Useful Links

ziggy29 · 07-16-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al_bundy

if the electric car is such a good idea why hasn't toyota or anyone else sold it mass market? Hybrids are a lot better because they take in normal gasoline you can buy anywhere and turn it into electricity inside the car.

i can drive a Prius across the US and not worry about running out of energy for it. can't say the same thing about the EV1

Well, without "electric car" technology, these hybrids couldn't even be possible.

Plus, it sets the stage for plug-in hybrids which ARE viable as more than short-distance vehicles.

ERD50 · 07-16-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29

Well, without "electric car" technology, these hybrids couldn't even be possible.

Plus, it sets the stage for plug-in hybrids which ARE viable as more than short-distance vehicles.

I think it was linked to in another thread, but hybrid autos (both series and parallel designs) and all-electric autos have been around since about 1908.

Also, one more note on the idea that GM would have been ahead of the game if they just kept working on the EV-1. Read up on the Volt. It's release date is not going to be limited by the engineering effort, it will be limited by the *availability* of a battery pack at the right price/performance point. It is still looking like that battery pack is going to keep the price too high for mass adoption.

And as been stated before, there has been sooooo much effort put into better batteries for electronics ( and the requirements are actually very similar), a small all-electric market would not have changed that ramp.

-ERD50

Midpack · 07-16-2008, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50

While I'm no fan of GM, everything I've read about the Volt seems spot on as far as the right approach towards a more affordable electric in the near future.

And I suspect they will be among the first to market. But where their original PR was to bring it in at $30K or less, they have been quoted/misquoted several times lately saying it's going to be $45-48K based on current projections. Most people will say they'll "do the right thing" until it costs them more, the more it costs to do the right thing the more the audience thins out. There will be the usual eco-chic celebrities lining up, but that's not enough of a market to make it work for GM. Believe me I hope electric cars materialize, I'd buy one as a second car it if had a range of at least 80 miles and didn't cost too much - I certainly wouldn't consider $45K or more though, no chance...

jclarksnakes · 07-16-2008, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack

I have not researched the subject but are you sure? What I had read was that generation has trouble with demand during the day but they already have a problem with excess generation at night especially during the wee hours - which stands to reason. And you would naturally expect most people to be charging while they were sleeping. Chargers could have simple programmable features to kick on a midnight and run 6 hours or whatever. I thought there was a natural, symbiotic fit to the whole scheme?

I suspect that you and I are both right on this. There is likely an excess of electricity available at night today. John Q Public is not noted for cooperating very well and at least some of us would need/want to recharge during the heat of the day and many utitlities would not be able to meet the demand. The amount of electricity required to recharge several million electric vehicles would be massive. Just a guess but I think electric car technology and ownership will advance faster than any increase in electrical generation capacity and there will be more brownouts in our future.

Marquette · 07-16-2008, 12:21 PM

The $45k doesn't represent an $15k/car profit... rather, it reflects the realities of getting a complex system that will work reliably for the mass market... in all markets.

Tesla would love to deliver a cheap car too... they've said as much. They can't.

It'll happen some day though.

Midpack · 07-16-2008, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jclarksnakes

I suspect that you and I are both right on this. There is likely an excess of electricity available at night today. John Q Public is not noted for cooperating very well and at least some of us would need/want to recharge during the heat of the day and many utitlities would not be able to meet the demand. The amount of electricity required to recharge several million electric vehicles would be massive. Just a guess but I think electric car technology and ownership will advance faster than any increase in electrical generation capacity and there will be more brownouts in our future.

The nighttime deal will offset the impact to some extent, but otherwise I'm with you...

ziggy29 · 07-16-2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jclarksnakes

I suspect that you and I are both right on this. There is likely an excess of electricity available at night today. John Q Public is not noted for cooperating very well and at least some of us would need/want to recharge during the heat of the day and many utitlities would not be able to meet the demand. The amount of electricity required to recharge several million electric vehicles would be massive.

All the more reason to "encourage" off peak usage with tiered time-of-day pricing.

If Mr. Public could recharge his electric car for 18 cents per kWh during the day and 10 cents overnight, you might see this dangled carrot influencing behavior.

samclem · 07-16-2008, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by al_bundy

i can drive a Prius across the US and not worry about running out of energy for it. can't say the same thing about the EV1

Of course, if you do this, you'll get a lower efficiency than if you'd used a similar gas-powered car that was not a hybrid. On a long, straight run, the conversion of the mechanical energy to electricity and back to mechanical energy, plus the hauling around of batteries, etc results in lower overall efficiency. This is why we probably won't be seeing long-haul trucks using hybrid technology--it's a loser, a non-appropriate technology for this type of driving.

samclem · 07-16-2008, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29

All the more reason to "encourage" off peak usage with tiered time-of-day pricing.

If Mr. Public could recharge his electric car for 18 cents per kWh during the day and 10 cents overnight, you might see this dangled carrot influencing behavior.

In the end, we'll probably end up with a grid that uses nuclear energy for baseline production (24/7) as it's easy to amortize the higher cost of building these sites with this type of use. The peak load will be carried by more expensive carbon fuels. Wind? Who knows how to integrate a source of energy that is totally intermittent and unpredictable--maybe just "bonus" production when it is available. Solar--same as wind, bit slightly more predicatable. It may end up making the most sense at the point-of-use.

rgarling · 07-16-2008, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem

This is why we probably won't be seeing long-haul trucks using hybrid technology--it's a loser, a non-appropriate technology for this type of driving.

In the future, long haul trucking will be a non-appropriate technology

samclem · 07-16-2008, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rgarling

In the future, long haul trucking will be a non-appropriate technology

That's possible. That's a long way off, given the present US rail structure and the performance of rail freight carriers. Even where a rail spur goes directly to a user, deliveries and pickups are less reliable than by truck. Rail has to be more than just cheap--it needs to be dependable. Right now, trucks do that better than rail.

FinanceDude · 07-16-2008, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem

Of course, if you do this, you'll get a lower efficiency than if you'd used a similar gas-powered car that was not a hybrid. On a long, straight run, the conversion of the mechanical energy to electricity and back to mechanical energy, plus the hauling around of batteries, etc results in lower overall efficiency. This is why we probably won't be seeing long-haul trucks using hybrid technology--it's a loser, a non-appropriate technology for this type of driving.

Why not put small windmills on the top of the trucks and use that energy??

samclem · 07-16-2008, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Why not put small windmills on the top of the trucks and use that energy??

Now I know you're joking.

soupcxan · 07-16-2008, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Why not put small windmills on the top of the trucks and use that energy??

In this forum we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

ERD50 · 07-16-2008, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem

Of course, if you do this, you'll get a lower efficiency than if you'd used a similar gas-powered car that was not a hybrid. On a long, straight run, the conversion of the mechanical energy to electricity and back to mechanical energy, plus the hauling around of batteries, etc results in lower overall efficiency.

There is an offsetting factor, that *may* provide better highway mileage for hybrids. Because you draw on the motor/battery for acceleration, the ICE is significantly smaller. But still large enough to propel the car at highway speeds. That bigger engine in a non hybrid is really only needed for acceleration.

It depends on a lot of factors, but a 1.3L engine carrying around a battery and motor *may* get better mileage than a 1.8L moving that same car at highway speeds. Less throttle drag, and less overall friction. And the smaller engine in a hybrid offsets some the extra weight from the battery/motor.

Well, the Honda Civiv comes both ways:

(City/Highway/Combined) - curb weight
Civic: ...........25/36/29 ...2751 (LX) 2806 (EX)?
Civic Hybrid: 40/45/42 ...2877

They don't list 0-60 times on the site, I don't know of performance is comparable or not. But 45> 36.

-ERD50

whitestick · 07-16-2008, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29

All the more reason to "encourage" off peak usage with tiered time-of-day pricing.

If Mr. Public could recharge his electric car for 18 cents per kWh during the day and 10 cents overnight, you might see this dangled carrot influencing behavior.

Of course with that sort of incentive, Mr. Public would simply procure a spare set of batteries or 2, and charge at night, then feed it back in the grid during the day, arbitraging the rate. No end to the fun

ERD50 · 07-17-2008, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whitestick

Of course with that sort of incentive, Mr. Public would simply procure a spare set of batteries or 2, and charge at night, then feed it back in the grid during the day, arbitraging the rate. No end to the fun

And if the rates reflect real costs, that would be a good thing.

Peak power is very expensive - electric companies need a grid and power stations big enough to handle the max, which only occurs a few percent of time. And the batteries feeding back during the day could cut grid use by 2X; you would draw your own power from it, and supply that power out also. And you would have a backup power system. Only trouble is, we will need much cheaper batteries.

At an $0.08 delta, a 50KWhr battery (that's what the Tesla has), you would 'earn' $4 on a full charge/discharge cycle. Assuming they would pay you the retail rates.

$4 *365 days = $1460. When I can buy that battery pack for $5000 or so and inverter and everything else for another grand or two, I'd seriously consider it.

-ERD50