|
|
 |
|
EV World Open Access Article |
You're looking at the only modern, production electric car sold to consumers, about 300 in total and nearly all in California. The battery electric Toyota RAV4 EV offers room for 4, highway speeds and pennies per mile operating costs. Some owners are charging theirs with solar electricity, making the car virtually pollution free.
|
Why Carmakers Really, REALLY Dislike EVs
Some call it 'disruptive technology' that threatens the status quo, but someday soon it may save our bacon
By Earl Cox
Open Access Article Originally Published: October 02, 2004
For years advocates of electric cars have argued over why auto makers have been less than enthusiastic, to put it mildly, about battery electric cars. It's a debate Californian Earl Cox simply couldn't resist adding his two cents worth. While EV World doesn't necessarily endorse every point of his perspective, it does make for stimulating reading.
After watching the EV1 debacle over the past 14 years from both inside and outside the industry, a simple fact has become very clear to me.
Internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle manufacturers REALLY BADLY don't want electric cars.
Once this assumption is made, everything falls into place:
Why don't they want electric cars?
Look at history:
- The telephone was not pushed by Western Union (former telegraph mega-company)
- The digital camera revolution was not lead by Kodak or Fuji
- The move from sail to steam ships was not driven by the sailing masters of the sea.
Look at corporate structure:
- An ICE-based car company is made up of many divisions: Body, Chassis, power-trains (transmissions), power-plants (ICE), Service, Sales, electronics, etc. The most powerful ones are power-trains and power-plants.
Now put yourself into a position of any authority in this industry:
I dare you to walk into the board room and suggest a car that has no use for power-trains or power-plants and significantly reduces the need for service. Now try to find a friend in the room
Once you realize that the BEV must be stopped, you must figure out how. If you are a major multi-billion dollar company, you'll spare little expense.
- You'll hire a bunch of lawyers to fight any legislation
- You'll hire PR companies to spin anything your way
- You'll hire a small R&D company to make the best EV possible just to show the world that it is a very bad idea.
- You'll try to place shills in all influential organizations
- You'll delay as long as possible by promising and actually conducting research into alternatives (and coerce the federal government to foot a lot of the bill)
Now suppose, as all campaigns do, a few problems surface:
Suppose your R&D company screws up and makes an EV that really looks great?
GO TO NEXT PAGE >>
|
| Times Article Viewed: 9786 |
|
|
|
Reader Comments
A valid email address and confirmation is required before your comment can be posted. Comments not confirmed within
24 hours are automatically deleted.
80 comments so far...
01-Mar-2005
6355
| |
The auto maker can't build a total electric for basic reason listed will be eliminated(parts, parts suppliers will beless used ,cars built fast so delete some workers in all areas,gas is out ,oil use is out,arabs out of business,and etc.
if you listed everything to start to finih on a
car to the junk yard that is used and cross
reference it to a electric car look at was is eliminated. And that is money.." to keep gas engines in use we need to get cheaper fuel and better power and mileage.
thank you
Posted by: Mark Evans
|
|
02-Jan-2005
5837
| |
A new type of economic entity is needed - one where profit is not the motive (except to provide basic living wages for its workers), but where providing environment solutions is the motive. If an entity was a hybrid of a business and a non-profit corporation, it could make some money for reinvesting in the entity to grow it, but the corporation should have not shareholders. It can have members who operate the entity and cast votes, but not receive dividends nor money by the sell of the entity.
Currently non-profits are not allowed to manufacture (solar panels, electric cars) etc. (at least not if they wish to keep their federal tax exempt status). However I think they could legally do so, provided they gave up their status as being exempt from taxes. They would need to still avoid having shareholders, because shareholders are focused on personal profits, and usually short-term ones. This is in contrast to for-profit corporations which have to strive to make money because their charter obligates them to do so for their shareholders.
Such a hybrid entity could even make non-environmental products, but with the intention of making them extremely reliable and easily recyclable, thus reducing consumer waste and thereby being better environmentally. This is because making personal profit from selling replacements is not the goal. When the market becomes saturated with durable products (like cars that rarely stop working or computers operating systems that lack bugs and rarely crash), the entity then makes a different type of product.
This new type of entity could do what non-profits dream of, and what for-profits rarely do. It could eventually be a serious contender to capitalism. In a way, the open source software movement is similar to what I'm proposing. Cooperatives, such as credit unions, are also like this."
Posted by: Gavin Young
|
|
03-Jan-2005
5840
| |
Dinosaurs died because of suden climate change.
Human may also...I started building my own EV."
Posted by: john floros
|
|
03-Jan-2005
5843
| |
I think that a very large percentage of cars is trashed because of chassis problems. EVs will also have motive problems, so there is not likely to be a great difference in buying patterns. "
Posted by: James Gervais
|
|
12-Jan-2005
5899
| |
Jim Beyer claims that grid charge substitute oil with cole.
This is only true in some parts of the world. Where I live, we have overproduction of eletric reneweble energy( in a 5 year avrage). I find people that are against the production of EV, just becouse the person in question live in an aria that have dirty eletric power. The more correct argument, would be, that people that have a high RE-eletric energy production, should use EV, or plug-in HEV as a standard, and in other parts, the RE-energy percentage shuld be increased.
over 80% of the people, in the country that I live, have a daily car use of under 50km/day. And have a trip of over 100km onese per 1.5 months. With a plugin hybrid, like this Kango
http://www.greenpropulsion.be/Kangoo%20UK.pdf
, with a >40km ZEV range, true ZEV range, polution would be greatly reduced.
The extra use of eletric power, could be regaind by installing solar terminal on the houses, and increase the solar heating from 15% (from passive heating), to an estimated 30% of the energy. Since almost ALL here use eletric heating, this is ALOT of energy.
"
Posted by: Michael Eric Menk
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4915
| |
Thanks Earl for your insight. It's not really as tongue 'n cheek as it sounds, but is probably somewhere near the truth. I have been mowing my lawn with a cordless electric mower for 2 years. I bag when necessary and mulch most of the other time. With my just under 5000 sq.ft. yard, I can do all of this on one charge! This mower is zero maintenance and almost zero hassle. I would never dream of owning a gas mower again. Why would I?
Funny thing however, this mower is not made by a lawn mower company, but a company more famous for electric home appliances, Black n Decker.
None of us should expect the establishment to change the rules - that is usually the job of entrepreneurs.
My main point is this, if EVs are going to come of age, it may well be done by a group of worldwide entrepreneurs much like I read in EV World that will ignite the fires of change.
After all, who started the whole auto industry to begin with?
"
Posted by: David Littleton
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4916
| |
He makes sense,
Perpaps we are nieve, or thick, How do we make EVs with out our present car manufacturers ????
Rob."
Posted by: Rob. D.
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4918
| |
Yep, I zeroed in on the central reason EV's aren't a favorable idea for existing auto companies a couple of years ago too. Parts and service. Throughout the life of a car, all the way to the crusher, the maker makes a considerable amount of money not from the sale but from parts and service. Not just the automakers but of course all those cottage industries (parts producers in particular) that exist around the current type of car. There's still yet another catch... New car sales would drop because the electrics, being simple, dependable and long lasting wouldn't force owners to let them go due to falling appart after so many years of usage. Furthermore, for those that were sold of traded, they would stay on the road longer for the same reason. The markets for new and used cars would slow down to a snail's pace. Putting real well engineered electrics on the road in great numbers would be non other than a revolution. "
Posted by: machine man
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4919
| |
How do you make EV's with current automakers? That's easy...Not at all. Just as David pointed out, you'll need an outsider, someone who doesn't have a legacy to protect to do it. Look at the IPOD. a computer company with no part in non-related electronics put all its heart and effort into making a portable HD-based digital music device. Sony, the world leader in electronics and portable music devices was still protecting and promoting its MD Walkman products so it didn't do anything... until Apple, who started with a clean slate took the market by storm. "
Posted by: Machine man
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4923
| |
My two cents: I agree with David that gasoline lawn mowers should be very rare. I have a corded Black and Decker mower that works incredibly well. I use it on 10,000 SF of grass (I'm working on the landscaping), and I will never own a gasoline mower. We need to get the word out that electric mowers are as functional as their gasoline counterparts without the pollution, noise, and foreign oil.
Here's my review of my mower in case anyone is in the market:
http://www.epinions.com/content_152361733764"
Posted by: Steve Erlsten
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4924
| |
I couldn't agree more with machine man that EVs will greatly reduce the number of mechanic shops we need. I don't know it the shops are in cohoots with the manufacturers, but stranger things have happened. EVs would make it almost impossible for dealers to justify their existence.
This could also help the EV market. It would be an incredible marketing tool to blow away the 10-year, 100k mile warranty with a 20-year, 1,000,000 mile warranty on the motor (5/50k on the battery pack). A Rolls-Royce-style warranty could make EVs extremely attractive. Don't they perform all service on their cars for free? Maybe that's an urban legend.
I also agree that an outsider (Solectria, AC Propulsion) will break this market open. My wife has one of the first MP3 players, (a Sony Walkman that came out long before the IPOD). It only holds an hour of music, but it also has no moving parts (I think the IPOD works from a hard disk drive). The lack of moving parts has made it a great jogging companion for the past three years. To bring this back to cars, the little guys will make the revolution, but the big guys will still rule the world in the end. Take, for instance, Volvo's purchase (and yes, Volvo is owned by Ford) of some AC propulsion drivetrains. Hopefully (wishfully should be a word) Tom Gage et al have given these guys enough of a kick in the ass to get them moving. If not, I will still be zooming to work in an AC Propulsion Scion Xb eventually (hopefully)."
Posted by: Steve Erlsten
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4927
| |
I agree that auto makers have little motivation to make EV's, but I'm a bit less cynical than the author. The problem with the auto makers is the same problem that confronts most large, established organizations. A small startup company can roll the dice and take chances because they have little to lose and everything to gain and are often run by entrepreneurs. In a large organization, people on a management track soon learn that making a mistake means the end of a career. This fosters a CYA mentality that leads to making the safest, most conventional choices. By the time somebody gets to the top of one of these organizations they have become almost completely risk-averse.
Very few large organizations deal with this effectively. It often takes a near-death experience (ex. IBM) to overcome this inertia.
"
Posted by: Dave Donis
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4928
| |
Hi Everybody, Don't kid ourselves here...we all know about the features and benefits of electrically powered devices be it lawnmowers, cars or whatever, but what about the uninformed public? We, as the passionately interested, know all about how well electrics work and use them because they work so well. They are quiet, powerful, low maintenance and so on.
I started a business selling electric tractors from, who else, the Electric Tractor Corporation, but you know what, I haven't sold one yet. I've been in business for over 5 months and I haven't had a bite. I've demonstrated the tractor to hundreds of people and they all balk at the price.
I have put over 50 hours on this tractor myself mowing lawns, grooming my off-road radio controlled car race track and for landscaping where I peel back the sod and push dirt with a dozer blade. I know that the tractor is awesomely powerful, costs pennies to charge and I have hardly lifted a finger, other than cleaning, to maintain this tractor. But how do you get the message across to the people that think I have a cord attached to the tractor? Who think of weak underpowered line trimmers and then extrapolate that knowledge and apply it to my tractor? Or think of older model cordless drills and remember how short a time they used the drill on a fully charged pack? You see what I'm getting at? Mindset! Perception! Past Knowledge! These people aren't reading the latest battery, fuel cell, hydrogen and related renewable energy news. We are, but we are the minority! How do we get the message out to the public that spending $10K on a tractor and then spending less than $1 per use is a good idea and will eventually save them money and at the same time not aggrevate their neighbors, allow them to fuel up at home and reduce their time spent on keeping their vehicles working? All I am trying to say here is this: I am in the industry and have been watching it carefully for over 4 1/2 years now and see that it is very hard to get others to think my way, at least in my area. The same thing goes for the EV. Yes, we all travel long distances every once in a while but most of us only use our vehicles under 100 miles per day. Most EV's have this range or very close to it, but try to explain that to somebody who doesn't know how good an EV works and try to get them to fork out more for their perceived less performance? Not an easy sell. This makes it very easy for the carmakers to keep up with their deceptions and negative spin on most of the consumers in this world. I hate driving my Caravan, by myself, sputtering fumes and paying almost $1 for one litre of gas ( more than it cost for a complete charge of my electric tractor ) to pick up my daughter after school, or do some banking or pick up some groceries down the road only a few kilometres. Why can't I drive an EV? Because the public hasn't demanded that there be EV's available in my area yet and this is probably a similar situation everywhere, except India! ( Bless the REVA ! ) People get used to doing things the same way and it's very hard to change their minds even if you have a better product. I'd love to have a tZero or a Tango or even a good EV conversion but there aren't any around here! And if there were, with all the passion and knowledge that I have about them I still can't afford to buy them. All this being said, all of us EV users, hang tight, keep the faith and keep using and demonstrating how good EV's are to your friends and neighbors and within a generation or so we will see real change. Cheerio, John"
Posted by: John Egan
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4929
| |
I like Dave Littleton's idea that entrepreneurs will be a driving force in reviving the EV culture. The T-Zero and the Tango are a couple of examples. Talk about a revolution. I can just imagine a "Model T-like", world car, that has decent range, quick recharge and is nonpolluting. Lots of hurtles to overcome in this venture but incredible opportunities."
Posted by: Dave Smail
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4930
| |
Just look at the rhetoric from the automakers for their disdain for EVs. Honda, and even Toyota place so much emphasis on the fact that "Hybrids never need to be plugged in". In spite of the fact that Toyota made one of the greatest EVs available to the public. Even during the time that the RAV EV was being marketed, not all Toyota dealers took them on. My local dealer did not, and while looking at a Prius I on their lot, the salesman began a diatribe on the disadvantages of EVs (which I countered): Limited range (the RAV EV could go 100+ miles on a charge), they weren't really any cleaner than an ICE car, the pollution was just displaced to the power generation plant (electricity can be generated by various sources, several clean & renewable i.e. wind, photovoltaic, & hydroelectric, natural gas, rather than oil), and as I mentioned earlier - a hybrid doesn't have to be plugged in (it never had to). The salesman, after seeing he wasn't convincing me that EVs were no good, asked me if I was some sort of scientist. I said No, I'm an elementary school music teacher. So, even in the middle of the RAV EV sales campaign, Toyota dealers were still teaching their sales people to discourage and argue against one of their own excellent products. Isn't that what they call "cutting off your nose to spite your face?" "
Posted by: Matt Wallace
|
|
03-Oct-2004
4937
| |
Okay let's say EVs are more reliable, last longer and the auto and associated industries shrink as a result. I would guess the Oil Industry would also be affected, especially the retail divisions. Thus if we believe these two things, we should also conclude that job and tax losses would follow. The States reliant on the auto industry would probably suffer the most especially if the Big 3 are slow to jump on the EV bandwagon. Would bankruptcies and foreclosures increase?
Would the EV actually reduce the GDP? Sure other industry would benefit but would they make up for the decline in economic activity?
I believe the EV will take off because in the end it will save people money but when it takes off it will have a very profound effect on North America and the World. This will definitely not be welcomed by everyone and I don't think we should be surprised that there is resistance.
My two cents.
"It seldom happens that a man changes his life through his habitual reasoning. No matter how fully he may sense the new plans and aims revealed to him by reason, he continues to plod along in old paths until his life becomes frustrating and unbearable - he finally makes the change only when his usual life can no longer be tolerated."
[Leo Tolstoy]
"
Posted by: Peter W
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4939
| |
Label it "cynical" or not, the truth is that the things the author, myself and others have stated are facts. EV's are not a good business case for the existing auto industry. They are an excellent product from the buyers' perspective though. It's not cynical. It's realistic. If you were in their position would you be willing to take that pain?
If you want an indication of this, besides the obvious ones noted here (refusing to sell ev's entirely, making the few they do have available hard to get, actively discouraging the customers, etc), take the "skateboard" car thing GM's proposing. The electric drive train, being inherently reliable and long lasting is separate from the body and kept by the owner. GM compensates for this 'problem' by selling easily exchangable bodies for them. Thus, the electric drive train is adjusted to fit the current business model of continuous volume sales.
Note how all the misinformation and falsehoods about EV's are exactly consistant with what the industry is saying. The industry has the media muscle to move the public's thinking in any direction it pleases unless circumstances force them to wake up themselves.
Yep, barring a miracle, the only way the current industry will change is if circumstances they can't control force them to. They've done a fine job of killing and buying off small to medium companies (remember Th!nk?). Indeed, widespread use of EV's would elininate countless jobs for sure. It would also reduce profits not jost in the auto industry but obviously for petrolium industries as well. And yes, a lot of tax money would be up in vapors because the oil wouldn't flow as it will have.
Talking to one of my proffessors from the industry, he made an interesting and very telling statement when I suggested that Japan could easily become independent from most foreign oil by converting its fleet to electrics: He nonchalantly stated that if they did they would lose their influence in world political affairs.
Such is the power of oil."
Posted by: Machine man
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4944
| |
Everything you all say makes sense, but I think the car companys all realise that they will eventually have to make EVs. They know as well as we do that oil will peak and that there will never be enough biodiesel and ethanol to replace it all. But they don't want to sell you the car you'll want in 20years, they can sell you 5 or 6 cars between now and then, An SUV, a sedan, a smaller sedan, a hybrid, a plugin hybrid, there's alot more profit in this scenario."
Posted by: Dave Kennington
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4945
| |
Hi All:
___I have yet to see one comment here about where all of this electricity going to come from? I have seen post after post deriding coal in other articles because of its emissions so that is out. Nuclear? I am all for Nuclear as I work at one but the US hasn’t yet quite warmed up to the fact about a single new one, let alone a few hundred that would be needed. PV’s? Yeah, right. Hydro? Sure is a lot of that available to tap. IIRC, there isn’t enough electric power available today to even match 2% of the available HP used in today’s US ICE’s and that power currently available is turning on your lights, PC’s, TV’s, and basically running everything we deem a necessity in today’s society. Let us say just 5 - 7% since most aren’t running WOT in their std. ICE based automobiles. So what are we going to do, build another 800 - 1000 nuclear plants to supply our transportation needs? Any of you that live in California have already seen the problems of to little capacity just a few short years ago. I bet most Californian’s are still paying for that shortsightedness.
___Next … So what does the cost of a set of Ni-MH’s, Li-Ion’s, or Zinc air’s for an EV that can run 150 + miles cost? For my Honda Insight, it is still a $2,000 - $3,000 proposition and that pack has enough power to drive her for maybe 1 mile (original ECU and 2000 MY after running out of fuel). Prius II packs are what, $3 - $5,000 and have enough stored energy for 6 miles at lowest power consumption? Toyota’s or Ford’s EV’s? I don’t know very much about those packs so maybe one of you can enlighten me. Anyone here find out what it would cost for a Ni-MH based EV-1 out the door? With a $500 lease, (I am sure was heavily subsidized) that is on the order of 50 or so thousand dollars for a small 2 seater. Can anyone here say cost prohibitive for a car that can go 150 - 200 miles while doing damage to the pack with the performance envelope of lets say a Honda Accord I4 w/ a manual on a fresh charge? Why don’t you all tell GM to place the EV-1 on the market for what it actually costs and see most of you run back to your ICE’s burning all of that oil we are so hooked on like a junkie looking for the next fix …
___I do not have an answer but one thing that can be done is to slow your driving speeds down and drive with all the tricks of a hypermiler. I am simply appalled at the way the entire citizenship of our fine country drives as if they were all late to their first job interview. Some here are probably just as guilty yet bitch about EV’s not being available or how we are killing the planet w/ CO2 emissions.
___http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/details.php?cid=54
___Sorry about the formatting.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
"
Posted by: Wayne Gerdes
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4949
| |
Hi
While the cost to recharge batteries is much cheaper than the cost of fuel, if you include the replacement of batteries every 2-3 years, the cost is still too high. Talk a look at the AC Propulsion tzero FAQ here: http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero_pages/tzero_FAQs.htm
The battery lasts 15,000 to 20,000 miles and costs $3000. Let's take a best case situation where the battery lasts 20,000 miles and you can find the battery at a discounted price of $2500. That translates into 12.5 cents a mile - not including recharge costs. Now a comparible sports car (like a Corvette gets maybe 18-22 mpg. At $2 a gallon, it translates into 9.1 to 11.1 cents per mile. Now if you include the costs of oil changes and brakes, maybe the cost will be the same or slightly more. So when you look at total costs, there are no savings - and I'm being optimistic for the electric and pessimistic for the gasoline powered vehicle. If I do a comparison of an electric vehicle to a diesel, then the cost situation will likely look worse. Yeah yeah, diesel is lousy for the environment (unless you're talking biodiesel or veggie-diesel), but face it, the MAJORITY of people won't "risk" getting an electric unless there is superiour performance and superiour costs.
Until lithium batteries (or something as good or better) get SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper, there is no financial incentive to switch to electric. Alternatively, gasoline & diesel prices have to be significantly higher - like in Europe.
Having range and costs that are 'almost/just as good', isn't going cause most people to take a chance on an electric vehicle and forgo what they are familiar with.
The reason why lithium batteries are expensive has much more to do with demand for them in electronics than any big difference in manufacturing cost (when compared to nickle metal hydride). Also, as a battery gets used, it loses some capacity. So a 100 mile range may be correct when it is new, but it won't be true after a year of daily use.
Believe it or not, I'm very much for electric vehicles... and I came to these conclusions when I was seriously thinking of buying an electric Dauphine from www.feelgoodcars.com.
While I do feel GM equipping the EV1 with lead-acid batteries and severely restricting the supply was nothing short of sabatoge - but I view it as a 'sub-conscious' act of sabatoge. GM put the best lead acid batteries you can get in the EV1 - probably thinking that lead-acid was the only viable option. The truth is they should have been working with Lithium Ion batteries from day one. "Lithium Ion batteries aren't mass produced" "Laptop computers aren't mass produced?" "But those are batteries for laptops - not for cars". Automotive tunnel vision.
And in terms of marketing, they were incompetent for not recognizing that there are people out there who want superiour 'environmental performance' - but I think they are slowly figuring this one out with every Toyota Prius that gets sold. Car makers kept thinking about what EVs couldn't do instead of what they could do.
I don't think it's a big conspiracy... GM (and others) must have come to some of the same conclusions I did. But they could have kept selling the EV1 as a high end vehicle for people who want top notch environmental performance.
I think they had a total lack of vision and they totally wasted all the R&D and other investments they put into the EV1.
So my point is that EVs are maybe getting to the point of critical mass in places like Europe or Japan. But in North America, fuel prices and other factors will prevent mass adoption of EVs.
You want EVs to go into the mainstream? Vote for anyone who will raise the taxes on gasoline and diesel and who will base annual car registration fees on carbon dioxide emissions. That in turn will make gas/electric and diesel/electric vehicles much more popular. Once we're at that point, making the jump to EVs is much easier."
Posted by: Peter Stern
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4951
| |
Ok, Wayne. You got some of it right and the rest you just really do not know to much about.
First. There is enough generation capacity (off peak) to charge 20 percent of the cars on the road today, if they were all electric. Ref:EPRI
Second. Solar photovoltaics, in particular building integrated PV, can reduce the peak US demand by 20-25 percent or more, if just new construction incorporated this technology. Cost gets lost in a thirty year note on a new building.
Third. The total U.S. daily peak is around 840 gigaWatt. I am no fan of nukes, but can see the knee jerk reaction to build them when the lights go out.Where did you get the figures of hundreds of new nukes to generate this power. Please remember that a nuke is a baseline generating facility, meaning they do not spin up to meet the load. Or, get this, lets just burn some of that coal we have.
Dollar for dollar, an EV being charged with PV is the least expensive form of transportation, with the least environemental impact. "
Posted by: Doug Canfield
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4952
| |
Wayne,
Were is all the electricity going to come from?
Where you get it now. Electricity usage after 6:00 pm drops about 60 to 70 per cent. Most utilities have to drop rates substantially and spend a lot of wear and tear on control equipment to decrease the load on the generators. A study by Southern Edison predicted that 30% of the nation could charge BEV's overnight without even drawing 60% of the national load. That calculation is for Flooded lead acid charging cycles of six hours or more. With cheaper Li-ion batteries the charging cycle doesn't even last more than an hour. As for the cost it is a one time charge amortized over 150,000 miles. NiMh batteries will last the life of the vehicle. Economies of scale will get that reduced to a very attractive number. As far as the cost of the EV-1, with the flooded lead acid battery pack it was $17,000 (according to Shaynerson, THE ELECTRIC CAR THAT COULD, still being published I think) for a 30k or 40k production run (if I remember correctly). I tried to get a lease for a EV-1 and was told the waiting list was over 1000 people. I was also in discussion to purchase a Toyota RAVEV and they were pulled from the market after Dymerler(sp) Chrysler, GM and our Fearless Leader sued to have the 2% zero emission mandate overturned. Economies of scale. It can be cheap if someone would take the step. Think what one government subsidy of 100 million could do to the cost of the first 30K of the production run. Then look at the 1.6 billion we are going to spend on the fuel cell car. Yes, the one that the PEM membrane (the active ingredient of the fuel cell)
is made out of platinum, lasts 200 hours, and then must be replaced. Platinum--- the rarest metal now on the planet 300 times more expensive than gold. The worlds supply would make 300K cars.
Yes we will be going back to BEVs. So we might as well do it now.
"
Posted by: Randy Nemec
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4955
| |
Hi All:
___20 - 30% off peak? That is ~ what we see here in Northern Illinois as well. To produce the amount of power to run transportation will take at least an 800% increase in TOTAL electrical production off-peak or not, not just 20 - 30%. Our total capacity of electrical generation which is absorbed by our daily needs account for just 2% of the total HP available in today’s ICE based automobiles! I picked that information up from one of the many articles posted here in the last 6 months. Since most don’t use the entire total HP of their automobiles, I assumed maybe 1/3 of peak so as to better balance load with reality. The reason I mentioned Nukes is they don’t emit any greenhouse gases thus are the only way to meet the demand without harmful emissions in mass. If you run all coal, NG, or other plants to 100% cap all the time, you have that much more emissions whether you like it or not. Just imagine what the cost of NG will be with an increased use of let us say 1,000%? Canada barely has enough NG to supply our std. electrical generation needs now let alone supplying the plants to power the grid for our transportation needs. Simply stated, it will easily take hundreds of nukes to provide this extra electrical energy to even come close to our current transportation needs. As for PV’s, if they are so cheap, why isn’t everyone using them for their home electrical needs now? Storage is the expensive component and that PV’s are not only costly out of the box, they don’t perform that great 10 + years down the line. That is if you can charge your EV while you are at work during the day. You can’t do much about charging at home in the evening/night unless you can store it. Again, increased costs.
___Ni-MH’s last 150,000 miles? Not when they are cycled like those in an EV. Has anyone ever driven an EV on the same pack for 150,000 miles? Economies of scale … The Prius II is already being produced in > 100,000 + quantities a year and the packs to drive a grand total of ~ 6 miles from 100% SoC to 0% SoC are still ~ $4,000 - $5,000. I would hope they only cost Toyota $1,000 - $2,000 but for 6 miles of driving distance? How much to drive 100 - 150 miles?
___On top of all this, I am already achieving a year round fuel cost of < 2.1 Cents/mile w/ unleaded regular at slightly less then $2.00/gallon in the Insight. I have never paid $2.00/gallon but once this year if that helps. Didn’t the EV-1 cost a similar amount at 7.5 cents/KWh charge pricing? I would hope it would be a lot less costly.
___I don’t know what the final answer is and I am definitely not an EV expert but when a 2-seater BEV with a 100 - 140 mile range, 15 - 20 minutes charge time, $50,000 + cost (maybe $34,000? w/ PBb’s), $15 - $30,000 pack replacement cost at 100,0000 miles out or so shows up at your local dealership, I am sure some will buy them. Will enough buy them to make them profitable? Not at that price they won’t. The Prius and IMA based Honda’s are having enough problems achieving profitability with $27,000 Prius II’s w/ package 9’s and AH’s at a supposedly $30,000 price target in 2 more months let alone the many 2-seat Insight’s that were available at $15 - $20K that sat and languished. When I see a Honda Accord EX-L EV run off a pack that provides similar performance as the current I4 at a similar TCO price, I would consider it. Unfortunately, that vehicle doesn’t exist in the labs or on a design table that I know of let alone your local dealership anywhere on the planet! The Maya-100 looks promising but not until the price is a lot closer to today’s Escape HEV, RAV4, CRV, and std. Escape.
___Good Luck
___Wayne R. Gerdes
"
Posted by: Wayne Gerdes
|
|
09-Oct-2004
5047
| |
I believe, like Tony Maine, that the batteries the car companies picked like lead acid and nickle were loosers to begin with. You don't see anyones laptops or cell phones running with nickel batteries anymore. Lithium Ion was going into big production (18650's) since Sony introduced the first ones in their camcorders in 1990. Production and supplies have improved vastly and now the 200 whr/kg or better batteries at low prices are available. What no one mentions is that the in to out electrical efficiency of nickel batteries is 70% at best, Lithium Ion is 95% to 99% and LiON don't self discharge (almost zero). So the batteries were there, and SAFT sold lots of test items to the auto industry in Dearborn, but they killed it and got out quick. Ciao, Bill"
Posted by: Bill Yerkes
|
|
09-Oct-2004
5050
| |
The RAV4 is a good car but why did Toyota take
a design that was originally for gas engines
and then battery power it. They should have
designed a completely new vehicle around
batteries and electric motors. The design
could have taken advantage of computer technology
to optimize its power consumption. An SUV with
lower wind drag could have also been part of the
design change. It seems to me that an EV design that
will give optimum performance should integrate
every aspect of the cars total parts. The
motors, the batteries, the body, etc.. The best
batteries in the world will not compensate for
a poorly designed system."
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
10-Oct-2004
5056
| |
Congress allowed a tax deduction up to 100k on SUV and truck gas guzzler over 5,000 pounds and dropped the tax deduction on electrics to little or nothing. A year later the price of gas hit $2 a gallon. Gas guzzlers need 10 times more service and parts than EV's, more money for the automakers. On the flip side, China Drivers are now sucking up all the excess gasoline on the market and prices on gas will go much higher than $2 a gallon and people will be begging for an EV. Big money to be made by gas to electric conversion shops in the near future. OIL COMPANIES MAKE BILLIONS ON GASOLINE SALES for gas cars and nothing at all on EV's. Don't forget Prersident Bush is an oil man and every time an EV driver passes the gas pump ole George looses some money. Americans fight and die in Iraq so George can bring home the oil. Why can't American factories produce EV's AND FREE AMERICA FROM IMPORTED OIL? On Nov.2 when America chooses a different president maybe EV's will have a future."
Posted by: Tom Sanderson
|
|
10-Oct-2004
5057
| |
Tony, may I give you some update information on ZEBRA batteries:
1. The present specific energy is 120Wh/kg on the system level ready for assembly, not on the modul level as mostly quated for other battery systems.
2. You are right that ZEBRA is a warm battery but this does not mean expensive. This provides that the battery performance is indepenmdent from ambient temperature, cooling is simple and cheap and has saftey advantage
3. ZEBRA uses only low cost raw material, nickel is only borrowed from the large Ni market ( 1 mio tonnes per year ) and returned after use due to the established recycling which is included in tzhe purchasing price.
4. The projected large volume price ( 100 000 units p.a. 20 kWh ) is 109$/kWh. This will make EVs very competitive."
Posted by: Cord Dustmann
|
|
10-Oct-2004
5059
| |
Li-ion battery(18650) is just 7Wh cell. How can we
make it 20 -30kWh battery for EV? No way! You need
4,300 cells ! Li battery requires totally different design concept for EV which leads to higher cost. Safety issue is another barrier for Li-ion, especially for EV application.
I have not seen any report of Li-ion safty evaluation for EV on the road.
crash test? drop test? short circuit test?
water immerse test? and fire test? I would like
to see such abuse test for Li-ion battery for EV if there is any. For ZEBRA you can see NREL and MIRA reports.
"
Posted by: Kunihiko Fukui
|
|
11-Oct-2004
5069
| |
Take a Google on Nanotechnology & Altair Nanotechnologies, PolyPlus li-ion
As for flammability of Li-ion. Ha! For 100 years the media - the ICE-makers obedient servants - have ignored and played down the extreme flammability of gasoline.
Anyway the answer is to case the batteries in fire-retardant materials.
As for your comment that Lithium is a rare metal - just not true! Thunder Sky tell us that there is no reason why li-ion should not cost the same as lead acid. "
Posted by: Paul GOVAN
|
|
11-Oct-2004
5070
| |
Thanks Earl, you really hit it on the head. One thing though, there a tons of people(most people) who do not have a cluuuuue as to what we EV savvy people know. I try telling my freinds about this issue and they look at me and smile, like I'm telling them some far flung conspiracy story. What I'm saying is EVW needs to put together an article that carefully articulates this train of events with the RAV 4 , and you have to do it like your teaching it to a class of kids in junior high who don't have a clue about the EV tech issue. This may bore the EV Techie regulars but the common people need to be woken up. A Video documentary aimed at High Schoolers! They are the next generation. "
Posted by: Scott Davis
|
|
11-Oct-2004
5071
| |
Hey what about the new Magnesium batts.? I hear they have more capacity than Nimh batts. are lighter and cheaper to make and Magnesium is one of the most abundant minerals on the planet. Check out the article at www.trn.com (technology research news). I hear they are getting the capacity up there with L-ion batts."
Posted by: scott davis
|
|
11-Oct-2004
5074
| |
These are somthing for you to think about
Lithium resources and its market.
http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/lithium/450302.pdf
http://www.theinfoshop.com/study/ros13975_economics_lithium_toc.html"
Posted by: Kunihiko Fukui
|
|
12-Oct-2004
5102
| |
Lithium reserves almost double in eight years, price little changed, production increased 2.25-fold? Was that what you wanted us to think, Kunihiko Fukui? It is what can be gathered by downloading and comparing the USGS mineral commodity summary PDFs for 1996 lithium and 2004 lithium.
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
how personal mobility gains nuclear cachet"
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
12-Oct-2004
5103
| |
I'm sorry. I still am reading a lot of conspiracy here. I really think if an electric car was so easy and cheap to build, a car company would build it. They don't care about oil one way or another -- as long as you put miles on the car. The batteries eventually wear out, as do shocks, etc. so there is reasonable maintenance for them. I really don't think you are applying Occam's razor to this -- electric cars are too expensive for the public to buy, so the car companies won't sell them. Now, MY paranoia is to the Calif. CARB ruling on lower CO2 emissions. They totally gut NGVs even though methane can be obtained as a biofuel. NGVs also produce 16-20% less CO2 per mile driven. Now what's up with that? "
Posted by: Jim Beyer
|
|
13-Oct-2004
5109
| |
What's up with CARB? Well, what fraction of the California state government's income is gasoline or diesel or natgas tax, and when that fraction is multiplied by CARB's budget, how much fossil fuel income is CARB thereby revealed to have?
This is not a rhetorical question. I want someone to do the suggested arithmetic and post the result. I'm not saying conflict of interest could ever influence a government agency's behaviour.
So Jim Beyer is reading a lot of conspiracy, is he? Conspiracy to do what -- not build boron-burning cars?
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet"
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
13-Oct-2004
5114
| |
By the way, what's with Adverting, two lines below the Click to Comment button? Selling advertiment space, are we?
--- Graham Cowan, former hydrogen fan
how individual mobility gains nuclear cachet
"
Posted by: Graham Cowan
|
|
14-Oct-2004
5124
| |
What about metal-air (zinc-air) batteries manufactured by eVionyx, Arotech, or Mettalic Power? These manufacturers claim more power/energy, less weight, and less expense than lead-acid, nickel metal hydride and lithum-ion units."
Posted by: Mike Haralamos
|
|
14-Oct-2004
5125
| |
Mike -- Oh really? Tell us more, such as price and internet links for more information."
Posted by: Arnold Larsen
|
|
24-Nov-2004
5466
| |
WE HAVE to start TO MAKE AN EV by ourselves!!!!!
If WE purshise a separate parts for EV like - elengin and battery WE will create an industry and infrastrukture four these things much much easier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AND the GREED bastards will bankrupt or will start to produce EVs.!!!!!!!
"
Posted by: sorry baby
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4957
| |
For those who need to check out a real-world
PV/EV combination, I'd recommend Darell's
website, complete with facts and figures, at
http://www.darelldd.com/ev/
Many of the EV drivers in California have already
installed PV. They generate the most energy
during peak demand and then pay a reduced rate
to PG&E for overnight charging.
I have now heard of more than one installation,
including Darell's which produced a financial
surplus over the first year. Our group now gets
invitations to come and charge our EVs just
before the anniversary date, when PG&E takes the
surplus for free. For our Th!nk, we were paying
about 1.5 cents per mile @ 4.5-5 cents/kWh.
Of course once your PV is paid for (about 5.5
years, according to the PV dentist down the road),
that's all free. Warranty on panels is typically
25 years and operational life is expected to be
40 years.
Battery packs in some RAV4EVs at So Cal Edison
are passed 100K miles with no degradation.
One Th!nk driver in Europe passed 60K miles
on his original SAFT pack. Cost (in Qty of *one*)
for that pack is 19 x $400 = $7,600. So, about
14 cents per mile including electricity for
a pack that I could buy as an individual.
Imagine if you bought 10,000 or 15,000 per month,
as with Prius production.
Of course, I would argue that oil is priceless
because it's irreplacable, so the $2 figure is
artificial. Of course if you're in Europe, you
have to use $4-7 per gallon for the calculations
anyway.
Oh and I forgot to mention that you get free
charging here in CA at public chargers, solo use
of the carpool lane, no bridge tolls during
commute hours, coupon books at our local mall,
never go out of your way to a gas station, clean
and quiet operation, smooth acceleration, use
100% domestically produced (hopefully renewable)
power, etc. etc.
To finish, I'll just quote our local newbie EV
driver's comment in an email to me today 'I feel
like a little kid playing with my new toy.'
Nick"
Posted by: Nick Carter
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4958
| |
Wayne,
I think you misunderstand my figures. Not everyone will want or need to drive electric cars. 20 to 30% electric, 30% biodiesel or alternate fuels, and you have just cut out our consumption of persian gulf nasties Iran, Iraq Saudi and some south american countries. This country notably Alaska, has a ton of NG. Plus countries like Indonesia have huge excesses of NG also. What we do not have in this country is terminals to import foreign NG. NG is a very clean technology, most of the generation in California is NG. Now if you make a hybrid out of a NG plus electric. No huge battery costs and you are back to really making a dent in oil consumption with a really clean car. On the battery subject Southern Edison has been running a fleet of Rav4EVs since 97. They have a report on their website of the battery life measurement of the NiMh packs they have used and the results are great. Less than 2% of reduced capacity battery life after 150K. The battery packs will last longer than the car will. In the generation one prius the state of charge was never supposed to go below 80%. I do not know what the generation 2 moves between, but I am sure it is way to conservative. You speak of cost. I have seen electric conversions from an internal combustion to electric. The AC drive systems with regenerative braking go for about $8k, traction pack (premium lead acid)about 3K. Now you telling me that a lead acid BEV will cost the car companies 34K? NO WAY. Take a look at metricmind.com. In Northern California we are paying 2.19 to 2.49 for gas. We were paying that at $38.00 a barrel, it is now $50.00 a barrel and I suspect the price is being held down until the election is over.
This will never get lower. China is using 30% more fuel every year and they have yet to have anywhere near 4% penetration of the car market.
The marker for the oil peak is going to be Thanksgiving 2005. It may be here already. Where do you think fuel costs are going to be in 5 years, 10 years? It is going to make 7.5 cents per KWH look great. Hybrids will be in the mix,
so will alternative fuels. BEV will have to be part of the solution. Especially in smoggy areas like the central valley in CA. Life expectancy is already going down there because of the air. Prices do not look competative where you live but we are we are always paying a higher price. Li-ion will achieve economies of scale that will make them the best for weight and cost very soon. Their only drawback now is the number of recharging cycles. But if they are cheap to make and recycle that may not matter. They can only hold down the fuel costs so long. We will have to cut consumption in this country or the markets will cut it for us.
"
Posted by: Randy Nemec
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4959
| |
Wow Wayne - You've brought up a point that I battle on a seemingly daily basis. And it is a battle of reality vs negative PR, unfortunately.
Others have made some great points, I'll just make a couple more.
Imagine back to the dawn of the ICE vehicle. Did we have enough gasoline to fuel cars if everybody had one? Did the supply grow pretty well with demand? We'll never have millions of EVs overnight. They'll slowly move in, and we'll have to keep up with them as we've managed to keep up with all the new homes, swimming pool pumps, AC units, etc. Do NOT belittle off-peak charging. Off-peak charing makes power generators in general far more efficient, and the power will cost everybody less. Neat concept - and much easier to swallow than the new construction pains I just mentioned.
A final point, that I love to bring up, is that the oil industry is the single biggest electricity consumer in the country. It takes LOTS of electricity to extract, transport, create and deliver gasoline to your vehicle. So for fun, let's pretend that we stop making all gasoline in this country, and instead use all that extra electricity to power BEVs. Now how much extra electricity do we need?
Have we figured in the social costs of producing and burning gasoline? Didn't think so.
I have a small PV array (2.5kw) on the roof of my garage. That array supplies enough energy credit ('m grid tied, so no worries about charging at night - which is what I always do) to power my entire house AND my main (10,000+ miles/year) vehicle. In my first year, I gave up a $90 credit from PG&E. The cost of my system? Amost exactly what I was already paying for my power before the PV array. Yes my break-even point was immediate. NOT 4-7 years out. In other words, my monthly payment on the loan I took out for my PV array was the same as the montly power bill used to be. After my loan is paid off in seven more years, my power will be FREE.
I don't just bitch about this stuff. I actually do something about it - and so do many others here.
- Darell"
Posted by: Darell Dickey
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4960
| |
Folks, I'm wondering whether Daimler-Benz bought out Nikolas Hayek (The Swatch Man) with his (Then) Smart Car, which was ELECTRIC, as a potential disruptor. Notice that there appear to be no plans whatever to introduce an electric - even hybrid version - of this car by the current owners. We know that others have successfully made electric versions of it, nevertheless!
Anyone else got the same suspicions?"
Posted by: Richard Harding
|
|
04-Oct-2004
4965
| |
Hi All:
___I am pretty good at stirring up the hornets nest, aren’t I ;-)
___Great points indeed except there is no excess NG supply capability right now. Take a look at NG futures over the last 5 years to see my point. We can adapt slowly but California in particular is already at the edge of supply in a number of areas including Electricity. If you want to see a terrorist target, read up on what happens when an LP tanker gets hit with a simple RPG. 2 to 5 miles from the blast zone are either rubble or ashes.
___In regards to EV’s, some of you are talking Think’s? It is bad enough that I drive an Insight through and amongst the sea of land yachts here near Chicago. 75% of the US is driving mid-sized automobiles on up including SUV’s. When do you think they will switch to a car the size of a Think, Lupo’s, and Smart’s? If most of the US switched to mini’s today using Honda’s 1.0 – 1.3 L non-hybrid PZEV based ICE’s, we would all be receiving 60 + mpg. Guess what? Not enough in this country will buy them to make them profitable and most simply don’t give a darn even though 15 of the 19 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi nationals!
___The $34,000 was the ~ cost of an EV-1 Pb. $42,000 for a 2002 Ni-MH Rav4EV was posted on the web somewhere? Do you know what price of car allows a $500.00/mo – 3-year lease? Around 50K! Battery costs. Unless someone comes up with a Ni-MH, Li-ion, Zinc-Air pack to power the RAV, Ranger, EV-1 whatever for < $15,000 ($20,000 for the whole car to make it publicly acceptable more then likely), the EV falls short of making any profit for the manufacturer with any market share unless they charge $40,000 + as they do for the RAV4 EV vs. a $20,000 non EV RAV4? At $2.00/gallon, I could drive the std. RAV 4 for 250,000 miles for free and I won’t have to ever replace a pack or charge it although I might have a thousand or two $’s wasted on maintenance.
___Price of a 42 gallon barrel of oil is now close to $50.00. Fuel costs < $2.00/gallon in most states and a bit more in California? It only costs something like $1.35 without taxes. A quick look at the market prices of 42,000 gallons of regular unleaded or regular unleaded low sulfur delivered on the NYMEX will tell you what it actually costs for a gallon of fuel including the refining costs. The Europeans receive ~ the same fuel costs but are paying upwards of $4.00/gallon in taxes/gallon just as we are paying upwards of $0.70 +. Oil is a bargain no matter how much many wish it weren’t. When does the price of a gallon of fuel and a $20,000 RAV4 match the price of $20,000 in batteries in the $40,000 + RAV4EV? Where is that Ni-MH pack for my Insight that costs just $500? I cannot find it although after 5 years, it should have been here? How about the Japanese Prius I’s? They were on the road in Japan back in 97. Where are the < $4,000 packs?
___Incentives for Hybrid and/or EV drivers? First off, do you see a lower income inner city family of 4 driving a Prius II or RAV4EV? No because they cannot afford them. Those that are purchasing Hybrid’s (> 100,000 family incomes) are driving Hybrids like they stole them and receiving far less then 50 mpg for the most part. What is wrong with an EV’er or Hybrid driver carrying 2 or more passengers to be allowed in the HOV lanes? If California wanted to save fuel, they would let H2’s, Suburban’s, Excursion’s, and Sequoia’s run in the HOV lanes as the savings in gallons would far exceed what the Hybrid driver(s) could save over the same amount of miles driven. Maybe it is all about emissions? The 03/04/05 Accord and Camry PZEV’s should be allowed HOV lane access then as they are cleaner than all hybrid’s except for possibly the 2004 Prius II. When total life emissions are considered, they are probably cleaner then the Prius II overall as well! So are the incentives to save fuel? Lower emissions? Why should the general populace that cannot afford a hybrid pay higher taxes so that those who can afford an EV or hybrid might use HOV lanes at their leisure?
___If you want to make a dent in our foreign oil consumption, slow down and drive like a hypermiler. This would produce a reduction of at least 30% in gasoline and diesel consumption overnight without a change in the vehicles that we normally drive. This goes for the trucking industry as well. When oil finally does reach its peak, it will take maybe $100 - $150/bbl to make up for the cost of those darn packs. Pb’s just don’t cut it for most even at $3K let alone double that.
___Darryl, you make the best point of all and I am glad it works out for you. I on the other hand don’t have access to all of that sunshine nor kickbacks from the local utility for attempting a pure PV solution. With that, I am achieving more fuel economy from the Insight then anyone in the world. These techniques will extend the range on your EV’s as well, guaranteed.
___Good Luck
___Wayne
"
Posted by: Wayne Gerdes
|
|
05-Oct-2004
4966
| |
State gov'ts hate the electric car, I predict...
That in a few years, GM and/or a Japanese company will make
a few thousand EVs, and threaten Cal. with millions
more zero-gas-tax paying cars. The car companies and
Cal. will make a deal."
Posted by: Menwith M
|
|
05-Oct-2004
4968
| |
Menwith... sure states and the fed need those gasoline taxes to pay for our roads, but I think that eventually, they'll need to come up with other revenue streams and my guess is it will be based on some form of road use tax. The UK has already proposed such a system that will track vehicles via GPS and bill the owners according to where they drive, how far and when. Drive in heavily congested zones at rush hour -- say into London -- and you pay a premium. Drive to the local green grocer in Cornwall in mid-afternoon and you pay less.
Given the pace of GPS and RFID technology -- where the chip is far smaller than you smallest finger nail -- monitoring were we drive will be a piece of cake, regardless of what powers the vehicle, hydrogen,ethonol,biodiesel,electricity or free energy."
Posted by: Bill Moore
|
|
05-Oct-2004
4970
| |
Entrepreneurial company, www.myersmotors.com, believes that BEV's are practical today and we are building them today. Starting with inventory purchased from bankrupt Corbin Motors, Myers Motors has fixed the Sparrow problems, is developing two new models that get either 40 or 60 miles to the charge and are reasonably priced. Dana Myers, founder and president."
Posted by: Dana Myers
|
|
05-Oct-2004
4971
| |
comment on electric tractor/mower
Offer to mow the football field for the local high school, or the grounds around a voting precinct or some other venue and put up a big sign on the rear that says "look ,ma--NO CORD"!
Pass out free mowing demo coupons--especially around weeds and for trashy neighbors.
Every demo is a success against the mindset, it just takes lots of Lilliputians to handle the Gullivers, especially when it's so uphill.
"
Posted by: john bruns
|
|
05-Oct-2004
4972
| |
Earl,
I think your comments are right on, but I think you have left out the major player - the fuel. Kodak got into the business of making cheap cameras - not to sell cameras, but to sell film. Did they develop the digital camera? No.
The automotive industry and the oil industries are in bed together. They cannot be separated. If we go to electric cars, then the automotive-industrial complex loses control of how the energy is distributed and controlled. What! No more gas stations? This is why we had the charging stations for the EV1, and we will have hydrogen refuelling stations for the fuel celled vehicles. The automotive-industrial complex will continue to fight the idea of refuelling your car in your garage.
Sincerely,
Peter Fynn"
Posted by: Peter Fynn
|
|
05-Oct-2004
4973
| |
I have been commuting 60 miles daily for 26 years and the last 8 have been in a production EV.
This is my 3rd EV and this one just turned 60,000 miles last week. The car rides differently with 60k vs. New. I am ready for a new one.
Now! If you to go into a Boardroom and say. Hey I can reduce your Powertrain complaints, increase your product reputation with increased durability, and reduce your Staff head count, with this battery car. I am quite sure you would have that CEO’s attention 100%.
So what was the hold up? Ask any current EV driver. What was the only or major issue with your EV that required dealer attention? If it’s been like my experience and others that I have talked to, the response will be the battery.
I think Dave Donis is pretty close, with the corporate risk issues, not only on the personal level, but the company level too. Who would want to see their company go down the tubes, especially on their shift?
There is a place for EV’s and if the could compete head to head with ICE’s, we wouldn’t be talking about it we would all be drive them. I think the First successful EV will probably come from some small company, like ACP (GO ACP!) and that they don’t have to compete head to head with ICE’s, but they have to be sold to a public that knows what they are buying and how it will work for them. Hybrids are a good step towards that education and are a great source for battery production capacity. Not that you can use a HB battery for an EV, but the battery production and competition will be there.
The rest of what I read was, well enough said.
"
Posted by: Rick Reinhard
|
|
05-Oct-2004
4982
| |
Earl's view makes a lot of sense at the gut level, but if the industrial establishment really was that powerful, we wouldn't be driving cars in the first place cause the horse and buggy whip industries would have prevented it. I distinctly remember giving a report to my high school class 30 years ago about how we were going to move to something besides gas cars and I've been waiting for it to happen ever since. The bottom line in this world is economics and we can envision all kinds of futuristic stuff but until it pays, it ain't gonna happen. The transition to what will be, might be a lot easier if it was planned for, but convincing your average joe to downsize his SUV and move closer to work and invest in expensive new technology and for GM to sell EV's and the gov. to mandate them and the oil industry to finance them doesn't seem to be happening. The time will come like a thief in the night. Get ready, don't wait for Ford & GM"
Posted by: Greg Collins
|
|
05-Oct-2004
4986
| |
The 10 million dollar prize for putting a spacecraft into space was awarded this week to some
clever and industrious entreprenuers. They
showed the "big guys" like Boeing, and NASA that
it could be done and they plan to start commercial
space travel in 2007. In the same way, it merely
takes some guys with money and a non-conformist
attitude to get this country going on EVs. To
hell with the big automakers and the government."
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
06-Oct-2004
4991
| |
Wayne, how many times in your life do you ever use all the HP available from your car? How efficient are EV's at getting power to the wheels compared to ICEs? "
Posted by: Machine man
|
|
06-Oct-2004
4993
| |
Batteries seem to be the biggest issue here, but I have read a new technology http://europositron.com/en/ that uses aluminium (aluminum to Americans?) and are far more powerful than L.I. and should be cheeper to produce. So now E.V.s can have a range > 500 miles.
It takes the same kind of mindset to produce an EV as the X-prize and would help with multi-million pound (dollar) funding. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem as exciting to some people. May Richard Branson would like to sponsor me?
Regards from the UK."
Posted by: Jason Sutton
|
|
06-Oct-2004
4994
| |
To confirm that 2% number, I ran some ugly calculations:
200 horsepower average, 200 million cars, is 40 billion horsepower, or 29,840 GW, so our electrical capacity is about 3% of the power of our cars. It’s irrelevant because those cars sit in garages most of the time, and when they are operational, they use a small portion of their peak horsepower.
Starting with horsepower from an ICE vehicle and trying to get to the electrical generation capacity needed to run an entire nation of BEVs isn't very effective. 99% of the time, vehicles don't use all of their horsepower. Even driving a Geo Metro I rented a couple weeks ago I rarely accelerated full-throttle.
If anyone wants a rough and dirty estimate of the electricity needed, 0.3 kWh per mile is a safe number. If we are talking about global BEV acceptance, I would use 0.2 kWh per mile.
Converting the .2 to .3 kWh per mile to a horsepower requirement (a bizarre conversion that really shouldn't be performed), I get 15 to 25 hp needed. Since the average American vehicle has somewhere around 180-200 hp, that 2% number should be 14% to 25% for BEVs. Now estimate that all vehicles are being driven 2.3% of the time (12,000 miles per year at 60 mph is 200 hours, or 2.3% of the hours in a year). That means our electrical generation capacity is 614% to 1100% of what we would need to keep BEVs going.
Like I said, that conversion is a complete mess, so don’t take it seriously. Also don’t take seriously suggestions that we don’t have the generation capacity to run a large fleet of BEVs. I agree that we would need new generation capacity if we want 100% of vehicles to be BEVs, but that is a problem we won’t face for a long time.
Let’s perform a clean calculation:
Assume we have 905 GW of capacity
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/infosheets/electriccapability.htm)
Assume every vehicle gets 200 Watt-hours per mile
Assume everyone drives 12k miles per year
Assume the electrical generation is going at 100% of capacity 100% of the time (not at all realistic).
.2 kWh per mile times 12k miles times 250 million vehicles equals 600,000 gWh per year to keep the vehicles going.
905 GW times 24 hours times 365.249 days equals 7,933,208.28 GWh produced per year, or 13 times the needed electricity. Now assume that our generation capacity operates at 50% capacity, and we have the ability to generate 6.5 times the electricity we would need.
Conservation and elimination of the gasoline industry would not free up 15% of our capacity, so we would almost definitely need new capacity. Also keep in mind that BEVs would allow power plants to operate more efficiently and at a higher percentage of total capacity. Even a complex V2G system like the one AC propulsion has outlined would not let us convert instantly to a 100% BEV fleet without new power plants. Then take into account that a boat-towing machine is not going to get 200 Watt-hours per mile and it becomes clear that we will need new generation. It also seems clear to me that a BEV fleet would require demand-side management. Demand-side management seems like a great partner for wind power and solar generation, as long as we are willing to pay for the clean power.
That isn’t an issue, because a gradual transition will allow that generation to be built as we convert the fleet. A gradual transition is possible if we (American car-buyers) dictate the timetable. As long as other countries feed us our energy, we are vulnerable to an energy shock that could lead to a drastic and sudden transition. It is worth noting that Japan shares our extreme vulnerability, and the Japanese government could (in a theoretical doomsday scenario) decide that Toyota will keep all of its best Japanese-built vehicles inside Japan. We (American carbuyers) should gently push Toyota to eventually establish a hybrid assembly line in one of their North American factories and establish an American-based parts supply chain for the hybrid systems. With 100k Priuses being shipped to the USA next calendar year, I would think it might become economically beneficial to build them in the USA within the next few years.
Sorry for the long post, but Wayne stirred us all up. :)"
Posted by: Steve Erlsten
|
|
06-Oct-2004
4995
| |
My alma mater, University of Houston, has done
some significant research into superconductivity.
We could advance electric motor efficiency if we
just had a semi-superconducting wire. I.E., it
would not had to be a superconductor but something
with much less resistance than copper wire, that
would work at room temperature and higher.
This would be a good candidate for the EV X-prize.
"
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
06-Oct-2004
5001
| |
Here in Japan, the automakers are disregarding EVs
as well. Owing to Earl, I came to know about ZEBRA
battery in his paper 'Fuel Cell Disruptor' dated
07,Dec,2002. Since then, we started to develop
EV Van with ZEBRA Z5(21kWh). The prototype reached
175 km per a charge on 15.10 driving mode which is
urban use. We will make it at a certain volume. Also we are studying a power storage facility using ZEBRA. I am pesmistic in future price of
Lithium iron battery because it is rare metal. However ZEBRA price will come
down drastically in propotion to productin volume."
Posted by: Kunihiko Fukui
|
|
06-Oct-2004
5002
| |
This is the electric age, so I want an electric car. I don't even care if it costs a little more to operate. I would never consider buying a gas powered computer or a diesel dvd player, so why should I settle for clunky second rate car technology? By connecting the car to the same power grid that runs other consumer items, my world suddenly gets simpler. Everybody knows that an electric motor is easier to fix than a gas engine. Plus I would have the choice to buy solar cells and produce my own power. I admit that solar power is expensive, but that wouldn't hinder me. I would have aquired the capacity to produce my own fuel - You might not agree with my decision but certainly you would perceive me as a more interesting, and more responsible citizen."
Posted by: Peter Root
|
|
06-Oct-2004
5003
| |
There's a lot of truth in the statement that the big cartels will vigorously resist the idea of a car that can be refuelled (recharged) in your garage. But at the rate things are going, the cartels won't have fuel at the right price to make it attractive to do anything else. What will be their answer to that?"
Posted by: Tony Maine
|
|
06-Oct-2004
5004
| |
Houston, my location, was running electric trolleys all over the city, from 1900 to 1935.
They were suddenly dismantled. I wonder if the
fact that Houston became oil capitol of U.S. had
anything to do with it? Finally after 74 years,
Houston has it's first light rail, electric line
again, in 2004. This was accomplished despite strong efforts, from Congressman Tom Delay, to stop
it. What a jerk!"
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
06-Oct-2004
5006
| |
I think Kunihiko is being a bit optimistic with the Zebra battery. It uses sodium nickel chloride (NaNiCl) technology and runs at 300C. Nickel is becoming a very expensive metal, thanks to the Chinese stainless steel industry. I am told that Lithium metal is not required to make a lithium ion battery - you only need lithium carbonate which is far cheaper. The literature lists the energy density of NaNiCl as not much more than half that of Lithium ion. You can get Li-ion type 18650 cells for about $US2 each in quantity, they hold 7 WH, $280/kWh, so a BEV 30 kWh battery would cost about $8400, more than an IC engine + petrol tank, but not vastly so. "
Posted by: Tony Maine
|
|
07-Oct-2004
5007
| |
Tony, thank you for your comment.
USD2.00 per cell of Li-ion battery is just unbelievable. Question is in what quantity.
"
Posted by: Kunihiko Fukui
|
|
07-Oct-2004
5014
| |
WOW! NO gasoline, NO motor oil, NO antifreeze, NO fan belts, NO radiator hoses, NO internal combustion engine, NO transmission, etc, etc. I want an EV NOW!"
Posted by: Mike C
|
|
07-Oct-2004
5020
| |
If you just charge electric cars on the grid, you are in effect substituting oil for coal, which is good economically, but bad in terms of GHG. You will actually be producing MORE GHGs than before. (Coal is no more than 30% efficient in producing electricity, cars engines a bit less, but oil has less carbon). You really should add renewable electric (wind,solar) as you add more electric cars. Since an electric car can be plugged in 20+ hours/day, it is a perfect candidate for intermittent renewable electric power. An electric car charged by the grid cannot be considered emission-free, but should reflect the proportion of emissions produced by the grid itself (nation-wide) from its various electrical sources. A load with an intermittent power need also dovetails better with what renewable energy can provide. The grid, as it exists now, (on-24-7) is probably not sustainable, and not needed, over the very long term (but that's another story....)"
Posted by: Jim Beyer
|
|
07-Oct-2004
5021
| |
A little paranoia here. Or a lot. I really don't think the carmakers are in bed with the oil companies. If they are, the oil companies can steal the covers whenever they want! No, I think carmakers hate EVs because the consumers hate them. And the consumers hate them because they are crummy cars -- expensive, unreliable, and low range. (Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?) A full EV vehicle will never, ever make economic sense for broad use. Why? Because even if batteries were free, and weightless, they are ultimately too bulky because they carry both their 'fuel' and 'oxydizer' with them. Imagine how big your 'oxygen' tank would be if your car couldn't 'breathe' the atmosphere. No, the best fate for battery technology is to make plug-in hybrids work. Even a tiny amount of expensive fuel (ethanol) dramatically improves the vehicle range at a tiny cost to both the carmaker and the consumer. Ford tried making their electric Ranger, and of course GM tried with the Impact. They tried really hard!! But it's just too hard to make something anything like that which consumers have become accustomed. New battery technology cannot escape from the oxydizer limits cited above. (Aluminum-air 'batteries' are not really batteries, but a fuel that is combusted. They have only niche appeal because the whole technology can make no use of the entire biomass segment of the renewable energy equation, and that is very limiting.)"
Posted by: jim beyer
|
|
07-Oct-2004
5023
| |
Jim: You left out the Toyota RAV4. Just look at the pic. and description at the top of the page. If the Japanese can do it then we should be able to. The battery is not the problem. The problem lies in efficient use of power and better electric motor design, including more research into the often ignored flywheel.
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
07-Oct-2004
5024
| |
With the RAV4, the battery was INDEED the problem. Toyota says so themselves. Check out:
http://www.toyota.com/html/shop/vehicles/ravev/rav4ev_0_home/
Plus, it had a range of 128 miles. Not bad, but still pretty marginal for widespread consumer acceptance.
"
Posted by: Jim Beyer
|
|
07-Oct-2004
5026
| |
Yes, there can always be room for improved batteries but the load part of the system has
been neglected. With the advent of
microcomputers and advanced software, all the
power consumption factors, from wheels to driver to aerodynamics to photovoltaic cells, can be optimized to minimize the load on the battery.
This does no mean we would have to travel in a
cramped, little box, either."
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
07-Oct-2004
5030
| |
Calling names and stating personal opinions without facts does not make what one says any more valid."
Posted by: Machine man
|
|
08-Oct-2004
5033
| |
Sorry, the abbreviation I used was just that,
nothing deragotory was intended."
Posted by: John Boyd
|
|
08-Oct-2004
5040
| |
Oil economy. Now remove the barricades to these EV's. I love my INSIGHT. I'd love a RAV 4 EV for a second vehile NOW!"
Posted by: john sherwin
|
|
14-Oct-2004
5131
| |
There are two very compelling reasons there is oposition to electric cars; Where do you get the massive electric energy to charge the batteries? Do you build more coal fired power plants or do you pressure your Senators to pass Bush's energy bill to build 5 nuclear power plants; Electric power generating plants must be built by large utilities using bonds bought by the general public. The WOOPS problem at Hanford Washington destroyed the bond market to raise the capital for nuclear power plants. Therefore- no electric cars."
Posted by: Alexander Kline
|
|
15-Oct-2004
5132
| |
The web pages on eVionyx and Mettalic Power can be found in EV's Research Links section. Arotech is a public company. Their symbol is ARTX."
Posted by: Mike Haralamos
|
|
15-Oct-2004
5136
| |
All arguments against EVs are primarily centered around the battery pack... as for the energy issue, EVs are multiple time more efficient than FCVs or ICEs when it comes to mileage. The EV1 had an equivalent mileage of 200 mpg if you factored in the energy required to produce the electricity it used from coal only! The EV1 had to make the best of the equivelent energy of 3/4 gal of gas in its 700 lb battery pack... yet it managed to do 130-150 mi on a single charge in the NiMH version.
Now why carry a battery pack at all??? Roads are roughly 1 million $ per mile... so why not throw in 10 grands and "wire" them with an inductive charging ability, making cars tiny trolleys. The battery pack can then be small enough to let you roam off the grid back on side streets. In addition a new compound would let roads be a sort of solar array for such a system."
Posted by: Marc S
|
|
17-Oct-2004
5152
| |
GREED! Drives business. Until the Govt. of the People by the People and for the People decides to serve and protect, GREED continues."
Posted by: Zane Austin
|
|
19-Oct-2004
5163
| |
I hear that Electrovaya (the chassis trough Susuki/GM plant I believe) has an electric vehicle that can go 360 KM on one charge and performs like a regular car. Why is it not for sale?"
Posted by: Jack Martoni
|
|
21-Oct-2004
5177
| |
Yesterday, I received an E-mail from Electrovaya informing me that although the Maya is still in development and as yet do not have a firm commercialization date, they anticipate the very first vehicle to cost about US$70,000, but they expect the price to drop quickly as production increases. "
Posted by: Arnold Larsen
|
|
21-Oct-2004
5181
| |
NEW! Magnesium Batteries! I was still just wondering why no one seems to say anything about the new Magnesium Batteries. From what I read they are,
-More environmentally freindly
-Magnesium is the a plentifull resource
-Lighter
-Cheaper than Li-ion and NiMh to make
Why are we not seeing these batteries or hearing about them in EV news? Sources; www.trnmag.com and just do a google search for "magnesium batteries" It's all there.
-Scott"
Posted by: Scott Davis
|
|
21-Oct-2004
5186
| |
Can I ask all of you here a dumb question? What is the max. consumption an electric motor takes? and what type of charging system would it take to match that? It seems to me (plain folk) that since there are plenty of turning objects on a moving vehicle, several in-line generators or altenators could be conjoined to keep the battery bank at peak,if dialed in correctly. Also, additional passage "generator" zones could be the air dam in front channeling air thru "turbine" like fans that turn mini-generators, and a new style solar roof would add to it also, as well as generators on the drive lines and or spinning axles. Maybe I am too naive to really understand what it takes. Inform me please....really. I just would like to know."
Posted by: Stephen Terry
|
|
24-Oct-2004
5197
| |
Scott -- If you read the May 04,2004 article in V is for Voltage (www.visforvoltage.com) entitled: "New Rechargeable Magnesium Battery System" you will see why no one seems to say anything about the new Magnesium Batteries. Idea One, the US company that will be marketing the cells apparently isn't marketing them yet. Dr. Aurbach and his team is currently researching methods to increase the battery's energy density.
V is for Voltage is about PERSONAL ELECTRIC VEHICLE NEWS AND FEATURES FROM AROUND THE GLOBE. Something like EVWorld.com"
Posted by: Arnold Larsen
|
|
|
September ePOLL
Do you agree that the $100 billion invested in technology innovation was an appropriate expenditure by the American government?
|
