Electric cars

Stinicker

Stinicker wrote: »

The Toyota prius looks like it was designed by a three year old with a box of crayons. The Opel Ampera looks a good bit different from the volt. The Ampera represents new thinking and a vision of how 21st century cars are headed. The Toyota well will always be a Toyota and no matter how they dress it up or green wash the thing it will always be bland. Opels styling of the ampera draws from the successful insignia.

Prius
Ampera
Chevy Volt, back, front

Do any of these new electric cars come with heating? or air con to demist windows. Important issues in damp ireland! The opel ampere appears to be a hybrid except its a petrol generator not a drive engine

af_thefragile

positron wrote: »

The whole point of leasing agreement on the battery is that you don't need to recharge it, hence avoiding the recharge time! You can just swap it to a fully charged one when you are running low.

They also said there could be recharging stations at supermarket car parks etc, so that people can charge (probly for free too) or at home, if they wish to do so, but most often, on the road, if you are low, you just drive into a fuel station, and exchange the battery for a fully charged one.

Wouldn't sound so bad if the batteries didn't weight over 100lbs! Replacing dead batteries for charged one sounds fine in theory and laptops but its highly impractical for cars.

Also batteries lose their charge capacity over time. You wouldn't wanna swap your dead brand new battery for a fully charged old one!

As i mentioned in a previous thread, electric cars sound great in theory and as a concept but they're only useful for one thing which is the daily city commute. You can never take an electric car for a "drive", not unless its a short drive and you know you've got a place to charge your car at your destination.

A hybrid makes more sense. Not the Prius type but the "plug-in" type where a small petrol/diesel engine can charge the batteries on the go. But the small generators are not that much more efficient than your normal petrol engine. So then you'ld be better off with a normal car cuz the extra money you've paid for the electric motor and the battery pack and the extra weight of the hybrid will offset any fuel savings you're going to make.

af_thefragile

And to make a point about biofuels.
Yes its a big debate as to use the crops to feed the hungry and poor rather than burn it off for fuel. Though there's also the question of there is enough food being produced already, its just feeding the wealthy rather than the hungry so growing any more crops for food isn't really gonna solve the food crisis.

People need money to grow crops. The poor don't have money to afford food. The wealthy have money to buy food and they buy more then they need. As its only the wealthy who pay for the crops, the crops are only grown for the wealthy and the poor will continue to starve regardless.

Which is why the debate of growing crops for fuel is pointless. People are gonna pay for the fuel which is why people are ready to grow crops for fuel. If someone was ready to pay to feed all the hungry, people would also grow more crops to feed the hungry. Bottom line is the farmers need money to grow their crops. They're not gonna get any money from feeding the poor hence they're not gonna grow crops for the poor. They will though get money to grow crops for fuel, and so where there is money, there is a way!!

Another thing about space. Firstly there is more than enough space to produce enough fuels to significantly impact the shortage. Now yes, sugarcane or corn alone can not support all the fuel needs. We need to use all the sources they are (combined with the existing fossil fuels) to be able to sustain the fuel demands. That is sugar cane, corn, switchgrass, bioalgae, bio diesel from used cooking oil and all. Just one source is not the answer. Different regions will have conditions that favor different sources.

And finally about CO2 from biofuels. There wouldn't be any excess CO2 released from burning biofuels cuz the CO2 has come from plants and algae that have absorbed the CO2 from the atmosphere which burning the fuel is only releasing it back. In a closed cycle.
Unlike fossil fuels where you're releasing CO2 trapped in the ground into the atmosphere increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

So biofuels is a much better way forward than electric cars.
We have already come very far developing the internal combustion engine and right now it is the cheapest engine to build as well.

Its much more economical to make use of and develop the existing internal combustion engine technology we have rather than trying to develop the battery technology which is still mostly in its infancy. Same goes for hydrogen.

It is cheaper to run the car you've already got for another 10 years than to scrap it and buy an electric vehicle.


Its not just one golden solution that's gonna change the world. Its all the small steps we need to make to make the big change.
Its Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.
We need to first Reduce our fuel consumption by making more efficient machines.
Then we need to Reuse and Recycle more. There is tons of fuel that can be harvested from all the loads of waste we produce eveyday. This alone can contribute to a large part of our fuel needs. Methane harvested from all the organic waste we produce will not only make good use of the waste but will also burn off the Methane that is being produced which is a much more potent green house gas than CO2.

And we need to plant more trees/stop cutting down tress cuz its the trees that keep the CO2 levels in balance and as we chop down more tress for TV cabinets, toilet paper and making space for cows to graze, we're doing no good for the environment!



But none of this is going to happen cuz we are being led by people who're led by their own personal interests. There is no money to be made from Reducing, Reusing and Recycling.
Where the money is made is from us. In the form of more taxes and duties.
Greedy Bankers in america screw up, the government bails them out, who's to pay for their screw up? Yes us.
So in this whole game the final loser is us, the sheeple.

Matt Simis

Deleted User wrote: »

you can factory farm algae, i.e in buildings - you build UP!

Was just going to comment on that. The quotes regarding needing massive land for Ethanol are correct when only looking at technology of the last 10 years. We are promised that "soon" Ethanol from Algae will turn that calculation on its head, eg:

The privately-funded company said it is expecting yields of 6,000 gallons per acre per year, and expects to increase that figure to 10,000 by year end.

By contrast, corn yields approximately 360 gallons per acre per year, and sugarcane 890 gallons, according to Woods.

https://cleantech.com/news/2961/algal-biofuels-algenol-ethanol-solazyme-sonora-mexico

On top of that, as noted, Algae doesnt have to be grown in fields at all, it can be grown in towers, underground, out at sea etc.


Hydrogen and Electricity are exotic and cool (actually EV's arent cool..), but if the Algae approach works out, we could have an alternative, cheap, green, high performance fuel source within the next 3years that would need minimal modifications to cars, factorys, design etc. Its also homebrew!

af_thefragile

Until we have built powerful enough geothermal, hydroelectric and solar power plants that can produce enough energy to power the energy requirements of the whole plant, we're gonna have to rely on fuels. Either fossil or bio, most probably both.

All these technologies are in their infancy and still have a long way to go before they can become economic and commercially viable.
Nuclear power is not a solution either. Maybe Nuclear fusion could become the power source of the future but that has even further to go than the other alternatives.

We cannot stop developing these technologies either as they are the power source of the future. There is no doubt in that. But that future unfortunately has still to come and for now we need to work with what we have.

We cannot shun the EV as battery technology is equally important to us. And so is hydrogen fuel cell technology. Right now its too early to say one is better than the other. And so is the development of biofuels technology, geothermal, solar, hydro, wind and nuclear fusion technologies. We've just gotta wait and see which technology works best where and apply that technology there. The world can't run on just one technology. We need all of these to sustain the planet.

Though thats the idealistic view. In reality it's not gonna come down to which technology works best where but which corporation can push their way ahead the furthest!

Justin10

Anyone see the honda on top gear? Looked great, the speed seemed to be spot on for a family car and miles to a tank of fuel was good too.
Just went to a garage and filled it up with hydrogen.
I couldnt see any down side. Maybe the price didnt see the end of it.

af_thefragile

Rochey18 wrote: »

Anyone see the honda on top gear? Looked great, the speed seemed to be spot on for a family car and miles to a tank of fuel was good too.
Just went to a garage and filled it up with hydrogen.
I couldnt see any down side. Maybe the price didnt see the end of it.

It costs around $1million to build each one and the fuel efficiency is much worse than petrol. Thats the downside.

Also its much inefficient to produce hydrogen (which is mostly produced from electricity) to produce electricity than it is to produce electricity, store it in a battery and retrieve it later.

Justin10

Dunno about the price. But it does over 200 miles per tank and costs the same as petrol does?

positron

My daily commute (I use public transport at the moment) is approx 35 miles each way. Two thirds of that is motorway miles. With a battery that can support 100-120 miles, I can easily manage this distance, and there are at least a dozen garages on my route (and a new one coming up on M1). Assuming I can charge at home, and at work, and have the option of being able to swap the battery in any of these twelve stations, I don't see any problem with the charge and range.

Based on what I heard on Newstalk, charging would cost me a tenth of the conventional fuels. Going by some quick calculations, that's about 70% cheaper that the public transport as well.

So yeah, if the battery is leased - that is I am not affected by the degradation of the battery etc, and with less things to go wrong with the car itself as it has less components, and with the brilliant torque electric motors offer, I think this could work very well for me.

af_thefragile

positron wrote: »

My daily commute (I use public transport at the moment) is approx 35 miles each way. Two thirds of that is motorway miles. With a battery that can support 100-120 miles, I can easily manage this distance, and there are at least a dozen garages on my route (and a new one coming up on M1). Assuming I can charge at home, and at work, and have the option of being able to swap the battery in any of these twelve stations, I don't see any problem with the charge and range.

Based on what I heard on Newstalk, charging would cost me a tenth of the conventional fuels. Going by some quick calculations, that's about 70% cheaper that the public transport as well.

So yeah, if the battery is leased - that is I am not affected by the degradation of the battery etc, and with less things to go wrong with the car itself as it has less components, and with the brilliant torque electric motors offer, I think this could work very well for me.

Swapping the battery on an electric car isn't as simple as changing the car battery. The car battery only needs to power the starter motor and electronics of the car. The EVs battery needs to power the car's motor + all the electronics. The battery pack also needs a cooling system just like the normal engine needs cuz the batteries heat up very quickly as well and the hotter the batteries get, the less they perform which is why its crucial to maintain them at a cool temperature.

Here's a pic of the Tesla Roadster's battery pack:




Yes its much bigger than your car battery and replacing it isn't as simple as you make it sound there!

As I mentioned, there is a reason everyone doesn't drive around in a G-Wiz.
The G-Wiz is perfectly capable of doing the daily commute of 40-50miles with no problem. Its also very cheap to buy and run. Yet no one gets one.

The whole point of owning a car is the freedom it gives you. You can drive for miles in it and when you run out of petrol, just fill it up again and drive on.

EV's don't, and I doubt will ever give you this freedom. Might as well take the bus!

positron

Thanks for the pics - didn't know that's how it looks on a Tesla. Looks huge!

However, couldn't this design be improved up on? I don't think Tesla was designed with 'battery swap for recharge' in mind. Would it be so hard to design the battery pack quickly dock-able, and it's position in the car in such a way that it can be accessed and replaced under a minute using some sort of garage fixed machine, without having to load up the car onto a ramp? Or may be all you need is special docking station which you drive into, enter your id like you would for a car wash, and may be the machine under you could do the swap in minutes? Cashless and effortless recharge!

If the main battery powering electronics is a concern, I am sure there's a quick way around this by installing a secondary, smaller battery, that always stays on - so that you won't have to re-enter your radio code etc?

I take your point about G-Wiz, but then again it's not a real car meant for real roads - it's not big enough, fast enough or safe enough from what I can see.

I guess the point is - we could make things work if we want them to work. Battery solution isn't perfect, and there need to be some trade-offs for it to work, but let's not forget, there are some benefits too! I for one would love to be able to stop sending my money to middle-east where people dream up of building snow domes in the middle of a dessert and cover walls with gold leafs and yet ill-treat millions of immigrants in labor camps!

metzengerstein

these cars would have more electrics then an normal car right? or wrong

i think i would be worried about electric faults ,as i dont think that alot of newer cars are not made very good cud you imagine if these where not made to a good standard,

ive seen the result of a normal car with an electric fault which was a big fireball inside the car from my neighbours one ,so imagine what would happen with an electric one

Capt'n Midnight

The only problem with electric cars is the battery. Anyone who has ever tried to start a car in gear knows how powerful the relatively small starter motor is.

We should get rid of Lead Acid batteries in cars. They are dead weight compared to lighter ones. The battery in my car is about 40Ah, since you don't deep discharge a cranking batter by more than 10% if you want it to live long it's really only storing about 4Ah which is about the same as a six cell laptop battery. Changing from Lead Acid to NiMH or Li would save about 1% of the weight of a normal car, would that make them 1% more fuel efficient ?

For an electric car Lead Acid is only used because it's cheap. Changing to a different technology here could make the car 25% lighter. Which means you can make the support sturucture lighter , also means the car can go further / faster on the same charge. Big problem with NiMH is the patents.

Lithium is better again, there are non-flamable lithium batteries. Problem is that lithium is rare so future costs may rise.

Having a small constant speed generator that can get you back to the grid is useful. Maybe even if it could only get up to 60Km/hr so you aren't carrying around too much dead weight.

Prius is greenwashing IMHO, a lot more resources used to achieve a similar result as BioDiesel

Capt'n Midnight

Anyone have a list of current :pac: and proposed non-hybrid electric car suppliers here ?

metzengerstein

dont know if this is true or not ,ive just heard from someone that they will be given their own lane on the m50 ,anyone heard this dunno if thats a good thing or not

reboot

metzengerstein wrote: »

dont know if this is true or not ,ive just heard from someone that they will be given their own lane on the m50 ,anyone heard this dunno if thats a good thing or not

It happens in Norway.

reboot

Deleted User wrote: »

Do any of these new electric cars come with heating? or air con to demist windows. Important issues in damp ireland! The opel ampere appears to be a hybrid except its a petrol generator not a drive engine

The Renault Zoe has a Heat Pump for AC/Heating.Very efficient and works well.

homer911

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Anyone have a list of current :pac: and proposed non-hybrid electric car suppliers here ?

Ok, its an old question, but the SEAI maintain a list of EV dealers here:
http://www.seai.ie/Grants/Electric_Vehicle_Grant_Scheme/I_am_a_dealer/Current_List_of_Registered_Dealers/List_of_Registered_Electric_Vehicle_Grant_Scheme_Dealers.html

metzengerstein

metzengerstein wrote: »

dont know if this is true or not ,ive just heard from someone that they will be given their own lane on the m50 ,anyone heard this dunno if thats a good thing or not

That will never happen, the M50 has huge volumes of traffic, closing one lane would cause chaos.

One way to increase the uptake of electrics would be to have 0 vrt and 0 vat and reduced or free tolls. I'm not a fan of the idea of free parking for electrics because it will encourage people to take up valuable parking spaces that don't need them, people who live local or people who have enough charge or people who want free charging who otherwise can charge at home.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Do any of these new electric cars come with heating? or air con to demist windows. Important issues in damp ireland! The opel ampere appears to be a hybrid except its a petrol generator not a drive engine

Of course all electric cars come with heating.

The Leaf updated model from July (ish) 2013 has a much more efficient heat pump, so too does the Zoe.

Optional on the I3, E-Golf, afaik the Kia Soul ev will have a heat pump as standard.