Yeah, we have sources. Mine was written by a large chunk of the world's climate scientists summarizing several thousand peer-reviewed papers. Yours is one guy going who thinks they're wrong. Same thing, really, right?
Let's check the quality of this great work of yours.:) The core section on your page is Alternate Explanations of Warming. Surely *they* have read what they're debating against, right?
If you really want to irritate an AGW supporter, ask about the sun. To AGW supporters, only a Luddite would check the sun?s output when they could instead be obsessing over the increase in CO2 by 0.009% of the atmosphere. When they looked at the problem, the IPCC decided that over the last 50 years, the sun has been irrelevant to warming
BZZT, wrong! They did no such thing. The entire 106 page chapter 2 is titled, "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing". Most of the several hundred peer-reviewed references have to do with solar input reaching the Earth in one way or another. Around fifty to a hundred of them have to do with the sun itself.
Seeing yet why you should read this report before you debate? No? Then let's continue.
Note that the blue band in this chart (described in more detail in the last section), the IPCC thinks that without man, the world would have cooled over the last 50 years
That graph does not appear in the WG1 report on solar variability. They do, however, cite papers reconstructing solar variability through many completely different, independent means (Schatten and Orosz, 1990; Lean et al, 1992; Lean et al, 1992; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al, 1995; Solanki and Fligge, 1999; Lean, 2000; Foster, 2004; Y. Wang et al, 2005; Dziembowski, 2001). The results are all quite small -- an RF increase of 0 to 0.65 W/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum (the planet currently receives about 1300W/m^2). The older studies, especially the Lean ones, tend to be higher, and the newer studies lower. The report discusses how an underlying assumption of those studies was disproven, and the newer studies take that into account. If you want to learn more about any of those methods, the references are right there. They go on to explain the reasons with half a dozen more references.
But it turns out, interestingly, that solar irradiance may be close to its highest point in centuries. Al Gore says that current global temperatures are the highest they have been in 1000 years. A new study by the Institute of Astronomy in Zurich says that the "sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years." Related?
*Included*. What, you think they just ignore studies they don't like? Sami Solanki, the author of the report linked, is even a contributor to the IPCC report. Amazing how they try to spin him as being part of their little denial group when he doesn't believe that at all.
We can look at solar output over large time frames by looking at the production of carbon-14 (less is produced in years of high solar activity, and vice versa). The analysis below used the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the stalagmites to estimate the water temperature at the time they were formed.
You're right -- you can! And so did the IPCC, which further makes obvious that the author of your page never even read the report. "An initial effort reported exceptionally high levels of solar activity in the last 70 years, relative to the preceeding 8,000 years (Solanki et al, 2004). In contrast, when differences in isotopes records are taken into account and the C14 record corrected for fossil burning, current levels of solar activity are found to be historically high, but not exceptionally so (
If you wanted one for a laptop, at this point, you'll have to make them yourself, AFAIK;) All of these batteries are pretty new. The ones currently on the market don't have as high of an energy density as standard li-ion or li-poly (although the SCiB is close -- 80% of the energy density), but they're still quite high. As far as I know, the only consumer electronics in the US currently using automotive-style li-ions are the DeWalt cordless power tool packs. DeWalt took a risk and ditched their long-time NiMH supplier for an upstart, A123, and it's really paid off for them. The standard DeWalt pack is 33 volts, 75.9 Wh. They're made of ten 3.3V, 7.59Wh cells linked in series. So, if you want to make your own laptop battery pack, you'll need to link the right number to get an appropriate voltage.
I know that there are some other lithium phosphate (like A123) batteries out there on the market these days, but don't know too much about them. Lithium phosphate manufacturers have really been proliferating and it's hard to keep track. Here's a page that lists some stats, though, and you can see that they vary a good bit in performance.
Yeah, if I had to bet on a single EV to make it, I'd bet on the MiEV. Solid stats, low cost, and a good backer behind it. Oh, and while there was initially a lot of concern that it wouldn't be coming to the US, they're demoing it at the New York Auto show this year, so that's certainly looking like they're wanting to bring it over.
While I personally prefer the Aptera to the MiEV (almost twice as energy efficient, and I love the sci-fi styling), the MiEV is definitely a solid vehicle to keep an eye on.
That 40 miles number wasn't arrived at on accident. It's a bit more than the average American drives per day.:) The only problem is that the Volt's price has snuck up and it's now about $35k, which has significantly shrunk their market from where it would have been at the original target of $30k. Other PHEVs are cheaper. But the Volt should still stay afloat even at that price.
Your pretty graphic shows 80% efficiency because it's based on a flawed assumption: that the energy cost of loading up your car with its energy source is the same.
The "pretty graph" wasn't created by me; its source is linked. It is from the peer-reviewed "Well to wheel study of passenger vehicles in the Norwegian energy system". It covers electricity generated by non-renewable sources, and just like the DOE study conducted at PNL, determines that it's much better for the environment than an ICE.
Finally: every single point on your precious "fourth IPCC WG1 report" has been thoroughly debunked.
So now it's *my* fourth IPCC WG1 report? Apparently I run the IPCC now. Amazing, that! Hey, where's that "point by point" debunking? Given that the IPCC WG1 merely *summarizes the existing papers*, it really needs to be a point-by-point debunking of each of the several thousand papers. Even if it was a debunking of the summarizing of the papers, it'd still have to be several thousand pages long. How did this amazing piece of debunking manage to sneak through the cracks?:)
They mention that the Prius batteries are warrantied for eight years, but don't mention that they're only ever depleted to 40-60% of their total charge to preserve battery life
Yes, but they also go through more charge/discharge cycles; PHEV batteries are stressed more. I edited the wiki to reflect your criticism and this fact.
They talk about cheaper, longer-lasting batteries with high energy density.
Cheaper, not yet. Safe and long lasting, yes, you can get them. If you want low volume, your only option, really, is to buy DeWalt power packs and dissect them for the A123 cells, and that'll run you about $2/Wh. However, if you buy in bulk, you can get batteries from any of a dozen or so automotive battery makers for notably less (except for AltairNano, whos batteries in bulk still cost around $2/Wh).
Great! But they also have less than 10% the energy density of lead-acid batteries, and the cost is prohibitive.
Not necessarily. The EEStor supercapacitors due out this year are to have several times the energy density of *li-ion*. Several teams are working on nanotube supercapacitors with the energy density of li-ion. This is all covered on the page.
They then go on to talk about the cost of running a car based solely on the cost to charge, ignoring the cost of periodically replacing the battery.
Incorrect. Maintenance costs are also discussed on the page.
The cheapest car I've seen with a decent range is the Th!nk City
Th!nk isn't particularly cheap, and its stats are pretty lousy (~60mph top speed, for example). You mentioned Aptera; it's much better performing and cheaper. There's also the MiEV (minivan-styling) and MiEV sport (style like a cross between a Prius and a VW beetle) ($24-25k), the VentureOne (tandem two seater, automatically tilts into turns like a motorcycle) ($25k), and about a dozen more due-out-soon in the $20-35k range. The only thing that the $20-35k rangers don't have is >120 mi or so range unless they're PHEVs. The batteries, not yet being in mass production, are too expensive for that. In five years or so, that won't be the case, and you should easily get 200-250 miles range in that price range.
Looks like the aforementioned batteries weren't directly in *that section*, so I'll edit the wiki and list them. A123, AltairNano, Valence, SCiB, and on and on *already exist*. Want to see videos of vehicles powered by them? Go to YouTube and search for "Wrightspeed X1" or "Killacycle". In the specific case of A123, to answer your questions: they *are* good for the environment (nontoxic anode, cathode, and separator, with a corrosive but non-persistant, heavy-metal-free electrolyte), can survive full discharge, has a 10+ year lifespan and 7000+ cycles.
The physics are that batteries don't have the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons. That part is the simple physics.
And that's why off-the-cuff calculations can be misleading. The majority of the weight of a gasoline drivetrain (from tank to wheels) is not the fuel, which is light, but the engine. The motor is light in an EV drivetrain, while the batteries are heavy. The mass of batteries isn't in competition with the mass of the fuel in a traditional car; it's in competition with the mass of the engine.
Batteries are expensive and do wear out so that is another cost item.
Automotive li-ion batteries are designed to last 10+ years, and even then, they're not "dead" -- they just have reduced range. EVs don't have the other parts of a car that you might have to replace over its life -- generally the transmission, most belts, radiator, spark plugs, muffler, cataltyic converter, pumps, and in an extreme case, the whole engine block. One of the great things about EV drivetrains is that they're so darned simple. If your batteries are reliable, your maintenance is largely reduced to that of the tires, while your energy costs are reduced to around a penny per mile (give or take in either direction).
Put your money where your mouth is.
Already have. I hope you enjoy your $0.10-$0.15/mi in fuel and ~$50/mo amortized maintenance/replacement costs; I'll be enjoying my $0.005/mi and $15/mo amortized maintenance/replacement costs.
1) Most of the issues with range on EVs are more due to the cost of automotive batteries, not energy density. The Tesla has no trouble fitting over 50kWh of automotive batteries into a sports car and retaining excellent performance, but the "budget" EVs like the Aptera and the MiEV generally have only 10-20 kWh. That's all about cost, and that's all about needing mass production.
2) To go over 200 miles or so, yes, energy density improvements would be highly recommended. And here's seven for you, each offering 2-4x the energy density: EESU ultracapacitors, lithium vanadium oxide anodes, silicon nanowire anodes, "superlattice" cathodes, "composite" cathodes, lithium-sulphur batteries, and sodium ion batteries. Think every last one of those is going to fail to be commercialized?
Charge time: No, it exists *right now*. I don't know where on earth that you got that it doesn't work with "current technology"; A123 nanophosphate, AltairNano Nanosafe, Toshiba SCiB, and dozens of other batteries are *already* fast charge capable. As stated. And the cooling calcs are done on the page. The Aptera doesn't wouldn't even need *any* active cooling for a fast charge.
Range: It mentions that, *AND* all of the longer range battery techs.
Are you illiterate or just being deliberately obtuse? I don't see how you could have actually read that without catching these things.
You get my point, though, don't you? The overwhelming majority of those touting hemp *virtually never* tout any other great fibers. Their sole reason they are concerned with hemp is made obvious by the sites where you see the advocacy, everywhere from "stopthedrugwar.org" to "nirvana-shop.co.uk" to "drugwarfacts.org" to "druglibrary.org" and so on. These people aren't into hemp because they've long had some sort of affection for quality fibers. Their sole interest is to try and show that the government went overboard with the drug war as part of a move to try and get the drug war repealed.
Hemp is not some magical crop. It has many uses, but they're often way overstated, and other crops, like kenaf, are superior in most respects. It's just another crop, one that could be useful, but has unfortunately gotten caught up in politics. Yet every time the topic comes up, you get these druggies who treat it like it's the Second Coming of Christ, and then act all taken aback when you point out that it's not exactly the best choice in most applications. Even some very common products today are superior than their hemp equivalents -- for example, plain 'old manila rope, made from a type of banana leaf. Just as strong, but doesn't rot nearly as easily as hemp rope does (hemp rope is particularly insidious when it comes to rot, as it tends to rot from the inside out and wick water along so that the whole rope can rot). Or take the other "miracle" thing often mentioned, hemp oil. Yes, it also has many uses. It's also not a very thermally stable oil, and is somewhat prone to going rancid.
Can you see how one can get sick of the politics-driven promotion of hemp as a cure-all?
Thank you for feeling that you had to comment without first reading the link, which very thoroughly addressed range and charge time. If you have a specific counter to anything brought up in there, by all means state it. Otherwise...
Did you read the article? The factories that make the batteries are literally at capacity. It's going to take time for them to ramp up battery production. Some other part supplies are also tight.
I'll stop making fun of the "Hemp is a wonder crop" folks as soon as they start advocating for, say, kenaf (a largely superior fiber), or when 95% of the hemp advocacy sites online don't have words like "marijuana" in the URL.
Under the PEVE relicensing deal with Cobasys, replacement batteries can now be provided. Originally, they couldn't.
Gold Peak batteries (as used in the Vectrix motorbike) are large format NiMH, licensed by Cobasys. Cobasys also licenses to (and manufactures for) a number of hybrid vehicles.
Phoenix is widely accepted by the EV community as being significantly overpriced, thanks to their use of AltairNano batteries. If you want a 5 seater, the similar-stat MiEV is a much more economical option, at $24k.
The main range limiter at this point isn't the batteries themselves; it's the relatively high cost of automotive li-ion batteries due to small-scale production. Five years from now, the same price vehicle will buy you double the range without any battery improvements. Yet the battery improvements do keep lining up in the lab, and we're talking about 2-3 times the energy density from at least five different battery chemistries (just the ones I've tallied up so far, and I've hardly read all of the research coming out). The odds that *none* of them will make it to commercialization seems implausible to say the least. Give it ten years for that, and you're looking at EVs that cost around the same ($25k or so) and have gasoline-equivalent range and are fast charge capable, release far less CO2and other pollutants, cost around a penny per mile in energy costs (more or less depending on the vehicle and your rates), and cost a small fraction as much in maintenance. Automotive li-ions are rated for 10+ years, and it's not like they suddenly "die" then; in practice, they last the lifespan of the car. Apart from the batteries, the only other moving parts are the drive shaft from the electric motor, the wheels, and occasionally a belt or small cooling fan. 90% of the complexity of the engine and all pollution controls on the vehicle itself disappear. There's generally not even a transmission because electric motors perform well over a wide torque range.
ZAP, the company as a whole, is just a publicity stunt. Their vehicles are almost all profit margin, and they're generally utter pieces of junk. Cramped, top speed of just over 30mph (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Ke1VWhZJA
"I just spent a couple of minutes driving the Typ-1 around, and what's interesting about it is, it's really quick! I mean, you step on the gas and it goes, and that's the torque of the electric motor. It's also got great visibility, and it's also kinda fun! People stop and stare at you in this thing; it's better than driving a Lamborghini in my opinion."
Gee, which to pick... piece of junk Chinese golf cart that barely moves, or car that Popular Science's reviewer thinks is better than driving a Lamborghini... ----
You can't waive *someone else's* right to sue. I.e., if your car injures *someone else*, and they think it was defective design that caused the injury, they can still sue. Liability most *definitely* is a very real thing in the automotive world; lawsuits add several hundred dollars to the price of a car. And this was a vehicle that GM never even wanted to produce in the first place. They were *losing* money on every vehicle leased out. The part lines had already been shut down (a number of them before the CARB mandate was overturned); EV1 shared few parts with other GM vehicles.
It was a dumb PR move, but GM was leaking money like a sieve and wanted to cut their losses. I can hardly blame them.
1) The Prius isn't an electric car. It's a hybrid. It's just an efficient user of gasoline.
2) Priuses aren't largely driven by "the affluent". They're mostly a middle class car. And they've been a stunning success; Toyota has said not to expect any more increases in sales next year because they can't produce them any faster.
4) As for electric cars, there are a lot of myths. Here they are, all broken down for you.
5) Yes, you are correct that there was no conspiracy to kill the EV1. The EV1 was never designed to be profitable; like all of its competitors, it was solely a byproduct of the CARB mandate. It was produced in tiny numbers, with tech far worse than what is available nowadays, based on a design that shared no common infrastructure with other GM vehicles (a "one-off"), and so forth. The leases were heavily subsidized. GM wanted nothing to do with actually making EVs, and as soon as the CARB mandate was overturned, they were quite glad to be rid of them. So were the other manufacturers who also had similarly unprofitable EVs. It was a horrible PR move, and GM realizes that now, but it made sense on the books, especially since GM was bleeding money at the time. And as for the "liability" argument, GM was 100% correct; lawsuits add hundreds of dollars to the cost of every car made in the US, and an owner can't disclaim liability for *someone else's* lawsuits. And as for the battery argument, please -- if GM cared about the EV1, they wouldn't have *sold the batteries* in the first place. They had already shut down many other part lines before CARB was overturned anyways; even if they had the batteries, they still couldn't have made more. The conspiracy arguments get crazier and crazier from there (like GM destroying the EVs because they wanted to "hide" them, yet in a fit of insanity they donated them to museums, but then they put pressure on the museums to hide them...)
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, we have sources. Mine was written by a large chunk of the world's climate scientists summarizing several thousand peer-reviewed papers. Yours is one guy going who thinks they're wrong. Same thing, really, right?
:) The core section on your page is Alternate Explanations of Warming. Surely *they* have read what they're debating against, right?
Let's check the quality of this great work of yours.
If you really want to irritate an AGW supporter, ask about the sun. To AGW supporters, only a Luddite would check the sun?s output when they could instead be obsessing over the increase in CO2 by 0.009% of the atmosphere. When they looked at the problem, the IPCC decided that over the last 50 years, the sun has been irrelevant to warming
BZZT, wrong! They did no such thing. The entire 106 page chapter 2 is titled, "Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing". Most of the several hundred peer-reviewed references have to do with solar input reaching the Earth in one way or another. Around fifty to a hundred of them have to do with the sun itself.
Seeing yet why you should read this report before you debate? No? Then let's continue.
Note that the blue band in this chart (described in more detail in the last section), the IPCC thinks that without man, the world would have cooled over the last 50 years
That graph does not appear in the WG1 report on solar variability. They do, however, cite papers reconstructing solar variability through many completely different, independent means (Schatten and Orosz, 1990; Lean et al, 1992; Lean et al, 1992; Hoyt and Schatten, 1993; Lean et al, 1995; Solanki and Fligge, 1999; Lean, 2000; Foster, 2004; Y. Wang et al, 2005; Dziembowski, 2001). The results are all quite small -- an RF increase of 0 to 0.65 W/m^2 since the Maunder Minimum (the planet currently receives about 1300W/m^2). The older studies, especially the Lean ones, tend to be higher, and the newer studies lower. The report discusses how an underlying assumption of those studies was disproven, and the newer studies take that into account. If you want to learn more about any of those methods, the references are right there. They go on to explain the reasons with half a dozen more references.
But it turns out, interestingly, that solar irradiance may be close to its highest point in centuries. Al Gore says that current global temperatures are the highest they have been in 1000 years. A new study by the Institute of Astronomy in Zurich says that the "sun is more active now than it has been at anytime in the previous 1,000 years." Related?
*Included*. What, you think they just ignore studies they don't like? Sami Solanki, the author of the report linked, is even a contributor to the IPCC report. Amazing how they try to spin him as being part of their little denial group when he doesn't believe that at all.
We can look at solar output over large time frames by looking at the production of carbon-14 (less is produced in years of high solar activity, and vice versa). The analysis below used the ratio of oxygen isotopes in the stalagmites to estimate the water temperature at the time they were formed.
You're right -- you can! And so did the IPCC, which further makes obvious that the author of your page never even read the report. "An initial effort reported exceptionally high levels of solar activity in the last 70 years, relative to the preceeding 8,000 years (Solanki et al, 2004). In contrast, when differences in isotopes records are taken into account and the C14 record corrected for fossil burning, current levels of solar activity are found to be historically high, but not exceptionally so (
If you wanted one for a laptop, at this point, you'll have to make them yourself, AFAIK ;) All of these batteries are pretty new. The ones currently on the market don't have as high of an energy density as standard li-ion or li-poly (although the SCiB is close -- 80% of the energy density), but they're still quite high. As far as I know, the only consumer electronics in the US currently using automotive-style li-ions are the DeWalt cordless power tool packs. DeWalt took a risk and ditched their long-time NiMH supplier for an upstart, A123, and it's really paid off for them. The standard DeWalt pack is 33 volts, 75.9 Wh. They're made of ten 3.3V, 7.59Wh cells linked in series. So, if you want to make your own laptop battery pack, you'll need to link the right number to get an appropriate voltage.
I know that there are some other lithium phosphate (like A123) batteries out there on the market these days, but don't know too much about them. Lithium phosphate manufacturers have really been proliferating and it's hard to keep track. Here's a page that lists some stats, though, and you can see that they vary a good bit in performance.
Yeah, if I had to bet on a single EV to make it, I'd bet on the MiEV. Solid stats, low cost, and a good backer behind it. Oh, and while there was initially a lot of concern that it wouldn't be coming to the US, they're demoing it at the New York Auto show this year, so that's certainly looking like they're wanting to bring it over.
While I personally prefer the Aptera to the MiEV (almost twice as energy efficient, and I love the sci-fi styling), the MiEV is definitely a solid vehicle to keep an eye on.
That 40 miles number wasn't arrived at on accident. It's a bit more than the average American drives per day. :) The only problem is that the Volt's price has snuck up and it's now about $35k, which has significantly shrunk their market from where it would have been at the original target of $30k. Other PHEVs are cheaper. But the Volt should still stay afloat even at that price.
Completely inaccurate. The error in your thinking is that power plants are far more efficient than ICEs, and the other steps don't lose much at all.
:)
Your pretty graphic shows 80% efficiency because it's based on a flawed assumption: that the energy cost of loading up your car with its energy source is the same.
The "pretty graph" wasn't created by me; its source is linked. It is from the peer-reviewed "Well to wheel study of passenger vehicles in the Norwegian energy system". It covers electricity generated by non-renewable sources, and just like the DOE study conducted at PNL, determines that it's much better for the environment than an ICE.
Finally: every single point on your precious "fourth IPCC WG1 report" has been thoroughly debunked.
So now it's *my* fourth IPCC WG1 report? Apparently I run the IPCC now. Amazing, that! Hey, where's that "point by point" debunking? Given that the IPCC WG1 merely *summarizes the existing papers*, it really needs to be a point-by-point debunking of each of the several thousand papers. Even if it was a debunking of the summarizing of the papers, it'd still have to be several thousand pages long. How did this amazing piece of debunking manage to sneak through the cracks?
Starting at $30k, you say? Try an MSRP of $21,100, with an average sale price (i.e., with all the options) of $28,856 for the 2008 model.
Here's a dealer's perspective on the sales demographics:
"Is the demographic changing for hybrid customers, specifically Prius customers?
It?s more mass market. Toyota sold 175,000 Priuses in 2007, which makes it a core product for the dealer. It?s hitting all demographics."
They mention that the Prius batteries are warrantied for eight years, but don't mention that they're only ever depleted to 40-60% of their total charge to preserve battery life
Yes, but they also go through more charge/discharge cycles; PHEV batteries are stressed more. I edited the wiki to reflect your criticism and this fact.
They talk about cheaper, longer-lasting batteries with high energy density.
Cheaper, not yet. Safe and long lasting, yes, you can get them. If you want low volume, your only option, really, is to buy DeWalt power packs and dissect them for the A123 cells, and that'll run you about $2/Wh. However, if you buy in bulk, you can get batteries from any of a dozen or so automotive battery makers for notably less (except for AltairNano, whos batteries in bulk still cost around $2/Wh).
Great! But they also have less than 10% the energy density of lead-acid batteries, and the cost is prohibitive.
Not necessarily. The EEStor supercapacitors due out this year are to have several times the energy density of *li-ion*. Several teams are working on nanotube supercapacitors with the energy density of li-ion. This is all covered on the page.
They then go on to talk about the cost of running a car based solely on the cost to charge, ignoring the cost of periodically replacing the battery.
Incorrect. Maintenance costs are also discussed on the page.
The cheapest car I've seen with a decent range is the Th!nk City
Th!nk isn't particularly cheap, and its stats are pretty lousy (~60mph top speed, for example). You mentioned Aptera; it's much better performing and cheaper. There's also the MiEV (minivan-styling) and MiEV sport (style like a cross between a Prius and a VW beetle) ($24-25k), the VentureOne (tandem two seater, automatically tilts into turns like a motorcycle) ($25k), and about a dozen more due-out-soon in the $20-35k range. The only thing that the $20-35k rangers don't have is >120 mi or so range unless they're PHEVs. The batteries, not yet being in mass production, are too expensive for that. In five years or so, that won't be the case, and you should easily get 200-250 miles range in that price range.
Looks like the aforementioned batteries weren't directly in *that section*, so I'll edit the wiki and list them. A123, AltairNano, Valence, SCiB, and on and on *already exist*. Want to see videos of vehicles powered by them? Go to YouTube and search for "Wrightspeed X1" or "Killacycle". In the specific case of A123, to answer your questions: they *are* good for the environment (nontoxic anode, cathode, and separator, with a corrosive but non-persistant, heavy-metal-free electrolyte), can survive full discharge, has a 10+ year lifespan and 7000+ cycles.
The physics are that batteries don't have the energy density of liquid hydrocarbons. That part is the simple physics.
And that's why off-the-cuff calculations can be misleading. The majority of the weight of a gasoline drivetrain (from tank to wheels) is not the fuel, which is light, but the engine. The motor is light in an EV drivetrain, while the batteries are heavy. The mass of batteries isn't in competition with the mass of the fuel in a traditional car; it's in competition with the mass of the engine.
Batteries are expensive and do wear out so that is another cost item.
Automotive li-ion batteries are designed to last 10+ years, and even then, they're not "dead" -- they just have reduced range. EVs don't have the other parts of a car that you might have to replace over its life -- generally the transmission, most belts, radiator, spark plugs, muffler, cataltyic converter, pumps, and in an extreme case, the whole engine block. One of the great things about EV drivetrains is that they're so darned simple. If your batteries are reliable, your maintenance is largely reduced to that of the tires, while your energy costs are reduced to around a penny per mile (give or take in either direction).
Put your money where your mouth is.
Already have. I hope you enjoy your $0.10-$0.15/mi in fuel and ~$50/mo amortized maintenance/replacement costs; I'll be enjoying my $0.005/mi and $15/mo amortized maintenance/replacement costs.
1) Most of the issues with range on EVs are more due to the cost of automotive batteries, not energy density. The Tesla has no trouble fitting over 50kWh of automotive batteries into a sports car and retaining excellent performance, but the "budget" EVs like the Aptera and the MiEV generally have only 10-20 kWh. That's all about cost, and that's all about needing mass production.
2) To go over 200 miles or so, yes, energy density improvements would be highly recommended. And here's seven for you, each offering 2-4x the energy density: EESU ultracapacitors, lithium vanadium oxide anodes, silicon nanowire anodes, "superlattice" cathodes, "composite" cathodes, lithium-sulphur batteries, and sodium ion batteries. Think every last one of those is going to fail to be commercialized?
3) No, pollution most definitely would not.
4) Very little oil goes to generating electricity. In the US, only Hawaii uses a relevant amount of oil in power plants.
Charge time: No, it exists *right now*. I don't know where on earth that you got that it doesn't work with "current technology"; A123 nanophosphate, AltairNano Nanosafe, Toshiba SCiB, and dozens of other batteries are *already* fast charge capable. As stated. And the cooling calcs are done on the page. The Aptera doesn't wouldn't even need *any* active cooling for a fast charge.
Range: It mentions that, *AND* all of the longer range battery techs.
Are you illiterate or just being deliberately obtuse? I don't see how you could have actually read that without catching these things.
You get my point, though, don't you? The overwhelming majority of those touting hemp *virtually never* tout any other great fibers. Their sole reason they are concerned with hemp is made obvious by the sites where you see the advocacy, everywhere from "stopthedrugwar.org" to "nirvana-shop.co.uk" to "drugwarfacts.org" to "druglibrary.org" and so on. These people aren't into hemp because they've long had some sort of affection for quality fibers. Their sole interest is to try and show that the government went overboard with the drug war as part of a move to try and get the drug war repealed.
Hemp is not some magical crop. It has many uses, but they're often way overstated, and other crops, like kenaf, are superior in most respects. It's just another crop, one that could be useful, but has unfortunately gotten caught up in politics. Yet every time the topic comes up, you get these druggies who treat it like it's the Second Coming of Christ, and then act all taken aback when you point out that it's not exactly the best choice in most applications. Even some very common products today are superior than their hemp equivalents -- for example, plain 'old manila rope, made from a type of banana leaf. Just as strong, but doesn't rot nearly as easily as hemp rope does (hemp rope is particularly insidious when it comes to rot, as it tends to rot from the inside out and wick water along so that the whole rope can rot). Or take the other "miracle" thing often mentioned, hemp oil. Yes, it also has many uses. It's also not a very thermally stable oil, and is somewhat prone to going rancid.
Can you see how one can get sick of the politics-driven promotion of hemp as a cure-all?
There are a number of them. The most famous is at the Smithsonian. And it is still in working order.
Thank you for feeling that you had to comment without first reading the link, which very thoroughly addressed range and charge time. If you have a specific counter to anything brought up in there, by all means state it. Otherwise...
Sure do. Here you go.
Did you read the article? The factories that make the batteries are literally at capacity. It's going to take time for them to ramp up battery production. Some other part supplies are also tight.
I'll stop making fun of the "Hemp is a wonder crop" folks as soon as they start advocating for, say, kenaf (a largely superior fiber), or when 95% of the hemp advocacy sites online don't have words like "marijuana" in the URL.
Under the PEVE relicensing deal with Cobasys, replacement batteries can now be provided. Originally, they couldn't.
Gold Peak batteries (as used in the Vectrix motorbike) are large format NiMH, licensed by Cobasys. Cobasys also licenses to (and manufactures for) a number of hybrid vehicles.
The Volt only gets ~40 miles per charge. Sure, they have plenty of gasoline range, but that's no tough feat.
Blah... perform well over a wide RPM range.
Phoenix is widely accepted by the EV community as being significantly overpriced, thanks to their use of AltairNano batteries. If you want a 5 seater, the similar-stat MiEV is a much more economical option, at $24k.
The main range limiter at this point isn't the batteries themselves; it's the relatively high cost of automotive li-ion batteries due to small-scale production. Five years from now, the same price vehicle will buy you double the range without any battery improvements. Yet the battery improvements do keep lining up in the lab, and we're talking about 2-3 times the energy density from at least five different battery chemistries (just the ones I've tallied up so far, and I've hardly read all of the research coming out). The odds that *none* of them will make it to commercialization seems implausible to say the least. Give it ten years for that, and you're looking at EVs that cost around the same ($25k or so) and have gasoline-equivalent range and are fast charge capable, release far less CO2 and other pollutants, cost around a penny per mile in energy costs (more or less depending on the vehicle and your rates), and cost a small fraction as much in maintenance. Automotive li-ions are rated for 10+ years, and it's not like they suddenly "die" then; in practice, they last the lifespan of the car. Apart from the batteries, the only other moving parts are the drive shaft from the electric motor, the wheels, and occasionally a belt or small cooling fan. 90% of the complexity of the engine and all pollution controls on the vehicle itself disappear. There's generally not even a transmission because electric motors perform well over a wide torque range.
Oh, and yes, we already have the power infrastructure (study commissioned by the DOE) -- everywhere except the pacific northwest.
For a lot more info, read this.
Completely untrue.
ZAP, the company as a whole, is just a publicity stunt. Their vehicles are almost all profit margin, and they're generally utter pieces of junk. Cramped, top speed of just over 30mph (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2Ke1VWhZJA
"I just spent a couple of minutes driving the Typ-1 around, and what's interesting about it is, it's really quick! I mean, you step on the gas and it goes, and that's the torque of the electric motor. It's also got great visibility, and it's also kinda fun! People stop and stare at you in this thing; it's better than driving a Lamborghini in my opinion."
Gee, which to pick... piece of junk Chinese golf cart that barely moves, or car that Popular Science's reviewer thinks is better than driving a Lamborghini...
----
You can't waive *someone else's* right to sue. I.e., if your car injures *someone else*, and they think it was defective design that caused the injury, they can still sue. Liability most *definitely* is a very real thing in the automotive world; lawsuits add several hundred dollars to the price of a car. And this was a vehicle that GM never even wanted to produce in the first place. They were *losing* money on every vehicle leased out. The part lines had already been shut down (a number of them before the CARB mandate was overturned); EV1 shared few parts with other GM vehicles.
It was a dumb PR move, but GM was leaking money like a sieve and wanted to cut their losses. I can hardly blame them.
1) The Prius isn't an electric car. It's a hybrid. It's just an efficient user of gasoline.
2) Priuses aren't largely driven by "the affluent". They're mostly a middle class car. And they've been a stunning success; Toyota has said not to expect any more increases in sales next year because they can't produce them any faster.
3) "In the end" is hardly applicable; the adoption of hybrids keeps expanding, and automakers are offering more and more options. GM, for example, plans to release a new hybrid modelevery three months for the next four years.
4) As for electric cars, there are a lot of myths. Here they are, all broken down for you.
5) Yes, you are correct that there was no conspiracy to kill the EV1. The EV1 was never designed to be profitable; like all of its competitors, it was solely a byproduct of the CARB mandate. It was produced in tiny numbers, with tech far worse than what is available nowadays, based on a design that shared no common infrastructure with other GM vehicles (a "one-off"), and so forth. The leases were heavily subsidized. GM wanted nothing to do with actually making EVs, and as soon as the CARB mandate was overturned, they were quite glad to be rid of them. So were the other manufacturers who also had similarly unprofitable EVs. It was a horrible PR move, and GM realizes that now, but it made sense on the books, especially since GM was bleeding money at the time. And as for the "liability" argument, GM was 100% correct; lawsuits add hundreds of dollars to the cost of every car made in the US, and an owner can't disclaim liability for *someone else's* lawsuits. And as for the battery argument, please -- if GM cared about the EV1, they wouldn't have *sold the batteries* in the first place. They had already shut down many other part lines before CARB was overturned anyways; even if they had the batteries, they still couldn't have made more. The conspiracy arguments get crazier and crazier from there (like GM destroying the EVs because they wanted to "hide" them, yet in a fit of insanity they donated them to museums, but then they put pressure on the museums to hide them...)