. In other technologies, the release of substantial amounts of heat in a short time period is commonly referred to as an EXPLOSION!

And replacement cycle!

[IdahoEv]

Current generations of lithium-ion degrade quickly: they lose about 20% of their capacity per year, starting from the day they are manufactured, whether or not they are used. In three years your car can go half as far as it could when you bought it.

That means humongously expensive and wasteful replacement cycles; Lithium-ions are not so environmentally friendly for dumping in landfills, and not so economically useful for recycling. This is bad enough with cellphones and laptops, how bad will it be when the entire US auto fleet (400 million cars or so?) is replacing 200 pounds of batteries every two years?

Fast charging is great. But unless they can give these things a better lifetime, there's more work to be done.

Pedestrian safety?

[A Friendly Troll]

This is surely going to get lost in all the replies, but nevertheless...

How are electric cars going to impact pedestrian safety? They run very quietly; you can get hit by an electric car without knowing it's right behind you, whereas with classic cars you can at least hear the combustion engines from some distance away and take notice. What about kids? Blind people? Even animals might have problems - they stay away from noisy roads, but if the roads aren't noisy anymore...

On a sidenote, it would be pretty cool not to have noise pollution. I imagine a city with electric cars and without smog would be a very nice place to live in for humans and small animals, such as birds and squirrels. Perhaps we'd see more rare bird species in such a city. The quality of life would definitely improve.

Re:Pedestrian safety?

[tftp]

Since future cars are supposed to have low power collision avoidance radars, pedestrians can wear tiny receivers which will detect these radars at a good distance, and can beep to warn the wearer. I suspect only older [Koreans] will need these devices, though. Even today a good portion of a vehicle's noise comes from tires, and not from the engine - especially at low speeds. Modern non-hybrid cars are very quiet.

Re:Pedestrian safety?

[petermgreen]

some modern petrol cars are already quiet enough that you can't hear them if there is a bit of background noise (think a side road off a busy main road).

Re:Pedestrian safety?

[freedom_india]

I agree with you that today's cars are very silent and less vibrating that older models. Sometimes, i need to switch off my car stereo and listen keenly to detect the engine if i have stopped for a toll booth (i use a manual shift).
Other times i just try shifting the gear and see if it works: if it doesn't i restart the engine knowing it has stopped.
I suggest that at such low noise ratio, cars should emit a quiet beep-beep every 10 seconds when going below 20 mph (which means it is a residential area) to warn pedestrians.

Re:Pedestrian safety?

[tftp]

Owners of hybrid cars know this issue very well, for many years. Some suggest just playing loud music to warn people, especially because on low speeds (such as in parking lots) many hybrids run on electrical power and the engine is stopped. In this mode the car is absolutely silent; you'd be producing more noise if you walk.

Re:Pedestrian safety?

[I.AM.BLORT]

the engine, while contributing a lot to the noise of a vehicle is not the sole source. a vehicle in motion also has gear noise, tire noise, wind, and a horn to warn the foolhardy pedestrian. if signifigant enough of a problem, I am sure a buzzer of some type could be made a standard for electric vehicles to warn of their presence on the road to an unwary passerby at little expense.

Re:Pedestrian safety?

[A Friendly Troll]

It's more of a problem for slow-travelling vehicles. I know that most noise on higher speeds does come from tires and wind, as you say, but if a car is travelling 25 mph / 40 kmh in a residential area, those factors are pretty small compared to engine noise. Electric cars would be even quieter.

Now, there are buzzers and beeps as potential solutions... But what would they do? A cacophony of buzzing sounds would be much worse than engine noise...

I heard on NPR....

[encoderer]

...During the NAIAS when the GM proto was introduced, NPR ran a story with an Electrical Enginner who specialized in battery technology.

I don't remember a whole lot about it, but I do remember this quote: "There are three kinds of liars in this world: Liars. Damn Liars. And Battery Engineers"

He basically said that it's really easy to get theoretical advancements to battery technology, but that actually putting them into a medium that can be mass-marketed with acceptable quality levels is hard.

Why So Uninformed?

[I'll Provide The War]

Why are so many commenters speculating on claims that have already been thoroughly investigated?

1. "The grid will collapse."
Electrical grid could handle millions of plug-in hybrids

A new study, conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and sponsored by the federal agency, predicts that off-peak electricity production is adequate for keeping 185 million plug-in hybrids on the road.

2. "Electric cars will increase pollution."
Plug-In Hybrids Are Cleaner (Even on a Coal Grid)

The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewables. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower(http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/grnhsgas/isor.p df)

Nationally, two government studies have found PHEVs would result in large reductions even on the national grid (50% coal). The GREET 1.6 model in 2001(http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/153 .pdf) by the DOE's Argonne National Lab estimates hybrids reduce greenhouse gases by 22%, and plug-in hybrids by 36% (see table 2). An Argonne researcher reached consensus with researchers from other national labs, universities, the Air Resources Board, automakers, utilities and AD Little to estimate in July 2002 that PHEVs using nighttime power reduce greenhouse gases by 46 to 61 percent.

Not in this country...

[spagthorpe]

Politics aside, the main technological hurdle to mass adoption of electric cars has been a fuel station replacement when driving distances beyond a single charge worth of range.

Seems to me that the biggest hurdle to the adoption of electric cars in this country is the compelling need to haul around 6000-lbs of vehicle with you at all times.

range problem solved-been solved for years now

[zogger]

You have a small generator and fuel tank mounted on a trailer. For day to day commuting, it is detached, you run on batteries, recharge at home. For longer trips, attach the trailer, plug it in, start the generator. Stop and fill up with gas or diesel whenever. Additional empty cargo space as an option with a slightly larger trailer of course, making it normally useful.

See? Range problem solved. Call it the modular hybrid approach, instead of normal hybrids that tote TWO engines (ICE engine AND electric motor) AND a fuel tank AND batteries all in the same vehicle. No wonder there isn't enough room for enough batteries! they got two cars worth of drive-around do dads crammed into one car! Nuts. Make the vehicle pure electric, plenty of room for cheap batteries then, stick the fuel burning engine and fuel tank in a separate trailer. Make the genny trailer an option, maybe people would only need one a few times a year, they can rent it.

AC Propulsion has had that for their electric car, which gives it unlimited range same as any other car, and they came up with a "rigid" trailer that doesn't even flex, making it easy for n00bs to tow and backup with it.

With that said, towing a small trailer is *easy*, go out to the burbs any weekend, a lot of the vehicles are towing something around, so it shouldn't matter there, and having a whole house sized backup emergency generator sitting out in the driveway is an added + bonus good idea anyway.

Re:range problem solved-been solved for years now

[Anonymous Coward]

GM tried to sell this durring the fuel crisis of the 70's. I suspect that they never sold a one. First, a car to pull a generator sized trailer safely needs to be a big car. If it is sold as a part or accessory of the car it will need to meeththe same safety requiremets as the rest of the vehicke, as in brakes, bumper hight and many other issues, basicly, that means that it would need to be outfitted like a 5'th wheel trailer. second, a lot of people have trouble hitching trailers and driving with them.

A better way is the solutino that is seen in Dkes Motor Manual from the teens. they used a sandardized battery pack and quickly moved them in and out of the trucks with a lift. This works in a fleet environment but still has problems when addressing the long drive over the mountains to visit family.

Don't Recharge: Change

[bestalexguy]

The way to go: standardized modular battery packs which can be quickly replaced with recharged ones at the station by an automated machine. This would largely address the issue of painfully low-energy batteries (compared to a gas tank). It will be much less of a hassle to recharge (change) them frequently.

Recharging will be made off-line (and possibly off-peak).

Sure, a battery replacing robot is far more complicated and expensive than a cable. But less than an automated car-washer. And talking about economy of scale, nothing compares to car-related devices.

Re:Don't Recharge: Change

[daviddennis]

A nice thought in theory, but note some interesting points:

- This would require completely standardized battery technology - the battery you get would have to be of the same type you gave them. Since battery technology is under rapid development and change, I don't see this working at all. The batteries in a Tesla Roadster cost about $50k and i'm sure next year's batteries will be different (and substantially improved) from this year's.

- Battery wear would be a concern. How would the quality of my replacement battery pack be guaranteed? And how would they deal with people who tried to swap their almost worn battery? It sounds too risky to me on both sides.

D

Re:Don't Recharge: Change

[bestalexguy]

For the sake of brevity I omitted the following in my first post.

1) Actually the method I suggested would require only partially standardized battery technology. Form factors, definitely yes, but take AA batteries for example. Same size, but they can be Ni-Cd, Ni-MH, Li-Ions, with capacity varying from approx 1000 to 3000 mAh. You can use all of them in your AA-power gadgets.

2) Batteries should be common property of the distributing companies, not of car owners. You pay for the Ah, not for the battery itself. The station's electronics will check the packs you give in, your car's electronics those you receive.

BTW: currently you don't have this guarantee of quality on the gas you pump into your tank.

Re:Don't Recharge: Change

[Anonymous Coward]

"BTW: currently you don't have this guarantee of quality on the gas you pump into your tank."

Actually, you do. Sort of. It's called the octane rating. It specifies that the fuel will burn at a certain rate. More recently, governments have specified that both gas and diesel must contain less than 30 parts per million of sulphur. These are the minimum requirements for fuels I could find with a quick search.

If I do another search, I can tell you that most if not all refineries simply pump into a pipeline. The individual companies buy off of that line at a distribution center and put their own additives in before sending it to the stations. Any differences from station to station are in the additives, how long it's been sitting in the gas station's underground tanks (gas degrades over time), and how much condensation (water) is in it. I've only had two bad fill ups in my ten years of driving but your mileage may vary. (Sorry, bad pun.)

A problem I see with swapping battery packs is the wear and tear on terminals and retaining devices. From a safety point of view and considering the weight of a battery pack, I'd rather have it permanently secured to the vehicle's structure. Otherwise, we might see an updated version of the Ford Pinto bumper sticker, "Hit me and we electrocute together."

Re:Don't Recharge: Change

[njh]

Octane is all about preignition and flame propagation. It has nothing to do with energy density. Ethanol has an octane of over 100 yet is considerably less energy dense.

Re:Don't Recharge: Change

[daviddennis]

I thought about this for a long time, and I'm not sure it's that great an idea.

99 times out of 100, if I had a Tesla Roadster (the only currently practical electric car[*]), I would charge it overnight, when electricity rates are low, and use it during the day. Then I would park it and the charging cycle begins again. It requires no infrastructure beyond the cost of the charger, which I think is about $3,500. If I was really eco-friendly I would put solar panels on the roof of my house, and add storage batteries to the house to capture the solar energy as it is generated. This would keep my Tesla charged using solar power. This would only work in a warm climate, of course, but you can bet that if I were in a position to afford a Tesla, I would be living in a warm climate.

If instead of that, I had to do a lobotomy on my car, replacing its most expensive single component, every time I needed to charge, I would bet this would be a very expensive process. The refueling station, after all, would have to inventory battery packs costing, at minimum, tens of thousands of dollars each, which are leased and not sold. That doesn't strike me as a financially viable business model.

Let's say I spent the summer in New York and the winter in Key West. (Many wealthy New Yorkers do this). I would make a very, very long trek down to Key West every winter, and I would have to stop for a battery exchange about every 250 miles. It would take just tremendous infrastructure to be able to rely on that, since during a trip down to Florida, you go through a lot of parts of the country with few inhabitants and very, very few affluent ones capable of buying Tesla roadsters. If they existed, they would have to charge me highway robbery prices for the amps I would need.

And yet this is a road trip people make; I myself went from Pittsburgh down to Miami about a month ago and of course had no problem finding premium unleaded fuel for my Mercedes S500 sedan.

So in the end, it seems to me that the best solution for me as a hypothetical rich New Yorker is to have my Tesla Roadster carried on a flatbed towtruck down to the Keys. I can then fly via my private jet[**] to Key West International Airport and therefore emit all the carbon dioxide I have so carefully saved emitting by driving a Tesla ... and then some.

(Yes, I am laughing at the absurdity of this. But then again, I would buy a Tesla because I love the concept of a better car, not because I really care about global warming.)

D

[*] No, please, I do not want a car with a top speed of 25mph authorized for roads with speed limits up to 35. What do you want to do, get me killed?

[**] Of course if I could afford a Tesla Roadster, again, the likelihood of me affording a private jet, at least on a timeshare basis, is pretty high.

main tech hurdle...

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the main technological hurdle to mass adoption of electric cars has been a fuel station replacement when driving distances beyond a single charge worth of range."

Bull pucky! The main technological hurdle is the *crappy* well-to-wheel efficiency of an all electric, power line charged car. If you could use a renewable source for your electric charger that would be a good start. But you either have the penalty of power line transmission losses or you tow a trailer with a solar array on top (not very practical) And, what is up with is up with this idea that liquid fuels are bad? Liquid fuels come in renewable versions and the combustion motor can be hooked up with an electric drive - providing the energy storage and regeneration benefits.

Re:Or The Station Can Refuel Overnight As Well

[spirit of reason]

Superconducting Magnetic Energy Storage? (SMES, for short!)

tell ya how I would do it

[zogger]

same as a lot of guys including me in ye olden hipster days did it with our air cooled volkswagens. They had really crappy heaters stock anyway(unless you had the factory gasoline burners which never worked that good anyway and were kinda rare), and we always liked to tweak more power, so that meant yanking the stock exhaust with heat exchange out and putting in like hollywood style headers or something. No heat even possible then. Solution? $20 propane camping heater, use fire extinguisher wall mounting clamps, mount that thing inside, crack a window, turn it on. *Very* good heat in new england when I did it.

Electric cars could have integral 5 gallon propane tanks and little efficient furnaces with outside exhaust, then all you need is a small electric blower if you want it. I think it might be possible to have a propane powered AC as well, thinking about it, they have propane powered refrigerators that work well, I own two of them myself.

At least that is one way to do it. It's such a small space I don't think you would burn much propane, and you can get propane all over heck in the US.

Stock Capitalism comment

[tehdaemon]

The Term 'Capitalism' is used to describe things ranging from Laissez-faire to the 'other' golden rule - He who has the gold makes the rules. - Please clarify your use of the term. (this goes for the parent poster too!)

T

complete cylces

[chrwei]

that's 1000 complete charging cycles, or 2000 50% charging cycles, or 4000 25%....

regenerative braking

[SuperBanana]

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this particular development. But the sort of power you are looking at to charge batteries at that rate is enormous. Figure it out. If you have a battery that can, say, deliver 50KW for one hour, then to charge it in five minutes will require to deliver about 20% more than you get out (conversion efficiency) or a charge rate of 720KW. That's nearly 1000 horsepower in Library of Congress units. You aren't going to be passing that through a handy, easy to use electrical circuit any time soon.

One reason charge rates are very important is for regenerative braking. Part of the reason the Prius is so efficient around town is because it uses regenerative braking, but it can only pump so much current back into the battery pack, and it has to be done carefully to avoid overcharging the pack and resulting in, say, thermal runaway. Stopping from 70MPH to 0MPH involves turning a LOT of kinetic energy into thermal energy, via brakes.

This is very important for areas like toll booths, or certain kinds of congested highway traffic. On a Boston->NYC trip, watching my average mileage function, the Mass turnpike toll booths would each cut my average MPG by 1MPG; this isn't a particularly fuel efficient vehicle to begin with (full size older sedan, gets a max of 24MPG.) A vehicle with much better cruising efficiency would see a MUCH more substantial hit. Then again, eliminating tollbooths entirely would also boost safety and speed commerce...

add charging stations without removing pumps

[Harmonious Botch]

I don't think this is feasible. It is dangerous to put an electric charger that may generate sparks near a pump that may generate gasoline vapor.
Gas stations are already so afraid of fires and the ensuing liability that they put up cell phone warnings - even though those are almost certainly urban legend. I doubt that they - or their insurance agents - will let a charging station anywhere near their gas pumps. So they are stuck with an either/or decision.

Re:add charging stations without removing pumps

[maxume]

Anything pushing enough power for a 'quick charge' will have to be super duper extra safe anyway, so I doubt that sparking will be a real problem. Stations that are large enough can simply put the various systems on opposite sides of the property; around here, that is entirely practical, but admittedly, probably not always a solution.

They don't put the cell phone stickers up simply because they are afraid of liability, they also essentially cost nothing, so doing it is worth it even if it just stops the occasional yahoo from wondering about whether it is safe.

Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[Firethorn]

Yeah, my idea's pretty simple:

It's called recycling. The rods, which are classified as 'waste' right now, are actually 90+% recyclable into new fuel rods. This is even without going into technologies like breeders and fast reactors.

The problem with recycling is that the rods, fresh from the reactor, are so radioactive any measures taken with them are expensive. My solution: Let them sit in the reactor pond/onsite storage for 40-60 years, at which point they're less than 1% as radioactive as when they came out, making recycling them much less a pain in the butt. This does many things, including vastly reducing the amount of uranium we need to mine(reducing pollution on that end), and leaving you with high-level waste that's more radioactive, but decays faster. So you store it for a number of years before vitrifying it, so there's a whole lot less radiation to weaken the glass substrate.

Still, I have some concerns that this battery will turn out to be vaporware in the end. It's too revolutionary for me to not be cautious about it. I'd be happier with a GM press release. Of cour

Probably YES

[Paperweight]

Let's say GM remakes the 1965 Chevelle in our prosperous all-electric future. And, since this is a prosperous future, this represents your typical electric car on the road.

The 1965 Chevelle was available with engines that ranged from a small-block V8 with 325 HP to the 396 big-block with 375 HP. This is equal to 242 and 280 kW respectively -- a lot of power compared to a 2003 Corolla with 139 HP (100 kW). Let's say our Electo-Velle uses 210 kW max.

To charge the car in the same amount of time that you raced at 50% throttle on average, use say 210 kW + 20% / 2 = 125 kW. City transmission lines carry something around 7200 V. If you want 125 kW from them, all you have to draw is 17.5 A.

Of course, to charge faster you need more amperage. A nice 4 AWG cable (or two) with teflon insulation could carry ~ 100 A safely, so we can charge at a max power of 720 kW or 5.75 times faster than the rate at which you drained the car battery by driving (50% avg. throttle). Drive for 8 hours on the highway? Charge for 1.4 hours. BUT drive for 1 hour to get to work and back, at 25% avg. throttle? Charge for 7 minutes 50 seconds. Not bad!

Note that I assume an underground-located charging station is used that charges the car from underneath while parked -- the only reasonably safe way to move 100 A at those 7200 V. My knowledge from physics class may be incomplete, though.

Brand names, most likely.

[aussersterne]

"I'm going down to the MegaPlug."
"I'm going down to the ElectroPlex."
"I'm going down to the Charge Barn."
"I'm going down to the Surge & Shop."

We do everything we brand names in this country.

Who Killed The Electric Car?

[hack slash]

Surely I'm not the only here to have seen that US documentary film about electric cars called: Who Killed The Electric Car? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/

Go watch it.

Re:Who Killed The Electric Car?

[80 85 83 83 89 33]

which one?

with a title like that, it makes one think there was only one make and model of electric car. the flamebait title does not bode well for the integrity of the film.

Why worry about charging time?

[gemada]

i read it somewhere so its not my idea, but why not have the filling stations do the recharging and they lift out your battery and drop a fully charged one in its spot? i am sure universal battery sizes could be worked out.

Re:Why worry about charging time?

[anubi]

Wouldn't it just break your heart to have your nice new battery, just purchased with your brand new car, exchanged for an old one, well used, on your first "fillup"?

I had that same feeling when I took the tanks for my brand new welding apparatus to be filled.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

...Pictures?

[iamstretchypanda]

Oh, and marking it in some sort of universal language so that in the event civilization collapses and we revert to a new stone age some hapless hunter gatherer doesn't try to eat it.

Maybe draw a picture of a man eating it and then an arrow pointing to the man looking like he is in agony and about to die? Sounds like a rather complicated language to me!

Re:...Pictures?

[TuringTest]

marking it in some sort of universal language so that in the event civilization collapses and we revert to a new stone age some hapless hunter gatherer doesn't try to eat it
These guys have thought about that problem, and have come to a very good solution through visceral language.

Re:...Pictures?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> marking it in some sort of universal language so that in the event civilization collapses and we revert to a new
>> stone age some hapless hunter gatherer doesn't try to eat it

> These guys have thought about that problem, and have come to a very good solution through visceral language

I'm from the future, and we don't have EYES anymore, you insensitive clod!

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[gfxguy]

I don't think it's vaporware. One of the links, Fly The Road, has videos of the vehicle in action. If they can deliver the hybrid for less than $20k like they say they can, I'll definitely have a replacement commuting car.

The cool technology involved in the vehicle goes way beyond the batteries. Of course, the two models I'd be interested in are hybrids, not pure electric, but then that's the one that seems to be vapor right now. Watch the videos, this is a REALLY interesting "bike."

How does it handle temperature extremes?

[element-o.p.]

I can't wait for electric vehicle technology to mature. I'd gladly trade my Talon TSi in for a http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1T esla Roadster, if they can overcome a couple of technical problems. While the recharging problem has been more than adequately addressed in this and other /. threads, I have a few questions that I haven't seen anyone else ask.

How do electric cars handle extremes in temperaturs? I know here in Anchorage, if I leave my headlights on overnight in the summer, my car will almost always start just fine. OTOH, in the winter, when temps are somewhere around 5-10, leaving the headlights on for just a couple of hours will discharge the battery enough to require a jump start. So......how well do electric cars hold their charge when temps are 0-20 degrees? Do the batteries work well enough in the cold to get back and forth to work, run a few errands, etc.?

On the other hand, there are problems with hot climates, as well. My mom recently was looking at a Ford Escape (?) hybrid. My uncle, who works at a Ford dealership, talked her out of the hybrid and convinced her to buy a conventional Escape, instead. She lives in Texas, and my uncle told her that the hybrids *never* turn the gas engine off in the summer in Texas, because the air conditioner draws too much power. So, while theoretically the hybrid should be more fuel efficient than a gas-powered vehicle, in the south, they actually get *worse* gas mileage than a conventional vehicle.

Finally, at this time, batteries are heavy. How much energy is wasted accelerating (I'm guessing) several hundred (thousand?) pounds of batteries all the time? By comparison, my Talon carries about 100 pounds of fuel and a 300 pound (guessing again) engine. Then the frame of the car has to be heavier to support the weight of the batteries, the brakes have to be beefier to provide adequate stopping power, etc. It takes more energy to accelerate all that extra mass, so how much more efficient are electric cars?

Don't get me wrong--I like the idea of electric vehicles, and I'd love to move away from powering my rice rocket with dinosaur bones, but I think I'll probably wait a little longer for electric technology to improve before I make the switch

Re:How does it handle temperature extremes?

[BZ]

> how well do electric cars hold their charge when temps are 0-20 degrees?

I wonder whether it would make sense for the battery to keep itself from getting too cold by operating a small heating coil. Some torpedo designs do this, and get significantly longer range as a result, but the operating parameters are very different there (don't need to warm the battery for very long).

Re:How does it handle temperature extremes?

[Jeremi]

I wonder whether it would make sense for the battery to keep itself from getting too cold by operating a small heating coil.

In fact, the Tesla car does exactly this.... there is a heater in the battery area that will keep the batteries from becoming too cold.

Re:How does it handle temperature extremes?

[element-o.p.]

Interesting...I had looked over the Tesla web site, but missed that.

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[Firethorn]

I'm not about to install quicktime on this computer, so I'll have to take your word on it.

Still, shifting people over to a three wheel car* is going to take some serious, serious work. Another point is that I'm not disputing that an electric car can be produced, I'm worried that the battery isn't what they claim it is.

That doesn't mean that they can't produce and electric car, using 'substitute' batteries for their test of concept. Early EV1s were powered by lead-acid, then they upgraded to NiMH. Now we're looking into LiIon.

Can an electric car be made? It's already been done many times
Can a electric car be made that'll satisfy your typical commuter's needs? Yep
Can an electric car that meets those needs be produced economically? Now there's the question.

*Going by the main image on their site.

Save the world: Flourescent light bulbs

[Anonymous Coward]

While we are talking about reducing power consumption, if everybody in the country switched from standard filament light bulbs to Compact fluorescent lamp bulbs, we could reduce a LOT of the demand on energy and the environment. Read a blog on California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine's attempts to ban filament bulbs and the Wikipedia entry Compact_fluorescent_lamp.

if every US home replaced just one light bulb with an "energy-star rated" CFL, this would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars, according to the US Environment Protection Agency

From the EPA website :

Remember, saving energy prevents pollution. When you use less energy at home, you lessen greenhouse gas emissions in our atmosphere. Every CFL can prevent more than 450 pounds of emissions from a power plant over its lifetime.

Dewalt Power Tools

[DaoudaW]

Dewalt has been marketing this battery as a part of their 36V line of tools since last August. All indications are that it's characteristics, quick charging, low internal resistance, over 2000 lifetime charging cycles will revolutionize battery power. Hobbyist are beginning to use it for R/C planes and cars. It's being put into electric bicycles. The Tesla car is being designed around it. Go to Ebay, buy a Dewalt 36V battery and become part of the revolution. I'll be using mine to build a hybrid bicycle.

But what about MIT's nantech supercapacitor.

[MtViewGuy]

While this new technology sounds promising, it will be interesting to see how it compares against the MIT-developed carbon-nanotube supercapacitor announced in early 2006. This supercapacitor could be very viable, since it could make it possible to drastically reduce the size of the battery pack so the interior space of the car compares to a normal vehicle.

Anyway, these new technologies finally begin to overcome these major issues with battery power for an all-electric car, namely 1) the need for a lot of space-wasting battery packs, 2) the long charge time for that battery pack, and 3) the limited range of the vehicle at full charge. (It was these issues that doomed the General Motors EV-1 project.) We could see within a decade an all-electric car with a battery pack essentially the size of the fuel tank of a modern fossil-fuelled car that offer a range around 500 km (310 miles) and a recharge time in under five minutes! :-)

You want to solve it with a forklift??

[zogger]

Sorry, don't agree, that's medium nuts swapping out heavy battery packs with a forklift as opposed to attaching a small trailer.I don't think folks want to gas up using a forklift and swapping out for a who knows how beat on used battery pack. I mean, c'mon now, I have both here where I live, forklifts, and trailers from single axle jobs I can lift and move with one hand all the way to serious road trailers. A small trailer with a lift wheel assembly is just not that hard to "attach". I'd take that and being able to just pump some gas at a normal gas station as opposed to pulling up and having a forklift come over, detach the conenctors, lift out a half ton battery pack and so on. that is WAY more hassle than using the gas stations we have now, that are built, work, paid for, anyone can use them (except I think oregon where they think you are a weenie and can't pump your own gas). And trailers, especially normal small ones? MILLIONS and MILLIONS of people tow a trailer every weekend around the US,using small 4 cylinder cars on up. Trailers come in all sizes, and one large enough for a little recharege geeny just wouldn't need to be all that big. egads man where do you live?? You've never seen this?? It's "normal human" do-able thing to do is to have trailers with all sorts of stuff, boat trailers, landscapers trailers, contractors, people moving from this house to that house, you name it. Every size shape config possible. Already out there, nothing weird and new that needs any billion buck government "study" about it. No "hydrogen highway" pie in the sky twenty years and twenty trillion dollars from now scheme needed..

The AC propulsion concept is even simpler as trailers go, as it is a rigidly attached trailer, its axle stays inline with the vehicle axle,it doesn't flex, which means even backing up is little different from backing up without it. And the car itself is a high performance sports car basically. The entire unit car+trailer still fits inside a normal parking place. The same idea could be equally applied to a less expensive less performance oriented normal commuter car and generator trailer, and as I noted, just the idea of having an emergency home back up generator is now highly popular due to the hurricanes/blizzards/ice storms over the past few years. The expression is "selling like hotcakes". Yes, most folks living in high rise condos or apartments wouldn't go buy a generator, that still leaves..*most* of the USA who could use one once in awhile. So it is a potential "same as" purchase, something they either have or are going to get anyway, so why not integrate it into the cheaper electric vehicle idea? Even those high rise folks might weant to own the electric car, and if they knew they could slide down to U B rentin it and get the genny trailer for the long trip to the beach or to see grammaw it might help them out and help get pure electrics adopted, because that is the one thing folks are hesitant on is range mostly, and the geeny/trailer modular approach fixes this. It's a natural!

Really, trailers in general are common, the tech is neither weird nor hard to pull off (pun intended), engineering-wise or legally. And electric brake hookups are common as well, and not even needed or required on light duty trailers. Nothing you mentioned is much of a problem at all, and as stated, it is a rather easy and practical solution for the electric commuter car then having longer range when you need it on demand. As mentioned in earlier articles and discussions, average commute in the US is 33 miles, and electric vehicles with a 50 mile range are very doable right now with non exotic and cheap batteries. Generators are *very* common, any size/config/fuel source you might want. Trailers are trailers, again, very common, cheap to very expensive.

If you are buying a hybrid system, you are still buying a generator, just with the hybrid cars now, it sucks as a home generator. You are paying a lot for something only useful as a car, wherwas a modular hybrid you can get both

Re:You want to solve it with a forklift??

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget that those people living in highrise condos or apartments probably don't have any place to plug in their electric car in the first place. Since I don't have a designated parking spot, not only do I not have a place to plug in my car over night, I don't have a place to keep my generator trailer when I'm not using it. That means either I have to tow it with me everywhere I go, or include it in the car (i.e. a hybrid).

I prefer the idea of a battery-swapping electric. Obviously I'm not going to be lugging around car batteries, or driving a forklift. Just have some standard size (and maybe location) battery port. You pull up to a machine, it pulls out the discharged cells, and pushes in charged ones. You could even have a port on each side, where pushing new cells in one side pushes the old ones out the other end.

dom

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[CaptnMArk]

> Still, shifting people over to a three wheel car* is going to take some serious, serious work.

I'd love to have this one (it's a Carver, a tilting 3 wheeler).

It'd help if it would be a 3/4 of a price of a normal car.

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[Anonymous Coward]

We are not good as a society at 60 year projects. The people responsible are going to be long gone by the time anyone can discover they messed it up.

Venture capitalist snake oil, anyone?

[Ancient_Hacker]

One might suspect that a press release that is very short on critical technical and factual details, and long on manager-speak, like "partnerships", is mainly marketing snake-oil.

Things we'd like to have pinned down befor ewe get at all excited:, little details like:

• Is there a working prototype?
• Has it been tested under typical usage cycles in a real car over a realistic temperature range?
• How many times can you recharge this battery?
• How hot does it get? 10% of 600KW is a LOT of heat.
• How much does it cost?
• Is it manufacturable? Like right now do you need to have some poor sod choose 1000 well-matched cells out of a crate of 5,000? That's not manufacturable in quantity.
• What's the reliability of these cells? If only 0.1% fail per recharge, that's unacceptable.

Re:Venture capitalist snake oil, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty much, this isn't the first miracle battery i've heard of in the ev industry, never mind the fuel cell batteries that never seem to appear on market long after a companys had their press release. more hot air is what i say until results can be verified. we've been hit too many times with bogus press releases that mean nothing. problem with these is the people who've watched that electric car movie are now primed to believe, and need to badly and will grasp onto things like this without much skeptisicm

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[budgenator]

I've wanted one ever since I saw one at Disneyland 15 years ago. The biggest problem is it is small and the soccer-moms will never go for it; you know the ones, they preach about saving the enviroment, sing "KumBya" and want to drive a truck as tall as a semi-tractor.

Hellloooo GM? Is Anyone Home?

[sycodon]

When will you morons at GM understand that we don't want SUVs with what amounts to electric accessories? You are one of the biggest car companies in the world and you can't make a simple, elegant, 4 door electric sedan or hybrid for less than $15k? WTF?

Ditch the Ivy League wonder boys and put someone in charge who understands the market and can make things happen. I for one would not be sad if you went under and put everyone of your umpteen thousand lardass union workers and bloated, clueless executives out of a job.

Re:Hellloooo GM? Is Anyone Home?

[Anonymous Coward]

if it were so easy they would have done it genius. as for suvs, they sell, so not as stupid as one would think. can't blame them for that stupidity, europe is selling us suv's hand over fist too so theres no real moral high ground around.

Which Infrastructure? BioFuels or Electric?

[GreyFlcn]

It's really a question of which infrastructure makes the most sence.

Liquid BioFuels from Algae:
BioButanol (Near identical to gasoline, with none of the downsides of ethanol)
BioJetFuel (Centia jetfuel is gearing up to replace military JP-8 jetfuel)
BioDiesel (Treated with Centia to remove all of it's downsides)

Or Electricity:
(Ideally created from Air blown IGCC power plants running on BioMass, or GeoThermal, or Ocean Current Energy)
Theoretically using EESTOR like ultracapacitors, or expensive batteries like A123's

_

As compared to:
Fuel Cells, Ethanol, and Hybrids
Batteries, Butanol, and Clean Diesel makes a lot more sence.

I really just question which one makes the most sence.

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[Firethorn]

The biggest problem is it is small and the soccer-moms will never go for it

Then it DOESN'T MEET CONSUMER DEMAND. Look, I have a small car. I've been frustrated with the available trunk space a number of times. It's to the point that I'm looking for a cheap truck that I can take on supply runs. I can understand why people with kids would want a larger vehicle. I can imagine that putting a kid into a car seat in today's low-riding vehicles to be a pain in the butt. You'd have a hard time fitting a weeks worth of groceries in it, forget the luggage needed for a visit to the grandparent's house.

It'd work as a commuter vehicle, but that's part of the problem. Cars today aren't used just as commuter vehicles. You can't just shoot for 70% of consumer's demands today and expect to sell many cars when for a few thousand more you can get 99-100%.

For another example, my mother is currently suffering from a syndrome that makes getting up difficult. She ended up buying a midsize SUV simply because she could no longer climb out of most cars.

It'd work as a second vehicle, a dedicated commuter. But then again, so won't a used Geo Metro.

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[Firethorn]

It'd help if it would be a 3/4 of a price of a normal car.

My personal tolerance would be closer to 1/2-1/4 the price of a normal car. You're giving up a LOT of trunk space for that vehicle, good luck fitting a baby in there, and it's under the motorcycle safety rules(IE pretty much none) for safety during an accident. It looks like they're doing some things, but I'm not sure how well it'll pan out when it has to share roads with SUVs and Semis.

I want one of these.

[ildefonso]

I want one of these batteries. I'm tired of the lead-acid batteries, which are way too heavy and doesn't store that much energy.

I just want to build a huge UPS for my whole house, and need some good batteries.

I Want a Laptop Battery...

[Anonymous Coward]

Forget the car. Give me a laptop battery that I can recharge in 5 minutes and run for hours.

here's a thought...

[zogger]

..for folks in your situation, who might want an electric vehicle but no place to plug it in. How about a service-maybe run at cost by the local government??? Anyway, you have your normal parking meters, how about if they had an option to plug-in there as well, so while parked you were getting a charge at the same time? Another option,perhaps where you work, lobby for it as a job perk. At your apartment or townhouse, maybe they could offer it, designated electric car parking places. Yes, I can see your point on all electric without having your own home..not a lot of options right now. So-hybrids are probably your best bet *right now*.

The bottom line is,the most bang for the next transportation buck, is to reuse a lot of what we already have. We have the infrastructure already in place, at huge cost, all over the nation, to deliver liquid fuels. that's what we are set up for, just is is all. Already bought and paid for, installed, nothing new to build there. Now we are also "right there" with the alternative and cleaner/renewable liquid fuels, ethanol and biodiesel, and you can get flex fuel vehicles right now that will run on any mixture ethanol/gasoline, and the new cleaner diesels are hitting the US roads soon, and biodiesel blends are appearing at stations. This is available *now*, no waiting.

To go to a battery swap out economy means all new "fuel" stations all over. Hundreds of thousands of them would need to be built-but we already have fuel stations. You'll be paying for that for a long time before they even break even. I'm just not seeing it happen, but perhaps some niche market there. urban property is expensive, and existing fuel stations (mostly convenience stores now), simply do not have the warehouse room to hold hundreds of large battery packs, their lots are small, enough parking for some to fill up and go into the store typically and not much else. Where would you even store the things? And they have to be laid out for charging, and some serious powerlines run to each store to do bulk charging. Very expensive-as opposed to just using what they already have.

anyway, goodluck! I think if you want a pure electric, but are stuck in an apartment with dismal parking and no place to plug in, get an electric assist bicycle or scooter, something you can haul inside with you at home and charge it up. heh, I've put a 250 cc motorcycle in the living room before, on the second level, so I know getting a little electric scooter inside is doable! The things are cheap, too, I've been looking at them, either kits to convert your existing bike over, or a normal looking small scooter, just all electric. Really not that expensive, just google around, lot of sites out there selling those things now. Even if you can't get it all the way in and have to keep it locked outside, you can still pull the battery and bring it in with you, at work and at home for that matter.

Just thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

I am thinking about the wireless charging tehnology used in charging gadgets. What if you only needed to carry enough energy to get you you to and from the major roads. The major roads could have a long roll of the wireless charing mat in a dedicated lane. When you are driving at speed it does not take that much energy to keep you going, does it? this solves the distance issue right? just my uneducated mind spinning. . . .

Not nanotech?

[mfnickster]

Why has nobody yet made the obligatory claim that this invention is not really nanotechnology?

Looks to me like another "nanoscale material sold as nanotech" hypefest. Anybody know anything about their manufacturing process??

Quick Change, Not Quick Charge

[stan_freedom]

If battery packs can be standardized, then "gas stations" could consist of an automated process to change out the depleted battery pack with a charged battery pack. Depleted packs could be charged offline over a period of hours. We consumers already do this manually with propane tanks for our backyard grills, and the same process exists for industrial equipment (forklifts, etc.) on a larger scale.

An automated quick change could probably be handled in a matter of seconds without the customer even having to exit their vehicle, making it much faster and more convenient than even today's process of pumping gasoline. Also, by automating the process, there would be less opportunity for errors/accidents.

What about tampering?

[djtack]

Hrmm, this is a very cool idea. A couple other gotchas I can think of:

If the embedded electronics can be tampered with, someone could make a lot of money by "upgrading" their batteries status and swapping it (sort of like odometer fraud, except fill-up happen a lot more often than car sales). Perhaps some kind of global database that records a serial number for each battery, and it's last known value, so that tampering could be detected.

Another issue - If filling stations all standardized on one battery format, it could totally kill development of new battery technology. With a build in-battery, all that needs to be standardized is the power plug. One plug can charge many formats - different sizes, capacities, shapes, and chemistry. But if filling stations had to handle batteries, it would be nearly impossible to convince everyone to upgrade to a new format, and they would still have to maintain backwards compatibility with old formats.

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[gfxguy]

Just about every FAMILY has two cars. I commute the farthest, and I've often thought about a motorcycle, but the drawbacks to using a motorcycle are too many. This is the perfect compromise, and I know I'm not alone. Virtually everyone where I work, after viewing the website, said they'd get one at the costs they are advertising were they available here.

So we have two family haulers, and don't really need that. This would be absolutely perfect as a replacement.

Unfortunately, they're targeting California in 2008. I live on the east coast. It's not even practical to buy one and bring it here, there'd be no place for maintenance and repair.

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[Firethorn]

So you're proposing a solution that'll get less than half of the vehicles? Well, I do believe that every bit helps, but I also think that a solution that meets 90% of demand is better than one that meets 10%.

As for you and your work, excuse me if I'm skepical until it's actually released and being sold in massive quantities.

Re:Nuclear power... Disposing the waste

[gfxguy]

Well - skepticism accepted; I work with a bunch of people who are pretty highly paid and are either single or have no kids.

But I wasn't talking about finding a solution to anyone's problems, I was talking about the likelyhood that people would buy such a vehicle. For years in the U.S., people were saying that no one will buy small, fuel efficient cars because they aren't as safe as the SUVs that had taken over the market, but here we are where there are waits for cars like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic Hybrid.

A lot of people also think a motorcycle would make a good, fuel efficient commuting vehicle if it were only safer and could be used in non-perfect weather conditions. So here you go.

So I share, to an extent, your skepticism about this particular vehicle, but I think the widespread adoption of such a vehicle is all but inevitable. And when I say that, I don't mean EVERYBODY will be driving one, but I believe they'll be as common as motorcylces, at least.