[besson3c]

Just watched this, I highly recommend it.


The central thesis is that oil companies and the government were responsible for killing the electric car via a number of techniques, including creating a lot of FUD about the technology. The documentary asserted that the last person to have any real energy policy was Carter.

I believe that our own attitudes play a role here too. It is so wrong headed to think that we need a big 'ol SUV to commute to work every day, when electric cars over a decade ago were able to go over 100 miles on a single charge, and were quite zippy high-demand vehicles.

I think the documentary said that the equivalent energy in a gallon of gas would cost something like 60 cents in electricity.

Really interesting documentary, which also gets into the role of Hydrogen (which they depicted as a manipulative government charade).

Also interesting to me was how the Japanese hybrid came to be out of observing the demand of the electric car in the US.


Many other interesting things in this documentary, even though I wasn't giving it my full attention while having it on here at work.

[TheWOAT]

They released an all electric sports car called "Tesla"... 130mph top speed, 0-60 in 4 seconds... 250 mile range between charges, and a cool price of $100,000. I know its a sports car, and it could be made into a cheaper small sedan... but guess what is prohibiting electric cars from being sold on a mass scale?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

They released an all electric sports car called "Tesla"... 130mph top speed, 0-60 in 4 seconds... 250 mile range between charges, and a cool price of $100,000. I know its a sports car, and it could be made into a cheaper small sedan... but guess what is prohibiting electric cars from being sold on a mass scale?

Exactly.. and this documentary wasn't ripping apart SUVs and Hummers, it was just saying that it would be nice if these electric ehicles were available to consumers as options, rather than being suppressed by big oil and/or the government.

Particularly for commuting, arguably for other purposes, an electric car would amount to a totally viable, if not brilliant option... certainly at least equal in strength to that of a Hummer or SUV.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

They released an all electric sports car called "Tesla"... 130mph top speed, 0-60 in 4 seconds... 250 mile range between charges, and a cool price of $100,000. I know its a sports car, and it could be made into a cheaper small sedan... but guess what is prohibiting electric cars from being sold on a mass scale?

The company is [url=http://www.teslamotors.com]Tesla Motors[/url. The car is the Tesla Roadster. They're going to be releasing a four-door sedan in, I think, 2008 for around $30k, and are planning a small economy car in '09 or '10. They're starting with the Roadster because, as you pointed out, it's the only thing they can sell at a realistic price point right now since they've developed a lot of their own technology in order to make it feasible. They've already sold hundreds of them even though they aren't actually available yet, so it shouldn't take to long to build up an economy of scale so that they can afford to sell a less pricey car.

[Dr Reducto]

Economics and realities killed Electric cars:

-Batteries are inefficient and bad for the environment
-Low Range
-People want to drive at non-legal speeds (there is a sizeable car culture that likes hot-rodding cars)
-Recharging takes a long time, and super-capacitors that charge quickly bump into the reality of needing inordinate amounts of power quickly
-Unless you are cleanly generating your power, you are only making the tradeoff between spewing junk out of your tailpipe, or at the power plant (widespread adoption of battery/supercapacitor cars screams for more nuclear power plants)
-etc etc


I really have a hard time believing that electric cars were killed by the evil oil companies. Espescially when you factor in all the other demands for petrochemicals. It's not like the oil companies will go out of business if cars didn't run on crude

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto 

Economics and realities killed Electric cars:

-Batteries are inefficient and bad for the environment
-Low Range
-People want to drive at non-legal speeds (there is a sizeable car culture that likes hot-rodding cars)
-Recharging takes a long time, and super-capacitors that charge quickly bump into the reality of needing inordinate amounts of power quickly
-Unless you are cleanly generating your power, you are only making the tradeoff between spewing junk out of your tailpipe, or at the power plant (widespread adoption of battery/supercapacitor cars screams for more nuclear power plants)
-etc etc


I really have a hard time believing that electric cars were killed by the evil oil companies. Espescially when you factor in all the other demands for petrochemicals. It's not like the oil companies will go out of business if cars didn't run on crude

Have you watched the movie?

Batteries are efficient enough to be more than adequate for the vast majority of city dwellers. The range is more than sufficient for the vast majority of city dwellers. Electric cars are perfectly capable of high speeds, and are often better performers than IC cars. Recharging is quick enough to happen during the time when you aren't driving the car, and, in most cases, during the time when your car is at home. Studies have shown that it's more environmentally friendly to drive an electric car, even if your electricity is coal-generated, than to drive an IC car. &c, &c.

Electric cars are not the right fit for everyone. But they are the right fit for most people who live in cities. For most of the rest of people who live in cities, hybrids make a great deal more sense then either electric or IC cars. For people who don't live in cities, or spend a of time doing long distance driving, IC cars remain the best solution.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto 

-Batteries are inefficient and bad for the environment

Inefficient how? Everything carries some footprint on the environment, but I don't believe that recycling a batter is worse than all of the exhaust produced during the life of the vehicle. This just doesn't make sense to me.

-Low Range

They have enough range for a wide range of people, that is my point. They have been perfect for commuting for years. Different tools for different jobs.

-People want to drive at non-legal speeds (there is a sizeable car culture that likes hot-rodding cars)

Don't think this argument is terribly strong. For one, this is a small minority. Secondly, you can go well above the speed limit in an electric car.

-Recharging takes a long time, and super-capacitors that charge quickly bump into the reality of needing inordinate amounts of power quickly

This is a reasonable argument. I wonder how long it takes to charge an electric car?

-Unless you are cleanly generating your power, you are only making the tradeoff between spewing junk out of your tailpipe, or at the power plant (widespread adoption of battery/supercapacitor cars screams for more nuclear power plants)

Even a coal powered plant produces something like a 10th of the exhaust necessary to produce this same amount of energy in comparison to a combustible engine.

I really have a hard time believing that electric cars were killed by the evil oil companies. Espescially when you factor in all the other demands for petrochemicals. It's not like the oil companies will go out of business if cars didn't run on crude

Maybe not out of business, but they would take a HUGE hit. This is quite likely their bread and butter.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Just watched this, I highly recommend it.

Congratulations

You are the first person who started a new thread with a title of TWO (!!!!) existing threads.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...-electric-car/
http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...-electric-car/

Good job

-t

[ironknee]

great movie

[houstonmacbro]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Just watched this, I highly recommend it.


The central thesis is that oil companies and the government were responsible for killing the electric car via a number of techniques, including creating a lot of FUD about the technology. The documentary asserted that the last person to have any real energy policy was Carter.

I believe that our own attitudes play a role here too. It is so wrong headed to think that we need a big 'ol SUV to commute to work every day, when electric cars over a decade ago were able to go over 100 miles on a single charge, and were quite zippy high-demand vehicles.

I think the documentary said that the equivalent energy in a gallon of gas would cost something like 60 cents in electricity.

Really interesting documentary, which also gets into the role of Hydrogen (which they depicted as a manipulative government charade).

Also interesting to me was how the Japanese hybrid came to be out of observing the demand of the electric car in the US.


Many other interesting things in this documentary, even though I wasn't giving it my full attention while having it on here at work.

i have it on my netflix rental que.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Congratulations

You are the first person who started a new thread with a title of TWO (!!!!) existing threads.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...-electric-car/
http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...-electric-car/

Good job

-t

I didn't realize this... It was not intentional.

Why is it that you can remember my threads better than I can?

[The Godfather]

Exactly. Hybrid and electric cars are not the right thing for everyone, but it is for the majority of conmuters.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Godfather 

Exactly. Hybrid and electric cars are not the right thing for everyone, but it is for the majority of conmuters.

And having options are a good thing. All cars should be on the same playing field as far as letting the market alone decide whether or not they succeed.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And having options are a good thing. All cars should be on the same playing field as far as letting the market alone decide whether or not they succeed.

the last thing California needs is thousands of people trying to recharge their electric car cells in the evening. Unless someone decides to build some 'nucular' power plants, this state may not be able to handle the extra electricity demand... maybe they could start burning the excess gasoline for electric generation.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

the last thing California needs is thousands of people trying to recharge their electric car cells in the evening. Unless someone decides to build some 'nucular' power plants, this state may not be able to handle the extra electricity demand... maybe they could start burning the excess gasoline for electric generation.

This might actually be the best argument against electric cars (in California, at least) that I've ever heard.

[stevesnj]

Hydrogen cars and technology is the best alternative, though 'you know who' would rather slit their wrists before putting an alternative fuel pump at the same place where fossil fuels are sold.

[olePigeon]

You can still keep petrol based cars, but the engines need to be updated. Super Diesel and Bio Diesel are great alternatives for people who still want the sound of a real engine. 60 to 80 MPG on a slightly refined diesel.

So here's a question, what's keeping Super/Bio Diesel from being sold in America? The EPA doesn't have official guidelines for Super/Bio Diesel, therefore, it's illegal. Never mind it'd take them about a week to make one, but they don't.

The only way around it is a grey-market tactic practiced by car companies. VW or Mercedes can't sell a Super Diesel in America, but, an independent dealership can import a foreign car to America, hold onto it for 3 years, then sell it. It's some loophole. Cars older than a certain age, and foreign cars that have been purchased and have been owned for at least 3 years don't have to pass EPA emissions testing. The downside, of course, is that any car you buy is at least 3 years old and the dealership takes a hit; that's why they're generally a lot more expensive.

Personally, I think a Bio Diesel/Fuel Cell/Electric hybrid is the best way to go.

[TheWOAT]

Biodeisel is sold in the US... but requires an exemption from the Division of Measurement Standards (at least in California), and that is really easy to get, just ask, and you shall recieve.

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Biodeisel is sold in the US... but requires an exemption from the Division of Measurement Standards (at least in California), and that is really easy to get, just ask, and you shall recieve.

Biodiesel, yes, but not Super.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

...and the government were responsible for killing the electric car via a number of techniques...

I didn't see the movie, to they mention safety issues?

I started a thread about oil a few months ago, and a big barrier to any fuel efficient car (regardless of what fuel it uses) seemed to be wacky US safety standards.

We talked about the Smart Car. The US Smart Car is about a ton heavier than the Euro model, and loses about 20mpg in the process.

As I said in that other thread, we can ride something inherently unstable with only two wheels, no problem. Add an extra wheel or two or a shell around it, no ****in' way. The government screams "this is unsafe!"

[TheWOAT]

I think diesel doesnt pass the smell test.... therefore banned in the US

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

This might actually be the best argument against electric cars (in California, at least) that I've ever heard.

I don't buy it. Economy of scale.

If a zillion tiny IC engines trumped a big turbine, we wouldn't use big turbines, we'd have IC "farms".

Yes, we will need to generate more electricity, but this will have less environmental impact and be cheaper overall, no matter which of the half dozen possible methods we use to generate it.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by stevesnj 

Hydrogen cars and technology is the best alternative, though 'you know who' would rather slit their wrists before putting an alternative fuel pump at the same place where fossil fuels are sold.

The documentary looked at Hydrogen, and the many technological problems facing them. The assertion was that politicians like to talk up progress in Hydrogen just so it looks like they are supporting R&D into alternative fuels, even though we are much farther away from making hydrogen a viable option than we are electricity.

Of course, like I said, options are good, even if hydrogen cars now cost something like a million bucks

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't buy it. Economy of scale.

If a zillion tiny IC engines trumped a big turbine, we wouldn't use big turbines, we'd have IC "farms".

Yes, we will need to generate more electricity, but this will have less environmental impact and be cheaper overall, no matter which of the half dozen possible methods we use to generate it.

The problem isn't efficiency here, it's that California has a problem with generating enough electricity. Especially in the summer, there just isn't enough power and in a lot of places there will be rolling blackouts to deal with this. If all of a sudden millions of people were plugging in their cars all night there would be a massive increase in power being drawn from the grid. In California, at least, there probably just wouldn't ben enough power and things would start failing.

So in that a zillion tiny IC engines actually do trump a big turbine because they don't add load to the power grid.

[Edit: So, yes, efficiency actually is the issue. But not in that way.]

[marden]

Originally Posted by what_the_heck 

Congratulations

You are the first person who started a new thread with a title of TWO (!!!!) existing threads.

http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...-electric-car/
http://forums.macnn.com/89/macnn-lou...-electric-car/

Good job

-t

And from one of those threads here is a post which seems suspiciously similar to a paean to Steve Gutenberg, maybe???

Originally Posted by ©öñFü$íóÑ 

"...who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Newtonburg a star? We do... WE DOoooo!"

And we know how much besson3c admires Steverino Gutmanberger.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yes, we will need to generate more electricity, but this will have less environmental impact and be cheaper overall, no matter which of the half dozen possible methods we use to generate it.

Even Coal? There are good ways to generate electricity in California, unfortunately any and all plans would be blocked by NIMBY types, EPA, Sierra Club, and visiting protestors. Nuclear? No way.. Hydroelectric? Salmon need to get their freak on in small streams up river from proposed dam sites... Wind Power? the birds!!! although I believe that argument was thrown out of court, and maybe there are enough areas to expand on (North of Altamon, South of Pacheco pass, around hwy 505) etc etc...

There is talk of a Bio Diesel plant to be built in Monterey County, but it WILL face opposition by anti-land developement folks who apparantly do not like progress and then there is that pesky Monterey Bay Protected areas crap... soon enough you will need a permit to take a piss in your own home.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by subego 

I didn't see the movie, to they mention safety issues?

I started a thread about oil a few months ago, and a big barrier to any fuel efficient car (regardless of what fuel it uses) seemed to be wacky US safety standards.

We talked about the Smart Car. The US Smart Car is about a ton heavier than the Euro model, and loses about 20mpg in the process.

As I said in that other thread, we can ride something inherently unstable with only two wheels, no problem. Add an extra wheel or two or a shell around it, no ****in' way. The government screams "this is unsafe!"

I don't recall safety being a big topic in this documentary, but like I said, I wasn't giving it my undivided attention. I"ll probably watch it again this weekend.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The problem isn't efficiency here, it's that California has a problem with generating enough electricity. Especially in the summer, there just isn't enough power and in a lot of places there will be rolling blackouts to deal with this. If all of a sudden millions of people were plugging in their cars all night there would be a massive increase in power being drawn from the grid. In California, at least, there probably just wouldn't ben enough power and things would start failing.

So in that a zillion tiny IC engines actually do trump a big turbine because they don't add load to the power grid.

[Edit: So, yes, efficiency actually is the issue. But not in that way.]

I thought that was only an issue in the Enron days? However, I guess some of the changes Enron helped introduce are still around, such as energy trading and such.

[The Godfather]

A gallon of gas makes more useful energy in the power plant than in any combustion engine car, and pollutes less!

[subego]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The problem isn't efficiency here, it's that California has a problem with generating enough electricity.

Is the problem generating enough electricity, or not having enough power plants as theWOAT implied?

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is the problem generating enough electricity, or not having enough power plants as the WOAT implied?

Well, California could use more power generation to avoid the 2 months of rolling black out season. I think for right now, California has enough electricity/plants, but if this electric car thing ever caught on, we would probably be in trouble. Combine that with our normal outta control population growth, we are screwed.

edit: to clarify, I think we only had a week or so of rolling blackouts this year (power cut off to certain areas for a couple hours at a time), but the potential exists during July to August (hot temps)

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Well, California could use more power generation to avoid the 2 months of rolling black out season. I think for right now, California has enough electricity/plants, but if this electric car thing ever caught on, we would probably be in trouble. Combine that with our normal outta control population growth, we are screwed.

edit: to clarify, I think we only had a week or so of rolling blackouts this year (power cut off to certain areas for a couple hours at a time), but the potential exists during July to August (hot temps)

Except, like any other technology introduction, its roll-out would be very gradual, giving California time to adjust. With lower demand of gas, you'd also have less gas transport, less refining, etc.

[subego]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Well, California could use more power generation to avoid the 2 months of rolling black out season. I think for right now, California has enough electricity/plants, but if this electric car thing ever caught on, we would probably be in trouble. Combine that with our normal outta control population growth, we are screwed.

edit: to clarify, I think we only had a week or so of rolling blackouts this year (power cut off to certain areas for a couple hours at a time), but the potential exists during July to August (hot temps)

Is the problem generating enough electricity, or people in California pretending they don't live in the desert as the WOAT implied?

Sorry. I'm just ****in' with you. I get what your saying, that it's more of a peak issue. That's more of a toughie.

Though I think besson3c has a point.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is the problem generating enough electricity, or people in California pretending they don't live in the desert as the WOAT implied?

Sorry. I'm just ****in' with you. I get what your saying, that it's more of a peak issue. That's more of a toughie.

Though I think besson3c has a point.

Yup, a gradual roll out should give us time (in a normal world, but California is far from it)... and I look forward to seeing some electric cars on the market soon.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TheWOAT 

Yup, a gradual roll out should give us time (in a normal world, but California is far from it)... and I look forward to seeing some electric cars on the market soon.

Unfortunately, I don't think we will until we can get the government to stop being obstructionist, and until people stop paying attention to big oil and selling patents and products to them (and possibly the large car makers).

[olePigeon]

Seeing as how it's sunny 300 days of the year, you'd think more people would have solar in California. Too bad is it's so damn expensive.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

Seeing as how it's sunny 300 days of the year, you'd think more people would have solar in California. Too bad is it's so damn expensive.

It is gaining momentum... Ive heard of systems to "completely remove a home off the grid" , but thats like 25k , it would take around 20+ years to get back that money from not paying PGnE. But it would definately add to the value of a home...

SunTechnics Energy Systems - Incentives - Solar Rebates

Residential Example (3 kWp System)
as of 7/1/06
Here is an example of potential savings based on incentives and other factors*

Solar Electric System Cost:
Market Average System Price,
installed (before incentives) $ 25,500

One-Time 2006 CEC Rebate
(@ $2,600/kWp) -$ 7,800

Subtotal $ 17,700

One-Time Federal Tax Credit
(30%, Residential Cap at $2,000)
- $ 2,000

Net Price $ 15,700

Estimated Increase in
Home Value
(exempt from property taxes)
$ 20,000

[marden]

About ten years ago, some big car companies started producing electric cars, quite a lot of them. They worked, owners loved them, they looked sharp and kicked butt coming out of a stop light. So where are they now?

Dead, by and large. Killed by their own creators in a stunning display of power politics and spin...that's the view of a provocative new documentary. Chris Paine's film is called "Who Killed the Electric Car."

BRANCACCIO: Chris, good to meet you.

PAINE: You too.

BRANCACCIO: I guess you're presenting us here with a whodunit?

PAINE: Yes, a bit of mystery. It's a -- "Who Killed The Electric Car?" is about why the only kind of cars that we can drive run on oil. And for a while, there was a terrific alternative, a pure electric car mostly in California. And then they all disappeared.

[...]

PAINE: I think they really are. I mean, car companies have all of these big cars sitting in their lots right now. And even last week, Rick Wagoner at GM said that axing the EV1 was probably the worst decision he made on his watch.

It's too bad. I feel like the electric car story was an example of us losing two years, maybe five years at a time when we don't really have a lot of time to play with.

NOW . Transcript . June 9, 2006 | PBS

But when reading Rick Wagoner's (appx. June 2006) comment in context it takes on a slightly different connotation. But raises another question.

His worst decision?

"Axing the EV1 electric-car program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn't affect profitability, but it did affect image."

http://www.motortrend.com/features/c...obs_sales.html

[Dr Reducto]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Inefficient how? Everything carries some footprint on the environment, but I don't believe that recycling a batter is worse than all of the exhaust produced during the life of the vehicle. This just doesn't make sense to me

They are inefficient from a power storage and conversion standpoint. The good alternative to batteries is supercapacitors, and while gains have been made, there are some gotchas to supercapacitors (to recharge it completely in 10 minutes, you need something on the order of megawatts). And as for bad for the environment, I was basing that on the assumption of Lead acid batteries.

They have enough range for a wide range of people, that is my point. They have been perfect for commuting for years. Different tools for different jobs.

They are perfect for a lot of people, but they also fall spectacularly short for other people. You can't really do road trips in them, and i know they wouldn't be good for the average Maryland commute (which can be upwards of 200 miles daily)

Don't think this argument is terribly strong. For one, this is a small minority. Secondly, you can go well above the speed limit in an electric car.

I think you are vastly underestimating the cultural bias against electric cars. For one they are small. People aren't going to give up comfortable larger vehicles for small, expensive electric cars. Secondly, for the most part, they aren't great speedsters (and the one that is quite fast has severe range limitations when used for fast speeds, and is quite small to boot). People aren't going to give up the advantages of what they have until there are serious disadvantages.

This is a reasonable argument. I wonder how long it takes to charge an electric car?

Batteries take a long time to charge, but supercapacitors are promising. Smaller, lighter, better for the envirnment, and can charge up in 10-15 minutes and hold a charge with near perfect efficiency. However, the problems come in with "fueling"......to put all that power into the car that quick, you basically need to run megawatts into wherever you are powering it from. Also, in an accident, all that stored power will arc all over the place, most likely killing anyone nearby.


Honestly, electric cars are nice, but there are practical reasons why they haven't been adopted. Nutty environmentalists don't understand that not everyone values saving the environment enough to buy expensive small cars with limited range, and just assume that the evil oil companies are engaged in some war with electric cars

[glyph]

Maybe the auto unions don't like the idea of electric cars - or the steel industry - or the parts suppliers - or the automotive repair industry - gas stations, oil change shops, muffler shops, tool makers, ect.. The electric car is a good idea for the consumer, but not for the established industries who depend on the existing fossil fuel industry.

I'd like to see a nice electric motorcycle - kinda like this except street-legal:

http://www.electricross.com/

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto 

They are inefficient from a power storage and conversion standpoint. The good alternative to batteries is supercapacitors, and while gains have been made, there are some gotchas to supercapacitors (to recharge it completely in 10 minutes, you need something on the order of megawatts). And as for bad for the environment, I was basing that on the assumption of Lead acid batteries.

Would the modern electric car be based on lead acid batteries?

They are perfect for a lot of people, but they also fall spectacularly short for other people. You can't really do road trips in them, and i know they wouldn't be good for the average Maryland commute (which can be upwards of 200 miles daily)

Combustible engine vehicles fall spectacularly short for some too, all I'm saying is having options are good, particularly so that we can continue to make improvements to battery technology so that it does not stagnate.

I think you are vastly underestimating the cultural bias against electric cars. For one they are small. People aren't going to give up comfortable larger vehicles for small, expensive electric cars. Secondly, for the most part, they aren't great speedsters (and the one that is quite fast has severe range limitations when used for fast speeds, and is quite small to boot). People aren't going to give up the advantages of what they have until there are serious disadvantages.

Agreed... People have strange ideas in their head as to what they actually need in a car. However, when the EVs were being made, they couldn't make them fast enough. Just like the Prius know, there was a big waiting list and pent-up demand. Do you agree that the market forces alone should determine the success or failure of these vehicles, and that they should be available as options without obstruction?

Honestly, electric cars are nice, but there are practical reasons why they haven't been adopted. Nutty environmentalists don't understand that not everyone values saving the environment enough to buy expensive small cars with limited range, and just assume that the evil oil companies are engaged in some war with electric cars

Like I said, the facts are that these cars were selling like crazy, and were intentionally destroyed by parties who simply saw the EVs as a threat.

You should watch the documentary and let me know what you think...

[Macrobat]

The problem with a hydrogen powered car is that platinum is needed as a catalyst. Mass producing hydrogen powered cars would require more platinum than is known to exist in the world. Until another catalyst is found, a hydrogen powered fleet of vehicles is a pipe dream.

Batteries are also inefficient as a power source because of the weight. With battery technology where it is today, you would have to carry something on the order of 5 times your body weight in batteriy cells just to make that "100 mile range." This is why hybrids are on the rise, as they make their own electrical power while running in IC mode.

This is the way "diesel" locomotives work. The diesel generators make the electrical power to drive the locomotive, sort of negates anything about the environmental aspects of electric cars, but electric vehicles tend to generate more torque than IC vehicles.

What killed the electric car was the extreme LACK of demand for them. General Motors practically GAVE away the EV1 after all the incentives, yet couldn't get rid of all their inventory.

[Mark Larr]

Lithium-Polymer batteries are down right explosive if even slightly damaged or charged wrong.

I've seen them burn a car to the ground from merely charging a battery pack for a toy airplane.


Imagine what would happen to a 400 volt, 3000 amp/hour cell pack in an impact as compared to an 11 volt 2000milliamp toy battery if the toy battery succeded in destroying a car.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The problem with a hydrogen powered car is that platinum is needed as a catalyst. Mass producing hydrogen powered cars would require more platinum than is known to exist in the world. Until another catalyst is found, a hydrogen powered fleet of vehicles is a pipe dream.

Where are you getting your information from, the Oil Companies' Daily? This is such a dumb statement. Platinum was used as the catalyst (unlike lead electrodes in lead-acid batteries) in the original hydrogen cells, developed by Sir William Grove in the 1830s, and up until relatively recent times. Now, however, there are multiple types of hydrogen fuel cells that use much cheaper materials. FUD, FUD, FUD.

The problem with hydrogen is that it simply is more dangerous, far more expensive, and more harmful re: CO2 emissions than using gas! Current fuel cells actually convert natural gas/petrol to hydrogen, with the requisite decrease in efficiency rate of 35-40% (yeah around the same as internal combustion). The "gas-hydrogen reformer" can be done away with if you have hydrogen pumps at fuel stations, but the energy required to do this doesn't seem to make sense.

Transport is a nightmare as well. Liquefication occurs at -253 C, so it would take an enormous amount of energy just to have containers this cold. Even if pressurized, it's far less dense than petrol and would take in the order of 10+ the number of tankers to deliver a similar amount of fuel (I think at room temp, hydrogen takes almost 3000x the space as petrol). Then, you get into issues of evaporation or boil-off: apparently NASA has to deliver an extra 45,000 litres whenever they fuel the 100,000 litre tank just to account for the evaporation rate (I believe it's estimated at 4%/day for the cars even with the best fuel tanks. Finally, transport via pipeline would mean the entire pipeline system would need to be refitted (it makes steel brittle, and leaks easily). As a last point, hydrogen is simply too unstable - a lightning storm or even a cell phone call all generate enough electricity to ignite hydrogen! The dangers are simply too many.

What killed the electric car was the extreme LACK of demand for them. General Motors practically GAVE away the EV1 after all the incentives, yet couldn't get rid of all their inventory.

I haven't watched the movie yet, although I have it on my desk. Did the car have an extreme lack of demand? I don't know. Please show me some data for this statement.

greg

[turtle777]

Back from the grave:

Wired News: Road Testing BMW's Hydrogen 7

Not as dead as many want to believe...

-t

[olePigeon]

[quote=TheWOAT;3201294]It is gaining momentum... Ive heard of systems to "completely remove a home off the grid" , but thats like 25k , it would take around 20+ years to get back that money from not paying PGnE. But it would definately add to the value of a home...

SunTechnics Energy Systems - Incentives - Solar Rebates[/quote]


Yeah, those are pretty cool. I've seen systems similar to it. Some of the more inconspicuous systems have photovalic roof "shingles" and use an underground fuel-cell for backup.

I'll probably do something similar when I get a place.

[typoon]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

The problem isn't efficiency here, it's that California has a problem with generating enough electricity. Especially in the summer, there just isn't enough power and in a lot of places there will be rolling blackouts to deal with this. If all of a sudden millions of people were plugging in their cars all night there would be a massive increase in power being drawn from the grid. In California, at least, there probably just wouldn't ben enough power and things would start failing.

So in that a zillion tiny IC engines actually do trump a big turbine because they don't add load to the power grid.

[Edit: So, yes, efficiency actually is the issue. But not in that way.]

Actually the Problem isn't that California or any state has a problem generating Energy in the Summer it's that Mainly "Environmentalists" Don't want us to build any new power plants and many people have the "not in my backyard" Mentality about it. So until we build new power plants which is something we haven't done in over 30 years the electrical demands of our country will never be met.

[Macrobat]

Greg, I get my hydrogen power information from several sources, including automotive enthusiast magazines, such as R&T, CD, and MT. I read the newest information at BMW's website, for instance, and have been to a few websites on the subject.

Here's a primer on fuel cells:

Howstuffworks "How Fuel Cells Work"

Funny how Ole Greg seems to be the world's leading expert on several subjects who hasn't got a job in any of them, huh? Please, oh poobah, do enlighten me.

Yes, there are other catalysts under investigation, and some look promising, but none have made the grade as yet.

The info on the lack of demand for the EV1 came from Road and Track magazine. The General wound up having to basically eat more than half the assembled nventory of EV1's because they managed to move so few of them.

Just look around, how many EV1's or Honda Insights do you see tooling around?

General Motors EV1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Basically, the only way the General could even move the 800 cars they did was to agree to take them back at the end of the lease period. Keeping in mind that these (and the InSight) are purely electric vehicles and not hybrids, so they are true "zero emissions vehicles."

The demand was somewhat smaller that the one for leopard-fur toilets, so both companies ceased production.

Use your noodle, Honda quit making the InSight for the same reason.

[marden]

We have developed a technology that produces free, clean and constant energy.

This means never having to recharge your phone, never having to refuel your car. A world with an infinite supply of clean energy for all.

Our technology has been independently validated by engineers and scientists - always off the record, always proven to work.

We are currently preparing for Phase 1. We will soon finalise arrangements with the registered scientists and engineers and announce our timeline for implementation of Phase 1. 492 qualified scientists/engineers have applied to test our technology.

http://www.steorn.net/frontpage/default.aspx?p=1

[Mark Larr]

They are using Hydrogen in Iceland big time.

They use geothermal energy to power the generators that electrolysis seperates the water for the hydrogen directly at the filling stations!

Why can't we tap the fringes of Yellostone and other geotherm areas to power generation plants?