Yes that is what they claim but as you can see from the clip, when TG hammered the Telsa it went ~90km.
As Clarkson admits, the ep was faked. It did no such thing. That was based on a calculation that if you floored it nonstop, that's what you'd get, but if you floor a Veyron, you'll only get about 110-120km out of it. Driving sports cars like sports cars cuts their range 3-4fold. You have to drive them like normal cars to get their EPA range.
And as for the charge time numbers, by the way? The standard Tesla home charger does 2-3 hours for a full, ~235 mile range. That's 94 miles of range per hour. The average driver travels about 30 miles a day, so that's an average charge time of 20 minutes.
fuel cells are vastly more practical and CLEANER than battery powered cars.
Oh, give me a freaking break. Fuel cell stacks powerful enough to run a car cost a literal order of magnitude more than an equivalent battery stack. The Clarity's fuel cell stack is estimated at about $200k, and the Equinox's even more. Fuel cells are normally about $10/W. Big auto makers *may* be able to get as low as $5/W in bulk, but I doubt it. A minimal 100 horsepower is 75kW. 75000 * $5 = $375,000. They only get away with less because they use... wait for it... lithium ion batteries to buffer their draw, so they only need to supply average draw, not peak.
So that's purchase price, down by an order of magnitude. Next up? How about fuel price? Methane reformation hydrogen is about $5/kg, while electrolysis hydrogen is currently about $18/kg or so. The Clarity gets about 70 miles per kilogram, costing $0.07-$0.25/mi. Residential average electricity prices are about $0.11/kWh (and EVs make electricity *cheaper*, not more expensive, as they allow better utilization of hardware resources due to steady draws and lots of nighttime charging... but I digress). Commercial rates are lower, and industrial rates lower still, but let's go with residential-only charging. An EV with the same aerodynamics and mass of the Clarity (Volt-like) gets about 200Wh/mi. That's $0.02/mi. So half to one order of magnitude improvement for EVs over hydrogen.
Next up... production environmental impact. Lithium phosphate cells are made of, basically mineral water, pencil lead, and coke: lithium carbonate (extracted from brine... you can't get much lower impact than that), graphite (or amorphous carbon), phosphoric acid, iron powder, and sugar (burned and deposited for a carbon binder). There's also a thin plastic separator membrane and a corrosive but cheap, nontoxic electrolyte (the electrolyte varies from cell to cell). They're so benign that, at least in Canada, you can literally legally just throw them in your household trash. Fuel cells use platinum. Platinum make up about three parts per trillion of the earth's crust. Even the best platinum mines have only a few parts per million. In short, vast amounts of tailings have to be extracted, leaving gaping holes in the Earth. And do we even need to get into how they extract the platinum from the ore? Or how leaked hydrogen depletes ozone? Score: Li-ion by an order of magnitude (at least).
What's next... how about longevity? Fuel cell stacks typically last about five years with current tech. To achieve this, they really have to be babied (I can get into the ways if you'd like...). About the shortest lifespan on a highway-speed EV is the Tesla Roadster, which uses laptop cells, but babies them to get... wait for it... five years. Lithium phosphate and spinel packs are generally rated for 10-20 without much babying, and titanates are practically immortal. Score: Li-ion by half an order of magnitude or so.
How about charge time? Hey, this was supposed to be a hydrogen strong suit, right? Initially fuel times were about 5 minutes. However, with higher compression ratios (to get better range) and/or storage media, new times are about ten minutes or more. Lithium phosphate and spinel cells take 15-20 minutes to charge on a
Oh, I have no problem with him doing things as entertainment. I have problems with people who take what he says seriously, as you seem to be repeatedly doing on this thread. I.e., citing his range numbers, his charge time numbers, etc, all of which are a complete fiction in the real world.
Advancements in motors has been pushed hard, and is still coming, same with batterys, that was my point.
Your point was that they're rapidly improving? I thought you were trying to argue just the opposite.
Expecting some huge cost reduction because the tech suddenly becomes used in "volume" because of cars is crazy,
No, it's not. You know how much ICEs would cost if produced in the volume that today's EV motors are produced in? EV drivetrains today are produced in very small volume. You need to quit pretending that, say, mass production of air conditioner blower motors or industrial hoist motors or whatnot has anything to do with electric vehicle drivetrains. They are completely different things. Most EV drivetrain components available on the market today are literally built by hand. If you don't believe me, contact, say, Manzanita Micro or AC Propulsion and ask them how they build their equipment.
Just because they work on the same principles (and often, not even that, depending on how much detail you want to go into) doesn't mean they're mass produced. Example: scientists mainly prefer to do microwave research with 2.45GHz magnetrons. The difference in price between a 2.45 GHz magnetron and one of a different frequency at the same power output is typically one or two orders of magnitude. Why? Because 2.45GHz magnetrons are what microwave ovens use. Exact same principle of operation, but one is mass produced and the others generally aren't.
From a raw component perspective, electric drivetrains should cost *less* than gasoline drivetrains. They're far simpler.
lithium is currently $300 / pound
Hahahahaha!!!! Oh, that's rich.
Um, no. About one to two kilograms of lithium carbonate goes into a kWh of li-ion batteries, and it's price has fluctated in the past year or two generally between $5 and $8 a kilo. Just a couple years ago it was 4.50 a kilogram.
No, it isn't. And electrolytically producing minerals from brine is about as mild of an environmental impact as you can get for mass-producing a mineral on land.
Do I really have to dig up the studies *yet again*? Over and over and over, studies have determined that on our *current grid*, you reduce emissions by going electric. Only half our grid is coal, power plants are more efficient than ICEs, and nighttime charging (which most charging is) makes use of off-peak power, reducing spinning standby losses and increasing plant efficiency.
Let alone that as the grid gets cleaned up, the vehicles automatically go along for the ride, unlike conventional cars.
First off, the bird myth is just that: a complete myth. It comes from an early wind farm in California (Altamont) that happened to have been placed right in the middle of a flyway. And that using older wind farm technology, which used smaller blades that turned faster, posing more of a hazard. Since that debacle, turbines have grown and bird studies are done prior to placement, and it's essentially become a nonissue. Even the Audubon society supports wind farms.
And loud... what planet are you from? I'm from Iowa and we have plenty of them up here, and I couldn't even tell you what sound they make; I've never managed to make out the sound of one. Perhaps some of the old, smaller, lower ones were audible, but not the big new ones.
Simply put, No. The cost of the raw materials in CD players was always near nothing. This is fundamentally not true about batteries.
What raw ingredients are you picturing in lithium phosphate batteries that you think are so expensive?
There is no Moore's law for batteries
A fourfold improvement in energy density and tenfold improvement in power density in 15-20 years may not match Moore's Law, but it's no trivial amount either. Since when does technology have to either advance at the rate of CPU transistor density or it's worthless?
We need fundamental breakthroughs in nanotechnology, chemistry or the like and it doesn't happen by throwing money at the problem.
The electric car raw material costs are significantly higher than other cars, so it's not like they would ever come down to the current price level of a standard car
What material costs? You know what goes into making lithium phosphate batteries? The anode and cathode contain little more than you'd find in mineral water, a can of coke -- lithium salts (usually lithium carbonate -- $5-7/kg), phosphoric acid, sugar (for carbon binding), etc. The anode is generally graphite or amorphous carbon. There's a porous plastic membrane and a corrosive but generally fairly cheap electrolyte. Show me where the expensive raw materials are in this list.
The demand for lighter more efficient electric motors, batteries, transformers, conductors is a several decades old problem with a already huge payoff for small improvements.
First off, where have you been for the past several decades? Haven't you noticed cars going from big hulks of steel to plastic-paneled things with tubular beams for support, the increasing amount of aluminum used in higher-end cars, etc? Secondly, since the battery is a bigger cost (which provides benefits in terms of operations costs), it makes more sense to build out of lighter materials in an EV than it does in a gasoline car -- you raise the body cost but lower the pack cost. Third, you're completely wrong on everything on your list:
1) Electric motors, "conductors"
and "transformers" (inverters and chargers): There has been a huge advancement in motors in recent years for electric drive applications. Twenty years ago, nothing even remotely resembling the Tesla Roadster would have been possible, and ten years ago, the closest you could really get wasn't much better than the EV1. The very concept of reductive charging (to borrow AC Propulsion's term), where you use your regenerative braking system as a high-power charging system, didn't even exist 10-15 years ago -- let alone an implementation. The mere possibility of the compact, high power AC drivetrain in the roadster is made possible thanks to IGBTs, which only existed in the lab until the 1980s, and only became as incredibly compact, powerful and affordable as they are now in the past few years (in fact, that was one of the main reasons why Tesla initially chose a 2-gear transmission rather than their current route of Powertrain 1.5). The Roadster's motor packs 185kW of power into a package the size of a watermelon, at just over 30 pounds. And this is just one particular AC drivetrain. Want to look at DC, look at the amazing work that's gone into producing the Zilla controller. Both the AC-55 and the Zillas were designed *specifically* for EV applications, where there are very different requirements from most stationary applications.
2) Batteries: Do you remember cell phones and laptops from the early 90s? That's battery tech advancement for you. Batteries have increased in energy density fourfold since then, with the automotive grade li-ions able to take a charge much faster to boot, with an order of magnitude higher power density and near-100% efficiency, low raw material costs, and near-zero toxicity. And there are absolutely no signs of slowing when it comes to li-ion tech; if anything, what's hitting the market seems to be picking up the pace, as does what's in the lab.
These problems exist due to fundamental limitations in electric battery technology. They simply CANNOT make electric batteries with good enough energy density to make electric cars with anywhere near the speed and range of gasoline powered vehicles
Um, huh? The Tesla Roadster, which was based on off-the-shelf technology and no appropriate modern infrastructure (they had to adapt equipment from AC Propulsion, which was barely more than a hobby shop at the time), does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds (3.7 for the Sport package) and almost 240 miles EPA range (less if you race it rather than drive normally, of course, just like with gasoline sports cars). The Wrightspeed X1 does it in 2.5 seconds. The Killacycle electric motorcycle, less than 1 second. The Eliica eight-wheeled electric sports car hits 230mph. This from an industry that has been living off of almost no outside capital since the end of the early ZEV era. In short, what are you talking about?
This will require a revolution in battery technology that hasn't happened and according to all the physicists I know, WILL never happen
Go ask "all the physicists" you know about metal fluoride or nanostructured-layered manganese cathodes and nanostructured silicon, tin, or LVO anodes. I can point to approximately two dozen technologies in the lab that can each 1.5 to 8x the energy density of their respective li-ion battery component. What do you think the odds of *every last one of them* failing is?
The only real remaining problem with batteries is the price. Current automotive li-ions are about $0.50/Wh, while conventional li-ion (like the Roadster uses) are about $0.30-$0.35/Wh (but they can't rapid charge -- limited to 1 hour versus 10-20 minutes for automotive variants -- and have shorter lifespans (5 years if coddled like Tesla does, rather than 10-20 under abuse like the automotive variants). Automotive li-ions are currently limited by capital costs and demand outpacing supply, rather than raw materials (as conventional li-ion is). Their raw materials are dirt cheap, and hence most market forecasts show dramatic price cuts for them.
The average streamlined EV uses about 200Wh/mi (hyperstreamlined ones like the Aptera can get closer to 100Wh/mi). So, multiply it out to your desired range.
Indeed, EnerDel's current pack prices for the Th!nk are about $500/Wh -- half of what this study assumes. And they've stated that at volumes of several hundred thousand packs a year, it'd be half as much.
Quote: ""What we're selling is a lot closer to consumer electronics than to transportation," he said, suggesting that on-board cameras that can link up to the internet would be one likely add-on. Basic repairs and maintenance will be carried out by the Geek Squad crew while more intensive work would be performed at various service centers around the country."
I can get infinite MPG driving a Hummer down from the top of Pikes Peak. Your point? Anecdotes are useless; that's why we have standardized drivecycles. And furthermore, not all fuels are created equal, and not all drivecycles are, either. Burning a gallon of diesel releases 12% more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline and a heck of a lot more (on average; depends on the engines on both cases) of other pollutants than gasoline (show me a single SULEV diesel). And the NEDC will generally give about 15% better mileage than your typical EPA combined number that you see in the showroom. And, of course, those are imperial gallons, which are 20% bigger than US gallons.
Don't compare US MPGs and European MPGs; compare g/km CO2. Those numbers are much more standardized.
And lastly, most people also care about comparing mileage in equivalent vehicles -- i.e., comparing something that barely seats four and takes 15 seconds to reach 60mph with a car that comfortably seats five and takes 10 seconds (which a lot of people do) is a nonsensical comparison.
The EPA mileage rating methodology is not accurate for diesel vehicles, and the EPA have openly acknowledged that
No, they have not, and a quick glance at the net result of accumulated user posts at fueleconomy.gov compared to the mileage figures debunks your claim. Cite it or drop it.
Which is why you should really compare g/km CO2. Since these numbers generally come from the NEDC, you also cancel out differences in drivecycles (the New European Drive Cycle is more lax than what we're used to over here, and the same car will generally report about 15% better mileage).
For a good benchmark, the Prius line is just over 100g/km CO2. So if you see under 100g/km, you're looking at something great; over 150g/km, something ordinary; and over 300g/km, something lousy.
And it's people like you that PHEVs are designed for.
Once again, Slashdot does its best to continue ignorance by leaving out the core criticism of the study: that the study's authors assume a battery pack price of $1000 per kilowatt hour, and that's not even close to they cost today, let alone 5-10 years from now. And that's hardly their only mistake. I'll list their assumptions, and make a few quick comments on them:
* A 2004 Prius with varying size packs * They upgrade the size of the motor to be sufficient to operate as series, but still keep the parallel configuration (why...?) * 52 kW motor (70hp), yet weighs 40kg (huh...? The Tesla Roadster does 185kW with a 31kg motor) * The main assumption that 1kg of batteries requires an additional 1kg of structure (Um.. really?). They also test 0kg and 2kg per 1kg of battery mass. * Li-ion (unspecified chemistry). 100Wh/mi -- similar to LiP and some spinels -- and a 25% packaging weight penalty (on top of the 1kg weight for every 1kg of batteries) * Only 50% depth of discharge (i.e., they're only using half of their pack) * Charging at $0.11/kWh (US residential average) * Gasoline at $3.00/gal (probably a reasonable long-term value) * Assumption of $1,000/kWh battery cost (Um, no. I can get Thunderskys at non-bulk rates for a fraction of that. I can almost get A123s at non-bulk rates for that. The Th!nk's pack is $500/kWh, and they think they can cut that in half with production rates of several hundred thousand per year. Conventional li-ion, like Tesla uses, is ~$300/kWh currently. In short... no.). They justify their number by pointing out that it's cheaper than the original price of the Prius's battery pack (ignoring that small HEV battery pack prices don't scale linearly to BEV or PHEV packs or linear with capacity in general) * GHG emissions of the grid are assumed to be fixed over time (Um, no) * Vehicle lifespan of 12 years (the average vehicle *on the road* today is nearly 10 years old, and that number is increasing, so... no) * 12,500 miles/year (reasonable) * Vehicle base purchase cost, excluding the battery pack, of $17,600 * Assuming by default no carbon tax, both on electricity and gasoline, but considering it under alternative scenarios * No tax credits assumed * No battery replacement (in the base case; an alternative scenario includes replacement) * A 5% "consumer discount rate", No clue what that is, but they state that the higher it is, the less competitive PHEVs are. So it's some sort of penalty. (Perhaps purchase interest rate on the auto loan? If so, too expensive.)
In short: stupid assumptions in, stupid results out. Note this paragraph that they just skim over:
Cheap battery costs of $250 per kWh would significantly increase competitiveness of PHEVs, making them similar to or less expensive than HEVs and CVs across all distances driven between charges. A battery technology with an increased SOC swing, which would allow more of the battery's physical capacity to be used in operation, would also improve PHEV competitiveness, making moderate ranged PHEV20s cost competitive with the HEV and CV.
In short: "If we pick more reasonable numbers, PHEVs are great. But with the bad numbers we picked, they're not."
Eh, either way, I'm glad to see performance finally take center stage over new features. I use a lot of realtime javascript driving DOM updates in my webapps, so this is a boon.
The mix of robots and animals need not be so nefarious. The prime job of my roomba and my scooba is to clean up after my parrot. Instead of newspaper, there's a plastic mat beneath his cage and play area. Roomba cleans up all of the bits of food and torn matter that he drops, and then the scooba cleans up his dried messes.
Pretty undignified use of technology, of course. On the scale of "robots I'd like to be reincarnated as", they'd rank pretty near the bottom;)
If by "the batteries" you mean conventional li-ion, like what you find in a laptop or cell phone, then that's different from what I'm describing. If you're talking about lithium phosphate, such as you find in some power tools or RC aircraft, then it's the same. Conventional li-ion generally can't be disposed of in the trash, although that's probably due as much to them being a fire hazard as due to the low but relevant toxicity of the LiCoO2 cathode (which is absent in LiPs)
It really depends entirely on the task. For example, I have a wiki that at one point was getting about a million hits a month. Not even a hint of any problems either on my Athlon 64 server or my DSL net connect. But let me tell you, if my 3d vehicle customizer that uses a Povray backend had 50 unique visitors a day, it'd bring the system to a crawl. It all depends on the task.
The production of batteries (starting with their raw materials) and the recycling of batteries are both energy-intensive and toxic.
The 1880s called; they want their knowledge of battery chemistry back.
The ingredients in a lithium phosphate battery aren't much different from what you'd find in mineral water plus a can of coke: lithium carbonate, phosphoric acid, iron, sugar, etc. There's also a plastic film and a corrosive but generally nontoxic electrolyte. They're so environmentally benign that in Canada you can literally just throw them in the trash, legally (not sure about the US). And they're perfectly recycleable; the biggest thing holding it back is that the raw ingredients aren't worth much and there's no big environmental consequences if you don't.
You're living in a world of lead-acid and nickel-cadmium. Welcome to the 21st century.
I don't know that Hydrogen is going to help us all that soon, but I'm sure batteries have serious problems right now.
No, it's hydrogen that has serious problems "right now". Fuel cell stacks cost an order of magnitude more than battery stacks to purchase, take half an order of magnitude more energy to run, cost half to one order of magnitude more to run, have half the lifespan, and are *far* more environmentally destructive to make. Starting with platinum. Do you have any clue how much land is ripped up to produce just a single ounce of platinum? Even the best platnium mines in the world are generally single-digit ppm quantities of the stuff; the Earth's crust as a whole is 0.003ppb platinum. And the things hydrogen was supposed to be inherently vastly superior than batteries on -- recharge time and range -- it now only barely excels at or is falling behind. For example, the cheaper automotive li-ions can recharge in 15-20 minutes, and the more expensive titanates in 5-10, while the latest long-range FCVs are starting to need over 10 minutes to fill because of either the high tank pressures or the storage mediums needed to achieve that range.
FYI, Tesla is now producing about 10 roadsters a week. At $110k a pop, not counting options, that's an annual revenue of 57 million. Except that they should be doubling their production rate within a couple months, so it's actually much more than that. With the new optional features and the turning of some standard things into options (like the charger), they should be in the black on Roadster production in a couple months.
Also, what year are you in where production EVs only get 40 miles of range? Some *PHEVs* do, but that's the whole point... they're *PHEVs*, not BEVs. After 40 miles, they're normal hybrids.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes that is what they claim but as you can see from the clip, when TG hammered the Telsa it went ~90km.
As Clarkson admits, the ep was faked. It did no such thing. That was based on a calculation that if you floored it nonstop, that's what you'd get, but if you floor a Veyron, you'll only get about 110-120km out of it. Driving sports cars like sports cars cuts their range 3-4fold. You have to drive them like normal cars to get their EPA range.
And as for the charge time numbers, by the way? The standard Tesla home charger does 2-3 hours for a full, ~235 mile range. That's 94 miles of range per hour. The average driver travels about 30 miles a day, so that's an average charge time of 20 minutes.
fuel cells are vastly more practical and CLEANER than battery powered cars.
Oh, give me a freaking break. Fuel cell stacks powerful enough to run a car cost a literal order of magnitude more than an equivalent battery stack. The Clarity's fuel cell stack is estimated at about $200k, and the Equinox's even more. Fuel cells are normally about $10/W. Big auto makers *may* be able to get as low as $5/W in bulk, but I doubt it. A minimal 100 horsepower is 75kW. 75000 * $5 = $375,000. They only get away with less because they use... wait for it... lithium ion batteries to buffer their draw, so they only need to supply average draw, not peak.
So that's purchase price, down by an order of magnitude. Next up? How about fuel price? Methane reformation hydrogen is about $5/kg, while electrolysis hydrogen is currently about $18/kg or so. The Clarity gets about 70 miles per kilogram, costing $0.07-$0.25/mi. Residential average electricity prices are about $0.11/kWh (and EVs make electricity *cheaper*, not more expensive, as they allow better utilization of hardware resources due to steady draws and lots of nighttime charging... but I digress). Commercial rates are lower, and industrial rates lower still, but let's go with residential-only charging. An EV with the same aerodynamics and mass of the Clarity (Volt-like) gets about 200Wh/mi. That's $0.02/mi. So half to one order of magnitude improvement for EVs over hydrogen.
Next up... production environmental impact. Lithium phosphate cells are made of, basically mineral water, pencil lead, and coke: lithium carbonate (extracted from brine... you can't get much lower impact than that), graphite (or amorphous carbon), phosphoric acid, iron powder, and sugar (burned and deposited for a carbon binder). There's also a thin plastic separator membrane and a corrosive but cheap, nontoxic electrolyte (the electrolyte varies from cell to cell). They're so benign that, at least in Canada, you can literally legally just throw them in your household trash. Fuel cells use platinum. Platinum make up about three parts per trillion of the earth's crust. Even the best platinum mines have only a few parts per million. In short, vast amounts of tailings have to be extracted, leaving gaping holes in the Earth. And do we even need to get into how they extract the platinum from the ore? Or how leaked hydrogen depletes ozone? Score: Li-ion by an order of magnitude (at least).
What's next... how about longevity? Fuel cell stacks typically last about five years with current tech. To achieve this, they really have to be babied (I can get into the ways if you'd like...). About the shortest lifespan on a highway-speed EV is the Tesla Roadster, which uses laptop cells, but babies them to get... wait for it... five years. Lithium phosphate and spinel packs are generally rated for 10-20 without much babying, and titanates are practically immortal. Score: Li-ion by half an order of magnitude or so.
How about charge time? Hey, this was supposed to be a hydrogen strong suit, right? Initially fuel times were about 5 minutes. However, with higher compression ratios (to get better range) and/or storage media, new times are about ten minutes or more. Lithium phosphate and spinel cells take 15-20 minutes to charge on a
Oh, I have no problem with him doing things as entertainment. I have problems with people who take what he says seriously, as you seem to be repeatedly doing on this thread. I.e., citing his range numbers, his charge time numbers, etc, all of which are a complete fiction in the real world.
Advancements in motors has been pushed hard, and is still coming, same with batterys, that was my point.
Your point was that they're rapidly improving? I thought you were trying to argue just the opposite.
Expecting some huge cost reduction because the tech suddenly becomes used in "volume" because of cars is crazy,
No, it's not. You know how much ICEs would cost if produced in the volume that today's EV motors are produced in? EV drivetrains today are produced in very small volume. You need to quit pretending that, say, mass production of air conditioner blower motors or industrial hoist motors or whatnot has anything to do with electric vehicle drivetrains. They are completely different things. Most EV drivetrain components available on the market today are literally built by hand. If you don't believe me, contact, say, Manzanita Micro or AC Propulsion and ask them how they build their equipment.
Just because they work on the same principles (and often, not even that, depending on how much detail you want to go into) doesn't mean they're mass produced. Example: scientists mainly prefer to do microwave research with 2.45GHz magnetrons. The difference in price between a 2.45 GHz magnetron and one of a different frequency at the same power output is typically one or two orders of magnitude. Why? Because 2.45GHz magnetrons are what microwave ovens use. Exact same principle of operation, but one is mass produced and the others generally aren't.
From a raw component perspective, electric drivetrains should cost *less* than gasoline drivetrains. They're far simpler.
lithium is currently $300 / pound
Hahahahaha!!!! Oh, that's rich.
Um, no. About one to two kilograms of lithium carbonate goes into a kWh of li-ion batteries, and it's price has fluctated in the past year or two generally between $5 and $8 a kilo. Just a couple years ago it was 4.50 a kilogram.
You do know that Clarkson has admitted to faking essentially the whole Tesla ep, right?
It was a smear piece because he's a hydrogen nut.
Wait, you think they're going to be hauling around a glass-laminated rooftop panel?
What's being discussed is something more like this.
No, it isn't. And electrolytically producing minerals from brine is about as mild of an environmental impact as you can get for mass-producing a mineral on land.
In Canada, at least, you can literally just (legally) throw lithium phosphate batteries in your garbage.
Li-ions aren't very toxic to begin with, and the phosphates and spinels ditch the only relevantly toxic component (the LiCoO2 cathode).
Do I really have to dig up the studies *yet again*? Over and over and over, studies have determined that on our *current grid*, you reduce emissions by going electric. Only half our grid is coal, power plants are more efficient than ICEs, and nighttime charging (which most charging is) makes use of off-peak power, reducing spinning standby losses and increasing plant efficiency.
Let alone that as the grid gets cleaned up, the vehicles automatically go along for the ride, unlike conventional cars.
Wow, any more myths you can throw out there?
First off, the bird myth is just that: a complete myth. It comes from an early wind farm in California (Altamont) that happened to have been placed right in the middle of a flyway. And that using older wind farm technology, which used smaller blades that turned faster, posing more of a hazard. Since that debacle, turbines have grown and bird studies are done prior to placement, and it's essentially become a nonissue. Even the Audubon society supports wind farms.
And loud... what planet are you from? I'm from Iowa and we have plenty of them up here, and I couldn't even tell you what sound they make; I've never managed to make out the sound of one. Perhaps some of the old, smaller, lower ones were audible, but not the big new ones.
Simply put, No. The cost of the raw materials in CD players was always near nothing. This is fundamentally not true about batteries.
What raw ingredients are you picturing in lithium phosphate batteries that you think are so expensive?
There is no Moore's law for batteries
A fourfold improvement in energy density and tenfold improvement in power density in 15-20 years may not match Moore's Law, but it's no trivial amount either. Since when does technology have to either advance at the rate of CPU transistor density or it's worthless?
We need fundamental breakthroughs in nanotechnology, chemistry or the like and it doesn't happen by throwing money at the problem.
What do you think funds research if not money?
The electric car raw material costs are significantly higher than other cars, so it's not like they would ever come down to the current price level of a standard car
What material costs? You know what goes into making lithium phosphate batteries? The anode and cathode contain little more than you'd find in mineral water, a can of coke -- lithium salts (usually lithium carbonate -- $5-7/kg), phosphoric acid, sugar (for carbon binding), etc. The anode is generally graphite or amorphous carbon. There's a porous plastic membrane and a corrosive but generally fairly cheap electrolyte. Show me where the expensive raw materials are in this list.
The demand for lighter more efficient electric motors, batteries, transformers, conductors is a several decades old problem with a already huge payoff for small improvements.
First off, where have you been for the past several decades? Haven't you noticed cars going from big hulks of steel to plastic-paneled things with tubular beams for support, the increasing amount of aluminum used in higher-end cars, etc? Secondly, since the battery is a bigger cost (which provides benefits in terms of operations costs), it makes more sense to build out of lighter materials in an EV than it does in a gasoline car -- you raise the body cost but lower the pack cost. Third, you're completely wrong on everything on your list:
1) Electric motors, "conductors"
and "transformers" (inverters and chargers): There has been a huge advancement in motors in recent years for electric drive applications. Twenty years ago, nothing even remotely resembling the Tesla Roadster would have been possible, and ten years ago, the closest you could really get wasn't much better than the EV1. The very concept of reductive charging (to borrow AC Propulsion's term), where you use your regenerative braking system as a high-power charging system, didn't even exist 10-15 years ago -- let alone an implementation. The mere possibility of the compact, high power AC drivetrain in the roadster is made possible thanks to IGBTs, which only existed in the lab until the 1980s, and only became as incredibly compact, powerful and affordable as they are now in the past few years (in fact, that was one of the main reasons why Tesla initially chose a 2-gear transmission rather than their current route of Powertrain 1.5). The Roadster's motor packs 185kW of power into a package the size of a watermelon, at just over 30 pounds. And this is just one particular AC drivetrain. Want to look at DC, look at the amazing work that's gone into producing the Zilla controller. Both the AC-55 and the Zillas were designed *specifically* for EV applications, where there are very different requirements from most stationary applications.
2) Batteries: Do you remember cell phones and laptops from the early 90s? That's battery tech advancement for you. Batteries have increased in energy density fourfold since then, with the automotive grade li-ions able to take a charge much faster to boot, with an order of magnitude higher power density and near-100% efficiency, low raw material costs, and near-zero toxicity. And there are absolutely no signs of slowing when it comes to li-ion tech; if anything, what's hitting the market seems to be picking up the pace, as does what's in the lab.
These problems exist due to fundamental limitations in electric battery technology. They simply CANNOT make electric batteries with good enough energy density to make electric cars with anywhere near the speed and range of gasoline powered vehicles
Um, huh? The Tesla Roadster, which was based on off-the-shelf technology and no appropriate modern infrastructure (they had to adapt equipment from AC Propulsion, which was barely more than a hobby shop at the time), does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds (3.7 for the Sport package) and almost 240 miles EPA range (less if you race it rather than drive normally, of course, just like with gasoline sports cars). The Wrightspeed X1 does it in 2.5 seconds. The Killacycle electric motorcycle, less than 1 second. The Eliica eight-wheeled electric sports car hits 230mph. This from an industry that has been living off of almost no outside capital since the end of the early ZEV era. In short, what are you talking about?
This will require a revolution in battery technology that hasn't happened and according to all the physicists I know, WILL never happen
Go ask "all the physicists" you know about metal fluoride or nanostructured-layered manganese cathodes and nanostructured silicon, tin, or LVO anodes. I can point to approximately two dozen technologies in the lab that can each 1.5 to 8x the energy density of their respective li-ion battery component. What do you think the odds of *every last one of them* failing is?
The only real remaining problem with batteries is the price. Current automotive li-ions are about $0.50/Wh, while conventional li-ion (like the Roadster uses) are about $0.30-$0.35/Wh (but they can't rapid charge -- limited to 1 hour versus 10-20 minutes for automotive variants -- and have shorter lifespans (5 years if coddled like Tesla does, rather than 10-20 under abuse like the automotive variants). Automotive li-ions are currently limited by capital costs and demand outpacing supply, rather than raw materials (as conventional li-ion is). Their raw materials are dirt cheap, and hence most market forecasts show dramatic price cuts for them.
The average streamlined EV uses about 200Wh/mi (hyperstreamlined ones like the Aptera can get closer to 100Wh/mi). So, multiply it out to your desired range.
Indeed, EnerDel's current pack prices for the Th!nk are about $500/Wh -- half of what this study assumes. And they've stated that at volumes of several hundred thousand packs a year, it'd be half as much.
Oh, and as for electric cars in Walmart? How about electric motorcycles in Best Buy?
Quote: ""What we're selling is a lot closer to consumer electronics than to transportation," he said, suggesting that on-board cameras that can link up to the internet would be one likely add-on. Basic repairs and maintenance will be carried out by the Geek Squad crew while more intensive work would be performed at various service centers around the country."
I can get infinite MPG driving a Hummer down from the top of Pikes Peak. Your point? Anecdotes are useless; that's why we have standardized drivecycles. And furthermore, not all fuels are created equal, and not all drivecycles are, either. Burning a gallon of diesel releases 12% more CO2 than a gallon of gasoline and a heck of a lot more (on average; depends on the engines on both cases) of other pollutants than gasoline (show me a single SULEV diesel). And the NEDC will generally give about 15% better mileage than your typical EPA combined number that you see in the showroom. And, of course, those are imperial gallons, which are 20% bigger than US gallons.
Don't compare US MPGs and European MPGs; compare g/km CO2. Those numbers are much more standardized.
And lastly, most people also care about comparing mileage in equivalent vehicles -- i.e., comparing something that barely seats four and takes 15 seconds to reach 60mph with a car that comfortably seats five and takes 10 seconds (which a lot of people do) is a nonsensical comparison.
The EPA mileage rating methodology is not accurate for diesel vehicles, and the EPA have openly acknowledged that
No, they have not, and a quick glance at the net result of accumulated user posts at fueleconomy.gov compared to the mileage figures debunks your claim. Cite it or drop it.
Which is why you should really compare g/km CO2. Since these numbers generally come from the NEDC, you also cancel out differences in drivecycles (the New European Drive Cycle is more lax than what we're used to over here, and the same car will generally report about 15% better mileage).
For a good benchmark, the Prius line is just over 100g/km CO2. So if you see under 100g/km, you're looking at something great; over 150g/km, something ordinary; and over 300g/km, something lousy.
And it's people like you that PHEVs are designed for.
Once again, Slashdot does its best to continue ignorance by leaving out the core criticism of the study: that the study's authors assume a battery pack price of $1000 per kilowatt hour, and that's not even close to they cost today, let alone 5-10 years from now. And that's hardly their only mistake. I'll list their assumptions, and make a few quick comments on them:
* A 2004 Prius with varying size packs
* They upgrade the size of the motor to be sufficient to operate as series, but still keep the parallel configuration (why...?)
* 52 kW motor (70hp), yet weighs 40kg (huh...? The Tesla Roadster does 185kW with a 31kg motor)
* The main assumption that 1kg of batteries requires an additional 1kg of structure (Um.. really?). They also test 0kg and 2kg per 1kg of battery mass.
* Li-ion (unspecified chemistry). 100Wh/mi -- similar to LiP and some spinels -- and a 25% packaging weight penalty (on top of the 1kg weight for every 1kg of batteries)
* Only 50% depth of discharge (i.e., they're only using half of their pack)
* Charging at $0.11/kWh (US residential average)
* Gasoline at $3.00/gal (probably a reasonable long-term value)
* Assumption of $1,000/kWh battery cost (Um, no. I can get Thunderskys at non-bulk rates for a fraction of that. I can almost get A123s at non-bulk rates for that. The Th!nk's pack is $500/kWh, and they think they can cut that in half with production rates of several hundred thousand per year. Conventional li-ion, like Tesla uses, is ~$300/kWh currently. In short... no.). They justify their number by pointing out that it's cheaper than the original price of the Prius's battery pack (ignoring that small HEV battery pack prices don't scale linearly to BEV or PHEV packs or linear with capacity in general)
* GHG emissions of the grid are assumed to be fixed over time (Um, no)
* Vehicle lifespan of 12 years (the average vehicle *on the road* today is nearly 10 years old, and that number is increasing, so... no)
* 12,500 miles/year (reasonable)
* Vehicle base purchase cost, excluding the battery pack, of $17,600
* Assuming by default no carbon tax, both on electricity and gasoline, but considering it under alternative scenarios
* No tax credits assumed
* No battery replacement (in the base case; an alternative scenario includes replacement)
* A 5% "consumer discount rate", No clue what that is, but they state that the higher it is, the less competitive PHEVs are. So it's some sort of penalty. (Perhaps purchase interest rate on the auto loan? If so, too expensive.)
In short: stupid assumptions in, stupid results out. Note this paragraph that they just skim over:
Cheap battery costs of $250 per kWh would significantly increase competitiveness of PHEVs, making them similar to or less expensive than HEVs and CVs across all distances driven between charges. A battery technology with an increased SOC swing, which would allow more of the battery's physical capacity to be used in operation, would also improve PHEV competitiveness, making moderate ranged PHEV20s cost competitive with the HEV and CV.
In short: "If we pick more reasonable numbers, PHEVs are great. But with the bad numbers we picked, they're not."
Ten percent of nuthin' is...let me do the math here...nuthin' into nuthin'...carry the nuthin'...
Eh, either way, I'm glad to see performance finally take center stage over new features. I use a lot of realtime javascript driving DOM updates in my webapps, so this is a boon.
The mix of robots and animals need not be so nefarious. The prime job of my roomba and my scooba is to clean up after my parrot. Instead of newspaper, there's a plastic mat beneath his cage and play area. Roomba cleans up all of the bits of food and torn matter that he drops, and then the scooba cleans up his dried messes.
Pretty undignified use of technology, of course. On the scale of "robots I'd like to be reincarnated as", they'd rank pretty near the bottom ;)
If by "the batteries" you mean conventional li-ion, like what you find in a laptop or cell phone, then that's different from what I'm describing. If you're talking about lithium phosphate, such as you find in some power tools or RC aircraft, then it's the same. Conventional li-ion generally can't be disposed of in the trash, although that's probably due as much to them being a fire hazard as due to the low but relevant toxicity of the LiCoO2 cathode (which is absent in LiPs)
Play nice. Also, it's still in beta, so don't expect perfection. :)
It really depends entirely on the task. For example, I have a wiki that at one point was getting about a million hits a month. Not even a hint of any problems either on my Athlon 64 server or my DSL net connect. But let me tell you, if my 3d vehicle customizer that uses a Povray backend had 50 unique visitors a day, it'd bring the system to a crawl. It all depends on the task.
The production of batteries (starting with their raw materials) and the recycling of batteries are both energy-intensive and toxic.
The 1880s called; they want their knowledge of battery chemistry back.
The ingredients in a lithium phosphate battery aren't much different from what you'd find in mineral water plus a can of coke: lithium carbonate, phosphoric acid, iron, sugar, etc. There's also a plastic film and a corrosive but generally nontoxic electrolyte. They're so environmentally benign that in Canada you can literally just throw them in the trash, legally (not sure about the US). And they're perfectly recycleable; the biggest thing holding it back is that the raw ingredients aren't worth much and there's no big environmental consequences if you don't.
You're living in a world of lead-acid and nickel-cadmium. Welcome to the 21st century.
I don't know that Hydrogen is going to help us all that soon, but I'm sure batteries have serious problems right now.
No, it's hydrogen that has serious problems "right now". Fuel cell stacks cost an order of magnitude more than battery stacks to purchase, take half an order of magnitude more energy to run, cost half to one order of magnitude more to run, have half the lifespan, and are *far* more environmentally destructive to make. Starting with platinum. Do you have any clue how much land is ripped up to produce just a single ounce of platinum? Even the best platnium mines in the world are generally single-digit ppm quantities of the stuff; the Earth's crust as a whole is 0.003ppb platinum. And the things hydrogen was supposed to be inherently vastly superior than batteries on -- recharge time and range -- it now only barely excels at or is falling behind. For example, the cheaper automotive li-ions can recharge in 15-20 minutes, and the more expensive titanates in 5-10, while the latest long-range FCVs are starting to need over 10 minutes to fill because of either the high tank pressures or the storage mediums needed to achieve that range.
FYI, Tesla is now producing about 10 roadsters a week. At $110k a pop, not counting options, that's an annual revenue of 57 million. Except that they should be doubling their production rate within a couple months, so it's actually much more than that. With the new optional features and the turning of some standard things into options (like the charger), they should be in the black on Roadster production in a couple months.
Also, what year are you in where production EVs only get 40 miles of range? Some *PHEVs* do, but that's the whole point... they're *PHEVs*, not BEVs. After 40 miles, they're normal hybrids.