High Efficiency Hybrid Car Planned For 2009

An anonymous reader writes "You may have heard some of the hype last month when California-based Aptera let out first word of its allegedly super fuel-efficient (and cheap) Typ-1 electric vehicle. A video test drive and gee-whiz specs breakdown at the Popular Mechanics site proves that this thing is for real. The plan is to have a vehicle that goes 120 miles on a single lithium-phosphate pack charge for 2008, with a 300-mpg model to follow by 2009. Aptera is also mentioned in Wired's new cover story as one of several early front-runners for the Automotive X Prize."

Comments

Electrics burn coal?

[dada21]

On many of these electrics, you do need to plug-in to get your initial charge. Isn't that causing just as much, if not more, pollution than burning oil locally?

I'm still not sure that anyone can actually decipher all the different impacts that "environmentally-friendly" vehicles or machines have. I know I read an article this year that spoke of the CO2 emissions for just peddling a bike or taking a walk, so even not using machinery seems to have an impact.

Then again, I'm not a big fan of the global warming scams out there, nor am I a fan of peak oil theory. I just need to see the whole picture, rather than what some people will say is a small portion of the picture, but ignores other ramifications of decision making.

One area we're visiting in India in January is a town on a hill that allows no cars or trucks (you usually can only get there by train). Same in Switzerland (entire towns with no machinery). Yes, the air is cleaner, but so are the people living there. If we all use electric vehicles in those towns (let's say), another town that generates the energy is going to get the brunt of the polluting. I'd rather pollute MY area, so we can see the direct effect, than push it off to a poorer neighborhood where we won't.

Global yadda-yadda-yadda, I think it is more important to focus on the damage you can actually see than try to control the world's climate.

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[TomorrowPlusX]

On many of these electrics, you do need to plug-in to get your initial charge. Isn't that causing just as much, if not more, pollution than burning oil locally?

Obviously, the electric car is consuming energy which has to be produced, somehow. In a magic future it will be generated by wind, solar, geothermal and some sort of better-thought-out nuclear like pebble-bed reactors. Right now that energy will be produced by oil/coal so yes there will be pollution.

That being said, automotive IC engines are completely and utterly piss-poor at converting oil to torque. They are shamefully poor at it, with efficiency down in the 20-30% range. Modern electricity generation plants ( using coal or oil ) convert quite a bit more of the chemical energy in the fuel to electricity. They're really quite good at it. They can run hot, they don't need gearboxes, etc etc. Even better, these facilities can have scrubbers and other carbon reduction measures which are too expensive for cars. Also, of the electricy consumed by an electric car, far more of it can be converted to torque simply because electric drivetrains are so simple and direct. No need for transmissions, and no need for differentials or CV joints ( provided the motor is in the wheel as some electrics do )

So, yes, electric cars are not non-polluting. But, the amount of fuel burnt to move an electric car 100km is quite a bit less than even the best hybrid IC car can pull off. And looked at in the long term, electric cars are so simple I see no reason for a well built electric not to last 30 years ( provided good maintenance ). During those 30 years your city/town may have upgraded to a new power generation mechanism which is cleaner. Thus less pollution. Can your IC engine car do that?

That being said, I'll continue to ride my bicycle to work, and only use my ( tiny, 2 door stickshift ) car when it's really necessary

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[Bobb Sledd]

Yes, the temperature readings are facts; but the theory of global warming is not. Indeed, over the past 50 years, it has been shown a gentle warming of .5C. That is not statistically significant, and you know that. But you are making the leap that since temperature readings are facts, then so must be global warming.

Looking at only 50 years of temperatures and making an assumption without knowing all the variables is as silly as building a trend from a single Spring season and saying "the trend shows that the temperatures will continue to get warmer forever!"

It is only recently that we discovered that el Nino seems to cause general warming trends on a cycle larger than one year.

True, you might possibly push the temperature aggregately -- assuming there were no other natural environmental factors (direct sun flares, enormous crashing asteroids, Yellowstone exploding, etc.). Frankly I think if Hillary Clinton would shut her mouth that might help the situation the most.

But speaking of aggregately, that only works if you get everyone to lower emissions. Even if you could get everyone in, say, America to zero emissions... what about China? What about every other budding nation that is just now coming into their Industrial Revolutions, and starting to consume more gas and coal? Then what Americans did will make a hair's bit of difference on global warming.

Look, global warming might be true and real. You can even tell me "I told you so" later if it is. But my point is that it is NOT a fact, yet. Maybe in your mind there is overwhelming evidence. I am skeptical.

Re:Not Very Pretty

[morgan_greywolf]

This one pretty enough for ya? :-D

What's Taking Them?

[RAMMS EIN]

It's nice that this is up and coming, but that sort of thing is also known as "vaporware". We've been hearing announcements of cleaner vehicles for years and years. Even Lada demonstrated one last century! And what do we have? A handful of hybrids...

Why is it taking so long? Why is it that I can see things that could be improved, and it's not being done? For example, why do the two hybrid cars I can buy here have gasoline engines and a fuel economy comparable to a diesel in the same price class, when they could (1) burn diesel, which has a much better fuel economy _and_ is cheaper here, and (2) use the combustion engine _only_ for electricity generation, so that it can run at its optimum efficiency? And, while I'm at it, why not a more efficient engine (e.g. Sterling or Wankel instead of Otto)?

And why do we have cars that can run on up to 85% ethanol (the rest being gasoline) instead of 100%? And why do diesel cars not run on straight vegetable oil right out of the factory, even though you can get them converted for about 2 thousand euros, after which they can run on straight vegetable oil _or_ diesel?

Come on, people! It's not like there are unsolved technical problems here! The solutions are known, they are just not in mass-manufactured cars.

And governments! The (well, some previous) government here has refused to lower taxes for CO2-neutral fuels because "the environmental benefits are not clear". This despite studies having found that using straight vegetable oil instead of diesel reduces CO2 emissions _even_ if fossil fuels are burnt in every possible phase of the production and transportation. If it wasn't for that, straight vegetable oil would be cheaper than diesel here.

And all the misconceptions people have. "But electricity generation emits CO2, too!" Well, depends how you generate your electricity, don't you think? "But the crops for producing vegetable oil will use up valuable arable land!" Well, not if you use crops that don't, or algae, which grow in deserts and on salt water and have a much higher yield anyway. And on and on.

I don't claim _I_ have all the right answers, but it's sad to see how messed up the situation is, considering the things that _are_ known and _could_ be used.

Re:But, will it fly?

[curmudgeous]

These vehicles are intended as suburban commuters, not general purpose load haulers. I understand that lots of people own boats, campers and trailers, but how many need to tow them seven days per week? Also, how many families already have more than one vehicle just because they don't want to drag the recreational stuff around everywhere?

I don't expect we'll see many of these in rural areas, nor will they be suited for regions with lots of cold weather (battery performance drops with temperature), but for coastal regions and pretty much anywhere below the Mason-Dixon line these could be a godsend.

My typical commute is about 10 miles each way with minimal baggage, and practically anyplace I need to go falls within a 30 miles radius. If I could find a safe, practical electric commuter vehicle with at least a 100 mile range for under $25k I'd buy it tomorrow.

Welcome to two centuries ago

[busydoingnothing]

What many people don't know is that the electric car actually predates gasoline and diesel vehicles, but for so[big]me rea[oil]son, disappeared into obscurity (I guess we could blame lousy battery technology, too). As recent as a decade ago, the GM EV-1 provided a viable solution to current car technology, but again, disappeared into obscurity. The story of this car can be seen in the documentary Who Killed The Electric Car? . It's a damn shame that such a solid alternative was sent to an early grave. Hopefully this time around, with the focus on global warming, car companies will get smart and embrace this technology.