Slashdot Mirror
Progress On Electric Cars
Mike sends along a couple of items of interest to those anxiously awaiting the era of production electric vehicles. First, there's the upcoming Aero EV, which Shelby Supercars claims will charge in just 10 minutes and will be able to produce over 1,000 horsepower, powering the vehicle from 0-60 mph in less than 2.5 seconds. Then there's the announcement by Aptera of the first pre-production model of the Aptera 2e, which will have a top speed of 90 mph and go around 100 miles on a charge. This EV also features a strong and aerodynamic body, a lithium-based battery, front-wheel drive, and an improved door design. Release is planned by October of 2009.
What, no love for the Big 3? Lemme see here. We've got the range-extended Town & Country EV from Chrysler that will do 40 miles on a single charge, plus another 360 miles using a mixed gasoline-electric propulsion. They're also working on Dodge and Jeep vehicles with similar designs.
Ford used to have the market in a bag with their Ford Ranger EV pickup. Of course, they discontinued it in 2002. Now they're playing catch-up with the rest of the market. They are promising an electric vehicle by 2011, so there should be plenty of competition in late 2010/early 2011.
Speaking of competition, what discussion is complete without mentioning the Chevy Volt? Still the gold standard for the emerging industry, it will be anyone's guess if it lives up to the hype.
I rather like the look of this car, but I am concerned by a couple of issues. First up is the single back wheel. Won't that make the vehicle a rollover hazard? I presume the front wheels are extended to help mitigate this issue, but one good blowout looks like it could send that sucker fishtailing right into roll. (And for that matter, how servicable is that tire?)
My second issue is the power-train. Generally you want as much weight sprung as possible, and electric motors are heavy. Aptera seems to understand that as it appears there is an axel linkage on the front wheels. Presumably this is how power is transmitted. Is having that axel exposed going to cause any safety and reliability issues? I'm just imagining something flying off the road and getting wrapped around the the axel. Or in an accident, a pedestrian getting an appendage caught in there.
Or is this a rear-wheel drive vehicle? In which case, is that axel really necessary? Could'nt the steering be accomplished by swiveling independent pods rather than linking them?
Just my 0.005 cents worth after accounting for inflation. :-P
P.S. The Shelby looks pretty darn sweet! I'd never spend money to purchase a vehicle like that*, but I wouldn't mind taking her for a spin.
* Unless I had way too much!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Let's hope that SS's claims are true. This would eliminate the need for hydrogen cars as well (water vapor is another major greenhouse gas).
God forbid water vapor should be in the air!
:)
- 5 passenger
- mid size and safe
- 500km range
- a/c and heat
- charge up at home and work
- under $20,000
Well duh, water vapor should always be in the air, but if suddenly a whole bunch of cars start creating immense amounts of water vapor from hydrogen gas + oxygen... well, that's much more water that's being converted from liquid to gas than by weather alone (or even by cars today).
It's a fact overlooked by many.
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
...no JATO rockets, less space than a minivan. Lame.
The Tesla and Aero are interesting, but waaaaaaaaay out of normal price range. And most of the other electric cars don't cut it. This is what I want, and probably what most consumers want:
1) A real sized car, not a tiny econobox with motorcycle-sized tires
2) Range of at least 100+ miles per charge (I am guessing 80% of people are within a 20 mile round trip to work, 90% within 30 miles, and 95% within 40 miles; so other than occasional, long road trips, that is a lot of coverage).
3) Ability to charge with regular home voltage/current (don't care if it takes several hours to charge overnight)
4) Real performance- at least as fast (accel & top speed) as a gas car (like a 3 liter V6, not a 2 liter 4cyl)
5) Features- full A/C, heat, heated seats, auto climate control, GPS, cruise, auto lights, auto windows, defroster, etc
6) Safety- comparable to a quality conventional car- crumple zones, airbags, seatbelt tensioners
7) Reasonable price- comparable to a quality conventional car, although many of us are willing to spend more for the advantage of electric... but not 50%+ more
When that happens, I am betting people will flock to them. Hybrids (plugin or not) are just too complicated; they have all the complexity of a gas engine (cooling, emissions control, transmission, lube, injection, etc) with all the added cost of electric (motors, batteries, charging systems).
CFCs were much worse and HORRIBLE for the environment, it really would have cooked us to death. Thats why they were phased out across the globe in 1994, we'd have been seriously screwed had we not. Same idea goes for CO2, it is just less obvious.
I do not understand why these cutting edge car designers can't make a conventional looking car (something as boring looking like a Corolla). Your friendly neighborhood soccer mom or PTA dad is not going to want get caught driving this.
I am not saying they should copy Corolla's body style but for heaven's sake, make something that looks like its meant for this planet. I am betting that these people probably spent a good deal of money on the shape designer. This car will appeal to teenage nerds, extreme yuppies and the Hollywood set. How many of them are there anyways ??
If they are really serious about addressing the actual gas problem, they should make something that looks a little more common (oh horrors !). This car looks like a rich man's gimmick. Don't be surprised if the middle class gives it a miss.
I've compiled a big list of upcoming EVs and their stats here.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
Coal has killed FAR more than is attributed to it. Right now, nearly all the deaths attributed to coal is based on coal mine deaths, which IS much greater than nuclear power deaths (even when including all the uranium mining for weapons). But what is not added in there is the mercury poisoning that we get. Most of the mercury in our water is from coal. Likewise, much of our acid rains, etc are from coal. In a nutshell, Coal is far far worse than nukes.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sorry but your maths are not exactly right!
Watts != Energy
Watts == Power!
Huge difference there. But I do agree that charging batteries for 100 miles/161km in 10 minutes will require a lot of Energy. I'll give it a try...
I read somewhere that a car needs about 30 hp on the highway at 100 km/h (62mph). If that is true, you will need about 22.37 kW for 1.61 hours. This means about 36 kW-hour of energy. Now, back to your house, in order to charge that in 10 minutes, you will need a power output of 216.1 kW. Using 240 Vac, this will result in a current of 900 Amp.
I may be wrong, but 900 Amps is a lot more than what the tipical house can take (200 Amps over here).
Ehmm, structural panel failure, break failure
No, structural panel failure is a break success.
Promote proofreading. Don't mod up sloppy posts.
According to a DOE study conducted at PNL, switching to EVs is a net win even on our current grid. The main reason is that power plants are a lot more efficient than gasoline-powered cars at turning fuel into energy, while transmission and charging are very efficient. Also, EVs, which mainly charge at night, reduce the need for spinning standby, allow plants to operate more efficiently at night, and so on. The net result is that you could switch 84% of our cars over on our existing grid and you'd cut CO2 emissions by a third, increase PM somewhat, NOx would drop slightly, SOx would stay the same, and CO and VOCs would be nearly eliminated. The pollutants that would be emitted would be emitted on average much further from people's lungs and so affect them less.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
The big problem with electric cars is energy storage. Lithium batteries are too expensive, take too long to charge, don't have a high enough energy density, and don't last long enough. If the current work on ultracapacitors pans out (and that's a BIG if) electric cars will become a lot more practical for the mass market.
There are certainly issues with current electric cars, but only by having them in the market place in some form will there be any incentive to improve them. Lithium is expensive, but it will come done like anything else.
My concern will electric vehicles is how they will pan out in cold climates, like Scandinavia or Canada. From my experience batteries perform badly in the cold, with apparent charge dropping off until the battery is warmed up. For me this is where the real test of the technology will happen.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi?currentPage=all
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Perhaps the trick is to run a thick steel cable up a bell tower and wait for a thunderstorm. A lightning strike delivers its 1.21GW for 1/6th of a second, you'll get 50kWH and your car is charged. Come on people, we've seen this work...
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
At 220V, that means you'd need 1300 A of current!?!
It's not just an electric car, it's also an arc welder!
For you questioning the "charge in 10 minutes" claim : be aware that a lithium ion battery exists that DOES have this feature. Altair nanotechnologies is shipping a battery right now that supposedly has an improved anode that solves the problems that prevent rapid charging conventional lithium ion batteries. Actually, they claim 5 minute recharges in their marketing materials.
They ALSO claim to have solved the other big problem with lithium ion batteries : finite lifespan. They claim their batteries do not 'wear' and can be put through at least 20 years worth of power cycling. Again, note that these special batteries can be purchased today, they are not vapor-ware. (I don't know if their claims are valid, but I do know the physical batteries exist)
Yes, I am aware that a 10 minute recharge would strain the capacity of standard electrical service. You would need the electric gas stations to either have extremely high amperage connections to the grid, or to have some kind of energy storage technology at the station. Such as super-capacitors, a bank of precharged batteries, flywheels, ect.
So could it be done? Mass produce these high end lithium ion batteries by the billions, putting banks of them in every new car and truck on the road and in electric gas stations? I think it could, but the huge upfront costs of such a conversion are going to put it off well into the future. The ultimate long run costs might be the same or cheaper than fossil fuels, but in the short term consumers won't pay for something that is significantly more expensive.
For the conversion to occur, one of these has to happen
1. "Moore's law" makes lithium ion batteries so cheap that electric cars are cheaper than gas
2. Oil shortages make gas so expensive that even electric cars look cheap
3. The government puts a huge tax on gasoline/diesel and artifically makes electric cars seem cheap
A lot of people have pointed out that an electric car is actually simpler than gas. The motors are a lot smaller, and the battery banks consist of thousands of identical battery cells. The only other thing in the car is the power handling circuitry, which is solid state. If the batteries didn't wear out with age, then an electric car would probably be much cheaper to maintain.
Humans aren't natural?
I presume a "yes." Things humans make aren't natural? What if a monkey learned to make something, would it be natural?
Obviously I have a point to make here. From the evolutionary standpoint that most say they hold, human machinery is just as natural as a monkey using a bone as a club (sorry, I just watched 2001: A Space Odyssey). It's time to define "nature" and why I don't get to be considered "natural." Which seems like it will be hard to do form the scientific/atheistic viewpoint. Even more so when people want to tell me that genetically modified stuff is just as natural as non GMO stuff... "natural" stuff. So on one hand, we can modify nature and be natural, and on the other hand we can't.
And yes, this is on topic, since "greenhouse gas emissions" implies that there are natural and unnatural things, and most of the time, "global warming" is linked to those horribly unnatural and wicked humans.
As opposed to whatever caused the last ice age when humans weren't around, I guess.
/me runs away from the flamebait mods, hehe
I haven't checked the site for a while, but all of their proposed plans had REAR wheel drive.
The switch was made last January, but wasn't publicly announced until December. Switching to FWD gave a huge number of benefits, including much better regen, handling, and more room in the back.
the plan was ~20k, but last I checked the total was closer to ~30k
The plan hasn't been ~20k since mid 2007. You have been following them for a while! ;) When the Typ-1, Mk1 ("Zen") was unveiled in late '07, the announced prices were $27k for the Typ-1e and $30k for the Typ-1h. When they switched to the FWD 2e, they announced a price range of $25-$45k for the 2, depending on "options and drivetrain", and that there will be "a number of drivetrains" and "many options".
I didn't like the plan for the windows to be static (immovable)
Steve announced very early on that the windows *would* roll down in the final version.
Unfortunately after a quick navigation of the website, I could not find the information I had once perused.
Yeah, unfortunately, their site is in a bit of a transitional state right now. I'm not too impressed with Saxony Creative (who does their web work), personally.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
If you live in an apartment or in the city and have to park on the street, you really don't have a good way to plug a car in over night. I think I will patent a 'Charger Post'; insert credit card, open door and plug in car, lock door, next day insert card again to open door.
Oh, is that what's tripping you up? Here:
https://nrich.maths.org/discus/messages/8577/7263.html?1071520520
v = u + at
27m/s = 0 + (a * 5s)
a = 27m/s / 5s
a = 5.4m/s^2
5.4m/s^2 * 4,865kg = 26,271 newtons = 26kW
That sounds about right. Snack time!
Fig newton?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
But I remember reading that conservation organizations are trying to shut down wind farms because of the damage they do to birds and (more recently) bats. Is this still the case?
Even the Audubon Society supports Cape Wind. The "environmentalists" opposing these "controversial" wind farms are mostly just wealthy landowners who don't want the value of their homes to drop. The bird thing is largely a myth. Even taking into account the relatively small percent of our power that comes from wind, wind farms are just blips on the radar in terms of bird deaths in comparison to glass windows and housecats. The Audubon Society supports wind farms because pollution from fossil fuel power plants is a lot worse for birds than the very rare turbine-caused bird deaths.
Although this seems astoundingly short -- I wonder what current would be required?)
Depends on the size of your pack. On Oahu, they already have a network of AeroVironment Posicharge chargers, 60kW. Aerovironment makes them as big as ~250kW. As for generator capacity, the really big chargers use their own battery banks, which they trickle charge. And in the future, hopefully, will be able to smart charge and even feed power back.
Fox: "I think we should call it... your grave!" Cast: "Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!"
Wrong.
Our electricity grid could easily support a population of people with new cars charging their cars at home, using the time-dependent charging mechanisms that allow the power draw to be at low usage times.
Remember, the largest number of vehicles proposed to be sold in the US over the next 3 years is at best 1 percent of the total number of vehicles that will be sold over those 3 years, and less than 1 percent of the total number of vehicles on the road at the end of 3 years.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It is legal, and it is just as safe as any small car on the road. It's far more safe in any collision than a bike. Yes, it looks a bit goofy, but that's basically the shape you're going to have to live with if you want a Cd of 0.11, which is what you'll need to get the kind of range/kWh they're getting. And you won't get the aptera's milage on a bike because the Cd of a biker is pretty darned poor (sorry, no cite).
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You miss the point though.
If you really really need something that matches a gasoline car for a particular purpose like a ski trip to Tahoe, hire a car for the weekend.
For Mr and Mrs Smith going shopping or commuting, a short range electric car is sufficient.
Ideally there would be an associated enlargement of public transport, light rail and intercity rail to take away those medium range journeys.
It's a whole integrated solution not one thing to solve all problems.
There's no reason to think that things have fundamentally changed.
Actually, there is an amazing good reason to believe things have changed. All the previous spikes in gas prices have been caused by supply shocks. This means that various oil producing conglomerates have decided they would or could not provide the amount of oil because they didn't like the cost of it. This past years price shock was caused by a demand spike that could not be met. With the rapidly growing economies of China and India (~1/3 of the world's population) there are going to be more and more demand shocks on resources that have never been seen before. I'm not upset at China or anything but the game has changed with their growth and that means that there need to be real changes in how we view our resources.
"Educate the mind but never at the expense of the soul."~Blessed Basil Moreau
.. how about progress on flying cars?!? am I right?
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
You only need to heat them before starting, and not much energy is needed for this if the battery pack is well insulated. Once going, internal resistance will keep the packed heated.
I don't know why Ford never came out with this model!
That's not too far off from what happens on Mars. Maybe you just got your planets mixed up.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
The molten-salt 'Zebra' battery works very well in the cold, and is competitive with lithium-ion in terms of energy density.
Basically, it needs to be heated to 250 degrees Celsius to work. The battery is very well insulated, so if you turn off the heat it takes 4 days to completely cool down. (And another two days to heat back up to 250 degrees)
You need to keep the car plugged in at night to run the little heater, which can also be powered by the battery itself. You can get this type of battery with the Th!nk City electric car, and it is superbly resistant to cold temperatures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra_battery
I don't see any reason you couldn't take the insulation and heater from a Zebra battery, and use them to package a battery of any other type. For one thing, the required temperature would be much lower.
No, they don't.
Your only experience with lead-acid batteries is trying to start your car in the morning... yet you consider yourself an expert, and feel qualified to make baseless assertions.
Lead-acid batteries are used in UPSes in open-air telcom buildings, even in the coldest areas.
The fact that cars have trouble starting in the cold is only half due to battery voltages falling in the cold weather... The thickening of oil, and shrinking of cylinders has just as much to do with it. And even then, if you had a battery twice as large, you'd never even notice. It's just that the cheapest (therefore, smallest) battery that will work is used in cars, so you don't have much of a margin to work with in adverse conditions.
An electric car won't have anything like the duty cycle of current car batteries. They will draw relatively small amounts of power when you start moving, and continue the draw as you continue to move. Since the draw is only 1/1000th of the battery capacity, no matter how low the temperature, they will allow the vehicle to operate.
And once the vehicle is in operation, the continual discharge of the batteries will generate a substantial amount of heat, internally. The sheer mass of the lead-acid batteries will keep the normally generated heat from easily escaping, provided they aren't mounted externally, directly in normal airflow.
Getting RID of the heat generated is the real problem with batteries, and that's a manageable issue as well.
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
Salt storage isn't something that scales down well; it's used by solar thermal plants, not solar voltiac cells. You wouldn't be placing this every mile, you'd be keeping it at the solar plant.
In my combined vision for the future I figure a couple things:
1. Plug in Hybrids/EVs will have a far greater role.
2. Due to expense/savings, many/most home charging stations will have load leveling capabilities.
3. Putting a PHEV/EV in a garage will swamp all but the most extreme energy saving measures otherwise taken. The tesla roadster has a 53kwh battery, and uses 28 kwh per 100 miles. 3.57 miles/kwh. Figure an annual average driving distance of 15000 miles, that's 4.2K kwh/year, 350 kwh/month. About 50% of the average annual usage of households in the USA(8,900 kwh/year. Keep in mind that the Tesla is light and efficient compared to most EVs due to it's sports car heritage and LiIon batteries. Oh, and that most families at this point have 2 or more vehicles.
A - Given 1&3, More generating capacity will be needed, not less, even if our population remains stable.
B - Given A&2, the difference between peak and baseload should shrink.
C - Despite 3, energy saving and leveling measures should be taken where practical.
D - Despite what realtors tell us, homes DON'T always increase in value. It's mostly the land the house sits on. At some point it's worth it to tear the sucker down and build a *GOOD* house on the plot. Good today = energy efficient. All sorts of tricks are possible with a new house that aren't possible or practical with an old one. But I'd put a dryer(30A@220V) or even stove(50A) plug into the garage.
E - Save the oil/NG for building materials and long range high speed travel.
Get people off of direct electric heat and towards geothermal heat pumps. Interesting tidbit - did you know that heat pump water heaters are produced? They'll cool and dehumidify the air around the hot water tank while heating the water. Cost is around a third that of direct electric. They've also developed heat pump dryers - they need a line to a drain like the washer, but use substantially less electricity and dry clothes faster with less heat. If I was running a laundrymat in a trustworthy area, I'd seriously consider them - not only would it reduce my expenses with the dryers, it'd also reduce the amount of AC needed.
I figure lots of solar in areas where peak demand tends to coincide with peak sun, wind in the appropriate areas, all backed up by a ton of nuclear capacity - and nuclear CAN load level; they're generally run at max capacity because they're the cheapest source of demand electricty going. Spreading solar out is pretty much required; in my area putting a wind turbine up next to/in a lot of the small towns would reduce the amount of electricity lost on wires.
I don't read AC A human right