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.

Comments

That's it?

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Then there's the announcement by Aptera of the first pre-production model of the Aptera 2e

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!

Re:That's it?

[AKAImBatman]

Say "Yes" to nuclear. It's less radioactive than coal, has killed barely a minuscule fraction of the number of people coal has killed, and we have enough supply to easily last for as long as we can reasonably project our energy requirements.

Oh, and it's a key component for any serious attempts at interplanetary or interstellar space travel. Which could be important if we want to research more efficient solar collection or need to go track us down more nuclear materials. (Or you could send missions to Titan and supply the Earth with a near-infinite supply of $10billion/gal gasoline. :-P)

Re:That's it?

[Thelasko]

Let's not forget the Tesla. Top Gear had an interesting piece on it, that ended in scandal.

Re:That's it?

[markdavis]

It doesn't matter *WHAT* was used to generate the electricity, it will *still* be cheaper and cleaner than burning gas in cars. Large power plants are tremendously more efficient and clean because they have the scale... even burning coal (as long as they are modern plants). Don't focus just on coal & oil. Throw in natural gas, solar, geothermal, nuclear, hydro, and wind... they already account for a huge percent of electricity production and increasing each year.

And using electricity means that everyone has a fuel source right at home, ready to go. No new infrastructure. No hazardous or explosive alternative fuels (like hydrogen or LP gas). No special equipment or training. Plug it in... Done.

Re:That's it?

[roaddemon]

Agreed. The best part of electric cars is the decoupling of power production and power consumption.

Re:That's it?

[rocketPack]

I hear this argument far too often, and it makes no sense.

Let's think about it this way... How much easier would it be to replace every single vehicle and retrofit every single service station in the country if we decided to switch between different chemical fuels? Compare that to the difficulty of updating where we derive electricity...

SURE, it's COAL today... but will it always be coal? If we try to nay-say electric vehicles and talk our way into biofuels or hydrogen, and we run into issues obtaining it in the future, we're stuck. Electricity is the universal medium -- it's the same network to distribute, store, and utilize at the consumption end regardless of how we make it... that means the cost of retrofitting is significantly lower at the power generation side when/if we decide to switch down the road.

Re:That's it?

[Rei]

Yep. Batteries don't advance as fast as computers, but they've advanced a heck of a lot faster than anything in the transportation industry. In the past 15 years, battery energy densities have tripled, and power densities even more than that. And they show no signs of slowing down; check out the list of recent li-ion tech breakthroughs that promise 2-4 fold increases in energy density. The odds of every last breakthrough on that list failing to make it to commercialization seems vanishingly small.

Re:That's it?

[aztektum]

According to the Top Gear spokeswoman, the tested Tesla was filmed being pushed into the shed in order to show what would happen if the Roadster had run out of charge.

"Top Gear stands by the findings in this film and is content that it offers a fair representation of the Tesla's performance on the day it was tested," the BBC said in statement."

Yeah, OK. So they're saying my gas powered car will miraculously make it home if I run out of fuel? I can't believe anyone would take that show seriously.

Re:That's it?

[BarefootClown]

There is one thing that doesn't seem to be discussed about the Top Gear bit. I agree that emphasizing what happens when you run out of charge--when they didn't kill the battery--isn't entirely fair, but there is a difference between running out of charge and running out of gas.

I can easily walk to a gas station and carry a couple of gallons of gas back to the car, which is enough fuel to carry me at least a couple dozen miles in even a heavy SUV.

How many miles worth of charge can you carry back?

Re:That's it?

[WCguru42]

What, no love for the Big 3?

Nope. Let's face it, the Big 3 have spent the past 40 years advertising that bigger is better and not to worry about fuel consumption or consumer safety. They abandoned most of their electric research in the 1990's and now they're playing a terrible game a catch-up. I'm not saying I want the American auto industry to go under but I'm not going to support them until they start making some reliable cars. Currently, if you're looking for a reliable car you look to Japan or Germany, and then Korea, then maybe you move onto the US. It's a shame but no, there is no love for Detroit because they royally screwed up and in a market economy you don't get any free love.

Re:That's it?

[Rei]

The most common number for the lower-cost EVs for range seems to be about 100 miles. About what percent of Americans do you think travel more than fifty miles to work and then 50 back? I'd bet under 10%. Probably under 5%.

but don't kid yourself, anything approaching a 10% adoption rate of EVs could easily crush the grid

This has been studied, over and over again. No, they don't. EVs are actually a rather sedate grid load in that they don't suddenly kick in, draw a huge amount of current, then stop; it's a steady load. And easily most of the time, it's a nighttime load, which is a boon for the grid, not a bane.

But yes, our grid could use some overhaul because it's not good at dealing with our current loads. We need HVDC for long-distance transmission, a smart grid for timing loads, and EVs for variable loads and, potentially, V2G.

Re:That's it?

[MtViewGuy]

I think the primary market will be plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) by 2015, NOT all electric vehicles.

I cite the following reasons:

1) Since the vast majority of commuting is relatively short range, the all-electric range of a PHEV of around 43 to 49 miles (70-80 km) is not such a big issue.

2) With a PHEV, you don't need a big battery pack like you do with an all-electric vehicle.

3) Since PHEVs are an extension of the now-mature hybrid vehicle technology developed by Toyota and Ford, it also means way lower development costs.

Given that today's gasoline engines have very low emissions anyway, a PHEV backed up by a small gasoline engine is what will be common by 2015.

Here's what we need...

[HeyBob!]

- 5 passenger
- mid size and safe
- 500km range
- a/c and heat
- charge up at home and work
- under $20,000

Re:Here's what we need...

[DreamsAreOkToo]

- 17" chrome rims
- aggressive "face"
- chrome grills
- tall enough for your kids to easily flip it
- 10 billion dollar advertising campaign
- large enough to kill anyone I hit

We want people to actually use these things, remember?

I meant too much water vapor.

[gcnaddict]

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.

Re:I meant too much water vapor.

[hardburn]

It's a fact overlooked by many.

They should keep overlooking it. H20 is a greenhouse gas, but it's close to saturated nearly everywhere on the planet already. If you put a little more in, it'll just rain out. In the places where it's not saturated (which is pretty much only near the poles), it'll freeze out.

Re:chevy volt?

[Anonymous Coward]

...no JATO rockets, less space than a minivan. Lame.

Lots of us ready and waiting...

[markdavis]

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).

Earth calling Mars

[slashdotlurker]

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.

Re:Earth calling Mars

[LandDolphin]

I beleive Aerodynamics is an important part of vehicles lie kthe Aptera

/I could be wrong

Big list

[Rei]

I've compiled a big list of upcoming EVs and their stats here.

In fact

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:In fact

[AKAImBatman]

You forgot the airborne, radioactive particles which may be inhaled and cause cancer. Not to mention The Great Smog which killed 12,000 people.

Re:In fact

[geobeck]

...IS much greater than nuclear power deaths (even when including all the uranium mining for weapons).

Hmm, that makes me wonder how total coal-related deaths compare to total nuclear-related deaths including deaths from the development, testing, and use of nuclear weapons. Nukes have only been used in anger twice, and there has probably been an elevated incidence of cancer among early development and testing personnel, but would King Coal still come out ahead?

Re:In fact

[Firethorn]

First, I'll point out that I believe that nuclear weapons aren't in the same category as nuclear power; that'd be like adding deaths from tank weapons into automotive deaths.

Still, I think it's an interesting topic.
Hiroshima: 140k
Nagasaki: 80k
Chernobyl: 57 direct deaths, 4k 'additional cancer cases', estimated, not all of which would be fatal.
Other: Various accidents; under a hundred. Less than 1% of the above, easily within the margin of error of the nuclear weapons usage.

224k total, of which 1.8% can be attributed, partially, to nuclear power(Chernobyl was also a weapons material plant, which affected it's design).

If you believe this article, 24k lives are 'shortened' by coal power, cause 2.8k cases of lung cancer a year, 4k deaths from asthma, heart attacks, etc... At 4k, we're killing a Chernobyl's worth of citizens each and every year. In the 63 years since the nuclear attacks in 1945, that would be 252,000 people.

On to China - They've made it a 'goal' to reduce their annual coal mining deaths to a 'mere' 5k in 2007 over the 7k of 2003. In 1988 - "chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) was 26% of all causes of death. If even a fraction of a percent of those deaths are from the pollution from coal power, 26k a year isn't outrageous from a country of over a billion.

Basically; I figure coal power kills more people every year than Chernobyl accident did period, and it bypasses our nuclear bombings in less than five years.

And people wonder why I'd shut down all the coal plants if I could...

Even coal is better than gasoline (no, really!)

[Rei]

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.

Cold climates

[Midnight Thunder]

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.

Required Reading on the Subject

[Enderandrew]

http://www.wired.com/cars/futuretransport/magazine/16-09/ff_agassi?currentPage=all

Re:10 minute charge is BS...

[JaredOfEuropa]

To charge in 10 minutes, you'd need to shove in power at 300 kW! At 220V, that means you'd need 1300 A of current!?!

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...

Interesting

[ShooterNeo]

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.

Re:Soon, gas stations will be replaced by

[CannonballHead]

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

Re:Batteries of any kind don't work well in the co

[evilviper]

Even lead acid batteries struggle in the cold.

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.