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

But, will it fly?

[WED Fan]

Where's my flying car?

Non-fossil fuel vehicles will start selling when they are made as inexpensively as traditional vehicles. And, when they have the range, capacity, and easy and quick refuel capabilities.

Until this point is reached, they don't stand a chance in the American system.

Re:But, will it fly?

[Notquitecajun]

You missed a couple of points as well, something HIGHLY important to a lot of American suburban/rural owners. Horsepower, towing capability, and size. The size issue is being figured out with some of the hybrids, but a pure electric car is going to be only for travel purposes, NOT general-use. If you have a boat or a trailer, they're presently useless. If you get killed because you get run over by a truck, they're unsafe.

Re:But, will it fly?

[eno2001]

Yeah... that's what we really want. The general public, airborne. Think about all the idiot drivers in SUVs that flip their vehicles regularly. Do you really want those mouth breathers FLYING? At high speed? If we ever do get flying cars (vertical take off and landing vehicles, or VTOLs), it won't be long before these VTOLs are slamming into the sides of office buildings (forget terrorists) and crashing through people's rooftops. Drunk flying anyone? Mid-air collisions? The only way I'd be OK with flying cars was if the average population not only had an IQ of 180 to start, but also had a really strong sense of REAL personal responsibility. That is to say, "Not only do I care about taking care of myself, but I care about the wellbeing of every human being that I am around". Until that happens (yeah right), I'll be casting my vote against the common neanderthal getting off the ground.

Re:But, will it fly?

[dolby2]

Is this to say that electric engines don't have enough "horsepower", torque and can't be used for towing? I always thought that electric engines were the pinnacle of torque and power. Hence Diesel Electric freight trains (obviously not economical for a passenger car or even tractor trailer), and such. The only thing holding them back is range, recharging time and cost.

Re:But, will it fly?

[orclevegam]

According to the wikipedia article this stuff is stable to temperatures of 18C, and the average temperature where it's found at is between 0C and 2C, so you temperature at the bottom of the ocean would need to rise by 16C. If it's hot enough that the ocean bottoms temperature has been raised 16C we're already screwed, as most crops would probably already be dead and most animal life as well.

Re:But, will it fly?

[GregPK]

One thing you missed about electric engines... They have wayyyyy more tourque than a comparable weight V8 engine. Hell the telsa has soo much tourque that they haven't been able to find anything outside of a single gear transmission strong enough to handle it's power output.

Re:But, will it fly?

[Archimonde]

The only way I'd be OK with flying cars was if the average population not only had an IQ of 180 to start

Problem is, if the average population has IQ of 180, then technically, it has IQ of 100.

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.

Re:But, will it fly?

[saboola]

Yeah... that's what we really want. The general public, going fast without horses. Think about all the idiot riders on four horse carriages that roll their carriages regularly. Do you really want those mouth breathers going faster? If we ever do get horseless carriages, it won't be long before these CARs are slamming into the sides of farm houses and crashing through people's porches. Drunk driving anyone? Head-on collisions? The only way I'd be OK with horseless carriages was if the average population not only had an IQ of 180 to start, but also had a really strong sense of REAL personal responsibility. That is to say, "Not only do I care about taking care of myself, but I care about the wellbeing of every human being that I am around". Until that happens (yeah right), I'll be casting my vote against the common neanderthal getting a vehicle that is not pulled my animal.

Re:But, will it fly?

[smilindog2000]

Let's check your list:

• inexpensive as traditional vehicles: $29K - yep
  
• range - the plug-in hybrid can go coast-to-coast - yep
  
• capacity - 2 1/2 seats... in between roadsters and a 4-seater - yep
  
• quick refuel capability - Runs on gas - yep
  

I know you wanted first post, so I don't blame you for not reading TFA. However, you got it 100% wrong. Better luck next first-post.

Re:But, will it fly?

[orclevegam]

I personally wouldn't have modded you flamebait, but I can offer a suggestion for how to avoid it in the future (although no guarantees, odds are if your statement isn't popular you'll still get a troll or more likely an overrated mod). Whenever you make a claim that will require people to take action, particularly if it's an unpopular opinion it's critical to cite sources. Remember the burden is on you to prove your point, particularly in a crowd of geeks. Most of us are open to discussion, we just ask that everyone has some sort of credible backup to their claims, either through logic, or by citing some semi-credible source. Please, if you can provide some links to papers saying that a small climate change of a few degrees will be enough to release the methane trapped under the ocean, then by all means post it, I'd love to read it. Of course I may have missed the point of your comment, so if you're trying to say you missed a variable and came to the wrong conclusion just ignore me. Likewise if you're saying I missed something let me know.

Re:But, will it fly?

[MattW]

If you get killed because you get run over by a truck, they're unsafe.

Midsize cars, large cars, minivans, and import luxury cars are all statistically safer for the driver than an SUV. Subcompacts are more dangerous for the driver, but because SUVs and pickups are more than twice as likely to kill someone else in an accident, that's only because of all the SUVs on the road. Obviously SUVs and trucks have their place, but the exemption in fuel efficiency standards for them should be removed, and they should be taxed like any gas guzzler.

The point, though, is that you can drive a midsize car, and you're just as safe as you would be in an SUV, and you're not putting the OTHER drivers at risk to get your safety. If you *really* want to be safe, then you want an import luxury car or a minivan, both of which are also significantly safer for other drivers than SUVs.

Courtesy of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab study on safety.

Re:But, will it fly?

[nospam007]

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 get it. For the dozen times I want a boat I fucking rent it at the destination, I'm not going to buy it, paint it, clean it, store it, tow it around.
Renting is way cheaper.
Unless you're talking about small boats for catching a fish in the wild that will cost you 1200$ to catch and eat it everything combined.
If those idiots want to drive their boat tractor to work 300 days a year, they can pay for it.

Re:But, will it fly?

[amRadioHed]

What do you mean driving SUVs is none of our business? Ever hear the saying "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"? If the SUVs are emitting pollutants that everyone has to pay for then it sure as hell is our business. If SUV owners want people to mind their own business then they should stick to truly harmless pastimes, like sodomy.

300 What?

[Nom du Keyboard]

with a 300-mpg model to follow by 2009.

Uh, how do you measure MPG in an electric car?

Re:300 What?

[hey!]

It's an irrelevant question when we are talking (as we are) about a hybrid car, which runs on gasoline but uses electrical storage to modify how and when the gasoline engine runs.

Re:300 What?

[UbuntuDupe]

I don't think irrelevant in either case. When someone asks for the MPG, they're asking for the fuel efficiency. In the hybrid case, where gasoline is its only external fuel, that should be simple to calculate. When it's "all electric", you take the fuel that powers that electricity -- using a representative number for the electricity generation -- and compare that to how much distance it gets you.

Though for the optimal apples-to-apples comparison, you might as well just take a given gasoline price and compute how much it costs to power one mile of travel for that price, vs. some existing car being used today.

Re:300 What?

[Firethorn]

I've read the articles, of course, but I feel the need to respond to the part you quoted.

You see, I feel that the 300mpg figure is cutting it very close to being fraudulent, and at least deceiving.

Because I really doubt that if you drained the batteries at the start that it'd get 300mpg, or even if you drove it over the test course in such a way that the battery was equally charged at the beginning and end. Say, 50% charge - enough room for regenerative braking to be utilized, not so low that the car's trying to charge the battery back up.

As such, I'd like to see some new figures quoted - average mileage per kwh, plus a figure for how many kwh the battery stores, then gas mileage as I proposed.

'300mpg over the first 300 miles' isn't as useful as '1 mile per kwh city, 250 kwh pack, 50 miles per gallon gasoline, 10 gallon tank'.*

*Plus the standard disclaimers about driving habits, patterns, routes make a difference here.

Re:300 What?

[skelly33]

The above responses, I think, are over-complicating the assessment. The calculation should be as simple as work performed/energy consumed. There's probably an official reference somewhere, but I quickly found this page mentioning 125,000,000 joules in a gallon of fuel.

This page on the Powertrain & Energy tab says that the 10e (electric model) uses a 10Kwh battery pack.

1 joule is 1 watt/second. So we take 10,000 watt-hours, multiply by 3600 (# seconds per hour) to get 36,000,000 joules total energy put in. So.... if a gallon of fuel is 125,000,000 joules, then we charged up with the equivalent energy of 0.288 gallons of fuel.

With a total range of 120 miles on 0.288 gallons of fuel it comes out to 428MPG. This is inexact obviously; I don't see what they're claiming for MPG on the electric model (though I'm sure it's less), but any difference could be accounted for in losses and/or margins of error such as actual versus listed capacity of the storage pack. If, for example, the battery pack actually holds 11Kwh instead of 10Kwh, the number drops to 378MPG. The point is that this CAN be calculated in terms of equivalency to gasoline based on the amount of potential energy in a gallon of gas.

That's the best I can come up with imperically off the top of my head. I'm without a doubt though that using the price of fuel versus the price of electricity to make this determination is not the way to go.

Not Very Pretty

[dirkdidit]

I don't know what it is about these cars of tomorrow, but they do not look attractive at all. Apparently the people who buy these cars feel like they need to announce to the world that they just bought an overly expensive golf-cart all under the guise of saving the planet.

When are we going to see high-range electric cars that don't look like something out a bad video game?

Re:Not Very Pretty

[morgan_greywolf]

This one pretty enough for ya? :-D

Re:Not Very Pretty

[Loke the Dog]

When american culture stops idealizing the 60's.

In other words, this is how effective cars look. Sure, you can make the detals a bit more aestethically pleasing, but this "futuristic golf car"-look will generally stick because it gives a perfect mix between performance and efficiency. They do what they were designed for well, and those who desire this mix of performance and efficiency will learn to like this look, because it will symbolize what they desire.

So basically, this is a case of the beuty being in the eye of the beholder. However, I do think this car was unusually ugly, but its over all style was good.

Re:Not Very Pretty

[ArcherB]

This one pretty enough for ya? :-D

base price: $98,000

Not any more.

Re:Not Very Pretty

[JohnsonJohnson]

It goes deeper than that. Basically familiar designs are more easily accepted than others. For example, when BMW broke with the smooth, egg like trend in luxury car design of the 90s they received a lot of flack, but current evolutions of the design language (new 5, 3 and 1 series) are not as shocking as the first Bangle (now van Hooydonk) designed cars (7 and 6 series and the Z4) and some are even regarded as beautiful (new 3 series coupe). A more obvious example is the evolution of current car design from the early horseless carriages that resemble nothing more than a traditional horse drawn carriage, and we still retain the names of carriages eg. cabriolet.

On the other hand, my not well informed opinion is that Aptera's design is probably not likely to be the shape of the future. For one, it's high ride height and 3 wheel chassis will lead to a ride with a lot of body roll and possible downforce issues leading to high speed instability. It's ironic that the first thing Aptera's website points out is the roll over capability of the vehicle since it looks like a platform that will roll over in aggressive driving. Regardless of whether it has moose test problems or not it will ride more like a motorcycle than a car and not everyone appreciates that level of body lean. Secondly, the airfoil like profile, while probably very low drag, severely compromises luggage space. A version that could seat 4 people and carry luggage would probably have a different envelope and since that vehicle would serve a larger market would probably be a more accurate reflection of the car of the future. At any rate, there are aerodynamic as well as aesthetic reasons to have a low ride height and I don't think future cars will have a higher ride height than current automobiles.

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?

[DarthTeufel]

RTFA?

In order to win the X-Prize, they must take into account the upstream (ie powerplant) green house gas production that it takes to power the car.

Aptera right now is 350 MPG, and estimated cost of $24-27k.

Thats pretty bad ass IMO

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[morgan_greywolf]

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? Someone really committed to save the planet will want to use one of the many alternative energy sources available. It's possible to live almost completely off the grid and still have plenty of electricity. For the average person, solar panels or wind turbine power will allow you to get energy from renewable sources. When you get good power from these, you sell your excess back to the grid and then pay for energy from the grid when these aren't putting out enough juice. Everybody wins. You get cheap power, the plant produces less power for you, reducing your carbon footprint, so the planet gets saved too.

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[KillerBob]

Coal power is an awful lot cleaner now than it was 100 years ago. It's not perfect, but the average coal plant produces *significantly* less pollution than the cars owned by the houses it powers.

And that's completely ignoring the fact that in California, the law requires that your power company provide you the option to buy "green" power: power produced by wind, solar, geothermal, or hydroelectric sources. It tends to be a little more expensive than normal power, but I'm guessing that the kind of person who wouldn't balk at buying a $30,000 car simply because it's electric (when you can get a *very* efficient gasoline car for less than half the price) probably wouldn't be all that concerned about an extra $0.02/kwh.

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[gambolt]

Depends on what you compare it to. Compare it to a Hummer and it's a huge improvement. Compare it to any of the hybrids currently in production and it's in the same ballpark. There are also regional differences since some places are more dependent on coal than others. The car is thus more environmentaly friendly when you drive it in Ohio than when you drive it in California.

It does make efforts at reducing electricity consumption seen kinda silly since switching to plugin hybrids will cause such a huge spike in demand that forgetting to turn off the lights when you leave the room for a few minutes.

I do think that we are going to start seeing a lot more stuff marketed as eco-friendly when in fact it doesn't make a damn bit of difference. The real danger with this is that people will think they are making a difference and doing their part and thus become complacent. Until the problem is solved, nobody has done their part.

I thought I had stats on this bookmarked but can seem to find it at the moment. Firefox has been eating bookmarks recently.

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[dada21]

I completely understand that part -- our own home(s) are moving to get off the electric grid, but not for ecological reasons (we want to save money as the dollar plummets).

Solar isn't clean, that's for sure. The 3 solar-panel investors we speak with have told us of the ecological burdens of producing solar panels. We're still moving to solar (and to geothermal A/C and heat) for our primary residence to lower the long-term cost of energy, but we know that we're likely causing as much damage to the environment elsewhere to bring our cost-reductions home, over the long run.

We have a few greenie friends who really think they're saving the environment, but the more I research it, the more it seems that there is nothing you can truly do to reduce your carbon footprint, even if it seems logical. There are too many parameters to wade through to calculate what a certain mode of transportation or energy generation costs.

I'd love one of those basement-nukes, even if it cost $5b. Run the thing at 5c/KwH, and feed the rest of the power back to the grid for a nice refund each month. After a decade of inflation, I wonder how much energy would cost.

I also don't feel safe in some of the lighter cars. My favorite car happens to be a diesel Land Rover, but it's outside of my price range. I do like feeling safe, and I like something that can handle Chicago winters. Our little Subaru (2.0l I4) is fairly decent on gas mileage, but I'd love a diesel if they ever started making one. It handles great in snow and ice, is definitely safe (my wife totalled one of my Subarus years ago at 75MPH and walked away), but it's still no eco-friendly machine.

For me, the best reduction of polluting we've done is cut our driving significantly, but we travel by plane much more than before, so I'm sure that's a negative reduction :)

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[RAMMS EIN]

``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?''

It depends on how you generate your electricity. I would have thought that's obvious, but apparently it isn't to many people.

``I'm still not sure that anyone can actually decipher all the different impacts that "environmentally-friendly" vehicles or machines have.''

I agree. The only thing that is certain for now is that they _do_ cause pollution. Exactly how much, I couldn't say, but it means that the environmental friendliness is only relative.

``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.''

Of course. The human body consumes O2 and emits CO2. But there is something worth noting: the carbon we emit typically comes from renewable resources (i.e. plants or animals). This means it is released after recently having been absorbed, so the net effect is 0. Contrast this with burning fossil fuels, where you are releasing carbon that had been buried for millions of years into the atmosphere.

``Then again, I'm not a big fan of the global warming scams out there, nor am I a fan of peak oil theory.''

Global warming is a fact, and that mineral oil extraction will peak at some point is given. Whether these are things we should be afraid of or feel guilty about is a different matter.

``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.''

It is very hard to get a clear picture, with all the clueless people shouting so loudly. One the one hand, there are people still pretending and trying to convince others that the changes that are happening to the environment aren't really there. On the other hand, you have people who have blind faith in some clean technology and think it will solve all problems if only the evil governments and oil companies stopped fighting it. Millions of people just parrot one camp or another, and they're all wrong. In the meantime, there _are_ good ideas that we could implement, but they are mostly left by the wayside because they don't stand out among all the wrong-headed noise makers.

``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.''

That, of course, is the main problem with any kind of pollution. The effect isn't felt in full by the people generating it, and thus doesn't factor into the cost of things. Therefore, cleaner alternatives almost universally seem more expensive. Thus, it makes economic sense to pollute. It's hard to do something about this without resorting to heavy-handed, commitee-decided, wrong-headed measures. Like, for example, in the Netherlands, where there is a tax cut on hybrid cars. Think about it. It's on hybrid cars. Not on clean cars. If it's a hybrid, it gets the cut, no matter how polluting it is. If it's a clean car but not a hybrid, it doesn't get the cut. Madness!

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?

[ArsonSmith]

then install solar panels on your roof of your garage and use that juice to charge the car overnight.

Ohh, man that's funny...

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[Red Flayer]

"My favorite car happens to be a diesel Land Rover.... I do like feeling safe.... "

You're not safer in a Land Rover than a car. You're just making the people around you less safe.

It should be noted that he did not say he likes to *BE* safe, just that he likes to *FEEL* safe.

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[DragonWriter]

Hmmm? Since when was "global warming" a solid fact?

Since it was shown by measurements temperature measurements. Measurements are observations, and observations are (the only things which, in scientific terms, are properly labelled as) facts.

Technically, the degree to which that warming is anthropogenic and, a fortiori, the degree to which it is associated with particular causes will always be a matter of theory, rather than fact, just as, e.g., evolution and gravitation are theories.

Nevertheless, many components of the relevant theory are rather well-tested.

fact, it is quite hotly debated among scientific circles: 1)whether it even exists

No, in fact, whether there is an increase over the history of measurements in global temperatures is not hotly debated.

2)what man does to influence it,

There is little serious scientific debate over whether or not the current warming trend is substantially influenced by anthropogenic factors, especially greenhouse gas emissions. There is some debate over the precise degree, and whether other, non-anthropogenic, factors in net reinforce the warming trend or run counter to it (IIRC, the best current evidence is that the net of non-anthropogenic factors favors cooling for the last several decades despite observed continued warming, and that anthropogenic factors are, therefore, responsible for more than all of the observed warming. But there is certainly some debate about that, and some reasonably believe that anthropogenic factors explain less than all of the observed warming.)

(3)what natural phenomenon(s) influence(s) it,

We have a pretty good idea of which natural phenomena have major influences, though there are some gaps and some legitimate dispute about the exact contribution of each.

4)what we can do to reverse its effects.

We can't even change the course of a single thunderstorm yet, so reversing change to the climate globally seems like an exercise in futility, doesn't it?)


Its often easier to control an aggregate than the individual events that make it up. That's how (e.g.) casinos manage to operate at a profit: they don't have to control the outcome of a single spin of the roulette wheel to control the long-term payoff. Similarly, the ability to control individual weather events and the ability to influence climate are two completely different things, and the inability to do the former says nothing about ability to do the latter.

We don't even know if the sun might cause more "global warming" effects than any pollution man can make.

Actually, we have a pretty good idea of the degree of influence of "solar forcing" over the recent portion of the warming trend.

Or volcano eruptions.

We actually have a pretty good idea, here, too, that they mostly contribute to cooling in the short term, and global activity isn't overall enough to do much for long-term warming, barring a major eruption of either a giant caldera volcano (like Yellowstone) or flood basalt volcano (like the Columbia River Basalt group), none of which have occurred in (several times longer than the length of) recorded history.

Now, even if "global warming" does not exist, does this lessen the reason to reduce pollution any? Certainly not.

If it didn't, it would certainly change what constitutes pollution. Lots of greenhouse gases aren't really "pollutants" in any other sense (they don't have negative effects other than their contribution to warming at the levels they are likely to be found without controls.) "Pollution" is defined by harmful effects.

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:Electrics burn coal?

[wolfemi1]

Or, you could still use the panels, by charging batteries, then running the current at night through some compact fluorescent (for higher efficiency) lights, so that the solar panels could generate electricity to charge your car!

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[Shao Ke]

Actually, that's not too bad. Use the daylight to generate electricity and sell it onto the grid at 20-30 cents/kwh. Then buy it back at night at 10 cents/kwh to recharge your car.

Re:Electrics burn coal?

[misanthrope101]

Worst case scenario, power from the plug comes from coal. It's still cleaner than burning gasoline.

The way I look at is this. I have x dollars to spend on a car. If I spend those dollars on a conventional car, I get to buy much more gas. Every dollar spent on gas sends money to Saudi Arabia and the Wahaabi extremists who want me to die. Every dollar spent at the pump keeps us in Iraq, and in the larger picture in the middle east as a whole. Every dollar spent at the pump increases the chances that the govt will let oil companies drill in Alaska, Yellowstone, wherever. Ever dollar spent at the pump is a dollar telling the US govt that I'm just fine with the US energy policy.

Or, I could pay the "hybrid tax" and give my money to Toyota or some other car company. Every dollar spent on hybrid technology is a message to the car companies that I want more fuel-efficient cars. Every dollar spent on a hybrid tells the US government the same thing. Every dollar spent on a hybrid goes towards making hybrids profitable and attractive as a technology they might want to develop further. This choice doesn't make anyone a saint, but I'd rather fund Toyota hybrid engineering than bomb-making by Wahaabi fundamentalists.

Driving a hybrid isn't "saving the world." You're just kicking the world in the groin less forcefully than the Ford F-150 driver next to you. I will get a Prius as soon as I can afford to ditch my old Subaru. I don't think of it as saving the planet. I'm just as concerned with not giving money to Saudi and other repressive regimes as I am in slowing global warming, conserving fuel, or whatever. The choice has different aspects, but either way the way we spend our money is a reflection of our values.

Three wheels?

[asquithea]

An interesting and radical design -- but the three wheel arrangement bothers me:

Single wheel drive? According to the video, much of the weight is over the front, but the driving wheel is at the back. That might be OK for California, but I wonder how well this vehicle would cope with a little ice and snow.

I see that they've done it that way to simplify the transmission, but I'd much rather have four wheels.

Re:Three wheels?

[kalislashdot]

It has to have 3 wheels, so it can be classified as a motorcycle. Once you got to 4 wheels it is a car and is required to have airbags, crumple zones and seat belts, and a whole slew of safety features.

So the fact that is this not a car but a motorcycle I think they are labeling it wrong, A 300MPG Car???, nope a 300MPG enclosed bike is what it is. Heck my wife's scooter gets 70MPG.

The previous post talks about rain a snow? Do you ride a motorcycle in the snow. Nope, same goes for this.

Re:Three wheels?

[MonorailCat]

The weight distribution will be such that the rear wheel is loaded more heavily (%wise) than any driven wheel of a 2wd car.

This car is probably not going to be a good choice for a climate with a lot of winter weather. Were this type of car to gain widespread acceptance, a model could be designed with tiny wheel motors in the front two wheels (maybe a few HP), something to help the car get going on low traction surfaces without contributing much weight. The rear wheel would still offer most of the motive force at speed.

The reverse trike configuration has fantastic possibilities for efficiency. Right off the bat you save rolling resistance by losing a wheel, and lower drivetrain losses as well. The weight and cost savings of doing away with driveshafts, universal joints and differentials are significant. The layout also lends itself to aerodynamic 'teardrop' shapes where a 4 wheel layout makes this difficult.
          Dynamically, a reverse trike with correct weight distribution will handle just like a 4wd car, or better (google t-rex). The four wheel layout is statically indeterminate, and as such, when cornering one wheel is carrying no load. A properly designed 3-wheel won't overturn much easier than a car with four wheels either.

If the option to do so were available, I'd be first in line to lose that 'extra' rear wheel.

Other incentives

[onkelonkel]

How about employer incentives. Your employer puts up solar panels in the employee parking lot for anyone driving an electric car to work. You park your car in the cool shade under the panels and plug in for a free 9 hour recharge. Wouldn't work everywhere, but in industrial park / business park settings in places like california or arizona it would work fine. High tech, "don't be evil" companies could lead the way.

Actually, make it simple. Put an AC plug next to every parking stall. In cold places we do it for block heaters. Employers pay for all sorts of perks to attract good employees. Why not add free recharge to the list.

Re:Other incentives

[penguin_dance]

Things I'd rather see:

How about employer incentives like working from home, so we don't have to drive there in the first place?

Re:Other incentives

[Firethorn]

Your employer puts up solar panels in the employee parking lot for anyone driving an electric car to work. You park your car in the cool shade under the panels and plug in for a free 9 hour recharge.

It'd be cheaper to simply put up a carport and pay the electric bill each month. Discounting massive subsidization of the solar panels, of course.

Actually, make it simple. Put an AC plug next to every parking stall. In cold places we do it for block heaters. Employers pay for all sorts of perks to attract good employees. Why not add free recharge to the list.

This would work well, I think. Especially if you have the carport charging plugs be on a circuit that allows discretionary turnoffs by the power company - this would increase baseload and not peak.

The power company is willing to cut quite a deal per kwh for these deals, as baseload power can cost them a third or even less than their more expensive peak sources.

People complain about how slow charging will be - but a major difference between pouring gasoline into a car and charging the batter is that pouring gasoline pretty much needs to be an attended activity - charging a car you only need the 30 seconds or so to attach the plug, then remove it before you leave. Heck, you could even set it up so that the act of backing out of the slot disengages the cord, which is on a auto retraction wheel. With 130 miles of range current, I still wouldn't need to charge every day.

Re:Other incentives

[ZeroExistenZ]

Please go out and find Who killed the electrical car

According to that documentary, there already were "electric charge stations" all over the USA, until someone decided they didn't want to produce those cars anymore.

Re:Other incentives

[Firethorn]

I mentioned thist stuff here, a little later in the thread.

Note that I didn't mention the Aptera at all - I talked about electric vehicles, but no specific company or model. It could be a Tesla Volt - while it has similar cargo capacity is at least guarenteed to be a fun ride(if you're into that).

Probably even safer too.

As for the design, as another person noted, it's extreme streamlining to reduce air friction. You see this sort of stuff anytime you see extreme efficiency vehicles.

The EV1 was a more conventional design, as are any number of other attempts.

I doubt electrics will have enough torque to go over rocky terrain or through mud. Though, I suppose this is fine. It will just relegate the electric car to a commute car.

In a torque contest an electric motor of similar HP will slaughter most diesel engines, much less gasoline models.

The only thing holding back electric vehicles is the power source - batteries are simply too expensive and don't hold enough power.

Too expensive, too small, and too fragile

[dlevitan]

The problem with all these super fuel efficient cars is that they're too expensive for a second car, too small for a primary car and overall, they look like toys. I'm sure its a wonderful car to drive, but it can't (for most people) be a primary car. It would be great for a trip across town to pick up groceries or to commute to work, but you need something else as well that can hold more than two people and has much more cargo space. Even a shopping trip to more than a few stores can often fill up a whole trunk in a sedan, and that car looks like it has very little cargo space. Which then brings up the next problem - if its a second car most people can't afford to spend $30k on a second car that's only for commuting. If the price ever gets down to $10-15k, I'm sure plenty of people will buy, but until then, its just not affordable.

Finally, the last point, the car looks like its flimsy and just a toy. I wonder if they've done any crash testing on it. If a minor collision completely destroys the drag profile and requires $15k in repairs then insurance is going to be astronomical for the car. How sturdy are the body panels and how easily replaceable are they? How does it do in a collision with an 18-wheeler? It's going to be hard to convince (especially) Americans that a car like that is safer on the roads than an SUV.

I wish them luck, and maybe in a few generations it will be popular, but it's going to take a lot of work.

Re:Too expensive, too small, and too fragile

[pavera]

First of all, nothing does well in a collision with an 18 wheeler. I saw an accident earlier this year where a range rover had its entire cabin area removed by an 18 wheeler. 18 wheelers will always kill people and completely maim cars when involved in accidents with passenger vehicles, unless we want like .5mpg tanks with 1ft of armor plating... even then I'd give the 18 wheeler a 50/50 shot.

It states in the article that this car passed government testing in a 45mph frontal offset collision. I don't know what other tests they've done, but it passed that one.

They also state that the side panels/doors all pass government testing. As for repairs the whole car is made of modular panels which can be snapped in place by 3 people. They say the panels are economical to produce, they don't state a price though... so it could be 5-10k to replace a panel, although I doubt it, cause they have more than 5 panels in the car, and they've gotta make money (26-29k won't make money if the panels alone cost 25k).

Obviously if you are in a serious enough accident that it bends the chassis, snapping these panels on will become much more arduous. I don't represent the company, I got all this information from the article, I can imagine that it will be expensive to repair after an accident, but so is every other car I've driven/seen. My brother was in a 15mph collision earlier this year, the damage to his subaru cost 9500 to repair. Incidentally this collision was with a semi truck...

Battery choice is interesting

[hey!]

One of the problems with hybrid cars is the inability to obtain large format NiMH cells. The technology needed to produce these cells is patented, and the patent holder has declined to license it to anybody producing large format cells.

(I should mention for the conspiracy fans among us that the patent holder is Chevron).

Anybody who wants to build an electric car or hybrid car design that requires a large battery capacity can't use the safe and proven NiMH technology. This makes the plug-in hybrid, which needs more electrical storage than an ordinary hybrid, the domain of aftermarket kits only.

Lithium Phosphate, once it becomes economical to produce, might well make better hybrid, or even plug-in hybrid technology a commercial reality. While not quite as good as Li-ion, it's inherently safer and (if reports are to be beleived) superior in performance to NiMH.

Re:Battery choice is interesting

[hey!]

I agree it doesn't make sense to think Chevoron bought Texaco just to get Ovonics.

However, the situation is very odd, if Texaco truly thinks it is doing all it can to introduce NiMH technology for automotive applications. If you are making money by licensing the technology, you want to see that technology in as widespread production use as possible as quickly as possible, before something comes along to obsolete it.

If people want to use a technology you have patented, and you are not in the business of producing a competitor technology, then licensing a technology only on terms that discourages its adoption is madness. You don't put early adopters in a catch-22 situation where you'll only license large scale producers, but potential producers have no user base to sell too. If foreign firms who produce your technology where you have not patent want to import, you offer them licensing terms that will be attractive for them. You don't scare them away.

So, we can only conclude that either (a) the people managing the licensing for large format NiMH are utterly deranged or (b) Chevron has some reason to discourage the adoption of NiMH technology in automotive applications.

Of course it doesn't seem exactly likely that NiMH technology could have a measurable impact on Chevron's petroleum profits in the near future. Once Li-Phosphate technology becomes available on the scale needed to support production of EVs and PEHs, we can put this unlikely proposition to the test.

Re:Battery choice is interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

(I should mention for the conspiracy fans among us that the patent holder is Chevron).

With all of the publicly available information surrounding the patents on large format NiMH batteries it pretty self-evident that the company, which is Cobasys, has an agenda to keep the technology out of the marketplace. How many corporations do you know that will deny themselves an additional revenue stream by not licensing their patents, especially patents that are due to expire very soon? Anyone?

$30,000

[kurtis25]

Call me when the middle class can get a fuel effiecient car. If I have to decide between that and a $15,000 Corolla which gets 30 mpg. I would have to choose the Corolla becuase the extra $15,000 is the current equivilant of 5,000 gallons of gas or about 150,000 miles of driving. If I drove my Corolla 100,000 miles I would pay $25,000 (car + gas) if I drove the Typ-1 e 100,000 miles I would have paid $32,500. If I got the Typ-1 h I would pay 31,000 to go the same distance (assuming it costs $30,000).

Re:$30,000

[GnarlyDoug]

WHen I use the term 'IC' in my post I am referring to straight internal combustion cars.

Gas is going up in price. You can expect $4 or even $5 per gallon in the not too distant future. As this climbs, standard vehicles will become more and more expensive relative to hybrids. In addition you mention 100,000 miles, but that is low. Most modern cars are good for 200,000 miles or more. There are Priuses that have over 300,000 miles on them on the road today.

A $25,000 50 MPG Prius, run for 200,000 miles at $3 per gallon will cost you $12,000 in gas. Your $15,000 30 MPG Corolla will cost you $20,000 in gas. The Prius would cost you only a net $2,000 more in this scenario, and that does not include the unscheduled maintenance cost penalties you pay (see below).

If gas goes to $4 per gallon it is about $17K vs. $27K, making the Prius a wash. If it goes over $4 per gallon, the Prius is cheaper.

As hybrids become more effecient and cheaper, these numbers will dramatically swing against owning a regular car. A 300 mpg hybrid like the article mentions that costs $30,000 will only cost $2,000 to $4,000 in gas over the lifetime of the car even at $5 per gallon. Such a car is free in comparison to the cost of the Corolla. You would literally save in the low tens of thousands of dollars by buying the 'more expensive' hybrid.

There is another big factor. Scheduled maintenance costs on hybrids are about in line with regular cars, but their unscheduled maintenance costs tend to be much lower. Cab companies and fleets like this one are starting to publish the reliability and maintenace results of using hybrids. The data is still sketchy, but even with the early hybrids (2001 models or so) that these sets of data apply to, the data indicates that you can save from $1 to $2 per 50 miles (very rough estimate) or so in unscheduled maintenance costs (ie, unexpected repair costs) over the life of the vehicle for a good hybrid vs. a regular IC vehicle. In other words, if you drive 200,000 miles you, statistically speaking, save about (200,000/50)*(1 to 2) = $4,000 to $8,000 over the lifetime of the car. Now that is a statistical average of course, and you might get a car that costs you almost nothing over that time. But that again you might not.

Hybrids are also holding their value much better than regular cars. You don't take a huge hit to the value of a hybrid just becuase you drove it off the lot. Go look around you'll find used Priuses going for almost as much as new ones.

Finally, I'll point out that Toyota (since we compared Corolla to Prius) no longer makes or sells regular IC cars in Japan. It's hybrid only. They are only making their older cars for America and some other markets, but they have already shown that they consider all non-hybrid lines to be end-lined soon.

In short I would not buy a high-end new IC car today. If you're not ready for a hybrid or you don't drive enough for it to make economic sense to you, then do your best to buy a cheaper used regular car and wait. In the next few years you will see IC cars fall out of favor. For a period of time IC cars will become dirt cheap as demand for them drops through the floor, making the greatest buyers market in history for IC cars. Then IC cars will all but disappear. It's a pretty standard model for technology that has reached the end of the line.

No, the ocean absorbs lots of methane

[postbigbang]

And has been doing this for millions of years. The only thing that changes the ocean methane equation is reduced atmospheric pressure, or a very wicked ocean warming--- more than what's forecast.

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.

on the market already

[Anonymous Coward]

You're behind the times. All the big fleet operators in the US are testing diesel electric hybrid trucks now(fedex,ups, coca cola, etc), and are going to be investing in them to expand their fleets as the older trucks wear out and get replaced, and two companies in england are shipping all electric trucks well into the multi ton delivery range. *Shipping*, as in normal, you can buy them right now. Cab companies all over are switching to hybrids from crown vics, and as soon as plugin hybrids start coming from the majors they will be using those. This stuff is not theoretical anymore, all these new drivetrains are hitting the market now and in 2008, the automotive industry is going through significant disruptive technology change *right now*. Over seas, in india and china, big moves to electric vehicles, several large companies shipping them in 2008. The range is plenty good enugh now, and will only get better the next few years, ton of battery breakthroughs this year, as in this car in the article, read about their battery tech. Rough analogy, electrics and hybrids are at a similar status as computers in say 92-3, and that was "good enough". Earlier adopters get the benefits, just like with computers. Heck, the prius has been out ten years now! And most of them still on the road, and most of them still running on the original battery packs!

You'll be seeing diesel electric drivetrains in normal cars and pickups real soon now. Real soon. Suburban guys and contractors are gonna eat them things up off the lots as soon as they hit. Same power as a big gas engine, twice the mileage, same towing capacity, double duty as the home or jobsite backup generator. Americans *like* pickups and SUVs, that style is *not* going away, that's where a big part of the market is, so plugin hybrids will be coming to a lot near you soon in pickup and SUV models. It might be the japanese have them first, but who knows, detroit is getting desperate and I bet there's some skunk works action going on there. They can be motivated at times to actually produce. The shareholder pressure and market pressure is now intense, that will have an effect.

Re:on the market already

[Rei]

Probably the same reason that Aptera was forced to switch their initial hybrid version from diesel to gasoline: small diesels have trouble meeting emissions standards.

Diesel Hybrids

[rjcarr]

I don't get why there aren't any diesel hybrids. In europe they have cars like the citroen that can get 60+ mpg. If the prius is a corolla with 20% improved milage, if we apply that here we're talking nearly 80 mpg in a hybrid version.

Why isn't this happening?

lithium-ferro phosphate

[raddan]

Lithium-ferro phosphate is the chemistry used in the cells for the XO OLPC laptop. Here an excerpt from ACM Queue's recent inteview with OLPC CTO Mary-Lou Jepsen:

We started to look into other battery chemistries, such as lithium-ferro phosphate, which people haven't really used yet in consumer electronics. This chemistry charges in heat up to 60 degrees C. It's also about as safe as NiMH. We can put nickel-metal hydride or lithium- ferro phosphate or, eventually, other battery chemistries into our laptops, which was another accomplishment. It was a real pain. We did that in the embedded controller. We also have a little fuel gauge in each battery that so we can keep track of its life cycle.

Our battery has a five-year life. You can go to 2,000 charge/recharge cycles. The lithium-ion battery in my ThinkPad is supposed to last for 500 charges, but in practice it's more like 200. So, moving to lithium-ferro phosphate is really cool because you don't have to spend additional money on periodic battery replacement costs, regardless of the environment.

Also, lithium-ferro phosphate is pretty environmen- tally friendly. Some early studies we did suggested that it possibly can decompose into fertilizer (with processing). Typically we think of batteries as environmentally bad, but there's some indication that lithium-ferro phosphate isn't that harmful. We haven't quite gone through all of the rigor on this, however, and it does require some processing to decompose it into fertilizer. Full article is here.

Not in California

[Yahma]

You've got to be kidding me! I am surprised the designers of this vehicle are based in California, because something like this would never work here. With the oversupply of Soccer Mom's behind the wheels of a giant SUV chatting away on their cell phones, this is surely a death trap.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for high MPG cars. I personally am considering the 2009 Jetta TDI which gets a combined 50+ MPG, which is better MPG than most Hybrid vehicles without the huge markup in price and weight for the battery technology. And it has the added bonus of being designed for the Autobahn with 5 star crash ratings and based upon a tried and true technology..

Re:But, will it fly? - not insightful

[Ralph Spoilsport]

saboola parodied a comment about flying cars by looking at the transition from horses to automobiles with the same language.

Somehow, he was rated insightful, when he really isn't. Flying cars and driving cars may have epistemological equivalence (both = vehicle operation) but they are not ontologically equivalent. Example: hacking up a cooked turkey and brain surgery are both examples of (episteme) knife wielding, but they are not the same (ontologue) activities and have radically different social values and results.

Similar to the brain-dead postmodernists who insist that theory has no value, because "it's all theory".

All he did was act contrarian in a very adolescent manner - the kind of numbskull pigheaded idiot logic I expect from a dull second year university student - the kind I normally give a C- and a recommendation to do some follow up research to get the grade up.

RS

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.

A bit OT...

[StarfishOne]

But every time when news items like appear, it is usually followed by discussions/sub-threads like "Global warming is not real!", "Global warming is not caused by mankind", "If we don't do something now about the environment, we're all going to die!", etc. etc.

I'm often wondering why there's apparently so little line of though along the following line:

"No matter if global warming is real or not and no matter if it's caused by mankind if it's real... I just don't want to live in as smog-filled city with thousands of vehicles producing all kinds of products that my family and I will breathe in, 24/7/365!"

Active environmentalists or not, global warming supported or not... I hope we can all agree on the fact that no-one likes to breathe in what comes out of the exhaust of all those vehicles on the road today, right?

IMHO, this alone makes it completely worthwhile to switch to greener/electrical alternatives. Not just for the perceptual difference in air quality, but also to prevent X cases of disease Y every single year.

Thank you!

*steps down from soap box*