Exactly. And I see families with children where all of their vehicles are big, under the excuse that the kids need to fit. *In each vehicle?* So those members of the family that work end up commuting every day in a big, mostly empty vehicle. It'd make a lot more sense to have one be a comfortable, small, efficient commuter car and another be big enough to haul around the whole flock.
I have no problem with people having big cars to carry around their families. What I do have a problem with is people who have big cars that they drive almost exclusively with just one or two people in them. Very wasteful indeed.
Great. That's *one type of cell* with *one specific chemistry* (and, by the way, just last week there was an announcement that one company got them up to 180Wh/kg, over the standard 160Wh/kg; I could dig it up for you). Let's look at other chemistries. Lithium phospate cells didn't even exist in the 90s. In 2001, A123 started pushing for the tech, and by 2005, they were in power tools, and today, there are about a dozen different EVs being developed around them (and they may well become standard in regular hybrids, too). That is *fast*. Titanates were the same way (and to a lesser degree, spinels). Now there's Toshiba's SCiB, which I believe is now on the market -- not sure of the chemistry, but it's another li-ion variant that doesn't lose much charge density (~20% or so) to gain stability. Now Argonne is contracting for its layered cathodes, which provide stability *and* ~40% more energy density than LiCoO2 cells. And in various stages of development, there is Hybrid Technoloogies' "superlattice" cathode, lithium vanadium oxide anodes (already used in Subaru's G4e prototype), tin nanoparticle anodes, silicon nanoparticle/carbon nanotube anodes, silicon nanowire anodes, as well as major advances in ultracapactors, lithium sulphur batteries, sodium ion batteries, and about a dozen others.
Remember cell phones in the early 90s? Remember the giant bricks? That's largely advancing battery tech for you.
There are reasons that the Aptera has three wheels and not four, and they are entirely regulatory and not technical.
Actually, there are good technical reasons, too. Three wheelers are lighter, cheaper to build, and have less drag (and weight and drag reductions correspond to battery reductions, which further makes the vehicle lighter and cheaper). As for the regulations, safety regs are just one kind (again, since they're doing crash testing voluntarily, what's the problem?). There's also emissions regs (irrelevant to the Aptera) and lots of real world driving requirements (something that customers are lining up around the block to take care of for them;) They're starting in low production rates from reservation only, so most people will have a lot of real-world driving behind them before they buy. Also, they've driven the prototypes a lot, and will have test drives starting this summer), as well as a ton of paperwork and delays.
I have little reason to disbelieve auto manufacturers when they say it is impossible to build a 100 MPH automobile, according to the legal definition of automobile.
Loremo meets the legal definition of an automobile. It's tiny, mind you, and a good example of why a definition based on the number of wheels is a stupid standard.
Blah, forgot to use italics tags rather than [quote]s. Also, forgot to fill out my "**":
** -- Actually, if they do offer more charging options, or if I can get that aftermarket, I *may well* take it on long trips. We already have infrastructure: RV parks, which can usually be found every 20-50 miles, and are found in even the most remote locations. Sure, fast chargers would be better (lithium phosphate batteries can take a charge in 5-10 minutes if sufficiently cooled, if needed), but RV parks should be good enough. The 50A RV outlets are split phase, 120/240V (sort of like what comes into your house) -- there are two 50A 120V circuits sharing a common neutral. Assuming 117V actual per circuit, that's 11.7kWh. Times 93% charging efficiency, 10.881kWh. That should charge an Aptera from dead to full in around an hour (not sure how much the pack will need to slow once it gets nearly full, but LiP should be good about that). So, that's 2 hours of driving for every one hour of charging. Sure, not as good as for as gasoline car, but as far as stopgaps go, not bad at all. I certainly have no problem spending time relaxing in some wooded area with vacationers and children, perhaps a pool or areas to hike, where I could eat lunch to the sound of chirping birds, and whatnot.
[quote]What do ya think you will do with that car? This is the question I have for most of these exotic vehicles.[/quote]
Commite, shop, and all of the stuff I normally do with a car except for long trips**. Duh.:)
[quote]Based on their own numbers you get a 120 mile distance to dead so you wouldn't want to get more than forty or fifty miles afrom home[/quote]
Depends on whether there's merely a normal household power socket on the other end, but let's go with that. So?
[quote]and that is going to be with the climate control off.[/quote]
Small car, efficient heat pump, solar-powered climate assist. Sure, it'll impact range, but probably not as much as you're picturing. Also, there's no initial cooling load, as it has a solar-powered vent fan that keeps the car just above ambient temperature when you're not in it and it's out in the sun.
[quoteFrom their webpage it looks like you can get a hybrid drive as an option but they don't have any details as to how much cargo space you sacrifice for the gas engine/generator.[/quote]
None. The generator displaces 2/3rds of the batteries; it has a shorter electric range, but the 5-gallon gas tank gives it a range of 600-700 miles.
The Aptera has 15.9 cubic feet of cargo space.
[quote]Lets run the numbers. Assume a commute that runs 35 miles, 70 both ways. On a good econobox you can get 35mpg so it works out to two gallons per day or assuming gas hits $5/gal you pay $10/day for gas. Average of about twenty work days per month and ya get $200 for gas to commute. Now compute the difference in the monthly note for the econobox and the savings on the light bill from not plugging in every night and gulping down a few KWH (remember it takes more than 10KWH to charge a 10KWH battery) and it's probably a wash. If your commute is less the economics get worse pretty fast.[/quote]
I find it funny that you said "let's run the numbers" and then didn't actually run the numbers. That's pretty amusing.:) Let's *actually* run the numbers.
Econobox: $13k, +$2k in taxes, -0k deductions. Aptera: $27k, +3k in taxes, and let's assume that deductions roughly cancel out taxes (could be a lot more, but let's be pessimistic).
Price difference: $14k
$10/day = $3650/year Aptera goes 120mi on 10kWh = 80Wh/mi (0.08kWh/mi). Charging is usually ~93% efficient, but let's be pessimstic and say that it raises power consumption to 0.09kWh/mi. I pay $0.05/kWh, but the average in the US is more like $0.10/kWh, so let's go with that. That's 4/5th of a cent per mile. * 70 miles, * 365.24 days, that's $230/year. Net savings: $3420/year. Time to pay off the difference: 4 years.
See what happens when you *actually* do the math? Electricity is dirt cheap, and the Aptera uses very little of it.
There's also maintenance, but when you consider that a good lithium phosphate pack should last the life of the car, and even if you had to replace it, by the time you had to replace it, LiP should cost under $0.20/kWh, you're only looking at a couple thousand dollars thanks to the small pack size (thanks to the efficiency). I.e., it'd cost far less than you save by eliminating 90% of the moving parts in the drivetrain compared to a normal gasoline car. It doesn't even have a transmission, let alone all of the breakable parts of an ICE. So the payback time is even sooner.
R/C helicopters nowadays are switching over more and more from li-poly to lithium phosphate. Tesla uses neither -- they use laptop cells. These can catch fire from being punctured. The electrolyte in lithium phosphate cells is usually still mildly flammable, but they don't have the runaway heating risks that conventional laptop cells (LiCoO2+graphite) usually do; it'd be quite the challenge to make a lithium phosphate cell burn by charging it wrong. Lithium phosphate and other stable li-ion chemistries (titanates, spinels, etc) are steadily becoming the new standard for EVs. You don't have as high of an energy density, but the lifespan and safety benefits more than make up for it. Also, in mass production, they should be a lot cheaper, since their raw ingredients are all dirt cheap.
Of course, battery tech is advancing so fast, who knows what will be the standard in five years. It's amazing how fast things are moving.
I think the X-Prize has standards for how to calculate MPG when part of the energy comes from electricity.
The gasoline-only Loremo is 100mpg, although it's so small you expect to see clowns stepping out of it. The Aptera Typ-1h gets 130mpg in charge sustaining mode (i.e., *after* its battery pack has been drained).
But I agree with you -- giving MPG numbers for PHEVs is an unfair approach. You really need two numbers: all electric range, then MPG in charge-sustaining mode.
Try to argue that, say, the Aptera is something that "some kids cobbled together". 45" crumple/deflection zone (designed to ride up and over in an accident, extending deceleration time). In-seatbelt airbags, like are used in small planes and are being used in some new luxury cars -- instead of exploding toward you, they explode upward from your lap, between you and the dash, and shield your whole body. F1-style roll cage (with only a couple hundred pounds of weight in the batteries and a composite skin, it's obvious that the frame comprises a large chunk of the Aptera's 1500lb weight), with double the NTSB standards for roof and door crush strength (and yes, they've tested it with a crush rig). It's been digitally crash tested from the beginning (like BMW and many other auto makers do nowadays), and will be physically crash tested this fall. Yes, they're not required to do crash testing, since it's a three wheeler; they're doing it anyways. ~7' wide front wheelbase and low-mounted batteries for rollover resistance, combined with aerodynamics to produce downforce at high speeds. And of course, tadpole trike configuration, not delta (which tends to produce oversteer).
Sure, it's not for everyone. With only 2+1 seating, it's not a "family car" (although their next model will seat more people); it's a commuter car. But as far as commuter cars go, I think it's a beautiful design. I can't wait to test drive it (test drives and factory tours are to start this summer).
I'm cheering for Aptera not just because I'm in line to buy one (indirectly, through a California intermediary), but because technologically, they really deserve it. A drag coefficient of only 0.11 (Prius=0.26), combined with a low cross-sectional area -- i.e., they let physics dictate the shape. Speaking of the shape, it's an inverted wing, so more downforce the faster it goes. That, combined with a wide (~7 foot) front wheelbase and low-mounted batteries for a low CG, lead to strong stability against rollovers. The design is a tadpole trike for stability, weight reduction, and drag reduction. Long 45" crumple/deflection zone, in-seatbelt airbags, with roof and door crush strengths double the NTSB standard. Composite construction for light weight and safety (stronger than steel). Lithium phosphate batteries, which should last the life of the vehicle. The ridiculously low drag and rather light weight approach allows them to use only 10kWh of batteries, meaning faster charges, charges on only wall current, lower potential maintenance/repair costs, and a whole host of other benefits (uses only 80Wh/mi @ 55mph, 140Wh/mi @ 85mph). I could go on for hours; it's an impressive piece of work. I'm simply not as impressed by the other contenders.
Oh, and they recently brought on the head of production for the Ford GT, Dodge Viper, and half a dozen other high end cars to head up their manufacturing. First cars go out the door this December; mine should be late next summer. Can't wait!
I'd like to see that data backed up somewhere, because all the links I've been able to find say LiP batteries are very new technology and have yet to see any widespread use
Go down to a local hardware store. Buy a DeWalt cordless power tool (or any of several other brands). Congrats, you just bought a LiP battery pack.
Additionally, LiP batteries suffer from lower charge densities than typical Li-ion batteries present in your common laptop. One of the most touted benefits of LiP is not recharge cycles, it's the (relative) inability of the battery to cause a fire due to thermal runaway. LiP costs are also much higher than Li-ion, although this is likely due to the relative immaturity of the technology vis-a-vis Li-ion.
Yes. I'll sum up. LiP gains: * Nontoxic * Extreme stability (long lifespan) * No thermal runaway * Low flammability * High power density
It loses: * Drops from ~160Wh/kg to ~100Wh/kg
Neutral: * Currently more expensive, but should be much less expensive in mass production due to ditching the cobalt (which makes up 60% of the cost of a traditional li-ion).
And did you stop to consider why?
Yes -- because they're in freaking California, and that's the only place they're going to be available in the first year -- and of that, SoCal gets them first. You know, where the temperature is so reliably above freezing that non-cold-hardy palms and citrus grow.
Sure the cells themselves are rated to perform at the temperature range you specify, but performance will be degraded nonetheless.
At the very least, fliers of hobby airplane and helicopters, which have largely switched over to LiP (the battery tech that you think doesn't exist anywhere;) ) report no noticable performance difference in freezing weather with A123 packs. Even if they start out lower power (li-ion and variants lose no charge density (range) -- only power density (performance)), they'll heat up with use. As if gasoline engines don't have their own, more significant problems starting in cold weather, using lead-acid which is far more cold sensitive, and using fluids that become less viscous.
If it's a prototype them stop referring to all its abilities as if they're all going to make it into the production vehicle.
Yeah, it's not like these are features promised for the production vehicle or anything. Oh wait...
Much like you should be doing, I'm speaking of the "here and now" Aptera,
Oh, so you were claiming, in all caps that there is no warranty for a product that isn't on the market yet and which will have a warranty when it comes out? What, exactly, was the point you were trying to make, then? That the $3 million hand-built prototypes don't have warranties?
You're putting forth a mix of what's here now (the prototype) and the yet-to-come (full production) and taking the best case of both.
I'm putting forth the case of *precisely what Aptera has said will be in the vehicle*. They have a well-defined featureset, which is what people put their deposits down for. There are *additional* things that they've said will be there but haven't announced the specifics on (such as the warranty), and *additional* things that they've been considering but haven't announced decisions on. The fact you haven't followed the company's statements is no excuse; if you're ignorant about a subject, you're in no position to criticize.
A) Making a *feedstock* incredibly cheap. And they're supposed to dislike cheap feedstocks why? US oil companies, which are increasingly being shut out of other countries' domestic oil supplies, would hate to have their own sources why?
B) Coal is *already* cheap. Powder River basin coal costs $5-$15 per *short ton*. That's a thirtieth the price of oil per joule. The main cost of coal liquefaction is capital costs, not the marginal costs.
Boy, I've heard some ridiculous oil industry conspiracy theories, but this takes the cake:
I'm halfway convinced the mindless reaction against nuclear power is secretly funded by the oil companies. Nuclear reactors are safer, cheaper, and *produce less radiation than coal power plants*.
The oil industry *doesn't earn a dime from coal power*. Furthermore, only a very small fraction of oil is used to generate electricity. Cheap nuclear power would actually be *boon* to the oil industry, because it could potentially generate cheap hydrogen (for cracking) and cheap steam (for recovery of heavy oil deposits) without raising their CO2 emissions. With increasing use of very heavy oil deposits (including non-traditional sources, like bitumen and kerogen), and increasing calls for cap and trade, that's all the more important for them.
A perfectly normal modern diesel does 30%. More radical designs (still ones on the market TODAY) like hybrid diesels can do 45%.
If you had read the page I linked, you would have realized that the efficiency of the engine is not the tank to wheel efficiency. Gasoline drivetrains have a lot of internal losses. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, no doubt about that, but they still suffer from the same sort of internal losses. Also, diesels are heavier, so the extra weight is the equivalent of adding in more batteries.
Ref for your 45% number? Even the monster low-speed diesels used to run series hybrid drives on huge ships only approach 50%.
If you compare cars that come in both diesel and gasoline versions, the diesels generally get about 40% more range. But 15% of that range boost is directly attributable to the higher energy content of diesel fuel. It's not really as huge of a difference as a lot of people like to pretend it is. I really doubt a diesel comparison would ultimately favor ICEs that much more, if at all.
Lastly, we're comparing to what people in the US are used to: *normal gasoline cars*. Sure, if you wanted to bias the comparison in favor of gasoline, you could easily blow batteries away. You could use as small of an ICE as possible, one that can barely get you over a hill, and put a huge gas tank. there's no way batteries could win. But that comparison would be worthless.
And there is no reason to assume that batteries will shortly more than double in performance whereas internal combustion based vehicles will make no progress whatsoever.
Show me links to articles where even in the lab there are ICE techs approaching anything close to the dozen+ radical battery improvement techs currently in the lab; I'd be interested. The best I've ever run into is one tech that would make gasoline engines approach diesel engines in efficiency by burning it in a compression-ignition cycle, like diesel engines burn diesel. Of course, that still makes the engine heavier, like a diesel. Some techs now working toward commercialization to allow for high power in a world of rising CAFE standards, like cylinder deactivation, improve gasoline engine mileage while retaining power by deactivating cylinders when the torque isn't needed. But fuel economy-wise, that's just equivalent to just putting in a weaker engine to start with.
Oh sure, they may have a prototype or a small pre-test run done by then.
The Mk0 prototype has been done since March of 2007, and the Mk1 pre-production prototype since September of 2007. That's what you see tooling around in all of the YouTube videos. Check out the Popular Mechanics one; it's one of the more thorough vids. The guided tour is another good one. And they don't just take it for quick runs around the block. Over on the forum, people have been watching it pretty closely, and the car sure has been getting around. There are lots of places the Aptera has been photographed on the far side of LA, for example, almost a hundred miles away from Carlsbad (where their old place is; not sure where the new factory is).
Okay. So I was rude. I apologize. It's just I've had one-too-many head-in-sky people that fail to cleanly separate dreaming from reality.
No problem; we all get like that some time.
My base claim is that when people overwhelmingly DONT buy EVs today, it is because those actually available TODAY are grossly inferior to comparable IC-vehicles, and NOT because people have much resistance to the concept as such.
I'll agree with you; today, the selection today is pretty bad -- mostly lead-acid powered NEVs. But there's a whole slew of quite reasonable EVs coming out in the next couple years, a number of them from major manufacturers and a number from startups.
The Aptera is "estimated" octobre 2008. I don't believe that for a second. Oh sure, they may have a prototype or a small pre-test run done by then. But I'd be willing to bet that by januar 1st 2009, less than 1000 Apteras will exist.
I'd be willing to bet that on January 1st, less than a hundred exist. Perhaps less than 20. Their target is to produce and sell 2500 by the end of '09, but even that can be misleading, as production always runs slower in the beginning.
VentureOne doesn't even have a prototype for the ones they CLAIM to PLAN to start selling in 2009. They do have a "Carver" which they say illustrates the principles they will use in the production-vehicles. In any case, these are NOT AVAILABLE today.
True. Of the ones I mentioned, the VentureOne is the least developed.
MiEV has -announced- that they "will" begin selling electric Colts in Japan in 2010.
First off, MiEV is not a company; it's a family of vehicles made by Mitsubishi. Most notably, the i MiEV, which a lot of people simply refer to as the MiEV because it's the only one with definite sales plans. The MiEV's release date has been moved forward by Mitsubishi; it was initially scheduled for an '10 release, but due to popular demand, they moved it up to '08. They already have low volume production going. Now, that's for Japan, and they're starting out with fleet leases only. They do, however, plan to market the car internationally, and it was shown in the New York Auto Show this year, so it looks like they plan to bring it to the US. Until then, the only way to get one will be to custom import it from Japan.
Same goes for RV-parks with recharge-options. I agree with you those would be superior to gas-stations IF THEY EXISTED. Today they empathically does NOT actually exist.
RV parks with 50 amp outlets most certainly do exist. I guess you've never used an RV. There are two standard RV outlets -- the older 30A/120V, and the newer 50A/120V split phase (two 120V circuits -- effectively 240V when combined). The 50A outlets are pretty similar to what comes into your home, while the 30A ones are basically a double amperage wall outlet. Both are all over the country. They emphatically DO exist. And that's 12kW, which for an Aptera is about a 55 minute charge (50A * 117V * 2 circuits = 11700W; 10kW pack * 1000W/kw / 0.93 charging efficiency / 11700W = 0.91 hours = 55 minutes. Of course, it slows down at the very end, but the odds of having a *completely dead* battery are quite low.).
The only obstacle is that, since this is an usual request for an RV park at this point in time, you'd either need to call ahead and see if they'll cut you some slack and let you pay a reduced fee for one hour of lot usage, or pay the full overnight fee (typically ~$25 or so). If EVs and PHEVs become more common (and GM alone is planning to make 10k Volts per year, just ignoring all of the other models coming out), they'll almost certainly come up with rates for EV charging use; it'd be throwing away money not to. The big RV park chains could probably be persuaded to do that without much effort.
By the way -- if this isn't your cup of tea, and you'd rather wait until there's better national infrastructure, there are two additional options. One is a PHEV, like the Volt or the
Let's ignore that this was incredibly slow change. Let's pretend that tomorrow, we read in the news that Mars has warmed ten degrees in the last twenty years. Let's pretend that this isn't made less relevant by the fact that mars has an atmosphere with a small fraction of a percent as much thermal inertia as ours, and there's no even bigger oceanic thermal inertial source (the ocean) like we have on Earth. Let's pretend all of this was true for the sake of argument.
It Would Still Be Irrelevant As To The Causes Of Climate Change On Earth.
We have satellites, telescopes, and sensors monitoring every last thing you could possibly imagine about the sun. Unless the sun has some sort of magical powers, if the sun is changing in some way or another, *we'd know about it*. We don't need "planetary proxies" to tell us if the sun is getting brighter or whatnot; we have the hard data *right here*.
Oh, and for the idiots who just assume that the IPCC scientists forgot to consider the sun: there are about 50 peer reviewed papers summed up in the technical report (pretty much every recent peer-reviewed paper on the subject) related to the sun, changes in the sun, historical changes in the sun, how the various forms of solar radiation interact with earth processes, and so on. Now, how many of them have *you* read that lets you feel qualified to hold a contrary view?
I'm not convinced on the regenerative braking. I haven't seen the numbers, but without detailed info, it give the impression of being more gimmick than environmental.
Actually, you're right... for normal, present-day hybrids. They capture energy too fast to charge the NiMH packs, and the packs are only 50-70% efficient. Overall, it's something like 20% recovered. However, next-gen systems with li-ion and ultracapactors should get the overwhelming majority of the kinetic energy converted back. Obviously, you don't get your rolling and aerodynamic losses back -- only what you retained when you started braking. Also, "slamming on the brakes" and the final couple seconds of normal braking invokes disc brakes as well, and you get no energy out of them.
That statement doesn't make sense. Mercury is an element; elements can't be organic.
It's like saying hexavalent chromium. Chromium is an element. Hexavalent chromium can only be found in compounds where it's in the +6 oxidation state; virtually never will you find lone hexavalent chromium ions. But it's still called "hexavalent chromium", in short for "hexavalent chromium compounds". In this case, "organic mercury" is short for "organic mercury compounds". A google search will show you that this is a common term.
Also, you're wrong: even elemental mercury (which is within your "inorganic" category) is -- and I quote -- "extremely toxic".
As even Wikipedia notes, "The most toxic forms of mercury are its organic compounds, such as dimethylmercury and methylmercury. " Organic mercury compounds have much higher bioavailability. Methylmercury is the most common one, and it's what coal plants emit large amounts of. It likes to bond its way into proteins and it bioaccumulates. CFLs contain pure ("inorganic") mercury.
In case your math-skills are down, 160/12.000 is pretty much in the 1% ballpark I mentioned.
In case your logic and reading skills are down, it explains how this whole argument is a fallacy, since not only can only roughly a fifth of the energy in the gasoline be converted to torque, but that batteries aren't competing with gasoline; they're competing with the weight and bulk of the ICE.
I was talking about actual existing batteries by the way, not fantasy-ones. There are no cars available powered by fantasy-batteries. When there are, these things may change.
Apparently you've never heard of the G4e. Yes, it's a prototype, but it uses next-gen lithium vanadium oxide batteries. They don't specify the exact energy density, only that it's "double" normal li-ion. The website I linked references a paper that shows that, at least in the lab, lithium vanadium oxide batteries can have obscene energy densities (although not as good as silicon nanowire, silicon nanoparticle, or tin nanoparticle batteries).
Furthermore, the article compares hypothethical FUTURE battery-cars with poor examples of TODAYS internal-combustion engines. For example, it quotes tank-to-wheel efficiencies at 20%, which is not even state of the art TODAY.
So, in short, the article claims "equal" performance (86Kwh delivered from 350Kg of machinery), whereas the reality, if you buy best-of-breed from internal-combustion and batteries TODAY is more like, the battery-powered thingie will have 1:6th the range of the IC-one, and it'll spend twice the mass-budget to do that.
1) The standard for most low-cost next-gen BEVs -- the MiEV, the Aptera, the VentureOne, etc -- is around 120 miles. The standard for the high-end ones (Tesla, LightningCar, tzero, etc) is 200-300 miles. That's nothing at all like "1/6th the range".
2) In case you missed it, it shows equivalent range per unit mass when you get batteries up to 340Wh/kg. That's 2.2 times the energy density of LiCoO2/graphite and 3.4 times that of LiP. So, the best you can argue is ~45% of the range per unit weight for LiCoO2/graphite and 30% of the range per unit weight for LiP.
3) As the page referenced earlier, there are over a dozen new chemistries that all promise to deliver energy density in the 340Wh/kg range working their way through to commercialization, and one (lithium vanadium oxide) has already made its way into a prototype.
Where it gets ugly is when you add in that the IC can be completely retanked in a minute, whereas TODAYS electric vehicles need multiple hours to even do a 75% recharge.
If you had read the rest of the page, you'd know that this, too, is false with modern EV batteries. Most modern EVs have fast charge ports that can take a full charge in the range of 5 to 20 minutes if you have a source that can deliver current fast enough. Modern EV batteries are capable of extremely fast charging.
and refill in a minute
Time the time that you spend at a gas station. Include the time wasted by getting off the highway and having to get back on. Overall, you'll find that it's about a ten minute delay, more if you have to get a snack or use the restroom. Fast EV charging would hardly add on to the length of a trip. But it'd be a tiny fraction of the cost, since power is so cheap (almost all of the cost of charging would be overhead).
with 100 miles range
120 or so is currently the standard for the low-end EVs -- see the MiEV, the Aptera, the VentureOne, etc. On state highways, it means two hours. On interstates, it means an hour and a half, give or take depending on how you drive.
Signs with "last gas-station for 50miles" aren't rare where I live
Well, kudos to you. If you run out of gas, you have to push your car dozens of miles (or hike to a gas station). If I run out of electricity, I push my car to the nearest farmhouse and ask them
So your 10-20 year lifespan of the battery isn't documented on the website anywhere that I can find.
They've stated they're using lithium phosphate in news articles (example here). Lithium phosphate batteries have a 10-20 year lifespan in normal use. Normal laptop cells have a few hundred to a thousand or so cycles before 50% degradation. A123 cells have 1000 cycles to 5% degradation (in an Aptera, 1000 cycles is 120,000 miles). And everyone I've seen who's talked about using A123 cells in their own experience says that if anything, the spec sheet is too pessimistic. A123 was initially saying "10+ years and 7000 cycles+" for the Volt's pack (which will be a lot more stressed than the Aptera's, since it's a PHEV). Now GM is saying they expect it to be good for 15, and are planning to give it a very long warranty. And even then, you're not talking about the battery dying; you're talking about it being down 20% capacity or so. Spinels can last even longer -- LG Chem expects theirs to be good for as much as 40 years in typical EV use.
There's nothing inherent about batteries that means they have to rapidly degrade. Jay Leno has a 1909 Baker Electric that still runs on its original Edison cells. It all depends on the stability of the battery chemistry. Lead-acid and LiCoO2/graphite li-ion are not stable chemistries. LiP, titanates, and spinels are.
I also note on the Aptera site that the car isn't designed for cold climates.
Says who? Aptera has only said that it's not initially going to be *tested* in cold climates. A123 lithium phosphate cells are rated for -30C for operation and -50C for storage. And lightweight tadpole configurations like the Aptera can do exceedingly well in the snow -- for example, the Messerschmidt KR200 (which is a far more primitive and less stable design). Smaller vehicles have lower moments of inertia, so they're easier to stop. Compare the stopping time on a semi with a typical sedan, for example.
Availability is almost non-existent as well
Availability *is* non-existant because it's pre-production; only the prototypes exist. They've fully raised their final round of funding for production and they brought on board the head of production for the Dodge Viper and Ford GT projects to manage it (a perfect match, as he's used to working with low volume cars with light alloys and composite structures). The first deliveries to customers are scheduled for late this year.
Last, and perhaps most distressing, Aptera offers no warranty on the vehicle.
Wrong. The site explicitly says, "The details of our financing and warranty are still being defined" and "We will announce further information regarding the battery lifespan and warranty policy well before we begin manufacturing the Typ-1 next October.", not "There will be no warranty". How do you have terms on a warranty when there is none? Perhaps you were looking at the terms of use of the *Website*? ("Aptera PROVIDES THIS WEB SITE, AND ALL CONTENT AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEB SITE "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY OF INFORMATIONAL CONTENT, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.")
and to add insult to injury, needs hours to recharge
Not with lithium phosphate, spinel, or titanate batteries, which are what is going into this next generation of EVs. They can be recharged in minutes. Most next-gen EVs have a fast charge port rated for between 5 and 20 minute charges, depending on the vehicle.
Dragging around 1000 lbs of batteries to get the same amount of energy you'd get from a gallon or two of gasoline
The Aptera Typ-1e, to pick one, "drags around" 300 pounds of batteries. This replaces about 400 pounds of internal combustion engine. Yes, there's also an electric motor, but those are much smaller and lighter than ICEs. Yes, the range is less, but honestly, if you're not getting out of your car to stretch every two hours, you're not following normal driving safety recommendations anyways. And next-gen battery techs, which I could easily list over a dozen for you that are currently in various stages of working their way to commercialization, promise several times the energy density (one such battery has already made it into the Subaru G4e prototype -- a 2x density lithium vanadium oxide battery). There's room for a density doubling at the cathode via layering of materials with various reactivity, and nearly a 10xing at the anode via either silicon or tin nanoparticles or nanowires. And the number of approaches being taken is really impressive. And this is just lithium ion -- also consider ultracaps like the EESU, lithium sulphur, sodium ion, etc.
Invent a battery that can do even 10% of what gasoline can, and that recharge quickly, and electric cars would take over nearly completely in 5-10 years.
Glad to hear that electric cars will be taking over nearly completely in 5-10 years, then.:)
In virtually any energy transfer system that gets used a significant amount, initial costs are dwarfed by lifetime consumption. What the other poster is trying to explain to you is that the operation consumption of any hydrogen-based propulsion system is about three times higher than an equivalent battery-electric system due to all of the losses. And these aren't just "Oh, we'll figure away around it" losses; most of them are "laws of physics" losses. You can't get around Gibbs free energy, for example.
To go from electricity to hydrogen, you have to have small inverter losses, significant losses in electrolysis, compression (sometimes multiple time), small hydrogen lost through leaking (it leaks through virtually anything; not to mention, it destroys ozone), major fuel cell losses (or worse, hydrogen ICE losses), and finally small electric motor losses. In an EV, you have small transmission losses, small inverter losses, almost nonexistent storage losses (in both li-ion and its variants and in Zebra-style batteries), and small electric motor losses.
Unless you can change the laws of physics, it's going to remain this way. Here's one analysis of many on the subject for you. Check out the graphs. They don't focus heavily on electric cars, but where they do cover them, you can see the difference.
not sure where you pulled that from? Their seams to be one clean coal plant in the US, and with batteries not being exactly green, and a pure electric car costs more to run than the same car running on hybrid (if battery replacement cost is not subsidized.) Throw in all the radio-active emissions of coal plants (none in gasoline.)
It's very, very simple. Gasoline engines are very inefficient. Non-hybrids average less than 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency. Hybrids, just over. Fuel-burning power plants, 30-50% efficiency. Transmission losses, ~8%. Charger losses, ~7%. Battery losses, ~0.1% in Li-ion. Motor losses, ~10%. Do the math. I can give you several peer-reviewed studies on the topic if you're prefer.
As for batteries, you're just not up to date with the technology. These aren't lead-acid or nickel-cadmium batteries here. For example, my Aptera is to use lithium phosphate batteries. These last 10-20 years and are almost completely nontoxic. Their raw ingredients are things like iron, phosphoric acid (the same stuff as in soft drinks -- made from fluoroapatite, the same stuff as in well cared-for teeth, plus sulphuric acid, which is an oil industry *byproduct*), graphite, and even sugar (for the carbon binding). These aren't "in a few years" -- they're already here. They're becoming the new standard for cordless power tools, for example.
Considering low emission gas vehicles currently exhaust cleaner air than they take in
That's nearly always a myth promoted by the manufacturers. If you look at the actual numbers, they usually lower one pollutant by a tiny amount (say, particulate matter caught up in the air filter) while still emitting the other pollutants.
The "mercury problem", plus the problem from *all the other heavy metals* and *many other types of pollutants* comes mostly from the burning of coal. Point out to me a single time you objected to the ubiquitous use of fluorescent tubes that contain an order of magnitude or more mercury, found in every officebuilding across the country, and I'll lay off you on this one, but CFLs have a tiny, miniscule amount of mercury. There's a tiny amount of all sorts of toxic chemicals in a computer chip. Are you going to stop using a computer, too? And even for this tiny amount of mercury, when disposed of, only a tiny fraction of *that* escapes. I can dig up the ref againfor you if you want, but in a previous debate on this subject, I dug up an EPA document on how much mercury is released from a CFL disposed of in different manners. If the trash is incinerated, a little over 20% of it ends up released. If it's buried, about 3% of it gets released. If it's treated as hazardous waste, the amount is negligible. In short, we're talking about small fractions of what starts out as only a couple milligrams. Oh, and to top it all off? It's inorganic mercury, which has low toxicity. What coal plants emit is largely organic.
But something annoys me more: People who call themselves green, but promote fossil fuels.
Gasoline isn't a "fossil fuel" when you make it from biomass.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. And I see families with children where all of their vehicles are big, under the excuse that the kids need to fit. *In each vehicle?* So those members of the family that work end up commuting every day in a big, mostly empty vehicle. It'd make a lot more sense to have one be a comfortable, small, efficient commuter car and another be big enough to haul around the whole flock.
I have no problem with people having big cars to carry around their families. What I do have a problem with is people who have big cars that they drive almost exclusively with just one or two people in them. Very wasteful indeed.
Great. That's *one type of cell* with *one specific chemistry* (and, by the way, just last week there was an announcement that one company got them up to 180Wh/kg, over the standard 160Wh/kg; I could dig it up for you). Let's look at other chemistries. Lithium phospate cells didn't even exist in the 90s. In 2001, A123 started pushing for the tech, and by 2005, they were in power tools, and today, there are about a dozen different EVs being developed around them (and they may well become standard in regular hybrids, too). That is *fast*. Titanates were the same way (and to a lesser degree, spinels). Now there's Toshiba's SCiB, which I believe is now on the market -- not sure of the chemistry, but it's another li-ion variant that doesn't lose much charge density (~20% or so) to gain stability. Now Argonne is contracting for its layered cathodes, which provide stability *and* ~40% more energy density than LiCoO2 cells. And in various stages of development, there is Hybrid Technoloogies' "superlattice" cathode, lithium vanadium oxide anodes (already used in Subaru's G4e prototype), tin nanoparticle anodes, silicon nanoparticle/carbon nanotube anodes, silicon nanowire anodes, as well as major advances in ultracapactors, lithium sulphur batteries, sodium ion batteries, and about a dozen others.
Remember cell phones in the early 90s? Remember the giant bricks? That's largely advancing battery tech for you.
There are reasons that the Aptera has three wheels and not four, and they are entirely regulatory and not technical.
;) They're starting in low production rates from reservation only, so most people will have a lot of real-world driving behind them before they buy. Also, they've driven the prototypes a lot, and will have test drives starting this summer), as well as a ton of paperwork and delays.
Actually, there are good technical reasons, too. Three wheelers are lighter, cheaper to build, and have less drag (and weight and drag reductions correspond to battery reductions, which further makes the vehicle lighter and cheaper). As for the regulations, safety regs are just one kind (again, since they're doing crash testing voluntarily, what's the problem?). There's also emissions regs (irrelevant to the Aptera) and lots of real world driving requirements (something that customers are lining up around the block to take care of for them
I have little reason to disbelieve auto manufacturers when they say it is impossible to build a 100 MPH automobile, according to the legal definition of automobile.
Loremo meets the legal definition of an automobile. It's tiny, mind you, and a good example of why a definition based on the number of wheels is a stupid standard.
Blah, forgot to use italics tags rather than [quote]s. Also, forgot to fill out my "**":
** -- Actually, if they do offer more charging options, or if I can get that aftermarket, I *may well* take it on long trips. We already have infrastructure: RV parks, which can usually be found every 20-50 miles, and are found in even the most remote locations. Sure, fast chargers would be better (lithium phosphate batteries can take a charge in 5-10 minutes if sufficiently cooled, if needed), but RV parks should be good enough. The 50A RV outlets are split phase, 120/240V (sort of like what comes into your house) -- there are two 50A 120V circuits sharing a common neutral. Assuming 117V actual per circuit, that's 11.7kWh. Times 93% charging efficiency, 10.881kWh. That should charge an Aptera from dead to full in around an hour (not sure how much the pack will need to slow once it gets nearly full, but LiP should be good about that). So, that's 2 hours of driving for every one hour of charging. Sure, not as good as for as gasoline car, but as far as stopgaps go, not bad at all. I certainly have no problem spending time relaxing in some wooded area with vacationers and children, perhaps a pool or areas to hike, where I could eat lunch to the sound of chirping birds, and whatnot.
[quote]What do ya think you will do with that car? This is the question I have for most of these exotic vehicles.[/quote]
:)
:) Let's *actually* run the numbers.
Commite, shop, and all of the stuff I normally do with a car except for long trips**. Duh.
[quote]Based on their own numbers you get a 120 mile distance to dead so you wouldn't want to get more than forty or fifty miles afrom home[/quote]
Depends on whether there's merely a normal household power socket on the other end, but let's go with that. So?
[quote]and that is going to be with the climate control off.[/quote]
Small car, efficient heat pump, solar-powered climate assist. Sure, it'll impact range, but probably not as much as you're picturing. Also, there's no initial cooling load, as it has a solar-powered vent fan that keeps the car just above ambient temperature when you're not in it and it's out in the sun.
[quoteFrom their webpage it looks like you can get a hybrid drive as an option but they don't have any details as to how much cargo space you sacrifice for the gas engine/generator.[/quote]
None. The generator displaces 2/3rds of the batteries; it has a shorter electric range, but the 5-gallon gas tank gives it a range of 600-700 miles.
The Aptera has 15.9 cubic feet of cargo space.
[quote]Lets run the numbers. Assume a commute that runs 35 miles, 70 both ways. On a good econobox you can get 35mpg so it works out to two gallons per day or assuming gas hits $5/gal you pay $10/day for gas. Average of about twenty work days per month and ya get $200 for gas to commute. Now compute the difference in the monthly note for the econobox and the savings on the light bill from not plugging in every night and gulping down a few KWH (remember it takes more than 10KWH to charge a 10KWH battery) and it's probably a wash. If your commute is less the economics get worse pretty fast.[/quote]
I find it funny that you said "let's run the numbers" and then didn't actually run the numbers. That's pretty amusing.
Econobox: $13k, +$2k in taxes, -0k deductions.
Aptera: $27k, +3k in taxes, and let's assume that deductions roughly cancel out taxes (could be a lot more, but let's be pessimistic).
Price difference: $14k
$10/day = $3650/year
Aptera goes 120mi on 10kWh = 80Wh/mi (0.08kWh/mi). Charging is usually ~93% efficient, but let's be pessimstic and say that it raises power consumption to 0.09kWh/mi. I pay $0.05/kWh, but the average in the US is more like $0.10/kWh, so let's go with that. That's 4/5th of a cent per mile. * 70 miles, * 365.24 days, that's $230/year.
Net savings: $3420/year. Time to pay off the difference: 4 years.
See what happens when you *actually* do the math? Electricity is dirt cheap, and the Aptera uses very little of it.
There's also maintenance, but when you consider that a good lithium phosphate pack should last the life of the car, and even if you had to replace it, by the time you had to replace it, LiP should cost under $0.20/kWh, you're only looking at a couple thousand dollars thanks to the small pack size (thanks to the efficiency). I.e., it'd cost far less than you save by eliminating 90% of the moving parts in the drivetrain compared to a normal gasoline car. It doesn't even have a transmission, let alone all of the breakable parts of an ICE. So the payback time is even sooner.
R/C helicopters nowadays are switching over more and more from li-poly to lithium phosphate. Tesla uses neither -- they use laptop cells. These can catch fire from being punctured. The electrolyte in lithium phosphate cells is usually still mildly flammable, but they don't have the runaway heating risks that conventional laptop cells (LiCoO2+graphite) usually do; it'd be quite the challenge to make a lithium phosphate cell burn by charging it wrong. Lithium phosphate and other stable li-ion chemistries (titanates, spinels, etc) are steadily becoming the new standard for EVs. You don't have as high of an energy density, but the lifespan and safety benefits more than make up for it. Also, in mass production, they should be a lot cheaper, since their raw ingredients are all dirt cheap.
Of course, battery tech is advancing so fast, who knows what will be the standard in five years. It's amazing how fast things are moving.
I think the X-Prize has standards for how to calculate MPG when part of the energy comes from electricity.
The gasoline-only Loremo is 100mpg, although it's so small you expect to see clowns stepping out of it. The Aptera Typ-1h gets 130mpg in charge sustaining mode (i.e., *after* its battery pack has been drained).
But I agree with you -- giving MPG numbers for PHEVs is an unfair approach. You really need two numbers: all electric range, then MPG in charge-sustaining mode.
Try to argue that, say, the Aptera is something that "some kids cobbled together". 45" crumple/deflection zone (designed to ride up and over in an accident, extending deceleration time). In-seatbelt airbags, like are used in small planes and are being used in some new luxury cars -- instead of exploding toward you, they explode upward from your lap, between you and the dash, and shield your whole body. F1-style roll cage (with only a couple hundred pounds of weight in the batteries and a composite skin, it's obvious that the frame comprises a large chunk of the Aptera's 1500lb weight), with double the NTSB standards for roof and door crush strength (and yes, they've tested it with a crush rig). It's been digitally crash tested from the beginning (like BMW and many other auto makers do nowadays), and will be physically crash tested this fall. Yes, they're not required to do crash testing, since it's a three wheeler; they're doing it anyways. ~7' wide front wheelbase and low-mounted batteries for rollover resistance, combined with aerodynamics to produce downforce at high speeds. And of course, tadpole trike configuration, not delta (which tends to produce oversteer).
Sure, it's not for everyone. With only 2+1 seating, it's not a "family car" (although their next model will seat more people); it's a commuter car. But as far as commuter cars go, I think it's a beautiful design. I can't wait to test drive it (test drives and factory tours are to start this summer).
I'm cheering for Aptera not just because I'm in line to buy one (indirectly, through a California intermediary), but because technologically, they really deserve it. A drag coefficient of only 0.11 (Prius=0.26), combined with a low cross-sectional area -- i.e., they let physics dictate the shape. Speaking of the shape, it's an inverted wing, so more downforce the faster it goes. That, combined with a wide (~7 foot) front wheelbase and low-mounted batteries for a low CG, lead to strong stability against rollovers. The design is a tadpole trike for stability, weight reduction, and drag reduction. Long 45" crumple/deflection zone, in-seatbelt airbags, with roof and door crush strengths double the NTSB standard. Composite construction for light weight and safety (stronger than steel). Lithium phosphate batteries, which should last the life of the vehicle. The ridiculously low drag and rather light weight approach allows them to use only 10kWh of batteries, meaning faster charges, charges on only wall current, lower potential maintenance/repair costs, and a whole host of other benefits (uses only 80Wh/mi @ 55mph, 140Wh/mi @ 85mph). I could go on for hours; it's an impressive piece of work. I'm simply not as impressed by the other contenders.
Oh, and they recently brought on the head of production for the Ford GT, Dodge Viper, and half a dozen other high end cars to head up their manufacturing. First cars go out the door this December; mine should be late next summer. Can't wait!
I'd like to see that data backed up somewhere, because all the links I've been able to find say LiP batteries are very new technology and have yet to see any widespread use
;) ) report no noticable performance difference in freezing weather with A123 packs. Even if they start out lower power (li-ion and variants lose no charge density (range) -- only power density (performance)), they'll heat up with use. As if gasoline engines don't have their own, more significant problems starting in cold weather, using lead-acid which is far more cold sensitive, and using fluids that become less viscous.
Go down to a local hardware store. Buy a DeWalt cordless power tool (or any of several other brands). Congrats, you just bought a LiP battery pack.
Additionally, LiP batteries suffer from lower charge densities than typical Li-ion batteries present in your common laptop. One of the most touted benefits of LiP is not recharge cycles, it's the (relative) inability of the battery to cause a fire due to thermal runaway. LiP costs are also much higher than Li-ion, although this is likely due to the relative immaturity of the technology vis-a-vis Li-ion.
Yes. I'll sum up. LiP gains:
* Nontoxic
* Extreme stability (long lifespan)
* No thermal runaway
* Low flammability
* High power density
It loses:
* Drops from ~160Wh/kg to ~100Wh/kg
Neutral:
* Currently more expensive, but should be much less expensive in mass production due to ditching the cobalt (which makes up 60% of the cost of a traditional li-ion).
And did you stop to consider why?
Yes -- because they're in freaking California, and that's the only place they're going to be available in the first year -- and of that, SoCal gets them first. You know, where the temperature is so reliably above freezing that non-cold-hardy palms and citrus grow.
Sure the cells themselves are rated to perform at the temperature range you specify, but performance will be degraded nonetheless.
At the very least, fliers of hobby airplane and helicopters, which have largely switched over to LiP (the battery tech that you think doesn't exist anywhere
If it's a prototype them stop referring to all its abilities as if they're all going to make it into the production vehicle.
Yeah, it's not like these are features promised for the production vehicle or anything. Oh wait...
Much like you should be doing, I'm speaking of the "here and now" Aptera,
Oh, so you were claiming, in all caps that there is no warranty for a product that isn't on the market yet and which will have a warranty when it comes out? What, exactly, was the point you were trying to make, then? That the $3 million hand-built prototypes don't have warranties?
You're putting forth a mix of what's here now (the prototype) and the yet-to-come (full production) and taking the best case of both.
I'm putting forth the case of *precisely what Aptera has said will be in the vehicle*. They have a well-defined featureset, which is what people put their deposits down for. There are *additional* things that they've said will be there but haven't announced the specifics on (such as the warranty), and *additional* things that they've been considering but haven't announced decisions on. The fact you haven't followed the company's statements is no excuse; if you're ignorant about a subject, you're in no position to criticize.
A) Making a *feedstock* incredibly cheap. And they're supposed to dislike cheap feedstocks why? US oil companies, which are increasingly being shut out of other countries' domestic oil supplies, would hate to have their own sources why?
B) Coal is *already* cheap. Powder River basin coal costs $5-$15 per *short ton*. That's a thirtieth the price of oil per joule. The main cost of coal liquefaction is capital costs, not the marginal costs.
Boy, I've heard some ridiculous oil industry conspiracy theories, but this takes the cake:
I'm halfway convinced the mindless reaction against nuclear power is secretly funded by the oil companies. Nuclear reactors are safer, cheaper, and *produce less radiation than coal power plants*.
The oil industry *doesn't earn a dime from coal power*. Furthermore, only a very small fraction of oil is used to generate electricity. Cheap nuclear power would actually be *boon* to the oil industry, because it could potentially generate cheap hydrogen (for cracking) and cheap steam (for recovery of heavy oil deposits) without raising their CO2 emissions. With increasing use of very heavy oil deposits (including non-traditional sources, like bitumen and kerogen), and increasing calls for cap and trade, that's all the more important for them.
Just noticed:
A perfectly normal modern diesel does 30%. More radical designs (still ones on the market TODAY) like hybrid diesels can do 45%.
If you had read the page I linked, you would have realized that the efficiency of the engine is not the tank to wheel efficiency. Gasoline drivetrains have a lot of internal losses. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, no doubt about that, but they still suffer from the same sort of internal losses. Also, diesels are heavier, so the extra weight is the equivalent of adding in more batteries.
Ref for your 45% number? Even the monster low-speed diesels used to run series hybrid drives on huge ships only approach 50%.
If you compare cars that come in both diesel and gasoline versions, the diesels generally get about 40% more range. But 15% of that range boost is directly attributable to the higher energy content of diesel fuel. It's not really as huge of a difference as a lot of people like to pretend it is. I really doubt a diesel comparison would ultimately favor ICEs that much more, if at all.
Lastly, we're comparing to what people in the US are used to: *normal gasoline cars*. Sure, if you wanted to bias the comparison in favor of gasoline, you could easily blow batteries away. You could use as small of an ICE as possible, one that can barely get you over a hill, and put a huge gas tank. there's no way batteries could win. But that comparison would be worthless.
And there is no reason to assume that batteries will shortly more than double in performance whereas internal combustion based vehicles will make no progress whatsoever.
Show me links to articles where even in the lab there are ICE techs approaching anything close to the dozen+ radical battery improvement techs currently in the lab; I'd be interested. The best I've ever run into is one tech that would make gasoline engines approach diesel engines in efficiency by burning it in a compression-ignition cycle, like diesel engines burn diesel. Of course, that still makes the engine heavier, like a diesel. Some techs now working toward commercialization to allow for high power in a world of rising CAFE standards, like cylinder deactivation, improve gasoline engine mileage while retaining power by deactivating cylinders when the torque isn't needed. But fuel economy-wise, that's just equivalent to just putting in a weaker engine to start with.
Oh, missed something. Re, the Aptera:
Oh sure, they may have a prototype or a small pre-test run done by then.
The Mk0 prototype has been done since March of 2007, and the Mk1 pre-production prototype since September of 2007. That's what you see tooling around in all of the YouTube videos. Check out the Popular Mechanics one; it's one of the more thorough vids. The guided tour is another good one. And they don't just take it for quick runs around the block. Over on the forum, people have been watching it pretty closely, and the car sure has been getting around. There are lots of places the Aptera has been photographed on the far side of LA, for example, almost a hundred miles away from Carlsbad (where their old place is; not sure where the new factory is).
Okay. So I was rude. I apologize. It's just I've had one-too-many head-in-sky people that fail to cleanly separate dreaming from reality.
No problem; we all get like that some time.
My base claim is that when people overwhelmingly DONT buy EVs today, it is because those actually available TODAY are grossly inferior to comparable IC-vehicles, and NOT because people have much resistance to the concept as such.
I'll agree with you; today, the selection today is pretty bad -- mostly lead-acid powered NEVs. But there's a whole slew of quite reasonable EVs coming out in the next couple years, a number of them from major manufacturers and a number from startups.
The Aptera is "estimated" octobre 2008. I don't believe that for a second. Oh sure, they may have a prototype or a small pre-test run done by then. But I'd be willing to bet that by januar 1st 2009, less than 1000 Apteras will exist.
I'd be willing to bet that on January 1st, less than a hundred exist. Perhaps less than 20. Their target is to produce and sell 2500 by the end of '09, but even that can be misleading, as production always runs slower in the beginning.
VentureOne doesn't even have a prototype for the ones they CLAIM to PLAN to start selling in 2009. They do have a "Carver" which they say illustrates the principles they will use in the production-vehicles. In any case, these are NOT AVAILABLE today.
True. Of the ones I mentioned, the VentureOne is the least developed.
MiEV has -announced- that they "will" begin selling electric Colts in Japan in 2010.
First off, MiEV is not a company; it's a family of vehicles made by Mitsubishi. Most notably, the i MiEV, which a lot of people simply refer to as the MiEV because it's the only one with definite sales plans. The MiEV's release date has been moved forward by Mitsubishi; it was initially scheduled for an '10 release, but due to popular demand, they moved it up to '08. They already have low volume production going. Now, that's for Japan, and they're starting out with fleet leases only. They do, however, plan to market the car internationally, and it was shown in the New York Auto Show this year, so it looks like they plan to bring it to the US. Until then, the only way to get one will be to custom import it from Japan.
Same goes for RV-parks with recharge-options. I agree with you those would be superior to gas-stations IF THEY EXISTED. Today they empathically does NOT actually exist.
RV parks with 50 amp outlets most certainly do exist. I guess you've never used an RV. There are two standard RV outlets -- the older 30A/120V, and the newer 50A/120V split phase (two 120V circuits -- effectively 240V when combined). The 50A outlets are pretty similar to what comes into your home, while the 30A ones are basically a double amperage wall outlet. Both are all over the country. They emphatically DO exist. And that's 12kW, which for an Aptera is about a 55 minute charge (50A * 117V * 2 circuits = 11700W; 10kW pack * 1000W/kw / 0.93 charging efficiency / 11700W = 0.91 hours = 55 minutes. Of course, it slows down at the very end, but the odds of having a *completely dead* battery are quite low.).
The only obstacle is that, since this is an usual request for an RV park at this point in time, you'd either need to call ahead and see if they'll cut you some slack and let you pay a reduced fee for one hour of lot usage, or pay the full overnight fee (typically ~$25 or so). If EVs and PHEVs become more common (and GM alone is planning to make 10k Volts per year, just ignoring all of the other models coming out), they'll almost certainly come up with rates for EV charging use; it'd be throwing away money not to. The big RV park chains could probably be persuaded to do that without much effort.
By the way -- if this isn't your cup of tea, and you'd rather wait until there's better national infrastructure, there are two additional options. One is a PHEV, like the Volt or the
Don't think of it as a fuel, think of it as a battery.
Exactly -- think of it as a battery. A very, very lossy battery. Compared to the 99.9% efficiency of a lithium-ion battery.
Take a look at the losses of each step of the process involved in running a vehicle on hydrogen. It'll be enlightening.
Let's ignore that this was incredibly slow change. Let's pretend that tomorrow, we read in the news that Mars has warmed ten degrees in the last twenty years. Let's pretend that this isn't made less relevant by the fact that mars has an atmosphere with a small fraction of a percent as much thermal inertia as ours, and there's no even bigger oceanic thermal inertial source (the ocean) like we have on Earth. Let's pretend all of this was true for the sake of argument.
It Would Still Be Irrelevant As To The Causes Of Climate Change On Earth.
We have satellites, telescopes, and sensors monitoring every last thing you could possibly imagine about the sun. Unless the sun has some sort of magical powers, if the sun is changing in some way or another, *we'd know about it*. We don't need "planetary proxies" to tell us if the sun is getting brighter or whatnot; we have the hard data *right here*.
Oh, and for the idiots who just assume that the IPCC scientists forgot to consider the sun: there are about 50 peer reviewed papers summed up in the technical report (pretty much every recent peer-reviewed paper on the subject) related to the sun, changes in the sun, historical changes in the sun, how the various forms of solar radiation interact with earth processes, and so on. Now, how many of them have *you* read that lets you feel qualified to hold a contrary view?
I'm not convinced on the regenerative braking. I haven't seen the numbers, but without detailed info, it give the impression of being more gimmick than environmental.
Actually, you're right... for normal, present-day hybrids. They capture energy too fast to charge the NiMH packs, and the packs are only 50-70% efficient. Overall, it's something like 20% recovered. However, next-gen systems with li-ion and ultracapactors should get the overwhelming majority of the kinetic energy converted back. Obviously, you don't get your rolling and aerodynamic losses back -- only what you retained when you started braking. Also, "slamming on the brakes" and the final couple seconds of normal braking invokes disc brakes as well, and you get no energy out of them.
That statement doesn't make sense. Mercury is an element; elements can't be organic.
It's like saying hexavalent chromium. Chromium is an element. Hexavalent chromium can only be found in compounds where it's in the +6 oxidation state; virtually never will you find lone hexavalent chromium ions. But it's still called "hexavalent chromium", in short for "hexavalent chromium compounds". In this case, "organic mercury" is short for "organic mercury compounds". A google search will show you that this is a common term.
Also, you're wrong: even elemental mercury (which is within your "inorganic" category) is -- and I quote -- "extremely toxic".
As even Wikipedia notes, "The most toxic forms of mercury are its organic compounds, such as dimethylmercury and methylmercury. " Organic mercury compounds have much higher bioavailability. Methylmercury is the most common one, and it's what coal plants emit large amounts of. It likes to bond its way into proteins and it bioaccumulates. CFLs contain pure ("inorganic") mercury.
In case your math-skills are down, 160/12.000 is pretty much in the 1% ballpark I mentioned.
In case your logic and reading skills are down, it explains how this whole argument is a fallacy, since not only can only roughly a fifth of the energy in the gasoline be converted to torque, but that batteries aren't competing with gasoline; they're competing with the weight and bulk of the ICE.
I was talking about actual existing batteries by the way, not fantasy-ones. There are no cars available powered by fantasy-batteries. When there are, these things may change.
Apparently you've never heard of the G4e. Yes, it's a prototype, but it uses next-gen lithium vanadium oxide batteries. They don't specify the exact energy density, only that it's "double" normal li-ion. The website I linked references a paper that shows that, at least in the lab, lithium vanadium oxide batteries can have obscene energy densities (although not as good as silicon nanowire, silicon nanoparticle, or tin nanoparticle batteries).
Furthermore, the article compares hypothethical FUTURE battery-cars with poor examples of TODAYS internal-combustion engines. For example, it quotes tank-to-wheel efficiencies at 20%, which is not even state of the art TODAY.
Oh really?
So, in short, the article claims "equal" performance (86Kwh delivered from 350Kg of machinery), whereas the reality, if you buy best-of-breed from internal-combustion and batteries TODAY is more like, the battery-powered thingie will have 1:6th the range of the IC-one, and it'll spend twice the mass-budget to do that.
1) The standard for most low-cost next-gen BEVs -- the MiEV, the Aptera, the VentureOne, etc -- is around 120 miles. The standard for the high-end ones (Tesla, LightningCar, tzero, etc) is 200-300 miles. That's nothing at all like "1/6th the range".
2) In case you missed it, it shows equivalent range per unit mass when you get batteries up to 340Wh/kg. That's 2.2 times the energy density of LiCoO2/graphite and 3.4 times that of LiP. So, the best you can argue is ~45% of the range per unit weight for LiCoO2/graphite and 30% of the range per unit weight for LiP.
3) As the page referenced earlier, there are over a dozen new chemistries that all promise to deliver energy density in the 340Wh/kg range working their way through to commercialization, and one (lithium vanadium oxide) has already made its way into a prototype.
Where it gets ugly is when you add in that the IC can be completely retanked in a minute, whereas TODAYS electric vehicles need multiple hours to even do a 75% recharge.
If you had read the rest of the page, you'd know that this, too, is false with modern EV batteries. Most modern EVs have fast charge ports that can take a full charge in the range of 5 to 20 minutes if you have a source that can deliver current fast enough. Modern EV batteries are capable of extremely fast charging.
and refill in a minute
Time the time that you spend at a gas station. Include the time wasted by getting off the highway and having to get back on. Overall, you'll find that it's about a ten minute delay, more if you have to get a snack or use the restroom. Fast EV charging would hardly add on to the length of a trip. But it'd be a tiny fraction of the cost, since power is so cheap (almost all of the cost of charging would be overhead).
with 100 miles range
120 or so is currently the standard for the low-end EVs -- see the MiEV, the Aptera, the VentureOne, etc. On state highways, it means two hours. On interstates, it means an hour and a half, give or take depending on how you drive.
Signs with "last gas-station for 50miles" aren't rare where I live
Well, kudos to you. If you run out of gas, you have to push your car dozens of miles (or hike to a gas station). If I run out of electricity, I push my car to the nearest farmhouse and ask them
So your 10-20 year lifespan of the battery isn't documented on the website anywhere that I can find.
They've stated they're using lithium phosphate in news articles (example here). Lithium phosphate batteries have a 10-20 year lifespan in normal use. Normal laptop cells have a few hundred to a thousand or so cycles before 50% degradation. A123 cells have 1000 cycles to 5% degradation (in an Aptera, 1000 cycles is 120,000 miles). And everyone I've seen who's talked about using A123 cells in their own experience says that if anything, the spec sheet is too pessimistic. A123 was initially saying "10+ years and 7000 cycles+" for the Volt's pack (which will be a lot more stressed than the Aptera's, since it's a PHEV). Now GM is saying they expect it to be good for 15, and are planning to give it a very long warranty. And even then, you're not talking about the battery dying; you're talking about it being down 20% capacity or so. Spinels can last even longer -- LG Chem expects theirs to be good for as much as 40 years in typical EV use.
There's nothing inherent about batteries that means they have to rapidly degrade. Jay Leno has a 1909 Baker Electric that still runs on its original Edison cells. It all depends on the stability of the battery chemistry. Lead-acid and LiCoO2/graphite li-ion are not stable chemistries. LiP, titanates, and spinels are.
I also note on the Aptera site that the car isn't designed for cold climates.
Says who? Aptera has only said that it's not initially going to be *tested* in cold climates. A123 lithium phosphate cells are rated for -30C for operation and -50C for storage. And lightweight tadpole configurations like the Aptera can do exceedingly well in the snow -- for example, the Messerschmidt KR200 (which is a far more primitive and less stable design). Smaller vehicles have lower moments of inertia, so they're easier to stop. Compare the stopping time on a semi with a typical sedan, for example.
Availability is almost non-existent as well
Availability *is* non-existant because it's pre-production; only the prototypes exist. They've fully raised their final round of funding for production and they brought on board the head of production for the Dodge Viper and Ford GT projects to manage it (a perfect match, as he's used to working with low volume cars with light alloys and composite structures). The first deliveries to customers are scheduled for late this year.
Last, and perhaps most distressing, Aptera offers no warranty on the vehicle.
Wrong. The site explicitly says, "The details of our financing and warranty are still being defined" and "We will announce further information regarding the battery lifespan and warranty policy well before we begin manufacturing the Typ-1 next October.", not "There will be no warranty". How do you have terms on a warranty when there is none? Perhaps you were looking at the terms of use of the *Website*? ("Aptera PROVIDES THIS WEB SITE, AND ALL CONTENT AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEB SITE "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF TITLE, MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY OF INFORMATIONAL CONTENT, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT.")
Electric cars are great -- with one exception: batteries utterly suck.
:)
Not any more, really. There's certainly room for improvement, but they're way beyond how you portray them.
A battery has perhaps 1% of the energy-density of gasoline
Response here.
and to add insult to injury, needs hours to recharge
Not with lithium phosphate, spinel, or titanate batteries, which are what is going into this next generation of EVs. They can be recharged in minutes. Most next-gen EVs have a fast charge port rated for between 5 and 20 minute charges, depending on the vehicle.
Dragging around 1000 lbs of batteries to get the same amount of energy you'd get from a gallon or two of gasoline
The Aptera Typ-1e, to pick one, "drags around" 300 pounds of batteries. This replaces about 400 pounds of internal combustion engine. Yes, there's also an electric motor, but those are much smaller and lighter than ICEs. Yes, the range is less, but honestly, if you're not getting out of your car to stretch every two hours, you're not following normal driving safety recommendations anyways. And next-gen battery techs, which I could easily list over a dozen for you that are currently in various stages of working their way to commercialization, promise several times the energy density (one such battery has already made it into the Subaru G4e prototype -- a 2x density lithium vanadium oxide battery). There's room for a density doubling at the cathode via layering of materials with various reactivity, and nearly a 10xing at the anode via either silicon or tin nanoparticles or nanowires. And the number of approaches being taken is really impressive. And this is just lithium ion -- also consider ultracaps like the EESU, lithium sulphur, sodium ion, etc.
Invent a battery that can do even 10% of what gasoline can, and that recharge quickly, and electric cars would take over nearly completely in 5-10 years.
Glad to hear that electric cars will be taking over nearly completely in 5-10 years, then.
In virtually any energy transfer system that gets used a significant amount, initial costs are dwarfed by lifetime consumption. What the other poster is trying to explain to you is that the operation consumption of any hydrogen-based propulsion system is about three times higher than an equivalent battery-electric system due to all of the losses. And these aren't just "Oh, we'll figure away around it" losses; most of them are "laws of physics" losses. You can't get around Gibbs free energy, for example.
To go from electricity to hydrogen, you have to have small inverter losses, significant losses in electrolysis, compression (sometimes multiple time), small hydrogen lost through leaking (it leaks through virtually anything; not to mention, it destroys ozone), major fuel cell losses (or worse, hydrogen ICE losses), and finally small electric motor losses. In an EV, you have small transmission losses, small inverter losses, almost nonexistent storage losses (in both li-ion and its variants and in Zebra-style batteries), and small electric motor losses.
Unless you can change the laws of physics, it's going to remain this way. Here's one analysis of many on the subject for you. Check out the graphs. They don't focus heavily on electric cars, but where they do cover them, you can see the difference.
not sure where you pulled that from? Their seams to be one clean coal plant in the US, and with batteries not being exactly green, and a pure electric car costs more to run than the same car running on hybrid (if battery replacement cost is not subsidized.) Throw in all the radio-active emissions of coal plants (none in gasoline.)
It's very, very simple. Gasoline engines are very inefficient. Non-hybrids average less than 20% tank-to-wheel efficiency. Hybrids, just over. Fuel-burning power plants, 30-50% efficiency. Transmission losses, ~8%. Charger losses, ~7%. Battery losses, ~0.1% in Li-ion. Motor losses, ~10%. Do the math. I can give you several peer-reviewed studies on the topic if you're prefer.
As for batteries, you're just not up to date with the technology. These aren't lead-acid or nickel-cadmium batteries here. For example, my Aptera is to use lithium phosphate batteries. These last 10-20 years and are almost completely nontoxic. Their raw ingredients are things like iron, phosphoric acid (the same stuff as in soft drinks -- made from fluoroapatite, the same stuff as in well cared-for teeth, plus sulphuric acid, which is an oil industry *byproduct*), graphite, and even sugar (for the carbon binding). These aren't "in a few years" -- they're already here. They're becoming the new standard for cordless power tools, for example.
Considering low emission gas vehicles currently exhaust cleaner air than they take in
That's nearly always a myth promoted by the manufacturers. If you look at the actual numbers, they usually lower one pollutant by a tiny amount (say, particulate matter caught up in the air filter) while still emitting the other pollutants.
For me CFLs would do absolutely nothing in terms of greenhouse gas
Might want to rethink that one. Not to mention the huge ecological damage that comes from building a dam.
would add to the mercury problem.
The "mercury problem", plus the problem from *all the other heavy metals* and *many other types of pollutants* comes mostly from the burning of coal. Point out to me a single time you objected to the ubiquitous use of fluorescent tubes that contain an order of magnitude or more mercury, found in every officebuilding across the country, and I'll lay off you on this one, but CFLs have a tiny, miniscule amount of mercury. There's a tiny amount of all sorts of toxic chemicals in a computer chip. Are you going to stop using a computer, too? And even for this tiny amount of mercury, when disposed of, only a tiny fraction of *that* escapes. I can dig up the ref againfor you if you want, but in a previous debate on this subject, I dug up an EPA document on how much mercury is released from a CFL disposed of in different manners. If the trash is incinerated, a little over 20% of it ends up released. If it's buried, about 3% of it gets released. If it's treated as hazardous waste, the amount is negligible. In short, we're talking about small fractions of what starts out as only a couple milligrams. Oh, and to top it all off? It's inorganic mercury, which has low toxicity. What coal plants emit is largely organic.
But something annoys me more: People who call themselves green, but promote fossil fuels.
Gasoline isn't a "fossil fuel" when you make it from biomass.