Slashdot Mirror
6 Major Pre-Production Electric Vehicles Compared
rbgrn writes with a review of six major pre-production electric vehicles. The review offers an easy side-by-side comparison of these six cars with projected release dates of either 2008 or 2010. "With all of the hype surrounding hybrid vehicles today, I thought I'd do some research and post my findings on the next generation of fully electric and plug-in hybrids. The fully-electric EV has had a bad name in the past, mostly due to insufficient battery technology, politics, lack of performance models and other factors. Starting this year with the Tesla Roadster, the EV is going to take on a new form in the eyes of John Q Public. Quiet, efficient EVs will start to become commonplace in the next few years as major manufacturers go into production with the newest generation of vehicle sporting more powerful motors, efficient generators and the latest battery technology."
Must be running their servers off that "insufficient battery technology"
Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
It's only going to take one vehicle fire involving lithium ion batteries and then the public will sour on the whole thing for years.
But a purchase price of $30,000 for a hybrid (which you'll need if you plan to drive it more than 120 miles round trip without a recharge), no cargo space, and room for only one passenger makes this an extremely limited option. TFA's right, the Volt, provided they can keep the price UNDER $30K, will be by far the most attractive option. As a small car, I'd like to see the Volt priced under $20K, actually, but I'm sure it's only a pipe dream at this point, given what 1st gen hybrids like the Prius are going for.
My blog
With all these electric only cars on the horizon, what will hollywood use to explain the ease of exploding cars? Not that gasoline is so spontaneously explosive as they'd have people believe, but I'd imagine Li-Ion batteries would be even less so.
How will they sell movie tickets if everyone becomes aware that cars wont explode from a couple bullets?
By Robert Green on November 19, 2007 1:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)
With all of the hype surrounding hybrid vehicles today, I thought I'd do some research and post my findings on the next generation of fully electric and plug-in hybrids. The fully-electric EV has had a bad name in the past, mostly due to insufficient battery technology, politics, lack of performance models and other factors. Starting this year with the Tesla Roadster, the EV is going to take on a new form in the eyes of John Q Public. Quiet, efficient EVs will start to become commonplace in the next few years as major manufacturers go into production with the newest generation of vehicle sporting more powerful motors, efficient generators and the latest battery technology.
The big change will be the introduction of full EVs and plug-in hybrids. Full EVs are as one would expect: A fully electric vehicle that uses no other fuels. A plug-in hybrid is a vehicle that uses electricity as its primary power source and is equipped with a generator that supplements electricity as-needed. Many of the plug-in hybrids have an electric-only range of 30-60 miles with an extended range of 400-700 miles. The difference to the consumer is the way in which the vehicle is charged. Traditional hybrids are powered primarily by gas and thus need to be refueled regularly. Plug-in hybrids plug in at home and to most people that means they park the car at home, plug it in overnight and it's ready to go the next morning. This means that if you're driving less than your EV range each day, you'll never need to put a drop of gas into the car. How nice does that sound?
The following table is a consolidation of data collected from many different sources, cited at the bottom of this article. It has many key points that the average person may be interested in. Much of the data is still not readily available due to the pre-production and concept status of some of the models. I will do my best to keep this chart up-to-date.
(Copy of the chart)
As you can see from the production dates, four out of six of the vehicles are scheduled to be in production in 2010 but the other two, the Tesla Roadster and Aptera are scheduled for production in 2008. Both companies are currently taking pre-orders. Estimated production numbers are difficult to find but Chevy has claimed 60,000 in the first year.
Performance is a hot issue with EVs and this generation is no doubt going to address that. I calculated a figure where applicable which divides the vehicles weight in pounds into its peak power rating. The resulting number gives an indication for how well the vehicle should be able to accelerate. While numbers are only available for a few cars, the Tesla Roadster easily takes the lead with a a 0-60 of 4 seconds and a 68.5 Watt/Pound ratio. This should prove to many that EVs are now capable of being mainstream performance cars.
Most of these plug-in hybrids are expected to have a 3-cylinder turbo diesel or gasoline generator which usually produces slightly more than the continuous power rating of the car. Translation: You can drive as far as you want with this car only refueling and not having to recharge. This alone should resolve many people's fears of range with EVs.
The Aptera is one of the most interesting vehicles here with its very aerodynamic, futuristic design and high range specifications. It comes in two models: Fully EV and Hybrid. The Full EV model is estimated to be $26,900 and the Hybrid at $29,900.
The Mitsubishi MiEV Sport is supposed to compete with the Tesla Roadster but currentl
I think most people on Slashdot probably understand what it will take. We need to stop subsidizing oil companies with tax dollars. We need to stop spending billions on wars to secure supplies for oil companies. We need to pass strict legislation to regulate the types of power plants that can be built based upon the real costs to the citizens. We need to legislate a date within the next decade when coal plants are required to meet emission, waste, and safety standards and stop approving new, unclean coal plants. Then, when the real costs of all these industries are borne by those industries, we need to let the market sort it out and provide the most cost effective solution.
I suspect politicians and their advisors know this as well. I just don't think any of them are as interested in making it happen as they are in making sure their re-election campaign is well funded and they're owed political favors.
Yay! Let's all buy fully-electric cars! Together we can take the power grid down!
You just got troll'd!
Plug-in Hybrids can be powered from solar installations, which will help with the whole 'moving the problem upstream'.
- Spryguy
There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
It depends where you live. In large portions of the US, we use this new-fangled thing called hydro-electric power, and we supplement it with wind power. So, our basic cost is less than 7 cents per KWh. Other areas of the US use different energy supplies - Vermont is mostly Hydro with nuclear (used to own Green Mountain Power), and much of the Northeast uses imported hydro power with nuclear and some coal.
Some places generate and sell their own power from home or farm based wind turbines and solar cells - especially in the West.
So the cost of the energy ranges from $3 a gallon (cheap in the West) for gas to $0.30 gallon equivalent for electricity in coal states to $0.04 gallon equivalent for electricity in the Northwest.
At that point, the cost of retrofitting - which is less than $5000 if done by Honda or Toyota (which sell plug-in hybrids in Japan even if not in the US yet) or Lexus, or $15,000 if you use say one of the three conversion businesses in my county alone (King County in Washington state) - is price compatible if you commute to work nearby.
Of course, you could do what Willie Nelson is doing and go plug-in bio-diesel with your truck, or even convert a classic Cadillac to get more than 80 mpg using an efficient bio-diesel engine with plug-in hybrid electric power tuned to the make and model.
Some people talk.
Other people do.
P.S.: If you're on facebook and use the I Am Green app, there's a We Are Green Seattle group you can join now. Let's beat out Vancouver BC and San Francisco CA!
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The simple solution there is more nuclear plants.
In all seriousness, there has been much progress on the warp drive front. In 1926 or so, theories claimed that you needed many times the energy of the universe to create a warp field, and your craft had to be a good deal lighter than zero mass.
... and your craft only needs to be very little lighter than zero mass, or maybe it was acually zero.
;)
The latest benchmark is from cirka 1986, I think, and claims only 2-3 times the energy of our local sun
But the warp field won't make a positive impression on those in the lane next to you, or the little old lady on the sidewalk...
"Good news, everyone!"
Amusingly, it seems like there is a car or van on fire in my county probably every day - some days there are up to 10 car fires.
You can live in Fear.
Or you can be a proud patriotic American and refuse to live in Fear.
Those are the choices.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
and where do you expect to get all that hydrogen from?
The site was slashdotted, so here's the google cache
So where do you plan on getting the hydrogen? It doesn't exist naturally on earth.
Steam reformation (currently the most economic method)? Releases CO2 as one of the resulting products from the process.
Electrolysis? Where do you get electricity for this? Coal? CO2 emissions. Solar? Inefficient (as of now). Wind? "costly and unsightly" Nuclear?
The only advantage hydrogen offers is that it can be ultimately converted into mechanical energy through both internal combustion engines and fuel cells producing electricity to power electric motors(read: ELECTRIC CARS).
Just remember, with hydrogen, "the power has to come from somewhere," too.
Electric cars make it easier to solve the problem because then the problem is one of solving electricity generation, which can be done piecemeal without disruption either to most vehicle users or new delivery systems, since the electrical grid can delivery electricity no matter what fuel is used to generate it, and electric vehicles don't care how their electricity is generated.
Hydrogen is clean when burned, but is either produced at an energy loss by consuming other fuel or mined, and IIRC the mining output that is practical won't support its use as a major fuel. Plus there are the distribution problems. Hydrogen might have uses as a motor vehicle fuel, but EVs are a lot more useful.
Hell, even the initial electric vehicles like the Tesla are sub 4 seconds for acceleration.
http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/acceleration_and_torque.php
Mwhahahahahaha... I want one...
Deleted
so sorry! the link was wrong. Its here. I'll check the links in the preview page next time!
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
You, sir, are a misinformed, ignorant fool.
Let me summarize the legions of faults in your arguments.
Electric cars reduce, but do not eliminate, these emissions, because while they are more efficient, the power has to come from somewhere, and right now that means a power plant
No one said the energy is free. And anyone who does is just flat out stupid. Of course the energy has to come from somewhere, but approaching things in absolutes as you have eliminates the gray areas that is the whole point of this process. Yes, 1kw consumed in an electric car has to be produced somewhere. However, 1kw produced by an internal combustion engine in a single car is FAR less efficient than 1kw out of 100,000 produced in a central plant. Any centralized power production facility, based on current technology, will be more efficient than individual producers.
Solar is very inefficient
Congratulations for dismissing an entire industry based on one point. Yes, current solar cells, operating somewhere in the mid-teens efficiency wise, are inefficient converters. But they are CLEAN converters. They consume no energy in when in use, produce no by products, and do not require frequent maintenance. By those metrics, Photovoltaic cells are fantastic energy sources. There is an argument that production of the cells is 'dirty', but understand that production of a combustion engine, a nuclear power plant, or a hydroelectric dam is 'dirty' as well.
wind is costly and unsightly
You must work for the idiots on Nantucket that are fighting against the Cape Wind project. Which is more unsightly, a silent windmill on a hill, or smog and dead plants and animals everywhere? Windmills are more expensive than buying a tank of gas at the pump, but they are enormously efficient, very low maintenance, and produce clean, no by-product energy. Unsightly? Then put them somewhere you don't want to see them, like out to sea or in isolated regions. Personally I find them very attractive and fascinating - far more beautiful than a coal plant pumping garbage into the atomosphere.
Nuclear presents it's own problems
In teh grand scheme of things, nuclear power is one of the most efficient, cleanest processes for producing energy (that uses at thermal variance process - heated steam to turn a turbine) on the planet. The by-products of used fuel can be managed and dealt with, becuase the by products are KNOWN quantities. What people dont' realize is that the junk a nuclear reactor generates is not far off from the garbage a coal plant puts into the atmosphere. The difference is the nuke plant has the by products contained and controlled, while coal and oil plants just throw them into the air. "Oh well, someone elses problem."
i am more interested in hydrogen
This argument is one the Bushies and others push, without understanding the real problems. There is no hydrogen economy, and hydrogen fuel is ridiculously hard to manage in compressed or liquid form. Did you know you cant' put them in tanks? Nope, tanks corrode when you store hydrogen in them, they have to be very specific types of tanks that are ridiculously expensive and complicated. There is no infrastructure for delivering and fueling vehicles based on hydrogen, nor will there ever be one. Can you imagine the cost of replacing every gas pump with a hydrogen pump, every gasoline and oil tank with a hydrogen tank? Hydrogen is a great dream, but will never actually function until breakthroughs are made in hydrogen storage and transportation. Give up this dream and focus on what is possible now.
The number one obstacle in electric based vehicles is batteries. Full stop. And there has been so much work put into battery technology in the last 5 years, that the tiem of the electric car is here, and it's here to stay. Stop poopooing the technology that is proving itself to work (notice the fleets of priuses out there), and wishing for castles in the sky. Work with what's here and now.
Event Management Solutions : http://www.stonekeep.com/
It's amazing how hyped up all these new technologies are, and yet in the long run the best way to save energy is behavioral modification, not necessarily technological innovation(though that isn't bad either). It's amazing how many people in the states still refuse to do this little thing called carpool. 6 people in a gas guzzling SUV is still more efficient than if they all took their own Priuses(or however you make that plural). Not to mention the fact that in the US, something like over 80% of all car trips are less than 2 miles and yet bikers are looked down upon as if they are worthless pieces of trash(and respected accordingly). It still seems that in the states if you aren't driving, you are defective and your life isn't worth the effort of giving you your legal space on the road.
Not to mention technologies like motor scooters that can get over 100 miles/gallon(depending on how you drive them) that many people refuse to use, probably for the same reason as noted above. Conservation is still the best form of alternative energy, and yet I wonder how long it is going to take before Americans realize that!
Monstar L
Those price conversions include batteries?
If so, Of what kind of range?
And you can get Honda or Toyaota to do plug in conversions here in the US??
1 Gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 36.7kW-hr. This is my reference.
1 Gallon @ $3.00 or 36.7kW-hr x $0.07/kW-hr = $2.569 A little less expensive, but not quite as cheap as you make it out to be.
Disclaimer: This comparison relies upon an assumption that the efficiency of an internal combustion engine powered car is (very) roughly equivalent to a battery charge and discharge cycle to power an electric motor of an electric car. Yes, an electric motor will be more efficient than an ICE, but you have to count the power going into the battery charger (which will take into account charging losses, battery losses, and discharge losses), not the just the motor, to properly compare costs. To really make a true comparison, you need the miles per kW-hr for the electric to compare with the gasoline equivalent MPG.
I don't know the tone of your post. Is this something you see as a problem?
One big coal plant (with scrubbers and such) isn't necessarily any worse than hundreds of thousands of small, inefficient gasoline engines -- and infrastructure upgrades to reduce the pollution from that plant (and otherwise mitigate its effects) can be done at one time, in one place, rather than needing to upgrade hundreds of thousands of small, separately owned vehicles. (If the folks working on fusion power get that worked out, every EV is suddenly fusion-powered -- while folks with gasoline vehicles are still releasing the carbon from long-dead forests).
Coal is dirty, sure, but lots of little inefficient gasoline engines isn't necessarily any better. (Also, not everyone gets their power from coal).
You can live in Fear.
Or you can be a proud patriotic American and refuse to live in Fear.
Those are the choices. In related news, the population of Fear Town is constantly diminishing for no aparent reason.
Allows you to drive up to 640 miles via it's generator. Since it is just a generator, they can optimize it's performance for charging. There is no need to have all the transmission aspects of a I.C.E. attached to a drive-train. This allows it to be very efficient.
Furthermore, having the means to charge your vehicle in the garage (with a net savings for $35-$75 a fill-up times x number of fill-ups per year) alters the value of solar cell roofing.
Those uber-expensive solar panels on your roof that cost you an extra $200/month for the next 10 yrs, all of a sudden are not quite as costly in your budget when they eliminate $100 or more in expenditures on gasoline.
These vehicles will likely spur major growth in solar cell production.
The EV1 was only a failure in GM's eyes, no one else's. 120 miles on a charge isn't a bad thing and better batteries are available now than were 10 years ago. Last I looked, the Tesla came in at under $100k, which is still not quite the price point most people can handle. (It could be worse, of course, this could be a Venturi Fetish, at $660k. http://www.treehugger.com/files/2004/10/venturi_fetish.php )
I want my electric car and I want it noooooow, is that too much to ask?
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
During the day you SELL the electricity.
During the night you buy (CHEAP!) electricity to charge your car.
Jupiter of course!
If you click that link, you'll see that there is no way in hell "large portions" of the US use hydro.
Which calls the veracity of your entire post into question, and seeing as another poster debunked your cost numbers, I'd say you're just making things up.
I can hardly wait to see Jeremy on Top Gear go rabid because it is clean and quiet. The Stig should like it though.. He is a man of no words.
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
You both are ignorant fools, because hydrogen isn't a energy source! It's just another form of battery, that might be cleaner and more efficient. The hydrogen still has to be produced... using electricity!
In large portions of the US, we use this new-fangled thing called hydro-electric power,
The problem with hydro which is often overlooked is the fixed capacity of the system. Many are under the illusion that all you need to do is dam a river with a new dam and wow, free power. Often overlooked is that hydro is gravity power from falling water. That is water moving from one elevation to another. Many people have no clue as to why there is no major (or minor) hydro plants on the mighty Mississippi River. The sad fact is Chicago Illinois is at an elevation of only 700 feet. Just how many 80 foot drop dams are you going to put between the gulf and Iowa? If you put in a dam and let the water back-up.. how much land would be under water? The river is over 2,000 miles long, but most of the elevation is below 1,000 feet. There isn't much falling water in there.
http://www.42explore2.com/missriv.htm
The river does have a system of Dams and Locks, but they are for Navigation, not power generation
"Twenty-nine locks and dams on the Mississippi and eight on the Illinois replaced rapids and falls with a stairway of water for commercial and recreational traffic."
They connected it to one of the Great lakes with a canal.
"The history of navigation on the Upper Mississippi River System goes back to the 1820's, when Congress authorized construction of a canal connecting Lake Michigan and the Illinois River and also authorized removal of snags and other obstructions in several reaches of the Mississippi River."
Remember that water flows downhill. Lake Michigan is at elevation 577 feet above sea level. The canal connects to the Illinois river which than empties into the Mississippi river. Let's face it, there just isn't a lot of elevation drop in the river to supoort power generation. There is barely enough elevation drop to drain a heavy rain.
Here is some stats on a couple of the dams. Both of them have a drop of less than 20 feet. These are not suited for commercial power generation.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA105334
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA104703
Move on to the mighty Columbia, known for it's hydro. There are many dams in Oregon.
The Columbia River has the water from most of Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. It enters Oregon near the Idaho border. One of the major dams is the McNary dam near Hermiston Oregon. The dam has a nominal pool level of 340 feet above sea level. That dam dumps right into the pool of the next dam which has a pool elevation of 265 feet. This stair step drop from pool to pool continues all the way down to the Boniville dam near Hood river. From there the river has very little drop all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Any more dams along there would simply flood out the powerhouse of the next dam upstream. The last dam the bonivile dam has a pool elevation of 74 feet. It discharges into the lower river near Portland Oregon. The river in Portland is at a nominal elevation of about 9 feet above sea level. That is why there are no dams on the Columbia between Portland and Astoria on the coast 80 miles away. If you put in a dam and allowed the pool to fill, all of downtown Portland would be under water.
Hydro power is cheap to produce, but there just isn't any more places with a good head of water to feed the demand for hydro power. There are a few creeks which can support some small hydro, but these are backyard projects. The environmentalists and outdoors men also resist the damming of every little stream. The lower Deschutes river is known for it's white water rafting. Damming that up would be a major legal battle.
The truth shall set you free!
I compared my 2006 F250 Crew Cab Long Bed with a 5.4L Gas engine to the Tesla Motors Tesla Roadster Electric car ( http://www.teslamotors.com/ ). I wanted to see what was the breakeven point for the Tesla (how many miles I had to drive before the Tesla would make sense).
In my estimates, I am not counting Insurance, Maintenance, Taxes or Cost of Financing. I am also making the assumption, that I will never go to Home Depot, haul something or plan anything with my family.
I am also assuming that both vehicles will last forever.
My truck cost me about $32,500 and gets about 13.8 MPG.
The Tesla Roadster cost $100,000 and gets about 50 miles on a buck.
I am assuming that Gas prices are $4.00 per gallon and the mileage on both vehicles are the same rate (i.e. average cost of City/Highway).
The Answer:
I would have to drive 250,000 miles before the cost benefit of owning the Tesla Roadster.
Now the I must admit that the Tesla Roadster is more of a babe magnet than my F250, but I will not factor in the cost of a divorce from my wife.
Well, I've been struggling to get my ideas through many EV manufacturers, but no one seems to be interested in increasing the range of electric vehicles in efficient ways. Here is my point: Instead of having to wait 'til the next power outlet to refuel a fully electric car every 120 miles running exclusively on the power stored in batteries, why not "help" it by generating some power with what is available along the way? I mean, some people tried solar powered vehicles, others tried power generation while you coast, but what about a combination of it all, and more! You have a lot of forces interacting while you drive, and one could use everything available! Imagine an electric vehicle, with solar panels on top, one motor in each wheel which generates power while you coast, power generating shock absorbers (and here in Quebec, Canada, roads are bumpy!), and why not a set of fans, which would be hidden while accelerating or cruising, but showing up while coasting and breaking to generate some extra power? Only one of these is not enough to make a significant difference, but all of them combined, if it does make a 20% to 30% difference, would get pretty interesting... I've seen a concept not that far from this, but not using efficiently everything available. It's called the Venturi Eclectic, made by Venturi (www.venturi.fr). Not too bad, but the windmill on the top looks awful, and is a little prone to vandalism...
Lots of coverage on AutoBlogGreen and some videos up on YouTube ( more tubiness)
The skinny: based on popular I car ( selling very well in Europe ) Mitsubishi is planning to market a fully electric version. About 120 miles range, a bit better acceleration performance than gas version and same top speed. Announced pricetag: $24K.
Fully crashtested to european standards at least, performs as well as gas counterpart.
The prototypes are in fleet testing by Tokyo Electric Power Company ( TEPCO ) right now.
There is some competition from Subaru in the form of R1E and Nissan with the Mixim.
I guess the reviewer does not subscribe to ABG electric vehicle news.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
One of the problems I've noticed with electrics is that they don't seem well-suited, ironically, to urban drivers in many cases. In many cases if you live in the city you rent and you park on the street (and, in my case, my neighbors with houses and garages even park on the street and fill their garages with crap). If you don't have a garage to house the car in at night and thus, easy access to recharge it this is going to be a serious problem. Prices for commercial charging are likely to be vastly higher than charging it yourself at home and with the short power life it would seem to be necessary to charge on an almost daily basis.
Likewise, the stated mileage doesn't sound like it takes into account things like being stuck on the freeway for hours while your engine is still idling and consuming power or being stuck in downtown traffic so, while you're unlikely to be driving your full range daily, it seems just as likely that with greater urban congestion you'll be running through a lot of power while you don't manage to actually go very far making the need for frequent recharging necessary.
Likely solutions will arise, but problems seem to be significant (what about jackasses just unplugging your car if it's somehow charging on the street?) regardless. It's a shame too because the urban environment is the ideal place for an electric car where it would help reduce both air and noise pollution and where trips are generally much shorter and infrequent. I can really see a car share program being able to make excellent use of electrics, but that's about it.
HUH?? How in the heck can you honestly believe that?
ALL electric and hybrid vehicles are priced way out of the reach of the typical american. Fact is the typical american makes less than $32,000.00 a year. The payment on a $24,000.00 car is insane and therefore not afforadble by the masses only by the few rich people. Most people can afford USED cars under $8000.00 some stretch to the $14,000.00 mark but not many.
the ONLY way to get this going is get subcompact efficient cars that are under $11,000.00 NEW. That is the only answer, nothing else will make a difference.
If the common man and woman cant buy the car then it will make no difference. and your other suggestions only will punish the poor and working class. The guy barely making it at a paltry $16.00 an hour will suffer huge because he HAS to drive a old low gas mileage car to work and back. The rich making $60,000 a year or more will whine about $5.50 a gallong gas but it will not affect them. The poor people which outnumber the middle class and rich 20 to 1 are who will suffer.
So your plan is to punish the poor? I like my plan. a 200% tax on all luxury cars. Rich dude has to have a Hummer H2? then he can pay for cost reduction on 5 electric cars for poor people. Want that Fararri? you get to subsidise 20 Smart fortwo's to be sold at 1/2 price to poor families.
That is the only workable answer. Otherwise it will take well over 25 years before the current hybrids and future electrics to trickle down to the poor where it will make the biggest difference. The poor kid making minimum wage will only be able to afford that prius when he can buy it for $800.00. Otherwise he will be buying that gas hog ford escort that only get's 21mpg.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
do you enjoy spreading FUD?
http://www.energyexperts.org/energy_solutions/res_details.cfm?resourceID=3823&keyword=cheap§or=All
"A 250 hp standard efficiency motor has a pretty good efficiency--on the order of 94.2%" There is also the efficiency of the battery in storing and generating electricity to consider, but this too is quite high.
Also, IC engines are more like 20% efficient, according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_combustion_engine#Engine_Efficiency
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Unfortunately that wouldn't be just a dedicated circuit; it'd probably be a dedicated drop, or you'd at least have to get your standard 200A service bumped to 300A. If everyone on the block gets one the power company probably isn't going to be able to provide that much power for a while.
Not a problem if you own (and spend a lot of time in) a business in a commercial or industrial area of course.
The Big Auto Lobby will never buy in to a vehicle with zero mass.
However, they are just fine with vehicles that use 2-3 times the energy of the Sun.
Write your Congressman today!
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
First generation hybrids are hyped a little too much for me. While they do improve on "in town" and stop and go mileage, their combined hi way and city mileage isn't all that impressive when compared with other economy vehicles. Right now, for single passenger commuting, motorcycles and scooters rein supreme in the mileage game. I really like the idea of the Volt and other plug in hybrids. The engine powers a generator, which drives an electric motor. This is actually a proven technology as it has been used to power freight trains for a few decades. My largest problems with Electric Only vehicles is the huge load that is needed to run things like climate control. I don't know about you, but many of us live in areas where we need heat for at least part of the year. A/C is an even larger drain. How far can a car that can drive 300 miles on a full charge make it when its below freezing and a heater needs to going full blast just to stay comfortable? How much do things like loads from radios and GPS systems and other electronic devices that we use on a daily basis shorten the range? My other problem with EO vehicles is the recharge time. I mostly drive 20 miles one way, but do go on long road trips. I hate the hassle of flying. I've driven coast to coast before, sometimes going 18 hours or more at a stretch. Having to be stopped for longer than I would be driving really limits the appeal of an EO vehicle.
Very funny.
Most electricity is shaped. When I was a Power Engineer at Tek-Cominco in Trail, BC, we shaped the power from one of the hydro dams with additional power from other sources - hydro however does not need much shaping, as you can kick in additional generators as demand increases.
Most dams in the Pacific Northwest (hint, ever hear a song called Roll On Columbia) have very large drops. We have these things called Mountains here, specifically the Rocky Mountains. Even the dams that provide electricity for Seattle along our Coastal mountain chains have very large drops. It's not like the small teeny dams you have in the rest of the US. Most such dams have many turbines, with variable generation capabilities.
Please realize energy sources and shaping may differ depending where you live.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Why did they not mention the V1 from Venture Vehicles? Here is the latest update from them that has some of the sketches of their design proposals. They are still targeting a 2009Q2 release (I hope they hit it), which is before 4 of the 6 vehicles listed.
It could just be me as that is about the only electric vehicle that I follow or care about, but I have a sneaking suspicion that TFA didn't do as much homework as they should have (I know, I know...and no I'm not new here, relatively speaking).
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
A possible solution would be to make the battery easily and mechanically replaceable - a module. Drive to a service station, exchange the nearly empty battery into a fully charged one, and leave the old one to charge. That way you wouldn't need high-power electric lines everywhere.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Your math has so many flaws, I'm not even sure where to start.
If you're car was using 100-200hp constantly you'd be hard accelerating up to around a constant rate of about 120-160mph all the time.
Did you actually calculate out how much hp a car uses at a constant real-world speed? It's actually much closer to 10-30hp at freeway speeds all depending on air, tire and transmission resistance. There's many formulas around the internet for this. Pick your favorite.
Charging a car overnight connected to a 240 Volt charger is well within feasible.
First, efficiency of generating electricity (work done/energy produced) is 60% tops.
This is roughly correct for state of the art gas-fired plants. Efficiently numbers like the above don't even make sense, though, for the large (and growing) fraction of our power mix that is nuclear, and the growing portion that is wind-powered.
Then there is attenuation loss while its delivered to the consumer.
The power grid is over 90% efficient overall. Locally generated energy (say, from PV panels on your roof) is even better in this regard.
Then it has to be stored in batteries which lose energy over time.
It's starting to sound like you're outside your area of expertise. IAAEVE (I am an electric vehicle engineer.) Are you?
Electric engine has THEORETICAL top efficiency of around 45%.
This is total BS. Are you spreading misinformation deliberately or do you actually believe this? AC Propulsion's AC-150 drive system is about 90% efficient over a typical driving cycle. Follow the link to a spec sheet with the detailed efficiency map. Tesla Motors' propulsion system is based heavily on ACP's, and will be roughly the same in terms of efficiency.
The theoretical efficiency of gasoline engine (which I don't remember at the moment) is 2-3 times that.
The BS is flying thick, now. I don't know what you mean by "theoretical efficiency", but it's clear that you don't, either. Gasoline engines in the real-world cars I drive are around 15-18% efficient. (Did you really think they were 3 * 45 or 135% efficient?)
So for every calory [sic] of heat we burn (and release into atmoshere) with a gasoline engine we'd get 2-3 as much work.
Somehow you managed to get your conclusion in the right ballpark, but you have it backwards. Most modern EV propulsion systems are at least 3x as efficient as gasoline cars in a real-world, fair, wells-to-wheels energy comparison, making them about equivalent to 120-140 miles per gallon. You can do your own homework on this -- it's well documented. Tesla Motors' website has some interesting whitepapers and other material on the subject that's pretty easy to understand.
These cars will just end up burning more coal and release massive amount of greenhouse gases. But hey, it's cool to be green.
Spreading FUD when you don't know what you're talking about isn't cool at all. Even from coal, EVs are substantially more efficient and clean. This. Is. Well. Documented. And coal is just part of the power mix. Electricity is the ultimate flex fuel. And EV charging is biased towards off-peak times, when baseline (e.g. nuclear) energy is a larger part of the grid mix.
All of your numbers are wrong! I don't mean a little bit off, I mean blatantly dead wrong.
For example: "Electric engine has THEORETICAL top efficiency of around 45%."
Most electric motors are about 90% efficient.
"The theoretical efficiency of gasoline engine (which I don't remember at the moment) is 2-3 times that."
So that would make gas engines up to 135% efficient? Heh. . . AS best I can recall, the maximum for gas engines is roughly 33%. Most typical ones run about 20% efficient.
Many studies have been done on this subject, and they all concluded that electric cars are very significantly more energy-efficient than gas cars. IN FACT, that's the primary motivation behind electric cars. If they weren't more efficient, nobody would be interested in them. All it takes is about five minutes with Google or Wikipedia to dig up this info, it's no secret.
What, No Tango from Commuter Cars? That is the one I'm looking for. I've got no room in my garage for my car (bicycle stuff and other crap) and the Tango is just what i need for small commuting (98% of my driving).
Heh, of course if I had a Tango I would bicycle to work less......
Dude. Do you drive your car on full throttle 100% of the time?
Bet you have a bumper sticker written in mirror image on the front of you car saying "GET OUT OF MY WAY!"
I travel to work everyday on an electrically powered vehicle. It's called a tram, or a streetcar if you're of the American persuasion. 100 or so passengers travelling on a zero (local) emissions vehicle which takes up the same space as about, oh, 100 cars and the cost to the passenger is next to nothing.
The problem with cars in our cities is not that they run on petrol, gas, diesel or supergreen pie-in-the-sky imaginary fuel, it's that there are cars in our cities. Sure, if you live in the remote wilderness I might understand the need for wheels, but most of us live in urban areas or within commuting distances of them. Cars are a horribly inefficient and outdated mode of transportation, not just with energy but with space and the social ramifications that poor land usage entails.
Sure, the car was a good alternative to horses and given a choice I'd rather step in tarmac than horseshit, but that's about the only advantage the car has bought as far as I can see. It's time to remodel and redesign our cities. Higher density and better public transport. Nothing new about it, that's how cities like Paris, London and New York grew so big in the first place. Or you could look at the alternative, LA. I know where I'd rather live.
The module would require a crane to remove, or ten minutes of gruntwork if broken into smaller chunks.
People in Soviet Russia, however, appear to be afflicted with amusing juxtapositions of the aforementioned situation