Slashdot Mirror
Hyundai To Build a 300-Mile-Per-Charge Electric Car (reuters.com)
On Thursday, Hyundai Motor said it will launch a long-range electric vehicle with a driving range of 500 km (311 miles) per charge after 2021. The company is reportedly planning 31 eco-friendly models by 2020, up from a previously flagged 28. Reuters reports: The South Korean automaker is planning to launch an electric sedan under its high-end Genesis brand in 2021 with a range of 500 km (310 miles) per charge. It will also introduce an electric version of its Kona small sport utility vehicle (SUV) with a range of 390 km in the first half of next year. The automaker and affiliate Kia Motors Corp, which together rank fifth in global vehicle sales, also said they were adding three plug-in vehicles to their plans for eco-friendly cars, bringing the total to 31 models by 2020. Underscoring Hyundai's electric shift, those plans include eight battery-powered and two fuel-cell vehicles -- a contrast to its 2014 announcement for 22 models, of which only two were slated to be battery-powered. Hyundai also confirmed a Reuters report that it is developing its first dedicated electric vehicle platform, which will allow the company to produce multiple models with longer driving ranges.
But an electric plugs in at night so you have a full tank every single morning. If you don't do a long haul you never ever need to stop to fill up. Plus less moving parts means less repairs and breakdowns. No emissions. Torque and acceleration up the wazoo. The list of benefits goes on for miles.
They are relying on the recent advancement in lithium battery technology (that enables solid state storage at a higher density) to reduce the cost of batteries for their cars since they will be able to get that same range with fewer batteries. I would expect to see Tesla putting out cars with double what Hyundai is quoting on their base models long before 2021.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
And tomorrow I leave for a 600 mile road trip. Did another one last month.
Then don't buy an electric car. They obviously don't fit your use case. But for many other people they are a good choice.
I drive an electric, and I am very happy with it. I will never go back to an ICE.
300 miles at 80mph works out to almost 4 hours so 3 hours or so I'd look to stop and recharge. Not too shabby. Hook up to charge, take a leak and wash up a little. Grab a coke and a snack then hit the road again. Not bad at all.
you'll only get [311 miles] in efficiency mode (0 to 60 in 2 minutes) traveling over flat ground with no AC or accessories.
Aggressive acceleration doesn't reduce efficiency in electric cars the way it does with gas engines, so ahead and step hard on the pedal if you like. Just try to use regen when slowing down as much as possible. Likewise, hills are not really a problem - I live at the base of the Rocky Mountains and find the descents mostly make up for the lowered climbing mileage in my BEV. Hot and cold weather, on the other hand, do reduce range, in some situations very significantly.
Why would AC matter that much? These EVs have sometimes a 60kWh battery.
My split unit mitsubishi usually hovers around 300W and manages to keep things cool. It uses 600-700W when cooling things down.
So lets say a car AC to uses 2kW to keep a car cool, that's 1,2 percent of the battery capacity pr hour?
What am I missing from the equation? Do they use more than 2000 watt?
And that's where Tesla stands today, not where it'll be in 2021, 4 years from now. Its funny, these EV announcements from other companies acting as if they're not chasing a moving target. Their consistent failure to realize this and consistent undrestimation of demand for quality EVs and infrastructure is why Tesla is now the highest market cap US automaker, why the Model S and X capture nearly 10% (and growing) of their global market segments, and why Model 3 is about to do the same to the midrange.
To their credit, Hyundai's Ioniq is one of the best short-range EVs for its price point. But it's no Tesla.
Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
One of the reasons for Teslas success is that they make attractive cars that people don't feel ridiculous driving. Those vehicles you linked to are ridiculous and can't be products because they wouldn't sell.
Real EVs will make stepwise improvements on aerodynamics. They won't suddenly be redesigned.
Oh, and NUCLEAR BAD!! Because strip mining the planet for rare earth metals to make windmills, batteries, and solar panels has NO IMPACT on the environment.
How often do I need to tell you:
a) rare earths are not rare, it just a name. If you honour regulations it is no problem mining them
b) the only rare earth for windmills is Niob, used for magnets which is waste product in iron mining
c) 99% of all solar panels don't use rare earth metals
Get a damn clue and stop repeating the same myths over and over again.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
This is a problem with all new technologies: people with no experience with it create worst-case scenarios in their mind and inflate them, while making little of the problems of the technologies they're replacing.
Yes, you can make your occasional trips, using the sort of break times that you're supposed to take when driving on long trips (regardless of whether you actually take them or not). But that's not your everyday life. EVs start every day with a full charge and you never need to randomly detour from your life to go to a gas station. Now, in your mind, the "taking breaks on trips" thing is huge (because it's unfamiliar), while the "detouring to go to gas stations" thing is little (because it's familiar). But for people who own EVs, that situation rapidly becomes reversed. They get totally used to the luxury of having a full charge every day, and whenever they for whatever reason (maintainance, accident, etc) are forced to use a gasoline car, they end up griping bitterly about the inconvenience of going to gas stations. I've seen it time and time and time again.
And unlike you, they all have experience with both owning gasoline and electric cars. But the conveniences of electric cars become a second-nature expectation very quickly.
Another issue that quickly becomes annoying about gasoline cars can be well summed up by this article: Our Tractor Keeps Shaking Violently & Has A Sore Throat. That's not a one-off, that's an extremely common experience for people once they start driving electric. EV owner surveys have extremely high rates of satisfaction with EVs in general. This translates to brand loyalty as well - Tesla generally blows away all other competitors on brand loyalty - most recently with 91% "would buy again", vs. the next highest (Porsche) at 84%.
Again, though, you haven't ever owned an EV, so you have no experience with this. So your mind makes any perceived downside into an insurmountable wall, while making excuses for what you have to endure for your ICE vehicle and playing them down as if they're nothing.
Ever since, I've been suspicious of Jesus and very careful around chlorine.
Be aware that their range drops much faster when being driven over 65mph than that of gasoline vehicles. And there are lots of highways with speed limits over 65mph.
Fast but legal driving (80mph) reduces an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) car by about 10%. It reduces electric vehicles by about 30%. Range on electric cars goes up when driven slower (not so much on ICE cars).
However- for 95% of car trips are under 20 miles. and even for the longer trips, almost all daily commutes are under 40 miles each way.
While "filling" an electric vehicle is getting faster rapidly, it still takes about 15 minutes + 5 minutes over head vs 1 minute/8 gallons + 5 minutes overhead for ICE cars.
However- every day, electric cars start with a full charge so for most owners, the only time they will need to "fill" a car is on long trips. And on a long trip, you can hook the car up and go in to use the restroom/buy a snack. So for most owners, their experience will be *never* having to stop for gasoline again.
Also-- electric cars do NOT pollute locally. That's 4,000 pounds per year per car of pollution not happening.
And no NO2 which has been shown to measurably increase heart attacks at intersections where it rapidly builds up past safe levels when the wind is still and for the 11% of people who live within 100 meters of roads with heavy traffic.
And no PM10 (10 micron particles) which have been shown to have all kinds of negative effects (cancer, lung disease).
No toulene. No Benzine. No unburnt hydrocarbons.
An electric car *locally* only produces tire dust and 1/10th to 1/20th as much brake dust (most braking is regenerative and doesn't use the pads).
Pollution produced to generate electricity is localized to one power plant- where it can be filtered, captured, and scrubbed.
Pollution used to specifically produce electric cars happens at a few rare earth mines. Highly localized. Pollution to make the metal frame and plastic parts would have occurred for an ICE car anyway so that's a wash.
---
So electric cars do not fit long distance trips over 65mph well. It might be 2024 before improving battery capacity and recharging times are at useful levels.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Unless you're peeing in a bottle and eating in the car while you're making that 900km trip, you're going to need to stop at some point. While you're stopped to pee and to eat you're taking up time. If you're honest about how much time you actually take on your stops and how often these stops happen, you can imagine that you could be charging an EV during the length of the stop. So, an EV need not have a 900km range to do your trip, but instead a 900km minus however much it can charge while you're already stopped.
To give you an idea, a Tesla Model S can charge enough to get about 275 km of range in 30 minutes. You start with a full battery, giving you 482km, you stop for lunch (about 30 minutes), get another 275 km, and you've gone 757km of your trip without taking any *extra time* out of your trip to charge your car.
Let's say you need to take two breaks, because your back is sore and you have to pee again, you plug in again on your second stop, and it'll only take 15 minutes of charging this time to get the remaining range that you require for your 900km trip. This also happens to be about how long you would have stopped anyways.
The reality is that even these long trips can already be done by EVs like Teslas without actually increasing the amount of time you're probably taking to do that trip.
Electric cars and hydrogen fuel cells are all about the supposed "addiction" to fossil fuels, and the damage it may (or may not) be doing to the environment. There is nothing inherently wrong with the internal combustion engine.
Uh, no. The internal combustion engine is fundamentally flawed. It's a heat engine that intentionally throws away all of the heat it generates. It has a torque curve that is so mismatched against the task of providing motive force that it's laughable. The very fact that the automotive shifting transmission even exists is proof that the internal combustion engine is not fit for purpose. It has the concept of idling, meaning it's turning over, wasting power, even while the vehicle is stopped. Even when the vehicle is moving, the engine efficiency is terrible, throwing away 80% of the energy in the fuel. And have you opened a hood or looked under a gasoline car lately? Modern engines are fantastically, absurdly complex, and none of that complexity is optional, because without it the efficiency and reliability of the engine is crap. Finally, providing full time torque vectoring four wheel drive, a feature that should be bog standard and required because it's so incredibly beneficial, using a gasoline engine is absurdly difficult and expensive, to the point where, after 100 years, almost no internal combustion vehicles are available with the feature.
The internal combustion engine is absolutely awful technology, horribly unsuited for the use to which it has been put for the past century. Hell, at the beginning of the last century, it only succeeded against the electric cars available at the time because of mob violence on the part of gasoline car dealers against the electric car dealers. The modern electric car is literally a century behind where it should be, and would have been without criminal activity on the part of internal combustion engine partisans.
Electric motors for motive force are superior in every way. They use zero energy when the vehicle isn't moving, their torque curve is perfectly matched against the needs of moving a vehicle, requiring no transmission, they're incredibly simple and compact, they're as much as 98% efficient (and never less than 80% efficient), and it's easy to provide full time torque vectoring all wheel drive using them.
I don't give a damn about CO2 emissions. I want an electric car because it's better.
And you should too. Nuclear power plants generate electricity. What in the hell are you thinking that you want to use that electricity to create hydrocarbons, at terrible efficiencies, only to burn it in an internal combustion engine, again at terrible efficiencies, when you could just store the electricity in a battery and use it directly. A single nuclear power plant can power five times as many electric vehicles as it can internal combustion vehicles, at a bare minimum, and it's very likely ten times as many, because of those combined inefficiencies.
Ultimately, it will take a second massive, irrational conspiracy to keep the internal combustion engine around. With any luck, Tesla will manage to prevent that this time.
You are definitley an idiot.
Thorium is useable for nuclear reactors, but freshly mined thorium is in no way weapon grade.
If you have bollocks laws in the USA, then change them, but stop claiming that renewable energy sources need rare earth elements. They don't.
Repeating that in dozens of posts since months: that is a lie.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.