[afobisme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob_McBob Still available "elsewhere"...

where?

 

[VR6ofpain]

http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

$100K

0-60mph- 3.9 seconds
Top speed- 135mph
Crusing range, 200-300 miles
2-speed clutchless manual

Long waiting lists...

 

[blessingx]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin Nope. But throw in all the people who have long commutes, live in cold climates, do very little driving, do lots of driving, do lots of long ranged driving, and/or live in areas without the necessary infrastructure to support electric cars and it's well above 10% of the population.

Okay, cold climates is a very good point. Otherwise if we conservatively take half the stat given in the film (at end of SV1s life), how many often drive over 150 miles a day and don't have access to a power outlet? In fact the infrastructure is used as one of the reasons hydrogen is a far less user friendly solution to electrics (which you can plug in at home? And [conspiracy theorists get ready] why it's more difficult for energy companies are control.

If the film can be believed (not sure how many commenting have seen it) the battery life at point of SV1s death could have outlived the average expected body life.

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by IEATTEFLON I just wish they brought out more hybrids that actually looked like a regular car. Most of the ones that I've seen seem to be designed with bubbles and the Jetsons in mind.

they do. people dont buy them. there are waiting lists for toyota prius's, want a honda civic hybrid-all you need is a pen and a some time to write up a lease agreement/payment plan. you can drive your civic home tonight.

the hondas get better ACTUAL driving mileage than epa estimates, where toyotas get epa. crazy, hunh? (read about on the web)

the hondas use the honda "stepless" system, and the toyota uses the "jerk in a box" wannabe gen-1 vtec. you dont feel the honda system come on and off, its barely there.

nobody knows your driving a hybrid civic. it has no bling, for an econobox with no bling to start. you see a prius from down the block and go "ooh, it looks difernt." hybrid cars presently are as much a status symbol as an ecologycial statement.

diesel isnt becoming a viable alternative to gasolene because of low-sulfur mandates. it was already cleaner than gas with the high sulfur mixes. the reason diesel will take off in the near future comes from electronically controlled injection, comon rail injection, and throttle by wire controll systems for various turbocharger parts. sluggish mechanical injection diesels killed the diesel engine hard in the USA hard after the last gas crisis.

its a shame that nobody has converted a prius to a new VW 1.8L diesel, dumped the ballast (battery,) and checked in at the epa...

edited/added:
the toyota prius gets about the same epa mileage on the highway as the 1.0L geo metro 4door, from 1990. only 16 years old...

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx Okay, cold climates is a very good point. Otherwise if we conservatively take half the stat given in the film (at end of SV1s life), how many often drive over 150 miles a day and don't have access to a power outlet? In fact the infrastructure is used as one of the reasons hydrogen is a far less user friendly solution to electrics (which you can plug in at home? And [conspiracy theorists get ready] why it's more difficult for energy companies are control. If the film can be believed (not sure how many commenting have seen it) the battery life at point of SV1s death could have outlived the average expected body life.

I haven't seen the film, but information on the technology is widely known.

The EV1 got 75-150 miles per charge. I know a lot of people whose commute is longer than that. So what, the EV1 is old tech and long obsolete. With modern battery tech, (Lithium Ion/Poly) that number can get to the 250-300 miles per charge.

But there's a catch, Lithium battery chemistries are short lived and unstable compared to NiMH batteries, which is why Toyota isn't using them in their hybrid system. Current lithium tech battery useful lifespan, given the car's thermal enviroment, is ~ 3-4 years. Plus they can get rather explosive when damaged. In the near future, lithium battery chemistries are expected to mature to the point where they would be useful for automotive uses. But they're not there yet.

And really, it's not about whether or not someone drives 150-300 miles every day. Many circumstances can require the use of a car for longer distances, and an electric car user is screwed if they need to go farther than that distance without advanced notice and recharge time.

Infrastructure is a wash between electric cars and hydrogen cars. The main producers of hydrogen would be the oil companies (where else are you going to be able to find that much energy?) and gas stations can be converted into hydrogen stations. For electric cars, there'd need to be a large increase in electrical generation capability to provide enough capacity for everyone's electric cars. If you wanted fast charging electrics, home wiring would also have to be upgraded.

Both suck compared to gasoline. Pollution's better, but energy capacity is much lower, transport is much more difficult, and hey, we already have the infrastructure for gasoline. And enough gasoline to last us the forseeable future.

I'd love to have a electric car, but given current limitations, they're just runabouts and toys that also require the ownership of a gasoline powered car.

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin Infrastructure is a wash between electric cars and hydrogen cars. The main producers of hydrogen would be the oil companies (where else are you going to be able to find that much energy?) and gas stations can be converted into hydrogen stations. For electric cars, there'd need to be a large increase in electrical generation capability to provide enough capacity for everyone's electric cars. If you wanted fast charging electrics, home wiring would also have to be upgraded.

for the present, neuclear power plants provide most of the hydrogen as a convient use of a byproduct.

how good is hydrogen as a fuel?

fast charging? easy. build a BIG home battery of any stable type you like, and trickle charge it as you needed. when you get home "dump" your load into your car, and drive off. as a bonus this could be wired into solar cells, and used as a back-up-power suply device for the house... you dont ahve to have an "industrial" power suply line to charge a BIG battery fast, just a bigger battery at home to sip off of.

the best futuristic attempts are those that failed because some factor of their existence wasnt upto speed. this is a worthy concern when dealing with electric/altentative fuel vehicles. a bad "taste" from a failed young technology that tried to handle the "big boys problems and methods" will last and hamper the thing longer than it is actually an issue. without good "driving force" this "bad taste" can and often destroys technology.

 

[braillediver]

A friend has 4 young children and each one Has to Have a Booster Seat. There's No Hybrid made that you can fit the 4 Booster seats into.


The True worth of the Hybrid will have to include all the production \ disposal costs and consequences to be a fair comparison.


Mitch

 

[Girlsound]

The thing I'm waiting for is the "plug-in" hybrids. Like a normal hybrid with more battery and less gas time...that way if your trip is longer than your battery crusing distance, the gas engine kicks in and away you go.

Had I been more with it (less desperate) at the time of my purchase, I would have looked for a used TDI (I drive a 2.0 MKIV Jetta). I live in NY and you can't buy them new.

Perhaps that will change with the new regulations. Hydrogen is a stupid fuel. It sound good on paper, but not so good in the real world. You have to build a whole new fueling infrastructure. It still doesn't get great range. It's SERIOUSLY unstable. There is already the gas/diesel refueling infrastructure in place and electric is everywhere. The "Big Three" know that hydrogen is a dead end and that nobody is going to really go for it. It doesn't threaten any investments they might have. Nor does it threaten the oil industry or thier friends (the current administration). It's "safe" to support.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod for the present, neuclear power plants provide most of the hydrogen as a convient use of a byproduct. how good is hydrogen as a fuel? fast charging? easy. build a BIG home battery of any stable type you like, and trickle charge it as you needed. when you get home "dump" your load into your car, and drive off. as a bonus this could be wired into solar cells, and used as a back-up-power suply device for the house... you dont ahve to have an "industrial" power suply line to charge a BIG battery fast, just a bigger battery at home to sip off of. the best futuristic attempts are those that failed because some factor of their existence wasnt upto speed. this is a worthy concern when dealing with electric/altentative fuel vehicles. a bad "taste" from a failed young technology that tried to handle the "big boys problems and methods" will last and hamper the thing longer than it is actually an issue. without good "driving force" this "bad taste" can and often destroys technology.

Yeah, but the quantity of hydrogen produced from nuke plants is nowhere near enough to meet demand if hydrogen fueled cars ever gain popularity. Current biological based methods are slow, and hydrogen generation through water splitting is very energy intensive. With current technology, we're stuck with cracking fossil fuels for hydrogen and or using steam reformation of natural gas. Both of these severely reduce the energy content of the fuel being processed.

The other thing is that hydrogen sucks as fuel. The good part is that it burns clean. The bad part is that energy density is as bad as it gets. Liquid H2 has 1/4 the energy density of gasoline, and that number gets much smaller once you factor in the difference in containment system size. Sodium borohydride isn't much better. It gets rid of the containment system issues, but still only has 1/3 the energy density of gasoline.

As for the fast charging idea, keeping a giant battery, even one that needs to be replaced as little as once a decade, is far more expensive than routing high current circuits to everyone's backyard. Not to mention that the high drain from quickly charging a car would be murder on battery lifespan.

 

[nikongod]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin Yeah, but the quantity of hydrogen produced from nuke plants is nowhere near enough to meet demand if hydrogen fueled cars ever gain popularity. Current biological based methods are slow, and hydrogen generation through water splitting is very energy intensive. With current technology, we're stuck with cracking fossil fuels for hydrogen and or using steam reformation of natural gas. Both of these severely reduce the energy content of the fuel being processed.

you can always break water. just vent the oxygen, it will mix back with the hydrogen when you put it through a fuel cell that is prohibitively expensive for the crap output it gives. it would probaly require a SIGNIFICANT expendature of energy to deliberately break any of these things into hydrogens... what will happen if the o2 of the earth is "swayed" by production alterations of hydrogen by breaking water?
Quote:

The other thing is that hydrogen sucks as fuel. The good part is that it burns clean. The bad part is that energy density is as bad as it gets. Liquid H2 has 1/4 the energy density of gasoline, and that number gets much smaller once you factor in the difference in containment system size. Sodium borohydride isn't much better. It gets rid of the containment system issues, but still only has 1/3 the energy density of gasoline.

alcohol, 1/2 the energy of gasolene, reneweable, while the plant of choice is growing it removes co2 from the air.... ooh, alcohol is a viable alternative to PRESENT PRODUCTION vehicles, and certanly e85. very few mods are required, most people of average income could afford to upgrade a car to "e85 compatable specs" were it more freely available and better supported.
Quote:

As for the fast charging idea, keeping a giant battery, even one that needs to be replaced as little as once a decade, is far more expensive than routing high current circuits to everyone's backyard. Not to mention that the high drain from quickly charging a car would be murder on battery lifespan.

i dunno, if it were integrated into a home backup power suply, and a solar system it could woprk out to save you money. you could get sneaky and live in a state where you GET money for panneling your house (and buying necessary gear) which would include batteries. after that, a big enough pannel will put power into the grid, and you get money from the electrical company...

naturally the downside of a solar system is that it requires a cash outlay untill the government pays for it at the end of the year. if you have the cash to do nothing with for a few months, and live in the right states, its a free upgrade to your house.

 

[Febs]

Off-topic (sort of):

This thread title reminds me of the Stonecutters' song from the Simpsons:

Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do, We do.

Who keeps Atlantis off the maps?
Who keeps the Martians under wraps?
We do, we do.

Who keeps back the electric car?
Who makes Steve Guttenberg a star?
We do, we do.

Who robs cavefish of their sight?
Who rigs every Oscar night?
We do, we dooooooo.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod you can always break water. just vent the oxygen, it will mix back with the hydrogen when you put it through a fuel cell that is prohibitively expensive for the crap output it gives.

I noted that earlier: "hydrogen generation through water splitting is very energy intensive". Not practical at all from an energy standpoint. Running a fuel cell would be preferable to combustion though, efficiency is higher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod it would probaly require a SIGNIFICANT expendature of energy to deliberately break any of these things into hydrogens...

Only for water. The other processes use energy from the fossil fuels it breaks down to run the hydrocarbon > hydrogen process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikongod alcohol, 1/2 the energy of gasolene, reneweable, while the plant of choice is growing it removes co2 from the air.... ooh, alcohol is a viable alternative to PRESENT PRODUCTION vehicles, and certanly e85.

We weren't talking about alcohol, but I'm game.

Ethanol makes absolutely no sense whatsoever in the United States. The fact that it's even bandied about as a near term gasoline substitute in America is a testament to the farm lobby's power.

In Brazil and other areas where they can easily grow sugar crops, ethanol makes a lot of sense. They get low energy investment with high energy return as processing sugar into alcohol is an efficient process.

In America, it makes very little sense with current technology (i.e. ethanol from corn), due to the low energy returns, marginally above break even and mostly in the form of animal feed. Even if the entire US corn crop were converted to ethanol production, it would only offset 12% of gasoline consumption. Developments in cellulosic ethanol technology could change this, but they're not here yet.

Biodiesel from soy beans is a different story and could be made to work from an energy standpoint, but again not enough crop production to support it. Switching the entire soy crop to biodiesel production would only offset 6% of diesel consumption. Same deal. technology might get us there, but again, not here yet.

Quote:

i dunno, if it were integrated into a home backup power suply, and a solar system it could woprk out to save you money. you could get sneaky and live in a state where you GET money for panneling your house (and buying necessary gear) which would include batteries. after that, a big enough pannel will put power into the grid, and you get money from the electrical company...

There is a large difference in the battery capacity needed to run a solar powered home and to do the quick electric car recharge you proposed earlier. Also, the charge/discharge rates for solar power home conversion is very different than the charge/discharge rate for quickly charging large batteries. A solar powered home conversion does not remove the cost of replacing the batteries in your home once they die.

Running high powered lines to homes makes much more economic sense.

 

[pne]

sorry but someone explain to me why the electric car is enviromentally friendly? Yes it doesn't produce exhaust gases, but where do you think that electricity comes from? Most of the time you burn fossil fuels to produce it. The last time I checked, power production and distribution is at best only efficient to the single digit percentages. You are only getting 1% (someone correct me if I'm wrong on the numbers) back out of your neighbourhoods distribution system. I'm not sure what type of energy efficiency you are getting out of gasoline refining, but I know it has to be a lot higher than 1%!

Hydrogen as fuel? Have they even developed storage containers for it yet that won't leak?? And what about the energy consumption to produce hydrogen?

I think a lot of people are misinformed, they seem to think hydrogen and electricity is green, and gas is bad. Well at the current state of technology we have to waste more fossil fuels to get that hydrogen or electricity, than if we were to just use the fossil fuels directly in our cars. Again, someone correct me if i'm wrong here.

 

[Todd R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ingo I wish I was a lobbyist for companies pushing Diesel engine technology. I noticed someone mentioned the new low-sulfur diesel that will hit the pumps next year. Diesel was already, in some regards, cleaner than gasoline. Now, I don't think there's even a contest. Things like soybean oil or any vegetable oil are easily burned in diesel engines with even fewer emissions. There is a company based out of Hawaii that does diesel engine conversions so they can run on pretty much anything. A kit for a Cummins 24 valve 5.9 Liter diesel (the diesel engine in Dodge trucks from 1998-2002) costs around $1500if you can install yourself. I think it's another $1000 installed. Anyhow, you can roll right up to a McDonald's, pump out some of their used fryer oil, strain it with a cloth filter, and put it straight in the truck.

No, there's more to it than just straining and filling up the tank, it is necessary to process your oil to remove the fatty acids first.
Lookie here

I like the idea of putting the used oil to work. If I drove a diesel I'd probably be doing it.
Horsepower TV did a show on it and it looked pretty easy.
TR

 

[Girlsound]

That's for biodiesel. Separating out the glycerin. There are conversions for diesel engines so that they can run on plain vegetable oil. It involves preheating the oil as well as changes to the injection system. That's over simplifying it, but you get the idea.

A "plug-in" diesel hybrid running on biodiesel would be awesome.