Slashdot Mirror
Electric Car Nano-Batteries Aim For 500-Mile Range
An anonymous reader writes "Consortium members read like a Who's Who in technology research for the Battery 500 Project which aims to use nanotechnology to extend the range of all-electric cars 200 miles beyond the 300-mile range of gasoline powered cars. IBM, the University of California at Berkeley and all five of our US National Labs are collaborating to make the 500-mile electric car battery. Within two years, they promise to have a new kind of battery technology in place for the 500-mile electric car. If that happens, then I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make the Toyota Prius look like a fad."
until it actually happens.... This is more like a press-release rather than actual news.
yeah right, its going to be REAL PRACTICAL to put 500 mile range into a battery pack. the gasoline nozzle pumps 3 MEGAWATTS of energy into your gas tank in 2 minutes. try to get a battery pack to recharge that fast or hold that much energy and what you have is a BOMB (literally, a coupla sticks of dynamite)..
A full-size car may have a range well over 300 miles, I suspect. (Would someone with a 300+ range chime in?) Suburbans certainly get 600 miles, but they have bigger tanks. (A 30 gallon tank on more recent ones, which get 20 mpg, and a 40 gallon tank on the older ones, which get slightly less.)
One problem I see with the 2 year prediction is that it just doesn't give people enough time to transition from gas powered cars to half-gas-half-electric cars (Prius) to electric cars. People will still drive their gas powered cars well into the next 20-30 years and so to say "I predict a mass exodus" is to predict that in two years the global economy will not only have turned around but created enough wealth that banks can lend out 40-50,000 per person to guy buy their new shiny Toyota Batterius.
People will drive their cars and people will eventually switch but 2 years is MUCH too soon to think that we can start tearing down gas stations.
I predict the electric car produced with this battery will look like a Prius, since it has an excellent coefficient of drag, so good, Honda chose to copy it for the new insight.
Battery powered cars will never become popular. Who wants to wait hours (or even tens of minutes) to recharge a battery? Hydrogen powered cars are the future, not battery powered cars. Honda have already created a car that runs off hydrogen: http://automobiles.honda.com/fcx-clarity/
It IS a fad...
...so what's this "the 300-mile range of gasoline powered cars" garbage?...
My 1977 Fiat is upwards of a 400-mile range with a tiny 12 gallon tank...(heh just pre-empting the Fiat haters...)and that's without pushing it or towing it :)
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
AskOxford: Commonly Confused Words. I suspect most people will discover that they regularly make at least one of the mistakes in that list; I certainly did.
I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make the Toyota Prius look like a fad.
The Prius is already a fad. It's dead-end technology - over complicated, hundreds of moving parts, and not really all that effective. A Prius works by trading faster-running efficiency for slower-running efficiency - i.e. it moves the optimal efficiency point from about 55mph down to about 20mph, and adds a bit of regenerative braking. Big deal. It's still very, very inefficient. It's slightly useful if you do mostly city driving, but little use on a long run. The Prius is not what you'd call a performance car - drive it hard and it's much worse than many ordinary cars. It also has a lot of embodied energy in the form of its batteries and other exotic parts that other cars lack. That's an issue that all electric cars will have to solve too though. But by ditching the IC engine, drivetrain and so on, they already have a huge advantage in terms of weight and simplicity. The Prius is the worst of both worlds - a complicated IC engine AND all the electric paraphernalia.
The Prius is pure greenwash - its (mostly yuppy) buyers think they are saving the planet, but it doesn't stack up. It might be a slightly better option than an SUV but its time is going to be very limited. Enjoy pulling the wool over everyone's eyes while you still can, Toyota!
Well they are more of a fad/statement then anything else. You don't buy a Prius to be "green", you buy one to say "Look at me, I care about the environment". Now that may come off a bit trollish, but that certainly is the reality of the situation.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
The reason why they don't make 500 gasoline cars is not because gasoline cars can't go that far. It's not worth the money. And that's for a few dollars worth of extra gas tank.
The problem with batteries is cost.
I was too distracted by "Whose Who" to absorb much after that. Of course, most of it was after that.
What if I do the same thing, and I do get different results?
In order to replace the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine,) charge time needs to drop to less than 10 minutes. With recharging stations nearly as common as gas stations.
Batteries aren't going to do that. Supercapacitors will. (Or some yet-to-be-invented technology.)
Within two years, they promise to have a new kind of battery technology in place for the 500-mile electric car. If that happens,
and the cost of the battery allows the car to be similarly priced to a gasoline car, and the charging time is reasonably short so when you run out you are not carless for 8 hours or something, and the infrastructure is in place to charge the car on the road,
then I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make the Toyota Prius look like a fad.
There, fixed that for you
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
If battery engineers can actually increase energy storage densities to allow 500 mile range electric vehicles, there will be something of a stampede among car buyers, yes. However, one key remaining factor will be the range achievable with about a 15 minute quick charge (i.e. a stop for a Slurpie). If that range is, say, about 200 miles (40% of maximum), and assuming the economics otherwise work (i.e. battery costs and durability), we may finally see the end of the internal combustion engine in widespread automotive use.
Electric transportation is humanity's next (and very important) step in reducing CO2 emissions. It has to happen. It will happen. But I think this (non)story is a little optimistic.
Many great minds have been working to improve chemical energy storage devices for 50 years. It's a fantastically complex problem. We've made strides, to be sure; compare the latest commercial lithium ion polymer batteries to 80s NiCD, and the future looks bright.
But two years is a very short time period, in battery development.
Still, good luck IBM.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
What will happen on the demand side of electricity when electric cars become common? Could it be that demand will quickly outgrow supply? What, oh what, will a KWH cost then? DIE, ELECTRIC CAR, DIE
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
I don't know to whom it belongs, but traditionally the directorty of notable identities is known as Who's Who.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Electric cars don't have much muscle
wrong. TGV: top speed : 574 kph (350 mph). tesla roadster : 3.9 seconds to 60mph/100kph.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
My cheap old Nissan Maxima has routinely gone more than 500 miles without filling up. I figure 530 to 550 is about the limit, but I haven't been brave enough to drive it to the point it's completely empty.
Yes, it definitely costs more drive a gasoline powered car 500 miles, but if you want more range get a bigger gas tank. If you have an electric car and you want more range, get a bigger battery pack. There's no fundamental limit at 300 or 500 miles; the reason cars typically don't have a 500 mile range is most likely because the market doesn't demand 500 mile range. That is, if you're building a car and can choose between an extra two inches of legroom or an extra 100 miles of range from a bigger gas tank, you're likely to sell more cars if you put in the extra legroom.
Once you have enough range, adding more doesn't help.
Of course you can also easily and quickly add additional range to a gasoline powered car by simply pouring in more gasoline. With electric vehicles, assuming you cannot charge quickly or swap battery packs, extra range might add value, but probably only as protection against getting stranded or stopping for several hours for recharge.
Electric cars with moderate battery-only range coupled to on-board generators seem like a natural solution.
http://images.slashdot.org/hc/33/7af330d71f79.jpg
My car can do 800km (500 miles) with 40 liters of diesel. Where did they see a car with a 300 miles range? it was in the 80's! But maybe the situation is different in the USA?
sounds like fud from the days when people tried to introduce a clean burning hydrogen engine... Remember the Hindenburg!
Wherever You Go, There You Are
http://www.engadget.com/2007/12/19/stanfords-nanowire-battery-leapfrogs-li-ion/
Unless this is a continuation of Dr. Cui's research, in which case I humbly redact my comment.
... miles on a tank of diesel every two weeks.
That is what I get now and I would want more from advanced technology.
(yes it is a FIAT)
realkiwi
To solve the problem of recharging such a crazy big battery system I propose a merger of the 2 "greenest" technologies. Just have a passive recharge system based on hydrogen. Fuel hydrogen tanks, easy to store and fill up and then use those hydrogen tanks to recharge the battery as you drive (preventing megawatt recharge stations). That way you get ridiculous range, 0 emissions (except water) and unless you're driving continent to continent no real urgency to fill up the tank. Synergy FTW!
If they can make such dense batteries, I'd rather have 50 mile range with 1/6 the battery weight / cost. No use dragging around excess batteries all the time.
i think this is just for the high classes, when will i drive or have the car like this? when im 80? i can't even handle the battery that's in my car:(
It's how fast you can recharge it. If you have a 500 mile range then presumably the reason for thisis so you can use it up all in one go for true x-country travel not just commutes.
How long does it take to charge a 500 mile battery? well this is very easy to compute.
divide 500 by 50,miles per hour gives ten hours to drain it.
it takes roughly 30 KWatts to push a honda accord size car at a stead 55Mph on level ground.
Now how long do you want to wait to recharge it? let's say 5 minutes (1/12 hour) at the filling station is the normal time to fill a tank.
30KW * 10 Hours / (1/12 hour) = 30*120 KWatts
3.6 Megawatts.
So for a perfect efficiency system (not likely!) the minimum amount of power the user is going to be connecting to his car is a 3.6 megawatt line.
No way in hell is that ever going to happen. You simply don't let people who think Sara Palin is a good idea touch even a 10Kwatt power connection, let alone a 3.6 Megawatt one.
When highly trained linemen work on energized systems even a fraction of that power they wear 40 Calorie suits and everyone stands back.
I just don't see how the hell you get around this.
Now for commuting the problem is not so bad. You trickle charge it over many hours, plus your not trying to fill it with 500 miles in one go.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
maybe we could incorporate this into that plan to make solar panel roads. cars built with big antennas that scrape along a metal wire above and a metal wheel that runs along the conductive yet somehow transparent material below. everyone will want fords new trollymobile and all of our energy problems will be solved!
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
We can have batteries that are good for 10000 miles per charge and charge in 5 minutes, and that truly would be great, but that is not enough to make electric cars a mainstream technology. The real questions is, where will the energy come from? What energy source will be used to generate all of that additional electricity that our power grids will require? In North America we already have important segments of the power grid that are under supplied during peak load. Rolling blackouts are occasionally experienced. There is no capacity in the system for this.
The original poster states, "Within two years, they promise to have a new kind of battery technology in place for the 500-mile electric car. If that happens, then I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make the Toyota Prius look like a fad."
This is simply impossible... without first figuring out how to generate huge amounts of additional cheap electricity.
Oil is an incredible substance. It is abundant ( which is why we can use rediculous amounts of it ) and very energy dense.
Creating a better battery is and exercise in developing an energy storage solution. We are talking about a battery with a high enough energy density to take us 500 miles on a charge. Thats nice but not nearly a game changer. This addresses the "energy density" problem, but not the bigger "energy supply" problem. In order to have a "mass exodus from gasoline", we have to find another source of cheap abundant energy first.
To get us all into electric cars we would need to generate much more electricity. We could:
- burn more natural gas or coal. In North America we burn copious amounts of that already to generate electricity. But then again,I'll stick with my gasoline engine if its going to come to that. As a bonus, in this case it is more wasteful to power our electric cars this way. We would be better of fueling our cars directly with natural gas. We would save the energy lost converting to electricity. Coal....could be complicated.
- pepper the world with renewable energy generation projects. I sure hope we do this. I'm pretty sure we will, but it will take time and a very large investment. Germany is WAY ahead of everyone else on this and still, they only hope to realize a goal of 45 percent renewable energy in Germany's total energy mix by 2050, and they don't think that will be possible without major conservation efforts. So, don't strap your buick to the backyard windmill just yet.
- innovate - find new power sources. I hope we do this too. Although the next big breakthrough could happen tomorrow, this will probably also take a lot of time and money.
Oil is an incredible substance. It is very abundant ( which is why we can use rediculous amounts of it ) and very energy dense. Replacing it will be a big challenge.
By the way, we already have an energy storage soltion that has a far greater energy density that of gasoline....hydrogen. Hydrogen is just like a battery. It is an energy storage medium (a very good one too) but not a source of energy. There is no freely available source hydrogen. Like electricity, we have to create it using some other source of energy.
Wrong.
Towing capacity: LOL.
Putting aside the fact that the TGV doesn't run on batteries, are you suggesting that because the Tesla roadster has enough "muscle" to do 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, a tractor trailer, cargo van, or heavy-duty pickup equipped with a comparable number of lithium-ion batteries will perform similarly?
I think you mean Whose-Whom.
The range of electric cars is only a major issue because it takes a long time to recharge them (and because there isn't a publicly available infrastructure to recharge away from home, but that is a technically easier problem.) If recharging away from home is very slow and/or difficult, then whether the range is 200 miles or 500 won't have a huge effect on demand: if you believe you'll want to take trips longer than the battery range, you won't buy one as your primary car. If you expect to take trips over 200 miles, chances are fairly good you also expect to take trips over 500 miles.
If easy recharge is available, a 200 mile range is also not a big deal: you want to take a break from driving that often anyhow, and extra time on long trips will more than be made up for by time saved by recharging at home instead of going to a petrol station to refuel. (Note: the alternative range of 200 miles is just a guess on my part.)
Conclusion: long range is nice to have, but is not make-or-break for electric cars, so long as you have enough to drive around town.
Changing the topic, the article is about using lithium air batteries with the air contact area made very high by nanoscale structure. I'd expect this to require some serious air filtering to avoid gumming up that nanoscale structure with particulates.
Finally, lithium-air batteries might be safer. A (charged) standard battery needs to have an oxidizing agent and a reducing agent in close proximity to each other (a bit like a rocket) whereas the air battery only holds a reducing agent (like a standard fuel tank). In any catastrophic failure, the energy release rate will be limited by access to air (i.e. it will burn, like petrol does.) (Any concentrated source of easily available energy will have dangers almost by definition.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
As a 9-5 working stiff what will this car offer me if its costs 20-30K CDN when I can get tons of compact used cars for 2-4K that get 30mpg+ and this still leaves me with $15-25K+ for gas and car maintenance which I'd be hard pressed to use up for years and years.
Say I take my '74 BMW 2002 and say it costs me $200 per month to drive to work and back I'd be spending $2400 per year on gas which still leaves me tons of leeway for car maintenance costs and gas price inflation. Now substitute a 1995+ Honda Civic for my BMW and my maintenance costs go down even further. So unless all electric cars make a big fast difference in our average working joes life I don't see that huge amount of people dropping their daily drivers.
Now if they can get me that kind of electric battery millage for my 88 Bronco with 35" mudders I'm game for an electric Bronco conversion.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The exodus is already here.
-
Whose Who? It's not _my_ Who, is it your Who?
i can see people using it as a line to hide the real reason for their lateness already. . .
Electric motorcycle KillaCycle: 1/4mile in 7.8seconds @ 170mph
It sounds like a pod racer and launches about as fast. They intend to get it to 560hp and under 150lbs for their next run.
Here, watch an electric car obliterate some exotic sports cars (This is old btw, electric tech is advancing fast): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqqtJpfZElQ&feature=related
Last Friday/Sat I drove from Bergerac to Calais (both in france) via Reims. Distance covered 1070km on 55litres of Diesel in my 2004 Saab Estate.
I'll leave it to you to do the conversions but 300miles on a tankfull is just silly.
My 1969 Triumph TR6 Motorcycle in touring trim and loaded up with camping gear etc gets easily that distance on a 4 (uk)Gallon tank full.
Progress pah.
I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
parent has good argument.
"Whose-Who"
Who's who.
- Ramanujam
Have Battery changing stations been considered? You drive up, push/pull, click/click - you have a charged 'used' battery.
Straw man. Would you run a tractor trailer off a Lotus engine? Would it have a gas tank of the same size? No and no.
I think this is the key for battery powerered cars. Switching the batteries using a robot takes no longer than a stop at gas station. You don't own the batteries, you just rent them.
The hardest part with this is the need for the car manufacturers to commit to a few form factors. I think they are again too stupid and release brand specific batteries.
(I saw this working with electric bicycle rent service here in Switzerland/Engadin, where you've got a battery service in each village. You just change the batteries if they are empty. So you'll able to drive a whole day).
~Andy
an electric engine with the same amount of horsepower is 5-10 times lighter and smaller than its petrol-powered cousin. So, it isn't the engine that's the problem with electric cars, but the batteries.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Always another battery, more mining to obtain the materials, more infrastructure to build them, they always have a limited lifespan so more waste (toxic probably). Tell me, what's wrong with hydrogen (think of it as a flash battery if that spins your wheels). Hydrogen provides the raw power we crave, fills up fast at the petrol station, has a power to weight ratio batteries will ***never*** achieve, can be produced centrally at large plants where efficiencies can be optimised.
an electric engine with the same amount of horsepower is 5-10 times lighter and smaller than its petrol-powered cousin. So, it isn't the engine that's the problem with electric cars, but the batteries.
And how you generate/transport the power to charge them.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
correct. but for the batteries, the problem is one of technology; the generating/transporting problem can be solved by just starting to build HVDC lines and wind turbines, both established tech.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Sadly, outside the US it is already easy to reach the 500 mile range on gasoline. I can routinely hit 450 miles/tank with my Golf TSI and that includes combined city/highway driving daily. For longer trips on the highway 500 miles/tank is routine. When will the gasoline cars sold in the US ever actually actually reach the efficiency of most cars sold in Europe? Oh that's right, it's gonna happen when everyone in the US gives up on the idea that they need a huge SUV and accompanying large V8 or V6 engine. I was appalled to read recently that the AVERAGE fuel consumption of cars in the US today is about 21 mpg. I can come extremely close to double that on the highway (40 mpg).
I'm not saying that gasoline cars are the future, but if you think you can't get an efficient gasoline car today, that's pure BS. They do exist, just not in the US.
Nuclear.
Comparatively cheap per megawatt, and per megawatt, the most enviromentally friendly power source we've yet discovered.
That would be the problem.
There's a reason virtually all trains use electric motors (even most diesels). Electric motors are really good! They're small, cheap, lightweight, high torque, reliable - better than ICE in most respects. Batteries are a problem. They're big, expensive, and charging takes time.
Faster than a V8 Jaguar XK, (0-60 under 5 seconds), 500+ bhp, 188 mile range (not bad for a sports car), recharge in _10_minutes_ http://www.lightningcarcompany.co.uk/home.php
http://www.autoindustry.co.uk/news/20-04-06_1?template=template/printable.xml And the BMW diesels are more fuel efficient, they just have a smaller fuel tank...
I don' t understand... Where did the 300-mile range for gasoline cars come from ?
I got about 700km (roughly 440 miles) out of my 14 year old Reanult 19.
Now, that I'm running a diesel car, I get a 1000km (more than 620 miles) out of it with no problems.
With a little more sensitive foot management I can get 1100km.
battery pack comes with dolly, you take it home to recharge, LOLz
The added range would make an electric car a lot more useful, but there are still some problems to solve. With a petrol car if I get low on fuel I can fill up and be on my way again in 5 minutes. If my charge in an electric car runs out how long will it take to charge? Probably a lot more than 5 minutes. Also where can you charge it? Not everyone has off street parking or off-street parking with an electric supply (e.g. a garage in a block). You can hardly run a long extension lead down the road to where you car is parked to charge it. I think this will only work if the battery can be *easily* removed (so it can be charged in your house ready to put back in the car in the morning). It would also be good if petrol stations could swap a discharged battery for a charged one (for a fee, obviously) much like filling up with petrol today. Until these issues are resolved I don't see electirc cars being as popular as petrol/diesel.
I sold my car, and bought an electric cycle this year, and I'm pretty impressed with it. I commute on it - charge it overnight once or twice a week, and don't get a sweat up even on hills into a head wind. Costs $5 per year to charge it, and $12 to insure it. Compared to my car it's ridiculously cheap - and because most of the time I'm passing cars that are waiting for other cars ahead, I get to work in around the same time as a car (12 minutes by bike. When there's no traffic I can do it 10 minutes in a car, but a normal morning is 15-20 minutes). I've seen those tuk-tuk's around where a bike pulls a carriage and takes a couple of people in the back. All you need is a carriage on it and a bigger motor and you could go anywhere in the city on it all weather, but to be honest it's not too hot to wear rain gear on the bike anyway as you aren't working, the battery is. I had to go out of town on a bus instead, but cost about the same as petrol for the trip would have or maybe even cheaper. Not quite the same freedom as having a car, but at less than 10% of the cost, I'm happy enough. I would say that within 3 years, at least 30% of the population will move to electric simply because of the cost. And I think it will be bikes not cars that show the biggest growth.
I've seen a hundred-car train towed by an electric vehicle.
In fact, so've you, since they're *all* towed by an electric vehicle -- what do you think diesel/electric locomotives are?
The electric vehicles built now aren't designed for towing. This isn't because it's impossible to do, but because nobody's seen a market for it. If these super-batteries come out, you'll be able to build an electric truck that will out-tow any ICE truck. Hint: torque curves.
What will happen on the demand side of electricity when electric cars become common? Could it be that demand will quickly outgrow supply? What, oh what, will a KWH cost then? DIE, ELECTRIC CAR, DIE
I don't think you understand how utterly inefficient a car engine is at converting gasoline into movement.
Basically, you could build gasoline power plant and run electric cars off the output. You'd power more cars and reduce kWh cost.
BTW: Oil is non-renewable, which means demand is guaranteed to outgrow supply.
I lost my sig.
Man, people on Slashdot are so negative and surprisingly restrictive in their thinking. All this moaning about "will never work, because I don't want to wait for my battery to charge" and hardly any ideas to solve that problem! Why not ALSO have the option to swap the battery at a service station when it goes flat. See: http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/05/better-place/ for that idea.
Currently batteries are expensive large because of costly/scarce materials, recouping hefty r&d costs, and poor performance (simple need a big battery back for any usable mileage).
The price/performance is getting better all the time. At some point, I predict, electric cars will be cheaper per horsepower or mile of range. Because well you're cutting out, well gee, a few hundred moving parts, fluids, and reaping added cost savings to the chassis in flexibility of packaging and scalability (ie no need to route exhaust, drive line, cooling).
We better start building more roads, because in a decade (give or take) there will be a flood of new cars of all shapes and sizes, and they will be cheap.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
one man's treasure, is the world's junk. WHy pick such an inefficient car to emulate?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I fail to see how you could achieve 500 mile range with a battery measured on the nano scale... Are we talking nuclear fission?
As E-cars become more popular, and battery tech evolve, standardized batteries will evolve. When this happens, there might be "switching stations" where you can grab a freshly charged battery pack, and swap it in for the old discharged one. A "gas station" could charge you $10 for labor to do it, and still make more money than they would for selling a regular tank of gas.
..........FULL STOP.
Which is entirely reasonable, since, in a petrol vehicle, you can simply throw a few inexpensive, filled jerry cans in back to extend its range. Aside from knowing that they can output enough energy for a high performance (or workhorse) engine, I'd also want to know how much these batteries will cost, and how much space they take up.
I imagine at some point in time, these people are going to develop a swappable battery. And I imagine once that happens, we are going to be able to stop at battery station and swap them out for another one and move along.
put a live wire in the freeway and people can charge up as they go along and only use their batteries when on local streets. Wire up route 66 and a truck could breeze from coast to coast without burning a drop of gas. There are already powerlines alongside most roads.
Not going to happen.
The people who are complaining that 200 miles isn't enough for their daily commute will then complain that 500 isn't enough either. Get to 5,000 and they'll complain about charging time, get that down to an hour and they'll still complain.
As good as won't win over masses. Better than won't win over masses either if they have to change anything. Just look at how much people bitch if you suggest they buy a smaller model engine for the same car to save money on gas and purchase. Even if you're talking about a 350 BHP vs 400 BHP model. They'll whine about how they couldn't possibly tow their four ton trailer that they only need once every four years.
People really REALLY love to whine and complain. And that won't change any time soon.
I get 550+ miles to a tank in my 3 year old VW diesel Jetta DSG, My bet is that this will be 6 - 700 miles by the time this battery technology arrives. The downside to this car is that its so high precision (common rail injection etc.), it can't use biodiesel :(
"extend the range of all-electric cars 200 miles beyond the 300-mile range of gasoline powered cars."
Wait! Do they say that modern gasoline powered cars have a range of 300 miles?
I do not know in which world those people live (america?) but in my world, modern gasoline-powered cars have a range of up to 900 km (given you do not drive like a drunk pig would), that's around 560 miles. Even if you have a heavier car (which usually also have bigger tanks) you might not make 900 km (I prefer real units), but only 700 or hell only 500, but to claim that 300 miles are the range of a gasoline powered car is simply and utterly ridiculous.
At least in my world, no clue where those guys life, what cars they have, and if they got those cars have gears and you can actually switch up from 1st gear if you want to go faster.
Yeah, but many states in the US have a self-inflicted embargo on nuclear power plants. First, get Exxon and Texaco off from the governing positions so these embargos are lifted, then you coulds have cheap nuclear power. But for now, you're stuck with your crappy coal and natural gas power plants.
Here in Quebec, we use Hydroelectricity, a clean, high potential and renewable energy.
Not too long ago I saw an interview with someone (sorry, too lazy to look up the name) who is trying to create a system of standardized swappable battery packs for cars. Just like toys and electronics, the solution for electric cars is not necessarily greater range and faster charging. Instead, batteries should be packed and installed in such a manner that they literally snap in and out. This would allow drivers to drive into any gas station that offered this service and swap out your dead or dying battery pack for a new, fully charged pack. This would function just like it does for propane tanks. You simply swap the tank/battery pack out and pay only the cost of the electricity. The station would "own" the battery packs and would charge them for their customers. Heck, in some places they could use wind or solar to provide the electricity for this and it would be very profitable (after start up costs). Also, this would remove the scary idea that maybe these battery packs have a limited lifespan and I as a consumer would have to pay for a new pack. In this scenario, the station would take care of that.
I don't think this is all that far fetched. And, if standardized, this could even be automated to the point where you just drive your car over a machine which removed the batteries from the bottom of your car and puts in a new one. You swipe your credit card and you're back on the road.
Food for thought. :)
Nuclear costs upwards of $8 million/MW for a power plant and then you have to pay for fuel. This is more than four times as much as for thin film solar PV. You might be thinking that the cost of energy rather than capacity is low. Not so. It is also the most expensive on a kWh basis. http://www.rmi.org/images/PDFs/Energy/E09-01_NuclPwrClimFixFolly1i09.pdf
nuclear plants have issues in the summer when it is too hot for their cooling towers to works. also when there are droughts. but out side that, good stuff
Before there is a mass exodus from the internal combustion engine there are other factors than "range per charge" to be considered . The TCO (total cost of ownership ) must be comparable to gasoline engines . This includes things like initial cost of vehicle (with necessary ancillary equipment if any) , cost of electricity , tax incentives , cost/frequency of battery replacement , time required to recharge and distributed costs like infrastructure upgrades needed to sustain a massive increase of electricity used for charging .
> I predict a mass exodus from gasoline to electric powered cars that will make
> the Toyota Prius look like a fad.
It was.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
The Department of Energy has 17 national laboratories and 4 additional "technology centers" (mostly colocated at one of the labs). TFA doesn't mention particular laboratories, just that the National Labs are involved. Which 5 are the submitter referring to?
People keep saying how wonderful the idea is of an all-electric car is, but the need to charge the batteries won't disappear. So, we go from paying $20-$50 to fill a tank with gas to $100-$200 to charge the batteries, because the increased draw on the electric grid will increase the price of electricity by a HUGE amount.
Think about it, there are times of the year where there is concern about the supply of electricity in some parts of the country. So, let's just increase the demand without adding a significant amount of supply to the power grid and that will be fine, right? Coal, oil, nuclear, solar, water, and wind are what provide power to the electric grid.
Coal....people don't like it because even clean coal isn't terribly clean in terms of air polution.
Oil....ok, so we move from gas in our cars to using it for extra electric production...even if it is more efficient to use a big plant vs gasoline in engines, the number of NEW power plants would still require a lot of oil, and the electric companies would still charge US a ton of money with no additional regulation to keep us from being ripped off.
Nuclear....Most people are still against nuclear power, even though they don't have a clue how it works, or about the improvements to knowledge and safety of Nuclear power.
Solar, water, and wind are seen as the clean and renewable power sources, but because these technologies have not been as popular until fairly recently(the past few years), the deployment and investments in these technologies have been fairly low. How long would it take before a massive deployment of these technologies could actually supply power?
So, that is really the problem, there just isn't enough power in the power grid to handle the demand, and in some areas of the country, there isn't a lot of extra capacity with CURRENT uses. Some may know about the rolling blackouts that have been done in some areas to help address the shortage of electric power on the power grid. Picture what adding millions of cars would do, where you can't go to work because you can't charge up your batteries.
Or we end up on a quota system where we can't use more than a certain amount of electric power in our homes TOTAL, or we suddenly lose power when we exceed what the government says we can use.
So, be careful what you wish for, because you might not like the price when you get the bill.
Heh, my goal for vehicles is 10 years. My strategy is to buy new, then drive for double the loan period. What I do is when I finish paying off the loan I start paying myself - the goal is to be able to pay cash for my next car. Last car made it 6 before an accident. Just paid the sucker off the year before. :( I don't see myself keeping a car for 30 unless I'm really, really lucky.
Anyways, back on topic a common concept for environmental stuff is 'reduce, reuse, recycle' - Cars are pretty much 100% recycled, but recycling is at the bottom of the list. For reducing pollution from cars, first you'd reduce your usage of cars. Then you're reuse(drive used, for example), repair, etc... Only when those fail do you recycle(buy a new car).
There are exceptions - an older vehicle with something wrong with it can pollute more than replacing it would, but that's case by case. Generally if it's not spewing thick smelly smoke you're better off sticking with it, assuming it meets your needs*. Another reason to replace would be if/when repair costs to keep it meeting your needs exceeds that of obtaining a different, better suited vehicle. The old 'it'd cost more to fix than it's worth'.
*size, range, reliability, safety, etc...
I don't read AC A human right
So here's an interesting question I've wondered that I bet some slashdotter may know the answer to :
For this hypothetical electric vehicle with a 500 mile range, what is the capacity of the battery to achieve this range? With the anticipated charging efficiency, how many units of mains electricity are required to charge from empty to achieve this range and hence, what would the approximate cost to the user in electricity be?
Some other interesting questions :
- If we moved in great numbers to electric vehicles, could the national infrastructure satisfy demand? We'd certainly need a lot more high current outlets everywhere.
- When we run out of oil and we're all happy with our gas / electric / solar / human powered vehicles, where do we get the tarmac from to maintain the roads these vehicles will still need to drive on?
~Pev
Everyone whining about how long it will take to charge, boo hoo, how long before a standard power pack and an automated station to just switch your depleted one with a fully charged pack!?! Just like a F1 pit stop, could even be re-imbursed for the remaining charge etc... so on and so forth. Jesus do I have to think of everything!
A simple solution would be for the petrol companies to be the battery supplier in the new paradigm. The batteries are removable and all exactly the same. Large work trucks can have 2 or 3 battery packs, small cars can have a single one. You pull into a station, they pull the battery pack and put a new one in, you pay and go about your way. They plug the battery in and charge. You never own the battery. If you want one (like a spare can of gas) you go to the auto supply store and buy a battery pack, probably cost $100+, and you own it, you can charge it and take it with you as a spare if you like. This would actually be great to do as people just might do that to be covered while they are unlikely to carry a spare gas can in their car always just due to the smell.Gas stations might need a little more space, though they really only need to be able to store a few more than they will sell in the average 3-4 hours (while they recharge) Its the same model as propane tanks now. The petrol companies can use their existing stations (little cost) get rid of most of their distribution network (big savings), close down the refinery (huge savings), stop buy oil (incalculable savings) and they can continue to get their recurring income. Everyone wins.
300 mile range for a gasoline car?
That is only 482.8032 kilometers according to google.
Assuming 1 liter per 12 kilometers (which is bad!) we get a 40.2336 L tank.
Is that the normal size for obscenely big american cars?
Yes, it may sound unnice to say so, but they are too big, really.
Even my own small VW Fox (5Z, BNM) has a 50L tank, and that is a diesel car!
So what is the deal?
Are they saying that they will stop improving the mileage for petrol cars (which should be easy since the current average is bad) and wait two years for electric cars while they do not yet have enough green electricity?
A 500 mile range would be great since it would probably translate into a usable real world range.
I currently average 22-23 mpg in my full-size, V8, rear drive Mercury Marquis. I calculate my mileage every time I fill up and I've broken 25 mpg once or twice and dropped below 20 roughly the same number of times over the last 10 years.
My commute is 90 miles a day. That 90 miles is across the insanity that is Houston rush-hour traffic in the "just before it slows to a crawl" time window. That means I have multiple drag-strip starts, multiple full-throttle accelerations to 80 miles per hour, and I cruise at anywhere between 65 and 85 if I leave the house early enough. (Yes, for Houston residents who want confirmation, that means I spend most of my time on the Sam Houston tollway.) Full-time, full-blast air conditioning is an absolute must.
Most electric vehicles quote range stats based on gentle starts and low, steady cruising speeds that are completely unrealistic in my commuting environment. A while back, for example, I looked at an electric motorcycle that quoted a range over 100 miles. Then I dug deep into the specs and found that the published specs assumed some ridiculously slow steady cruising speed for the entire range. When I plugged in the way I must drive just to get to work without being run over in traffic, the range of that particular vehicle would drop to less than 10 miles.
So I figure if somebody quotes me a 500 mile range the vehicle just might get me to work and back. We'll see.
Here in New England the electrical transmission system is already about at capacity. So if there's a large-scale move to electric cars that will require a major investment in transmission lines. Those costs get passed through in electric rates. It will also require new generation capacity. We already get a big chunk of power from hydro in Quebec. But if we need more, well have to bid for it on the markets. If the rest of the nation (and Canada) are going massively to electric cars, that will be a sellers' market. Oh, we could erect thousands of windmills - we've got the ridge lines for 'em. But the rich retirees tend to live with views of and from the ridge lines, and love nothing more than a good fight against that sort of development. They also put up good fights against new transmission lines. And their hippie relatives are ferocious against the few nuclear power plants in New England - with some real chance of shutting one or more of those down.
So unless we're going to charge our cars from solar arrays on our roofs - at times under a foot of snow, and presuming our roofs aren't shaded by the hills and forests - the electricity to power our electric cars - not to mention our TVs and refrigerators and computers - is going to get far more spendy when those cars take off. Meanwhile the political and utility entities around here worship energy conservation, in the name of which they join our vacation and retirement home owners in fighting new generating and transmission capacity.
Would I buy an electric car? Sure, if the internal EM concerns can be alleviated. But it's going to be a disaster in the energy economy. And it'll probably lead to New England doing what it doesn't do much of now - importing large amounts of electricity from old, dirty coal plants in Ohio. On the plus side, this'll keep the price of oil lower for those still burning it. Many of us here heat our homes at least in part with oil.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
300-mile range of gasoline!? i go 1000km with one tank of diesel.
One limiting factor of the availability of electric cars that we will be hitting if they become popular is that the motors for them rely on Rare Earth elements to make them light enough to be feasible to operate in an automotive environment. And the problem with rare earth elements is that they are, well, rare. Unless new sources are found (Canada is a probable place), world supplies are likely to be strained, driving up the price of these cars and making them unaffordable.
Just what I was going to say.
Pretty soon, we will all be driving electric powered mustangs, somehow, that seems so wrong!
I am all for electrical powered vehicles, but we need to keep some backwards compatibility...in case the battery runs out...
not a full out electric car!
Prius is already a piece of nothing. There are pure diesel vehicles that consume the same amount of diesel as Prius, Volvo for example. This makes the other part of the Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle ridiculous, or dead weight.
Electric cars are a halfway measure intended to liberate you from more of your cash while maintaining the present balance of power. Quit messing around. Produce and burn hydrogen.
Great, 500 mioles off a charge.
Now:
- tell me over 100,000 miles it's break even or cheaper than driving a petrol car
- Tell me the battery lasts 300,000 miles
- Tell me the battery pack size does not reduce the vehicle storage capacity by more than a negligable amount (it can be mounted entirely under the floor and under the hood, not saccrificing any trunk space and leaving me with a flat floor inside the car)
- Tell me this 500 miles is based on a standard sized fully equipped sedan, or small SUV, and that a large SUV or minivan can also be equipped with a slightly larger battery and get the same range
- Tell me the charge time from 10% to 85% is less than 20 minutes, or there will still be a gas backup engine.
- Tell me charging on a standard home power supply (2 phase 220v) can be done in under 10 hours
- Tell me the materials in the battery pack are both common, there's enough of that material to support every car having packs within 30 years, and that the packs are easily reculced and easily repaired.
- Tell me the packs provide no dangerous chemical output when burned, can easily be put out if on fire, and are not subject to the combistion common in LiIon packs.
- Tell me you've included maintenance costs and higher insurance costs in the 100,000 and 300,000 mile vehicle costs.
- Tell me production is easy to ramp up quickly, and we can actually build enough facilities to make these batteries in capacity to satisfy demand.
- Tell me these batteries have other uses (laptops, phones, etc).
- What to do with people who don't have a garrage?
Even IF you get past these hurdles, provide an affordable solution (even if it's not exactly break even, but close enough to justify the expense in favor of cleaner air, which some still debatable on electric cars), there are other FAR more pressing issue:
The grid can NOT handle it, for more than 0.5% of us to have a plug-in hybrid, let alone full electric car, by 2020. We have enough aggregate power, yes, but not in the right places, and not at the right times of day, and the grid system can't suffle the load around properly. Large numbers of cars charging in any area would brown out local grids and cause transformer issues. We have 30-40 years of work and trillions of dollars to spend before we can let electric cars start to become the norm.
I know the response: "We have to do SOMETHING now, and this is something, the other options are too far down the road..." Well, partly right. mostly wrong.
1) Vehicle efficincy changes in ordinary petrol cars can compete directly with the CO2 savings of buying an electric. We CAN drive 50MPG in an ordinary engine in a car on a competitive size to an electric. We don't becauase those engines are not universally offered in larger sized cars, and hardly at all in America.
2) Cross-over hybrids (electric drive, gas generator, very small battery) are a cheaper option, and will limit the electrical draw from the grid while doubling average fuel economy at a $1-2K premium instead of 8-12K premium for full electric.
3) We can make UNLIMITED fuel in a carbon nuetral fashion for about $3 a gallon using RFTS and waste carbon from coal plants. There's enough material to make gas today for about half the US fleet, and this technology is proven, and available now (www.dotyenergy.com). Keep running the current cars (replace them over time with more efficient ones) and do it with no additional CO2 released... Over time, this will be a 60% vreduction in total CO2 output from cars, and gives us the 30-40 years we need to overhaul the grid.
4) Abandon H2 investments, stop wasting money on green technology that can't make impacts for 20+ years, stop wasting money on solar (we have enough wind at both a lower price and longer lifespan, and simpler deployment in North america to power the entire hemisphere on it's own and then some). Take ALL those billions and billions and invest it instead into vehicle replacement programs to get the worst guzzlers off the road sooner.
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
Coal: Output is mostly CO2. We can CAPTURE that CO2, feed it into an RWGS/RFTS catalytic processor, with some H2 and some additional water, and make ANY kind of hydrocarbon you want, without additional waste materials (other than O2, which there's pleanty of market for, and which releasing is not an issue).
Dotyenergy has solutions to make gasoline grades up through jet fuels for as little as $60 a barrel using off-peak wind energy. As we expand wind deployments, we have an increassin issue with what to do with the energy we donp;t need at the moment it's gernated. Their facilities can adjust dnaamically, in less than 1/60th of a second, to take that excess and turn it into carbon nuetral gasoline to run in our current cars.
The GRID needs a lot of work, but our energy production expansion is holding up. (getting power to where it;s NEEDED is the problem, not making it). This process lets us use excess energy made from cheap sourtces when it's not needed, turn it into fuel, and ship that fuel to places that can't support the additional electric loads on the grid. It will also feed wind energy expansion, which by nature also feeds grid expansion and overhaul.
There's enough wind availabe on non-farm, non-residential, easy to access (aka inexpensive to build on) land, plus some limited offshore deployments, within the boarders of the USA to power the entire hemesphere all by itself, and that's only using high tier wind areas suited for large scale wind deployments. We have pleanty of green energy. You're right, no grid = no electric cars (for now), but we CAN use that energy to make carbon nuetral fules, so who cares, we can still reduce carbon emissions from cars by over 60% in 30-40 years...
There is no contest in life for which the unprepared have the advantage.
500 miles is a dream, which is fine dumb MFs since you have to grab a Motel during a FILLUP.
Nuclear.
Comparatively cheap per megawatt
Not really. In reality, it's one of the most expensive. You ought to get some up to date facts. This has been known for a decade or two.
Infuriate left and right
Everyone is thinking about this the wrong way. First off, we don't have the charging infrastructure in place (no parking meters with chargers - pay for an hour charging and get free parking) and that means that it's useless to think about range in a one-way manner. You must think about it in the round-trip manner instead, which means your usable range is short by 30-60 Miles. In other words, a 300 Mile one-way range translates into a 120 Mile usable range for round trip purposes and the 500 mile one-way becomes a meager 220 usable miles and until we get the round-trip range to 300-500 usable files (600-1000) one-way, the EV simply wont be practical in the United States.
I'll give you an example of the difference between round-trip and one-way consideration. Once a quarter (every 3 months) I have to drive into Los Angeles, Ca for the day. For me this is a One-way trip of 180 miles and I normally avg. 420 miles for the round-trip. In order to complete such a trip with an EV, I must have a minimum of a 500 mile range, which gives me 20 miles of spare range over the requisite 220(440) mile usable range. You might wonder why I state usable and the answer is simply asked "Do you run your car on empty?" to which most people answer a resounding "Hell No!" so why would you run an EV down to empty? You can't coast into a fuel station and buy 10 miles of Electricity can you, so you have to keep some range in reserve.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
Sure, 500 mile range sounds great but unless the thing can be recharged in, say 5-10 minutes, it'll be useless for cross-country travel. One should be able to drive about 700-800 miles solo before calling it a day and getting a hotel. If you're going non-stop with multiple drivers across the U.S., you have to be able to recharge quickly. This is all dependent on the existence of the power-distribution infrastructure too. And then there's the question of load-carrying capability. Four adults plus luggage comfortably seated is probably average. And what about long-term storage of the charge? What's the self-discharge rate of the battery? Can you leave the vehicle sitting unconnected for a month or more without having to charge it? And what about an emergency situation where you run out of schlitz? Will there be a tow-truck-ish mobile charging system that can give you a gallon of electricity?
At least in SyFy books. In real life however the actual evidence points to a net energy deficit when the entire fuel cycle is taken into account. But for some reason as soon as someone says something good about nuclear power on slashdot they instantly get modded up. I simply don't understand why there is a collective drop in IQ when the available scientific *evidence* and an examination of the legal and political constructs demonstrate statements like these are complete fantasy. So lets examine them;
Operative word "Comparatively", but what about some institutional assesments?
Standard and Poor's assessment of the Nuclear industry's financial viability "the industry's legacy of cost growth, technological problems, cumbersome political and regulatory oversight, and the newer risks brought about by competition and terrorism keep credit risk too high for even federal legislation that provides loan guarantees to overcome"
an assessment supported by Britain's Royal Institute of International Affairs "even with an explicit tax on carbon-based power generation, new nuclear power plants cannot be economical without government subsidies"
The breakdown of U.S energy research and development reported by the US DOE is roughly 60% for nuclear, 25% to fossil fuels and 15% to SUSTAINABLE energy sources. In addition to what I mentioned above you can add the 2005 U.S energy bill which provided another $13 billion dollars worth of subsidies, revocation of the Public Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA) which was put into law in 1935 to stop a re-occurrence of the 1929 stock market crash. The Price-Anderson Act to underwrite the Nuclear industry with $600 Billion of Taxpayer money and closer to a trillion if you factor the huge amount of land you are going to lose in the event of an actual accident.
Half a billion dollars worth of subsidies for procuring companies (i.e oil companies) proposing "pre-approved" reactor designs, even if they don't build it, and a 1.8 cent per kilowatt hour tax credit if they do. The reality is if the Nuclear power industry was forced to cover it's own liability and fund itself it would cease to exist. I could go on and on but the bottom line is how can America, of all countries, continue to justify this form of corporate welfare?
Ok, lets look at radioactive isotope emissions only. Over the entire industrial process radioactive isotope emissions are inevitable. Here are the *authorised* effluents not the accidents.
Mine tailing: radioactive mine tailings from open cut mining where ever it has occurred, radon 220, radium 226, thorium etc.
Enrichment: U-238 or DU. Used as weapon projectile, is pyrophoric and burns into a radioactive powder. Groundwater contamination from leaking Hexafluoride tanks
Reactor facility: tritium, iodine 131, xenon 141, 143, 144, cerium 141, 143, 144, tritium, tritium and tritium AND Noble Gasses Which Decay Into More Dangerous Daughter Products (Xenon 137, Krypton 90, rubidium 90, strontium 90, Xenon 135, xenon 133, krypton 85, Argon 39). Of course no epidemiological studies have been performed on the noble gas venting which are released hourly from *all* Nuclear reactors. (did I mention tritium) 4000 gallons of primary coolant water PER DAY containing plutonium 238,239,241, technetium 99, iodine 129, carbon 14 and *ahem* tritium which is highly mutagenic once it's in the foodchain.
Reactor decommissioning: cobalt 60, iron 55, nickel 63.
Radioactive Waste: Plutonium, Strontium 90, Iodine 131, Cesium 137 and on and on
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
there has been much work on battery technology in the last decade and even some companies blocking some of that tech from getting used in EVs, but progress is happening. Jumping to a 500 mile range is a huge leap and will likely require a break-through design to achieve it. What comes to mind is that in the EV market, there is really only one breakthrough required to make the EV a game changer. Under the guidance of the GW Bush in 2001 and for the following eight years, they were pushing hydrogen with the fervor of Charlie Brown pushing the Great Pumpkin. Unfortunately, they hydrogen gimmick required at least three breakthrough technologies to be viable as a system for consumer based vehicles.
If only we had the same kind of vicious backing of this one attempt to improve batteries as we had when the Oil Administration was pushing hydrogen. Even if it isn't successful, we'd probable end up with a more educated public instead of a public still thinking "The Great Pumpkin" was going to rise. I still hear people talk about hydrogen fuelcell based cars as if it's just around the corner.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I've been doing fine with $5/gal gas for years. $20-$25 per gallon gas would go mostly unnoticed if we all have electric vehicles. Aviation, on the other hand, would become prohibitively expensive as there is no affordable replacement for fossil fuels in sight for large aircraft.
All the more reason to switch to electric cars and renewable+nuclear and conserve what fossil fuels are left. The planes really need the dinosaur juice.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Is that you?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Definitely not the most environmentally friendly. The expended waste product from nuclear is atrocious and because such, I would argue is the WORST environmentally. The lifespan of the waste is pretty much "forever"... certain common fuels are around for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of years (e.g. Pu-239). Once you use it, it doesn't just go away and that makes it the worst IMO. And once that time is up, what then?
Note, I am FOR nuclear over the other feasible choices that we have now (e.g. coal), but in the long term, if usage keeps increasing (and it will), this will be an issue that isn't easily solved by throwing money at it.
It'll also self-destruct if discharged below a threshold
I think you're confusing Li-Ion with Li-Po, which is permanently dead once discharged below a certain voltage (although Li-Po batteries are better all around, apart from this issue). Li-Ions can be completely discharged.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
http://cleantech.com/news/3174/eestors-weir-speaks-about-ultracapacitor-milestone
But this is the point actually. It COULD be nuclear. It COULD be solar. It COULD be a number of things. It most likely will be a mix of them. Once you've got every one switched over to electric cars, 80% of the battle is won there. At least on that side of things (the other side, industrial / manufacturing is another issue). On the consumer side, most housing I would hazard is electrically heated and or air conditioned these days (I know there are oil and coal(?) hold outs), so the electric vehicle is the last real poluting source in the general public during daily use. Since it turns not NOT EVERYONE BURNS COAL OR OIL AMERICA, to make their energy (hint, hint, I'm just above your boarder), it means that demanding more energy, because of your electric car, doesn't mean more coal or oil is burned up in the process. It might mean that those of us that have lots of Hydro Power or whatever might have less to sell to other people south of us. And then those people south of us might have to start making some serious choices about how to generate capacity finally in an economical and environmentally friendly way. I don't see any of these things as a bad thing.
Who ever was saying before, DIE ELECTRIC CAR DIE, clearly understands little of the benefit. I think that internal combustion engines will still be infinitely useful where there isn't alot of infrastructure around (read: harsh environments, remote locations, etc), but in terms of city and near city driving, its the future for sure.
So I'm wondering..Instead of syphoning gas from your car..would they then use cables to steel the electricity from it? I'm worried that thieves may try to cut my run time down to 100 miles per charge...
Definitely not the most environmentally friendly. The expended waste product from nuclear is atrocious and because such, I would argue is the WORST environmentally. The lifespan of the waste is pretty much "forever"... certain common fuels are around for tens (or hundreds) of thousands of years (e.g. Pu-239). Once you use it, it doesn't just go away and that makes it the worst IMO.
Unlike all other approaches involving fuel, nuclear waste is minuscule in amount (even if we scale production up significantly), and is trivial to contain. Furthermore, large parts of what we label "waste" now - especially the most radioactive parts - are reprocessible.
So, we go from paying $20-$50 to fill a tank with gas to $100-$200 to charge the batteries, because the increased draw on the electric grid will increase the price of electricity by a HUGE amount.
Electricity can be generated by renewable resources, some of which the energy itself is free -- hydro, solar, wind. We're running out of oil; an estimate I saw last night said the pessimists say we're going to peak in twenty years, the optimists say forty before oil prices start skyrocketing. Be prepared for breathtakingly enormous price increases for oil-based products in the next couple of decades.
there are times of the year where there is concern about the supply of electricity in some parts of the country
I've never lived anywhere that there were concerns about suply. California's problems a few years ago were caused by bad deregulation that let sociopaths get richer by manipulating the market. That wasn't a fault of the economy, it was the fault of California's abysmal legislation and regulation.
So, let's just increase the demand without adding a significant amount of supply to the power grid and that will be fine, right?
We're already increasing the supply to the grid, and have done so pretty much continuously since the late 1800s. They just completed a new 200 megawatt generator in my town, retiring two older generators at a net increase on capacity. They're ahead of the curve.
As electricity here is dirt cheap it would be a net gain for me if I had an electric car. Suply follows demand: when electric cars start getting popular, you'll see a LOT of new power plants being built (at least in states that don't have entirely clueless governments, i.e. California), and most of them will be non-polluting, like solar, wind, tidal, hydro, and nuclear (which has its own problems, yes).
"Supply side economics" is bunk. The economy is driven by demand, not supply. If consumers demand a product or service, that demand will be met by increased supply.
Free Martian Whores!
Its time to inject sanity back into the discussion.
The point the original poster was making is that gasoline is portable and easy to replace/refuel albeit at a cost while batteries take much longer
to charge even on rapid charge. While his use of terminology was wrong , his understanding of the issue was correct.
Ive been in many slashdot discussions (hence my 5 digit slashdot id) where slashdot users proclaim their profound and often
wrong knowledge of the law/psychology/political theory/education yet nonsense will continue to fly.
The fact that someone has a degree in computer science does not make them an expert on anything except computer science...and maybe not even that. If they seriously equate their knowledge with that of Leonardo da Davinci...they better be ready to show it.
My diesel Jetta gets 500-600 U.S. miles per tank and can be filled in a matter of a few minutes. I don't anticipate seeing electric vehicles with this sort of versatility any time soon. We need vehicles with electric drivetrains, batteries/capacitors, and diesel electric generators until battery technology or hydrogen catches up.
We need to move forward with the technologies that work especially those that are necessary for battery powered vehicles, namely electric drivetrains. Just look at the promise of the Aptera.
"... which aims to use nanotechnology to extend the range of all-electric cars 200 miles beyond the 300-mile range..."
I thought the energy density of a battery was based on the volume of its reactants, not the shape of its cathodes.
Ok, nanotech might solve the charging speed problem, the "it costs too much" problem, and even the "I can't charge a lithium air battery, period" problem, but I don't see how it can increase the energy density.
Trench a buried cable from the house out to the curb with a lockable weatherproof receptacle.
You're probably not familiar with me, but I'm also a big advocate of nuclear power.
I once figured it out - Switching to EVs would probably raise most peoples electric usage by ~30%. Extremely highly variable on an individual scale, of course.
I think EVs could be a great way to help balance demand via load control systems - IE the electric cars only charge off-peak.
You might want to check your local rates, who's your power company? They probably have a webpage I can check. You might be able to get your power for about the same price I pay for anytime power if you go for an off-peak system.
I don't read AC A human right
But how much weight can it pull?
My 1996 Nissan Primera, which has four-wheel-drive just to increase its consumption, can get around 440km of urban driving off a single tank. On a long trip (such as Auckland to Wellington) I regularly achieve in excess of 600km from a tank. That's nearer 400 miles than 300. In an older car, with the extra drive-train losses from powering all four wheels. I'm not a particularly conservative driver, either, in terms of my acceleration habits - I don't exceed the posted limits, but I like to get there as quickly as possible.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
God you are dumb. Changing speed to amount of weight you can pull is simple gearing. If a setup can go really fast you can re-gear it to pull heavy things. Since the motor is comparable to racing engines we can make one comparable to the biggest trucks. I mean Jaguars have truck engines in them these days... God you are dumb.
As I mentioned in my previous comment, the renewable energy needs to be set up by someone to generate ENOUGH power to handle the increase in demand. Electricity may not be as cheap as it currently is if the electric grid itself becomes overloaded.
Now, keep in mind that not all areas of the country are set up the same way. You have places like NY City where the value of land makes it very difficult to justify setting up a power plant in many areas(not all). Just because it is practical in some places does not mean it is practical everywhere, and that is where you run into trouble.
And then, you get the old "Not in my backyard" response to new power plants, no matter how clean they may be.
And, more demand means higher costs for electric, no matter how cheap it may be to generate. It could cost one cent per megawatt, and we would still end up paying through the nose to the power company.
Ever notice that every time you cycle any secondary cell, you get less out, but put about the same amount back in? Unless and until that one is solved, a lot of things like what you suggest are simply spurious. What works for propane tank exchanges will not work if the gas station has to accept a "pig in the poke weed" when you exchange, even if you could lift one of these monsters, and it wasn't utterly built into the car by design.
Go live on solar power for awhile, as I have since the early '80s, or just buy some tools with rechargeable batteries (any technology) and you'll know how ridiculous that idea is.
Just once, I'd like to see a demo where one of these secondary cell technologies that claim from 300 to 700 real cycles actually does so without having about 10% of the original capacity at the end. I've looked, invested, tried them all. Nope.
And at the end, you find out how much they really cost. When that starts happening, the Prius and others will truly be an old fad -- people will drop them like hot rocks.
Myths or not, we're at the point of chemistry energy limits now. There's nothing more electropositive than Li, and the entire periodic table has been checked, duh.
A modern cell has about the same power as the equal amount of high explosive, something which has had considerable money put into it (the most expensive army, like lawyers, is the losing one) -- we're simply at a physical limit here. You could only get a little bit more is you went to fluorine for the other reactant, boy would that ever be fun to be carrying around.
Ultracaps are possible, but I've seen zero, nothing, zip, that could really do this, just the usual gee whiz nano this and that, and with this, if we could do that too (with about 3 chained ifs -- I got this bridge in Brooklyn too) we'd have something. But we never do get anything out of that hype, or not so far.
So, dream on. I built a 200 mpg car here, myself. It's got a screaming 8 hp and is only viable if you're willing to accept noise, unsafety due to low mass, and so on.
That's what it's going to take though, unless someone really figures out how to cheat mother nature, and I doubt it -- I AM a REAL scientist.
The car runs on gasoline which (other than the obvious problems) has one enormous advantage over most things -- you don't have to carry the other 15x of oxidiser by weight along, it's free. This tech helps there....but that's the limit.
Rather than having to worry about charging overnight or charging stations in parking lots, I'd like to see the battery pack be durable and standardized, so instead of charging it, you just swap it out. It'd be nice if self charging was still an option though.
I imagine that most batteries are under the floor of the trunk? So maybe the sides of the car near the trunk can have a sliding panel. Open it, and all your batteries are bundled and sitting on a sturdy rack that slides out.
Either some 'car wash-like' automated process where your car rides along a track and a robotic arm swaps the batteries out, or maybe just a hydraulic assisted but manually controlled arm that an attended could use to give you a new set.
What if I'm at zero battery power but need to drive 200 miles? Swapping them out would 'fill them up' instantly. It would also allow for some central quality control and testing of the batteries that the 'swapping station' could do.
tritium, tritium and tritium AND Noble Gasses Which Decay Into More Dangerous Daughter Products (Xenon 137, Krypton 90, rubidium 90, strontium 90, Xenon 135, xenon 133, krypton 85, Argon 39). Of course no epidemiological studies have been performed on the noble gas venting which are released hourly from *all* Nuclear reactors. (did I mention tritium) 4000 gallons of primary coolant water PER DAY containing plutonium 238,239,241, technetium 99, iodine 129, carbon 14 and *ahem* tritium
If tritium were so terrible and dangerous, then why is used in things like gun sights that are sold to members of the public? Also, primary coolant water is inside a closed loop - that is why you need at least one other coolant system to move the heat out to the generators. Thus, your figure of 4000 gallons per day of waste primary coolant water makes no sense.
The large battery packs for cars need not be built monolithically. There can be a standard created, where the smallest size battery using the new tech is (for example) 0.5 cm x 5cm x 4cm. That would be good for small devices. Then, maybe 10 of these together in a tray make a brick suitable for power tools etc. Keep building composite batteries this way until you get a car size unit that would be composed of hundreds of the original small standard size, but still easy to slide in / out of a car at a swap station. Swap stations would charge for the convenience of fully charged packs, of course. Getting away from devices that work with only one type of stored energy (gasoline) and instead tap a source-agnostic energy bus will be a big step forward. Whether the electricity comes from nuclear, wind or whatever, the energy infrastructure can evolve and get better and cleaner, without breaking standards dependencies by end consumption devices.
What part of "tritium which is highly mutagenic once it's in the foodchain" didn't you understand?
I guess you don't know as much about nuclear power as you think you do. Leaks between primary and secondary cooling are commonplace.
What part of "the *authorised* effluents" did you not understand?
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
there are already batteries that can charge in minutes, and even top up large percentages of their charge in under a minute. combine this with a similar battery pack or supercapacitor as a buffer at the servo and you could fill your electric 'tank' quicker than with a petrol car. Get with the times :/
watch "the money masters" on google video
This is how far I read because if you seriously think Nuclear power ends up in an energy deficit you are either completely ignorant about the subject, your sources are rubbish, or you are deliberately lieing ( or possibly a combination of the three ).
To give a slight idea of just how much energy is released in a nuclear reactor, the main limit of a reactor's power rating is how high temperatures the construction materials and cooling system can cope with. The reaction itself is limited only by the temperature at which the ceramic fuel rods and steel cladding melts, and at any time the fuel present in a large reactor contains more energy than entire countries consume in a year. If that is not enough to convince you, consider that the energy bound in chemical molecules like gas or petroleum is measured in electron volt, while the energy released in a fission reaction is hundreds of millions of electron volt.
Or put another way, one atom of uranium when fissioned will release an amount of energy equivalent to hundreds of millions of molecules of conventional fuel. Even if you take the fuel that has the highest chemical energy/weight ratio there is ( hydrogen ) it still releases only 1.53eV per atomic weight unit, while uranium fission is closer to a million eV per atomic weight unit.
For nuclear power to end up on an energy deficit the energy needed to extract, refine, burn and dispose it would have to be hundreds of millions times larger ( per atom counted ) than the energy needed to extract and refine conventional fuels. Now I accept that handling, mining, burning and disposing uranium and the waste products may be more involved than say coal. I'll even let you say 100 times more energy intensive, or heck why not say 10.000 times just for the hell of it, lets even assume coal is used 100% efficiently, and that only 1% of uranium is burned. You would still have THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE to account for.
Really it is hard to grasp the energy released in nuclear reactions. A few kilograms would be enough to turn an entire city to ash, a couple of metric tonnes correspond to entire nations' annual energy consumption. Even though most reactors today only burn about 5% of it the amount much power you can tap from it is limited only by how much energy the cooling system can safely transport away, and the energy content is enough that a reactor can run for years without refueling.
The part where it is chemically equivalent to hydrogen and hence rapidly dissolves and disperses in water, quickly being diluted to lower than background levels. In addition the very low energy of the beta radiation it emits, it's tendency to be ejected with urine or sweat if ingested ( as opposed to staying in the body ) the short half-life, the minuscule amount produced, and the lack of any major pathway into the food-chain that would not first dilute any release by many orders of magnitude.
Honestly of all the elements in nuclear waste tritium is one of the more harmless ones. If you want to do scaremongering it's Iodine, Caesium, Strontium, Technetium and Neptunium you should harp about ( your arguments would still be rubbish of course, but those are the elements most likely to cause trouble ).
Good thing then that the secondary circuit is also a closed circuit that is heavily monitored for radioactivity. Seriously can you quote even a single incident where a dangerous amount of radioactive material was released through the secondary circuit ?
I got news for you buddy. Your body fluids are radioactive, as is air, milk, ponies and everything else on the planet. If it is dangerous or not is not simply a matter of it containing something radioactive and being a lot of it. The concentration, chemical properties, decay constant, and concentration matters. It is physically impossible to do ANYTHING without releasing small amounts of radioactivity. Even the carbon dioxide in the air you exhale contains some C-14. The authorised emissions from nuclear power-plants are set sufficiently strict that if you lived next to one for 50 years you get just a couple of "banana units" equivalent of exposure ( the same amount as you would get from eating a few bananas ).
I don't know if you are unaware of the serious flaws in your scaremongering, or if you do it deliberately, in either case you've quite clearly demonstrated that your claims are half-truths at the very best if not deliberately misleading.
...although, you will always need more than just batteries to power vehicles that need to be refueled in minutes, not hours.
Nuclear fission? 3 mile island. Chernobyl. It relies on a non-renewable resource that is already in short supply (less than 100 years reserves if I recall) and produces an incredibly environmentally unfriendly output in nuclear waste.
I think you will find that there are a whole heap of more environmentally friendly friendly power sources. Wind power (from sailing ships to windmills to wind turbines). Solar power. Solar hot water. And most recently hot fractured rock geothermal power. Although not strictly speaking renewable, in practice the reserves and huge, generally available on land, and provide consistent baseload power.
Methanol is a LOT easier than hydrogen to store, pipe, and transfer. Methanol can use most of the present gasoline infra-structure. I suspect that most existing IC engines could use it with suitable modification, although there may be corrosion issues.
Like hydrogen it needs to be made.
Currently usually made from natural gas but it can be made from coal. It also can be extracted from the gas stream that produces biochar.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
The average American drives 10,000 miles per year.
Let's assume that the average electric car will get the equivalent of 50 miles per gallon.
That's 400 gallons of gas per year.
Gasoline is roughly 120 MJ/gallon A MJ is about 33 kW hr.
So that's 2640 KwHr.
With charging inefficiencies call it 3000 KwHr/year.
That would close to double the electrical demand. Gonna be some warm wires somewhere.
The one advantage: Most of the extra load is at night. In the climates where electric is appreciated, air conditioning is also a big load.
(In Canada an awful lot of the engine's waste heat is used to heat an badly insulated box with lots of windows in a fast moving cold wind. )
I suspect that large neighbourhoods exceed that 10,000 mi/yr figure -- bedroom communities, long commutes. Which means the load won't be evenly distributed.
If eeStor's capacitor technology works then you can have a smart charger that keeps the household battery full, and easily charge the car at whatever rates the wiring will allow.
Third Career: Tree Farmer Second Career: Computer Geek First Career: Teacher, Outdoor Instructor, Photographer.
exactly how many street races can i get out of this battery?
Right, so your saying that, magically, Tritium (3H) changes it's physical characteristics, stops being a beta emitter and just isn't radioactive anymore. What about when it's in air?
3H is biologically mutagenic *because* it's a low energy emitter. This characteristic makes readily absorbed by surrounding cells.
The available evidence from studies conducted contradicts you, so I'll just quote from those works;
Tritium can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through skin. Eating food containing 3H can be even more damaging than drinking 3H bound in water. Consequently, an estimated radiation dose based only on ingestion of tritiated water may underestimate the health effects if the person has also consumed food contaminated with tritium. (Komatsu)
Studies indicate that lower doses of tritium can cause more cell death (Dobson, 1976), mutations (Ito) and chromosome damage (Hori) per dose than higher tritium doses. Tritium can impart damage which is two or more times greater per dose than either x-rays or gamma rays.
(Straume) (Dobson, 1976) There is no evidence of a threshold for damage from 3H exposure; even the smallest amount of tritium can have negative health impacts. (Dobson, 1974) Organically bound tritium (tritium bound in animal or plant tissue) can stay in the body for 10 years or more.
Tritium can cause mutations, tumors and cell death. (Rytomaa) Tritiated water is associated with significantly decreased weight of brain and genital tract organs in mice (Torok) and can cause irreversible loss of female germ cells in both mice and monkeys even at low concentrations. (Dobson, 1979) (Laskey) Tritium from tritiated water can become incorporated into DNA, the molecular basis of heredity for living organisms. DNA is especially sensitive to radiation. (Hori) A cell's exposure to tritium bound in DNA can be even more toxic than its exposure to tritium in water. (Straume)(Carr)
Where do you think the numbers come from. Thats authorised effluents - from every reactor. And since the danger is a scale dependent on exposure I'll again just quote the scientists;
First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell's most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous -- deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)
Well considering that I am talking about radioactive isotope effluents as opposed to radioactivity you have either missed the point or just don't/won't get it. I'd suggest you spend some time educating yourself and re-engage the discussion with some actual facts as opposed to rhetoric.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Thanks for the science lesson but what you are confusing is the *potential* energy available with the reactors capability to release that energy within it's engineering limitations, or it's "potential capacity". This "potential capacity" is also limited by the availability (or uptime) of the reactor. Of the 104 reactors operating in the U.S 41 experienced year plus outages to restore their safety levels and 10 reactors did it twice. That's 51 'year plus' outages in operating nuclear reactors and I haven't even gone into general reactor availability and uptime. The most concerning of this indicates that the infrastructure is showing systemic signs of wear.
Of course, you don't have to believe me just read the report on reactor outages (pdf) so you can educate yourself with real scientific data.
First of all mean energetic estimates for construction of a nuclear power plant is somewhere between 11TWh and 35TWh (40-120 PetaJoules). However energy cost for demolition are around 70TWh (240-300 PetaJoules) if deconstruction is performed safely. Just in the construction/demolition phase you have consumed 1 third of the 300TWh's expected from the life of a brand new AP1000 reactor. Then factor the energetic costs of the dismantling and clean up of the core 5.6 - 16TWh's and it really is starting to look like a very poor energy return from your 1GW reactor.
Using a conservative energy expenditure of 1528Kwh per ton of rock (containing Uranium) you have to process 500 tons of rock, that's 763500Kwh's, to produce one kilo of Uranium. Assuming an extremely optimistic extraction efficiency approaching %50 AND assuming you have a high grade ore that's roughly 763Gwh's per ton and you need 160tons for your first core. Even before enrichment you've consumed over 100TWhs without a 1/3 core refuel every ten years for forty and we haven't even factored energetic costs of a spent fuel containment facility or the logistics of moving spent fuel safely.
It is *common knowledge* that current reactors have a burn up rate of roughly less than half of one percent (0.3%) of the fuel, not a good starting point fuel wise, with the reactor being around 33% efficient. That might be typical for an industrial power plant but as the industrial energetic inputs weigh heavily off the efficiency of the plant, that is going to be another figure we will never be able to determine simply because the plants will consume energy *after* they are decommissioned.
This brings us to Storm van Leeuwen and Smith whose analysis was to asses the net energy return of the Nuclear industry. You can check their research which is one source for the above figures and tell me what you think (the other being nuclear industry estimates which are *not* peer reviewed). The nuclear industry itself has spent much time attempting to refute their research. You will find it's been peer reviewed and constructed using using U.S government standards for industrial process measurement. So until you come up with a better argument, then this one alone is enough to reveal any further investment in commercial nuclear power as pointless.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
Personally I favor technical correctness.
As to the intent of th GP I can not speak, and unless you are the original AC, neither can you. However, the GP clearly states "...recharge that fast or hold that much energy and what you have is a BOMB", which I infer to be about the inability of all battery technology to function in that capacity. To make a carte blanch claim of that magnitude implies an intimate knowledge of the field, which the GP then precludes by their failure to correctly apply the units of energy.
The respondent then replies (admittedly in a somewhat snarky fashion) that the GP was technically meaningless. The AC (probably the same person based on the apparent vitriol of the remark) responds with one fact and one falsehood. Another technical failure.
Great claims require great support. The AC provided no foundation for their claim and was deservedly, IMHO, shot down for their lack of technical correctness.
As to my Mona Lisa simile, I was not attempting to equate bovination with Davinci, that would be absurd. What I was attempting to disseminate is that the standards of rigorous communication in the advanced fields of study require years of training, and to belittle those years is disrespectful.
HTH
-- The morphemes of your disquisition are ascertainable, but they have eschewed an ambit of transpicuous exposition.