The Chevy Dolt - We Built Them - But They Did The Eleanor Rigby - Nobody Came - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 06:49:25 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--This is a post with two purposes; 1) To beg to be allowed to respectfully debate Government Electronics Policy, and 2) To actually engage in said debate. See the below link about the accumulation of unsaleable Volts. This is why, in my opinion, governments should confine themselves to funding research rather than production. While Tesla has freed itself from the public teat, and Toyota continues without public loans, Government Motors is continuing to build cars that will have to be given away. Government is just not smart enough, generally, to do this sort of thing. While, as a general matter, I do not think, EV subsidies by Nation or Local governments are a good idea, any more that Feed In Tariffs for Wind and Solar, I completely agree that individuals and companies should avail themselves of every dollar they can get. So, keep your eyes open, a very, very low cost EV my be in the offing for you very soon.--My respectful recommendation to the Moderators is, that you do not just suppress all Electronics Policy related posts in order to save time, trouble and moderation, but that you really crack down hard on, profanity, personal insults, and trouble making in general. Who is more qualified to discuss Electronic Policy Matters, than the people on this respected forum. And if not us, Who? As a general matter, it might be better, generally, to say for instance "I do not agree", rather than, "If you do not agree, you are stupid" Why not have a vote? Is it really necessary to censor all Electronics Related controversy, to save the moderators from putting on their thinking caps. I can see why, debate about "Gun Control" or "Abortion" would be deemed "Off Topic" but surely not "Energy Policy", EVs, Wind and Solar. My final, humble respectful advice to Administration and Moderation is to speak softly and carry a really really big effing stick.http://nlpc.org/stories/2013/05/22/chevy-volt-inventory-build-%E2%80%93-time-another-production-halt"He didn't know where he was going. But he knew where he was wasn't it."Lord Buckley 1906 - 1960Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 06:55:36 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on May 22, 2013, 06:49:25 pmLots of problems with this post....1) You start off saying you want to 'respectfully debate' the topic, then call the car the Chevy 'Dolt' - Dolt being a euphimism for an idiot.2) You call GM "Government Motors", when such a claim is ridiculous and not worthy of much reasoned response.2) You put forth some erroneous "right wing talking points" about the car, such as that the government is "funding production"And worst of all, you use Modica as a source. That's like using Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a source for the foundation of a "respectful" debate on Republican policy. Modica is an idiot and his credibility is precisely zero.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 07:01:17 pm
content: The same happened with the Hummers, there are giant lots full of them, unsold and unsellable, but they were being built as the unions demanded they had to be kept fully employed.The sad thing is the Volt could be a seller, but not at the luxury end of the market. Rather they could be used as lower priced vehicles sold to people, less spec and fewer frills but a good vehicle for short trips would be a winner in many places. Drop price by half and excessive interior spec to minimal and they would move like nothing else on the market. No AC, no heat and only a fan and demister, LED lighting all round and lower spec interior ( should be able to find something in the GM range to put there, Jaguar used Ford parts for decades) and a basic spartan but utility spec will make it a winner. Lose a little on the load capacity as well and you can extend range.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 07:20:53 pm
content: here are the problems with all ( except 1 ) electric cars.They are either butt-ugly or look like a fisher-price or barbie mobile.They have a VERY small rangeThey accelerate like a turtle on valium ...They have been stripped of all things we take for granted. Ac is gone , dinky stereo , no nav system .People simply don't want cars like that.Take a look at the honda insight. If it were a dog , you'd teach it to walk backwards ... 'Take a look at the prius . ugly !The nissan leaf is a barbie-mobile that takes half an hour to reach 55Mp/Hthe chevy volt is a step up but it's still not a family car or even a midsize.There is one exception to the rule. And that's the Tesla. It has a comfortable range, can be blasted full of power in half an hour using the supercharger, is a large size sedan. has plenty of room , out accelerates a porche 911 or even a BMW M5 , has all the modern gizmos and it's a damn good looker on par with an aston martin , hot a drag coefficient that beats a ferrari, and a centre of gravity so low that you can send it around a corner at full throttle and it won't even wobble.Sure there is the price tag. but the key is that these guys started with nothing and pulled off a car that proves all the 'classic' (read dinosaur-juice powered) car makers wrong.It looks like the 'classic carmakers' are so stuck in their concept of how to design a car they can't pull it off. They are simply an existing car concept where they converted the motor compartment to hold a battery pack . It just doesnt work.When they are tasked to come up with something radically new it ends up being a playmobil car...I have driven a Tesla a few months ago. It's bloody amazing. My current car is 8 years old. End of next year will be time to look for a new one .. i'll be taking a hard look at buying me a tesla (i want the model X, the crossover)

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 07:32:17 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 22, 2013, 06:55:36 pmDon't bother engaging him. He is a notorious and ignorant troll who is afraid of anyone who even tries to be innovative or constructive, and has no grasp on reality at all.

author: ddavidebor
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 08:19:11 pm
content: After keef, is time for another ban today?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 08:24:05 pm
content: Dear Corporate666:--I thank you for your respectful response. I am not particularly familiar with the source I cited. Is it your contention that unsold Volts are not accumulating on dealer lots? If so, you would be welcome to provide, a source, of which you approve, for information to the contrary. By respectful debate, I meant the kind of response that you gave me. I did not pledge eternal loyalty to GM or the US Government Bureaucrats, or to never gently poke fun them, or chide them. Please tell me that you do not want all editorial speech to conform to PC Diktat. I meant to be provocative, but not profane or insulting to individuals. My point was to encourage, that, debate, if not cordial, at least be lacking in outright personal hostility. Your post has met this minimal standard, and again I thank you. The US has loaned GM a large amount of money and has encouraged it to proceed with the Volt, has bought Volts and has encouraged like minded Democrat contributors like General Electric to buy Volts, that is all I meant, by my offhand statement that the US was funding production. All of that being said, is there anything you would care to say that engages in this debate with respect to policy?"In the heat of battle, my father wove a tapestry of obscenity that as far as we know, is still hanging in space over Lake Michigan."Ralphie ParkerBest RegardsClear Ether

author: PaulAm
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 08:55:53 pm
content: http://insideevs.com/strong-inventory-levels-help-chevrolet-volt-sales-rebound-in-february/Have you driven one? They're fantastic. My only gripe is the dash looks like a Windows desktop when it boots up.Even my buddies at Ford say GM got the technology right. If you're a car or tech geek, you'll love this car.No, I don't own one (yet). It's on my wish list though.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 09:24:17 pm
content: Dear PaulAm:--I would love get a ride in one. My objections are only with regard to Government Expenditures. I would love for someone who has one to comment on this blog. I am well aware that a lot of honest engineers have worked their hearts out to design this vehicle, and I encourage anyone with extra funds and a low daily local mileage habit to experiment. But as a financial matter, I do not think I would recommend this as a strictly conservative investment for Widows and Orphans,“The main difference for the history of the world if I had been shot rather than Kennedy, is that Onassis probably wouldn't have married Mrs Khrushchev.”Nikita Sergeyevich Krushchev 1894 - 1971Best RegardsClear Ether

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 22, 2013, 09:45:57 pm
content: I don't think the author of the link makes a compelling case to justify the whole article by a cursory Cars.com inventory check that ~ 10,000 Volts are still unsold in 2013. There are less than 424 new 2012 models left or about 4% last year models still unsold. I confirmed those numbers by using the cars.com site myself.By comparison, a well known popular car, the Toyota Corolla sedan, has 25,000 still unsold, over 700 unsold new Corollas stretching to 2010, or about 3% still unsold.There maybe other reasons for Modica to argue, but it can't be the one he opened the article with.We also cannot assume Cars.com has a full inventory of all available vehicles either, or that its listing for old vehicles is complete; so its not even a proper site for data used to critique government policy.Truecar.com has a different model, and that's based on price. If you enter the vehicle of your choosing and your ZIP code, it provides a likely price you'll pay for that ZIP code. The price roughly parallels demand, the higher the demand, the less room to deal. The Volt and the Corolla, regardless of trim level, are about the same location, in the middle.In comparison, a model with low demand, the Mazda MX-5 Miata, has a sell price near the bottom of the scale, and per Mazda's site they only sell 200-300 a month, cars.com lists there are only 2033 cars in the US inventory for 2013 of which 158 are unsold from prior years, or 8%. Now, those two separate rubrics for sales and popularity converge to suggest the MX5 is not as popular as the Volt or the Corolla, but Mazda doesn't import enough to worry, as if it sells 200+ a month, by years end, it should have sold most all, so it imports just enough to sell off the inventory.Per Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Production_and_sales

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 04:05:22 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on May 22, 2013, 08:24:05 pmWell, this post isn't polite or respectful - I'm sorry for that, I just have a hard time giving polite and respectful answers to people who are intellectually dishonest and think nobody notices. You are, in effect wasting my time and that of other intelligent folks here, and I don't have a lot of time to waste.Some points...-The problem with Modica is that he is an idiot. He writes articles for consumption by other idiots. By "idiots" I include people who have an agenda and ignore facts, or people who are not intelligent enough to understand facts. Case in point - Cars.com includes all cars currently in transit to dealers, some/many of which are sold. Modica knows this yet he frequently represents the cars.com number as "number of Volts sitting on lots". GM has never hidden their inventory levels, so the fact that Modica comes up with alternative methods of counting means he is simply trying to fool idiots who aren't smart enough to do even cursory research.-You say you were trying to be provocative. I'm sorry, but repeating derisive names you didn't even think of yourself is not "provocative". It's the equivalent of calling GW Bush "Dopeya" instead of "Dubya", as if it was a cutting and sly double entendre. I think name calling stopped being a cutting insult when I was about 8 years old.-You are not trying to engage in a rational debate - you are trolling. I did a brief search on your posts, and you have started numerous threads about the Volt. You have been educated previously, yet you come back with the same erroneous statements again weeks or months later. I do not believe you are incapable of understanding the subject matter, therefore my conclusion is you must be a troll pushing an agenda.So I am afraid I cannot engage in a respectful debate with someone such as yourself, because I am interested in truth, data, facts and knowledge. You are interested in pursuing an agenda. I am a scientist, you are a creationist. I am a doctor, you are a homeopathic healer. I am a surgeon, you are a chiropractor. I am an investor, you are a gambler. We have no common ground and no basis for a debate. I also believe you may have a personality disorder.Sorry to be a jerk, just saying what I think. You are probably a nice guy in person, but your Internet persona is as interesting for debate as Keith Olbermann would be. I notice others have said the same to you - and I think it's something you ought to take to heart. Have a good day.

author: johnboxall
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 04:58:03 am
content: Technically I think it's an interesting car, and would like to take one for a drive. GM-Holden (Australia) has started promoting it as wellhttp://www.holden.com.au/vehicles/volt#/overviewhttp://www.themotorreport.com.au/54934/2013-holden-volt-first-drive-reviewHowever the sticker price is $60k, and with unknown depreciation levels the price is just nuts.

author: tesla500
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 05:06:18 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on May 22, 2013, 07:20:53 pmI own a Nissan LEAF, and keeping with the original premise, I will respectfully disagree on most of the above points.>They are either butt-ugly or look like a fisher-price or barbie mobile.Personal preference, some people like the styling, some people hate it.>They have a VERY small rangeI wouldn't call 140km "really small". You won't be going on a road trip in this car, but it serves 99% of my trips. I have access to a gas car for that 1%.>They accelerate like a turtle on valium ...0-100km/h in 10s. Hardly as stated, but clearly not supercar performance either. Beats the typical car, especially off the line.>They have been stripped of all things we take for granted. Ac is gone , dinky stereo , no nav system .AC is gone? Blatantly false. The LEAF, iMiev, Volt, and Tesla all have AC standard.Dinky sterio? Not the best in the LEAF, I'll admit, but usable. A speaker upgrade fixes that.No nav system? Standard in the LEAF and Tesla, available in the Volt and iMiev. I find in car nav systems to be so crappy compared to Google Maps that I use my phone instead, even if the car does have nav.David

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 06:13:57 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Everything I can find, seems to indicate that GM has repeatedly been wildly optimistic in its sales projections for the Volt. And now may be headed for another production hiatus, due to accumulating inventories.http://insideevs.com/chevrolet-volt-sales-continue-to-grow-in-march-as-cadillac-elr-re-tooling-is-underway/"With local Volt inventory now touching 7,000 units, an all-time high, and sales seemingly slumping, one has to wonder if another extended shutdown of the line, either for inventory control or more work in preparation of the ELR, is in the cards for the near future"--The Bloomberg article below would seem to confirm sales are under performing GM's projections by a significant margin. And, apparently they are loosing up to $10,000 per vehicle sold.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-30/gm-targets-up-to-10-000-in-chevy-volt-cost-savings.html\"Volt sales in the U.S. rose 8.4 percent to 4,244 through March after more than tripling for all of last year to 23,461, about half of Akerson’s original target of 45,000."--I really enjoyed the review of the OZ Volt. $60,000, Wow, is GM trying to make up all the losses with sales down under?--Now just in case I am having the wool pulled over my eyes by bogus websites, and Volt sales are really outperforming GM's projections, selling like hot cakes, and making beau coup profits, please someone direct me to this information. It is a beautiful car. I would love to have a free one. But as a financial matter, the pie in the sky is rapidly turning into a thud in the mud. And, I sincerely hope that GM's next bankruptcy will be allowed to proceed without government "help".P.S. See the below link for an interesting article about a longtime Volt lover moving over to a Ford EV.http://insideevs.com/why-im-trading-in-my-chevy-volt-for-a-ford-c-max-energi/"Before I came here I was confused about this subject. Having listened to your lecture I am still confused. But on a higher level."Enrico Fermi 1901 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: _Sin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 02:19:26 pm
content: As a somewhat related bit of news, Tesla Motors have just paid off their government load/subsidy, 9 years ahead of schedule:http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-repays-department-energy-loan-nine-years-early

author: mikes
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 02:31:01 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 22, 2013, 06:55:36 pmYep, and you covered them well. The OP isn't interested in debate, he's just trying to troll. And he's definitely not being "respectful."

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 04:42:23 pm
content: Quote from: tesla500 on May 23, 2013, 05:06:18 amwhile i agree that taste and colors are not debatable , what i mean with my statement is that almost all of the electric or hybrid cars fall in the small category. Where are the big sedans (like the tesla). I want to see Toyota camry's , BMW 5 series size cars electrified !QuoteAnd there is your other problem. no road trips, and if you live 100km from your job you are shit out of luck with this thing. i commuted 100km one way every day for 10 years. and there are many people that do that every day. it doesn't do any good swapping a few cars for clean energy cars if they only travel 5 miles. you need to tackle the population that drives lots of miles a year , and those are the commuters that spend 2 hours on the road every day.>They accelerate like a turtle on valium ...0-100km/h in 10s. Hardly as stated, but clearly not supercar performance either. Beats the typical car, especially off the line.The tesla is double the size of the leaf and rockets to 100km in about 4 seconds... you can put this next to lots of other full size cars and they will eat it's stray electrons... i want a car i can trust to be able to pull away when the need arises.QuoteCompare the kitting out of the electric vehicles to a standard family car like a toyota camry or a BMW5 and you will see what i mean. they are under-par. The tesla fixes that brilliantly. it gives even ultra luxury cars the finger.My criteria may be different than yours. i want a car that is the size of a Toyota Camry or BMW 5, kitted out with all the niceties i am used to and the performance of a decent car. Or a crossover style car like a BMW X5 or a Honda MDX or a Mazda CX-9. If i look at the cars in my street they all fall in the categories i described above. families with 2 or 3 children, business people. The Leaf and the prius and the volt just don't cut it...The problem with getting people to accept and use electric is that people will NOT change the kind of car they want. Most cars are bought for looks and status. not for the fact that they are electric or low consumption.So far , all the car manufacturers have delivered in the 'electric future' are cars are simply not appealing to the general masses. As long as they can't do that it will simply not take off.Now, the Tesla isn't exactly appealing either because its simply too pricey. The next version may change that.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 05:59:55 pm
content: The Hybrid Lexus is a pretty good vehicle. Looks just like the regular one, but has a lot more grunt from standstill, plus it is totally quiet parking or driving on a Sunday.

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 07:28:28 pm
content: hybrids are wanna-be's. full electric is the future.Combine that with off-grid charging (solar or a bloombox) ... it will piss a lot of people off. goodbye big oil ... goodbye big car makers. goodbye price gauging car dealers ...

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 08:20:11 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on May 23, 2013, 04:42:23 pmThe average US car drives10k milesper years, or on average 30 miles per day. The majority of the people don't have a daily 100 km commute. Sure, there will be a small fraction of people driving much longer, but if you get the 80% (made up number) that drives less that 100 miles per day off fossil fuels, than you'll make a huge dent in CO2 emission, fuel consumption and all the mess that comes along with needing huge amounts of fossil fuels. Of course the counter argument is that the resources used during production play a larger role for the low mileage cars, but a commute less than 50 mi is by no means a small market.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 23, 2013, 10:19:58 pm
content: Production models are a waste of time and money. Use the money for basic research.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 12:57:55 am
content: I am bullish BIG time on EV's... I think it's really a shame that the whole topic has become so politicized. It's like global warming or medical research - things that should never become politicized but they end up that way. Such a shame. Just for full disclosure, I am the furthest thing from a 'bleeding heart liberal'. I am the corporate evil said bleeding hearts hate so muchThe positive sides of EV's are numerous. They are so much less complex, mechanically, so they should be orders of magnitude more reliable than combustion cars. They also require much less maintenance and should last a lot longer. And they are nice and quiet - perfect for a relaxing drive home. But since electric motors make all their torque at 0 RPM, they have fantastic "get up and go" acceleration characteristics. They also lend themselves perfectly to city driving, and to things like delivery vehicles and trucks.The downsides as mentioned are cost and battery performance. But there are tons of technological advances being demonstrated in labs that are literally orders of magnitude beyond what we have today. Some of those advances will give 10x more energy density for 10x more range, and will be able to be charged 10x as fast. I think before this decade is out, we will have EV's that can go 300-400 miles per charge and can be recharged in 30 minutes.One thing I can never understand about some EV haters is they tend to be American Republicans... they should LOVE EV's. Because the USA has huge natural gas production and reserves. If we got off the teat of foreign oil, it would be a massive boon to the USA. Not to mention I think EV's will usher in a new golden age of the automobile with cars that far exceed the performance of what we have today.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 01:33:58 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 24, 2013, 12:57:55 amBecause 1) Hippie liberals like them and 2) The oil companies importing the gas are good American businesses and free market blah blah.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 01:40:04 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on May 22, 2013, 07:20:53 pmOn pure electric, yes, but remember the Volt has the best of both worlds. As far as a practical car goes, it is no different to a regular petrol car.If it was available here at a reasonable, I'd buy one.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 01:44:56 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 24, 2013, 12:57:55 amMe too. And I think that anyone betting against EV's in the long term is a short sighted fool.The problem is that they have a bad rep.The Prius for example should never have put into production. The idea of a non-plugin hybrid is just plain stupid.The Volt is the perfect example of a fully practical "hybrid" EV. i.e. you can run fully electric for 90% of your needs (if you fit the criteria), and it covers the long range requirement with the petrol backup.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 01:45:29 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on May 24, 2013, 01:33:58 amRemember, I am corporate evilI don't think the oil companies are good American businesses - I think they are GREAT American businesses. They make a tiny profit on the product they sell, and they invest billions into the economies they operate in. I don't understand the anti-oil company angst other than that they are rich and people love to hate the rich.I think the problem with the Volt is that it somehow became "the Obama car" and that opened the flood gates of misinformation. It goes both ways though - plenty of doe-eyed OWS types who hate "corporations" and "banksters" and operate on a similar level of non-understanding and misinformation as the Republican Volt haters.I think the Volt is a fantastic car. It's only problem is that it's overpriced. And GM can't just drop the price because they will piss off all the early adopters. So they end up being kind of stuck with something that is too expensive to catch on but they need it to catch on to make it cheaper.The Volt has the highest customer satisfaction ratings of any car, if I remember right. It's sort of like the old Coke/Pepsi taste test. If the average American drove one and saw how smooth and quiet the car is, and knew they could get one for $229/mo on a lease, they'd be buying them in droves.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 01:46:18 am
content: Quote from: lemmegraphdat on May 23, 2013, 10:19:58 pmSooner or later you have to go to market to test it, show it works, and get people used to it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 01:51:14 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 24, 2013, 01:45:29 amAnd that right there is why these types of cars will ultimately win.If the ONLY issue is price, well, we all know that will always sort itself out in time as technology (both materials and manufacturing) marches on.As always, the Volt is ONE model, and as such cannot be the perfect fit for everyone's needs. So any arguments based on size, capacity, seed etc and completely missing the point.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 01:53:19 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 24, 2013, 01:44:56 amI'd have to respectfully disagree about the Prius (assuming you are talking about the original one?). Toyota made a metric crapload of cash on that car - they successfully got people believing they were saving the planet by driving them. Wonderful marketing of an inferior product - sort of like the iPhone (now I just put a target on my back)As for the Volt, it amazes me how utterly ignorant of the obvious some can be. People latch on to the downsides of EV's and proclaim that those downsides are deal-breakers. But if we were all driving EV's now and someone came along with the combustion engine and said it was the future, people would think they are mad for wanting to use a very complex mechanical machine that required various kinds of lubricants and heating/cooling subsystems and precious metal catalyst reaction chambers to remove toxic chemicals from it's exhaust, etc. People would laugh at such a backwards contraption. It's so clear to me that EV's are the future yet some folks are so hung up on the political aspects they refuse to have any of it.It reminds me of the crazy kooks who refuse medical treatment for their children because they believe in faith based healing. I'm often baffled at how ignorant people can twist themselves into beingOne of the neatest things about EV's is that it will usher in a whole new era of performance modifications - guys like those of us on this forum will be the new hot rodders - swapping out our caps and tweaking voltagesDave, you have the Volt in Oz, don't you - as I recall under the Holden name? In the USA, you can get a $7,500 tax credit for buying a Volt, dropping the price to a more reasonable level. And GM also subsidizes the lease deals, meaning you can lease one for $200/mo - which IMO is an absolutely *fantastic* price. That's Nissan Sentra price for a substantially more luxurious and better contented car.I'm on the waiting list for the Cadillac XLR - the performance version of the Volt. I can't wait!

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 02:01:41 am
content: I don't think it's truly political. People don't like change. I'll admit to a bit of that - I've become quite accustomed to gasoline-powered cars. I do not like the feel of other types at all; they're weird to drive. I fully understand that it's all subjective, that "I don't like it" is akin to a little kid not wanting vegetables because they're green, but given the choice between the two, I do prefer the one I'm familiar with. It's a hard decision, too - I drive 100mi every day, so 1) I'm in my car a lot and want it to be comfortable, but 2) I burn a lot of fuel and want it to be efficient.If these people are anything like the ones in my family, the hippie/liberal/Obama crap is just something they latch onto because it sounds better than directly admitting you're a Luddite.The fact that these people are overwhelmingly Republican is most likely for two reasons. First, there is an age bias. There are alotof old Republicans. There are also a lot of old Luddites. Second, Luddism kind of falls in with the tenets of conservatism, does it not? Aren't both kind of an opposition to change?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 02:24:11 am
content: Quote from: c4757p on May 24, 2013, 02:01:41 amI've been following the Volt since before it came out (being a tech-geek type guy) and I definitely think a large portion (a vast majority) of the hatred of the Volt is political. It's a combination of it being "the Obama car" and GM getting a government bailout. But the same level of hatred has not been directed towards the Nissan Leaf, or the Mitubishi i-MiEV or the new BMW's or the Plug in Prius, or the other major American EV - the Ford Focus EV. It's focused like a laser beam on the Volt. The car has been singled out by Hannity, Rush, Beck and journalists like Modica for "special treatment". Modica even ran an article where he claimed GM loses $75k on each one sold - and he arrived at that number by taking the total estimated R&D cost and dividing it amongst the units sold to date. That number was repeated across the Internet by the usual suspects.I also believe there is a large amount of skepticism against EV's from folks like yourself who are just resistant to change. My parents both bought new cars this year and neither considered an EV - mostly because they just don't know anything about them, don't understand them, and just wouldn't take the initiative to check one out. That's where the high prices of current EV's are a mistake... they need a cheap EV that will sell people on the technology and benefits, and I think it will be very quick for the see-saw to tip in the other direction, and it will be a rarity not to buy an EV.And along those lines, I read an article this morning, I think it was on Engadget or Tech Crunch about how GM is bringing the Spark to the USA as an EV. It will have 85 mile range, cost is around $22k after tax rebates, and includes their new "fast charge" technology that lets you get 80% charge in 20 minutes. It was just 2 years who when Top Gear lamented a 13-hour charge time on the Nissan Leaf... 2 years later and you get 80% charge for about double the time it normally takes to stop and get gas. By 2020 it will be 5 minutes of charge to get your battery to a level sufficient to go 300 miles, and it will cost a fraction of the equivalent gas.Exciting times!

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 02:28:31 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 24, 2013, 02:24:11 amYeah, there's the difference between us - I know slightly less about EV development and marketing than I do about conventional car development and marketing: jack shit. So you most likely know what you're talking about much more than I do. The only things I'm familiar with that are slightly relevant to this are 1) conventional cars as machines (one more reason I don't want an EV at this time: I've put a lot of effort into learning how to fix and maintain my car and don't want to have to relearn a big chunk of that. I have better things to do...) and 2) old, crotchety conservatives.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 02:33:02 am
content: Quote from: alm on May 23, 2013, 08:20:11 pmThe USA generates around 70% of its electric power from fossil fuels. Apart from natural gas replacing some coal that has hardly changed in the last 5 years and isn't going to change much or soon.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 03:40:08 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 24, 2013, 01:53:19 amYes, I'm talking about the "inferior" product part, not the marketing. From a technical point of view it was a pointless car, it achieved no saving in anything.QuoteYes. But last I checked it was massively expensive, like $60K, and a huge waiting list to boot.That is about double the price of a good petrol car.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 04:11:48 am
content: My gut reaction is that we will have a wildly popular electric car. The problem is probably that people have to stumble over some government dolt with his stupid face stuck in every detail.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 05:17:58 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 24, 2013, 03:40:08 amWhat a bunch of idiots.New technologies require big investment - not only in R&D but in subsidies to get people to try them. I don't know how car prices in Oz compare to the USA, but I don't imagine many people see the Volt as a $60k car - just like most in the USA don't see it as a $40k car.I read an article some time ago from some GM execs who said they were making $1k per vehicle, but had managed to get the parts cost down and were now making about $10k per vehicle.Well, they need to take $10k off the cost of the damn car! In the USA, that would make the Volt about a $22k vehicle - and they would be selling like hotcakes. This lease jackassery doesn't really work because a lot of people don't really want to lease as opposed to buy.The only plus side to leasing is that EV tech is going to be changing so fast that by the time your lease runs out, the car will be the equivalent of a 3 year old iPhone.Gotta get some gratuitous shots of the upcoming Cadillac ELR (I mistakenly wrote XLR earlier). As you like to say Dave.... "it's sex on a stick!"

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 05:20:44 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 24, 2013, 05:17:58 amSex on a stick sounds positively horrifying, by the way.And that is a silly-looking car.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 07:49:23 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 24, 2013, 02:24:11 amI've said it before. I fully expect that when Sagan is old enough to buy his first car, the obvious choice will almost certainly be some form of electric. Either electric only or a petrol "backup" type like the Volt. So that's say 20 years from now. If I'm wrong, I'll eat my hat.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 07:50:53 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on May 24, 2013, 05:17:58 amWithout a doubt. They would not able to build them quick enough.

author: _Sin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 08:55:13 am
content: For me the problem is not so much the range, but the ease/speed of refueling. Perhaps the answer is switching away from the kind of battery currently being used, which would also alleviate my secondary concern, which is the maintenance cost associated with current vehicles should the battery need replacing (which it will at some point, even ignoring the occasional scare-story about cars becoming "bricked").When it's possible to rapidly refuel an electric vehicle, and in a good number of locations, I think they're going to get a lot more interesting. And increased interest should mean increased sales, and a hopefully reduction in price.Sticking a traditional fuel tank in there, with an associated engine (even if it's really just a generator) is a bodge.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 12:11:24 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Before EVs start selling like hotcakes, batteries are going to have to be priced like batter. That means, roughly, a 50% decline in battery prices, no? This leaves aside the question of what the government will eventually do to offset revenue loss from gasoline taxes. Of course this calculus could change if "energy prices will necessarily skyrocket" as a 2008 presidential candidate promised. Gasoline prices have increased somewhat, partially due to demand and regulation, and partially due to a dropping dollar, but not enough to really affect the salability of the current crop of EVs. Since there is no "Moore's Law" for batteries, when and if they will undergo steep price declines, remains to be seen. The Government has thrown some real money at this problem, but the result to date, for the most part, has been a string of bankruptcies. We shall see.--When the Government, from both sides of the aisle, barged into the middle of the GM bankruptcy, the Commission told the Bond Holders to accept 10 cents on the dollar in declining common stock. Not wanting to be "wished away into the corn field", they accepted, and the UAW got the Lion's Share. The Taxpayers then funded a 50 Billion dollar loan, half of which has been paid back and half is the 25 Billion in common stock the Government is now stuck with, prices being what they are. Otherwise, with low profits and the high costs of wages and pension liabilities, GMs balance sheet looks much like it did before. Likely they will soon be back again with their hand out. See the below link for a good wrap up of the history.http://www.stansberryresearch.com/dailywealth/2125/gm-americas-biggest-bankruptcy--A previous post said "I read an article some time ago from some GM execs who said they were making $1k per vehicle, but had managed to get the parts cost down and were now making about $10k per vehicle." If anyone can provide a link to this article, please post it, and send a copy to daniel.akerson@gm.com. Refering to the Volt as the Dolt has been called disrespectful and creationist. Indeed, perhaps it would have been more respectful and scientific to have merely said "What a bunch of idiots." The main reason GM is not selling the Volt for 22k, is perhaps, that they do not want to hit up Uncle Sugar for another 50 just yet.--My hope is for what Akerson calls "Purpose Built" EVs, rather that buzz boxes with heart transplants. And if you want to dream, make em Carbon Fiber Monocoque, Drive By Wire, and perhaps even with Wheel Motor/Alternator/Brakes."I wear suspenders and a belt. I am a security man all the way"Justin Wilson (The Cajun Cook) 1914 - 2001Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 06:52:20 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on May 24, 2013, 12:11:24 pmThe above is mostly lies as we both know and confirm you are trolling.1) You lie and claim saleability of EV's has not increased. The sales numbers for all the EV's are up year on year. You know this, but it contradicts your agenda so you claim the opposite is true.2) Battery capacity per dollar has been increasing at an increasing rate. It does not "remain to be seen" whether they will undergo price declines. It already is seen and has been for years. You claim that this information is not known because it contradicts your agenda.3) "for the most part, a string of bankruptcies". Another lie. A small number of investments did not pan out. You lie by misrepresenting that small minority as "for the most part" because the truth contradicts your agenda.QuoteThis has nothing to do with EV's and irrelevant to the topic.QuoteYou believed the line that GM was losing $75k per Volt. What basis do you have to call GM a "bunch of idiots" when you have failed to understand basic aspects of this car and indeed basic aspects of supply and demand and business?QuoteEvery single major automotive manufacturer is jumping on the EV bandwagon. You claim they are all idiots and they should instead pursue carbon fiber EV's with drive by wire and wheel motors and brakes instead. And you bash the Volt for being too expensive.Perhaps the fact that the CEO and R&D divisions of every single automotive company in the world are not doing what you think they should do speaks volumes about who knows more about the automotive market and it's future direction.

author: cthree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 24, 2013, 10:41:34 pm
content: The Tesla S is hot sauce. I saw on on the road a couple of weeks back, I wanted to just go buy one right there. Unfortunately, I live 100km outside of a major city which means that I need a minimum of 200km range just to get there and back. 150km from the airport so 300km range just to do that trip. If I lived in the city, that would be the car I drive.SgtRock is a troll; intellectually lazy.

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 12:28:36 am
content: As a long time hybrid driver (Honda Civic hybrid and a Gen3 Prius) salivating at the thought of ever being able to get me a Tesla, here is my two cents.Anybody beating up on Volt should first test drive it. It's a beautiful car that drives like an electric car should.Non-plugin hybrids have their place. Toyota happily sold over a million Priuses, they are all over. In the process they serve as a nice platform for getting the kinks out of various subsystems. Also, don't forget that many people live in places where they simply can not plug in.Regular Prius spends quite a bit of time in EV-only mode, so the powertrain and battery systems have to handle that. Plus you get electric steering (now propagating to regular cars), electric AC and so on. Perfect stepboard for the pure EVs, with all these parts now available in regular parts bin.I've looked hard at both Volt and plug-in Prius before getting a regular one. For me, with my particular commute it was not worth the added cost to have a larger battery. Getting my 60+ mpg as it is, thank you very much

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 02:34:11 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--When I said "Refering to the Volt as the Dolt has been called disrespectful and creationist. Indeed, perhaps it would have been more respectful and scientific to have merely said "What a bunch of idiots.""--I was ironically quoting from an earlier post where the writer said "What a bunch of idiots", not calling them a bunch of idiots, the earlier poster did that. See below picture.--I also said "A previous post said "I read an article some time ago from some GM execs who said they were making $1k per vehicle, but had managed to get the parts cost down and were now making about $10k per vehicle." If anyone can provide a link to this article, please post it, and send a copy to daniel.akerson@gm.com. I am still looking for the referenced article. Has anyone found it yet?"I am looking for a lot of men who have an infinite capacity to not know what can't be done." Henry FordBest RegardsClear Ether

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 02:46:58 am
content: Making money? Isn't GM dead broke again?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 02:56:26 am
content: Quote from: reagle on May 25, 2013, 12:28:36 amThen why get an electric car at all?Why not just get a really efficient small petrol car?QuoteThe quoted figure for the latest Prius is only 44 MPG city driving. How are you getting 60?http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=33331One the highway the Prius is no better than any regular efficient petrol car.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 03:01:09 am
content: Tesla Motors lost their ass again.

author: ron
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 03:34:45 am
content: This is an interesting film about the intentional demise of what may have been a successful EV.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0489037/Maybe it's rent-able or it was available as a torrent last time I checked.It continually surprises me that this forum, with so many intelligent minds, that anyone even entertains a fleeting thought that the "government" is on our side.They ain't.

author: cthree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 04:18:59 pm
content: Quote from: lemmegraphdat on May 25, 2013, 03:01:09 amDid you say something?

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 11:23:57 pm
content: Hi Dave,there is still a rather large gap between even the most efficient regular cars and hybrids. At least here in the US the small efficient cars end up being not very cheap and not that efficient.As far as the quoted figure- that's a Prius V (The larger one). Try comparing to regular Prius and also to Prius C.And then of course there is what they test in the lab and what you get in your daily commute. Mine has a lot of stop and go plus a good chunk on a highway at 70+mph. In the end I get 60+ one way and 55 or so on the way back. That's pretty consistent day after day, with a bit of a drop off in the winter or when it's raining hard. Otherwise I effectively use 2-3 times less gas than my colleagues with regular carsQuote from: EEVblog on May 25, 2013, 02:56:26 am

author: reagle
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 25, 2013, 11:36:41 pm
content: Followed byhttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt1413496/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1where a Tesla rolls out off a factory floor.Quote from: ron on May 25, 2013, 03:34:45 am

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 12:01:09 am
content: Quote from: cthree on May 25, 2013, 04:18:59 pmThis company is doomed without a government bailout or loan. Almost a billion in debt and other liabilities. Only about 214 million in real assets. Typical loser car company accept for the fact that they sell a product nobody needs.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 01:47:29 pm
content: They made a profit (yes, they DID need the 12% from credit sales, but they may well not need that next quarter), they have a billionaire backing them, they're selling drivetrains to Mercedes and the like, and they're getting more reservations every month. I don't think they are in any danger at the moment. The future may change, but Tesla have proven the electric car to be viable, if you are prepared to take a risk.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 02:41:44 pm
content: The Prius gets very good MPG in typical commuting, almost always doing better than the EPA rating, averaging high 50s to low 60s most of the time. (Even better in slow traffic - I got 82 MPG over a 20 mile trip once.) On long distance highway travel, it gets about EPA. The Civic Hybrid does better for that, setting a 48 state record of 68 MPG that still stands.http://romanreign.com/world_record_attempt.htmGM made the terrible mistake of angering their customers and driving sales to their competitors. At 80 MPG, the hybrid EV1 can easily outdo the Prius. But rather than let it grab the market, they let Toyota do it instead.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 02:45:23 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--The fact that Tesla has payed back its government loan, and made a profit last year makes it a successful company in my eyes. I am all for it. They are taking the risks with their own money. I was following EEStor with baited breath for a while, because I have seen a couple of their vehicles here in Orlando. Then I noticed they seemed to be all hat and no cattle. It has issued so many dubious press releases that people are beginning to confuse it with ECat. Wouldn't it be loverly if any of it were true? See below link for one writer's wrap up of the EEStor history.http://bariumtitanate.blogspot.com/--Carbon fiber is is likely to be one of the other key technologies in the development of a practical economical EV. Some encouraging progress is being made in this area, see below link for a very good article from Automotive News by David Sedgewick.http://www.autonews.com/article/20130318/OEM01/303189995"Carbon fiberPros• 10 times stronger than steel• 4 times lighter than steelCons• Costly raw materials• Time-consuming production""The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience."Milton Friedman 1912 - 2006Best RegardsClear Ether

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 02:57:21 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on May 26, 2013, 01:47:29 pmand toyota ! you can get the toyota Rav-4 and soon the Camry with the tesla rivetrain ( battery / motor/ electronics )Mercedes signed on to have both the Smart and their A-class 'teslafied'...

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 05:21:53 pm
content: Making OEM parts for a major automaker will be a good thing for Tesla, they will get the volume they want, and have the design know how to get it right for this. making in bulk will bring cost down sooner for the rest of us, even if they limit the power to a lower level for some markets. EV drivetrains are nice and capable of 100 000 km between services, which will be a good thing for the consumer, but bad for the dealerships who want to make money on service. The beginner has been Motorplans where you basically paid the whole service in the purchase price. Now it is just not needed, you now have a vehicle that just needs tyres and a 100 000km service or when the fault monitoring lights the idiot light.

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: May 26, 2013, 05:30:19 pm
content: You don't just get electricity magically out of a socket, electricity has to be generated.From the chart below, electric cars presently are mostly coal/petroleum/gas burning vehicles, not clean at all, and since Hydro and Nuclear are maxed out, new EVs coming onto the market will use an even higher percentage of coal/petroleum/gas generated electricity.And since nuclear energy is subsidized by the population, it's not cheap energy at all when considering all the costs from subsidizing it's construction, to decommissioning and dealing with disasters, health issues from radiation, and nuclear waste (use it for a few years then have to deal with the waste for 600k to a billion years). Privatize the profits, socialize the losses. The resulting cost for it's energy is more than what is stated by the nuclear industry talking heads.So if you think that if gas prices go up, electricity won't, think of from what it's generated.And break even on electric vehicles is ~15 years on the Volt at today's energy prices, but way before the break even point, you have to spend $10k on new batteries, as performance drops a certain % year after year until you are forced to get new batteries (how long do 18650s last in your laptop?)

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 29, 2013, 04:39:52 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Please see below link for a good run down of the features of the Ford C-Max Energi, which seems to be right in the middle between the Leaf and the Volt in most respects.http://mashable.com/2013/03/31/c-max-energi/--And below for a think piece on IBM Lithium Air Battery research.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/28/hot_lithium_ion_batts/"I have had my results for a long time: but I do not yet now how I am to arrive at them."Carl Friedrich Gauss 1777 1855Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: May 29, 2013, 07:09:16 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on May 26, 2013, 01:47:29 pmNo, they don't. He spent almost every last cent he had on Tesla, and no longer had any personal money left to bail them out. Watch the doco Revenge of the Electric Car

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 03:20:04 am
content: Quote from: staxquad on May 26, 2013, 05:30:19 pmYou can make your own electricity at home, but you can't make your own gasoline at home. (You can make your own biodiesel at home, but as that has gotten slightly more popular, it's getting harder to get ahold of the oil you start out with.) Also, electricity prices would have to triple just to equal current gas prices in the US.

author: c4757p
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 30, 2013, 03:27:24 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on May 30, 2013, 03:20:04 amYou can't?? Damn... now what am I supposed to do with all these carcasses I've been burying?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: May 31, 2013, 11:02:58 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on May 29, 2013, 07:09:16 amHe was doing badly, at one point relying on loans from friends. However, he bounced back. His net worth is now approximately $3.8bn (http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/05/11/the-real-reason-tesla-is-still-alive-and-other-green-car-companies-arent/2/), in part due to the huge success of Tesla, SpaceX and SolarCity.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 01, 2013, 05:01:45 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on May 22, 2013, 06:49:25 pmResearch cannot result in a production ready vehicle. There simply is no path that goes from lab direct to showroom for vehicles. There has to be a very economically risky step in between of putting together a marketable vehicle.Thus, if public funding lowers the economic risk of EV research for private industry, why can't the same logic apply to EV production? Or maybe there is some arrangement you imagine where private industry will assume these economic risks all on their own? If so, do tell.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 05:33:15 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--I heartily recommend the Forbes article that Tom pointed to. Very interesting. Musk appears to be one of those Jobs like individuals, who cannot be kept down. As for the general record of the government funding production, indeed it is not very good. In the GM bankruptcy case, it was Gordon Gekko to the bond holders and Santa Claus for the UAW.P.S. As I was about to post this, the spell checker questioned "Gekko", and one of the recommendations for the correct word was "Mekong", duh."If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand."Milton Friedman 1912 - 2006Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 09:01:56 am
content: Quote from: staxquad on May 26, 2013, 05:30:19 pmYou also don't get electricity magically out of the socket to explore, find, extract, process, deliver, and store the petrol we take for granted.The most common use case for an electric car would be the commute to work. If you have a car that gets both ways on one charge, then it can be charged at work in 8 hours from solar panels on the roof of the building for free. Millions of people could be doing this.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 09:11:50 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 02, 2013, 05:33:15 amThe most interesting thing in that article is the info that 0.5% of vehicle regos in San Francisco are fully electric, with Hybrids rolling in at 9.4%. Many other cities are not that far behind either. Those are big numbers in the scheme of things, and anyone who doubt the numbers will not go up year on year is crazy.

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 05:38:36 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 02, 2013, 09:01:56 amDoubt there will be 5kWh to 10kWh systems and it's panels provided by employers for each vehicle in prime real estate areas. 20 to 40 panels for each employee on the roof? Millions of people? Only if it's subsidized by the Government; taxpayers will love subsidizing CEOs.First you overpay on the EV by $20,000, then you have to purchase a 5kWh solar panel system for $11,000 (need a properly oriented roof for 20 panels dedicated to that VOLT exclusively, and no excess solar for the house) without a guarantee the sun will shine every day to completely charge up the system (requires 16.5 kWh (2013)), so will still need to plug into the grid, then you lose 4% performance per year on battery degradation (in your 8th year, you're sticking your legs out to push the dud like in the Flintstones) and need to fork out another $10,000 for new batteries after the 8th year to renew your emotional investment.[A perfectly efficient 5kW solar system in Sydney, for example, would produce about (3PSH x 5kW =) 15kWh of power on a day in the peak of winter, whereas in the summer output from the same 5kW solar system would be around (5PSH x 5kW =) 25kWh. (Figures are approximate only.)][a person from Hamilton, NJ: I have a 10 KW PV system.. 43 panels @ 240 KW .. only for a brief period of time could I charge the Volt.. The rest comes from power company. I may get between the hours of 10am - 2pm 5kw to 7kw of power.. just about enough to keep the charger running.. if the sun stays constant.. no clouds in between. If power drops below about 4kw.. then the power company has to provide the difference.][GM estimates that the Volt batteries will degrade by 10 to 30% after 8 years or 100,000 miles][According to General Motors the Volt's all-electric range with fully charged batteries varies from 25 to 50 miles (40 to 80 km) depending on terrain, driving technique, and temperature] and after 8 years, varies from 15 to 35 miles (28 to 56 km)[The output of a solar cell is subject to degradation. Photovoltaic output is expected to drop 0.5% to 1.0% per year (expect higher drops from thin-film solar systems).] solar cells have to be purchased for the expected kWh need after degradation, so need more capacity now to supply requirements after degradationthere's a sucker born every minute (might make more sense in 20 years)fuel cost savings and replacement battery costs are a wash (using their estimation, can be worse), which leaves you with the initial EV overpay for a saving that does not exist and might erode in the future depending on how energy pricing swingsShow off vehicle for the company executive who doesn't care about cost, but not for the middle classes who budget.You need the EV for work and a gas vehicle for everything else, so where does the middle class get the money to fund such eccentric folly?(they assume the equivalent gas vehicle only gets 22MPGwhile they claim 37MPG while lugging around 200kg of dead weight batteries, bogus)revising downwards for 2013get a Ford Fiesta and save $26,000 with about the same fuel cost (the Volt saves $700 over the Fiesta in the first year of operation, degrading year after year though, so bogus claims by $6,000 for equivalent vehicles) and no $10,000 batteries to renew or solar costs, limitations, hassles.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 07:26:36 pm
content: Oh dear , Never mine ford is bringing the Baby Mustang into the UK 2.5 ltr, so it's a baby muscle car and I can't wait to buy one, my local dealer has promised me a weekend to test drive it, because they know I WANT ONE, none of your mammy pammby electric stuff. Here's a picture

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 02, 2013, 11:06:59 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on May 30, 2013, 03:20:04 amIt depends on where you live but in densely populated area's you can't make enough electricity to run an EV. An EV (Chevy Volt / Apel Ampera, Nissan Leas, Tesla model S) needs about 225Wh per km (EPA numbers!). Just do the numbers for the amount of solar panels required. Running an EV requires massive amounts of electricity.And then there is the polution and CO2. If I look at my electricity bill it says 475grams of CO2 where produced to make 1kWh. So an EV produces about 104 grams CO2 per km in the NL (in Germany its 20% worse). If I look at my car (a 14 year old 2 liter turbo diesel) it produces about 149 grams of CO2 per km. BUT... it runs on 8% biofuel (mandatory) so it actually produces less. All in all the difference is not so big. Newer cars with better fuel economy get a much better mileage and beat an EV hands down where it comes to CO2 production.Another problem is that many power plants are old and are allowed to polute quite a lot. Over here a lot of modern power plants are shutdown (*) because electricity (made with coal) from Germany is so cheap. All in all this causes an EV not to be clean at all. In a few years the polution requirements for cars will be much stricter (Euro6) and some brands already adhere to them. I didn't calculate the exact numbers but at first glance it seems the difference between the polution caused by an EV and a regular car will be minimal.(*) One brand new power plant is actually being dismanteld because they can sell the turbine to China!

author: free_electron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 02:50:57 am
content: The supercharger network is growing.here is the interesting bit : the superchargers are solar powered !. a supercharger installation can charge 5 cars concurrently from the awning mounted solar panels. if you cover your carports roof in solar panels you can do the same...but, what about nighttime you ask : bloomboxes.sure the bloombox consumes natural gas but it is a catalytic process. not combustion ...bloomboxes are proven technology. large datacenters for google, walmart, bank of america and plenty others hev been running on them for 5 years.

author: PeteInTexas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 02:56:09 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 02, 2013, 11:06:59 pmDid not verify your numbers but these are all short-sighted considerations. The auto industry did not start out with convenient gas stations all over town and it took years and years of arm twisting and teeth pulling before finally vehicles with modest fuel economy gains came to market.It will be economically costly to remake our energy consumption profile (and no debate it does need to change). Stop complaining about the cost or how it does not payoff with present technology and infrastructure. It won't, it won't for a while until everybody start pulling in the same direction away from dirty fossil fuels.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 03:29:54 am
content: Everyone likes a gimmick. This is the only real reason someone wants to fiddle around with an electric car when a gas car makes more sense. In the end these folks are the pioneers who took the arrows.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 03:46:04 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 03, 2013, 02:50:57 amSure, they charge 1/2 a 60kWh battery in 20 minutes and can do 5 at a time. So even assuming 100% efficiency that's a 450kW power requirement. Solar panels are about 120W/m^2 for a few hours on sunny days so your 'superchargers' need 3750 m^2 of solar panel. Your Tesla footprint with space to open the doors is what? maybe 18 m^2 so the roof of your 'supercharger' will keep 208 Teslas in the shade but only manage to charge 5 of them. Tesla claim the supercharger is 120kW (probably due to 75% efficient fast charging) so 5 off is a 600kW requirement and space in the shade for 277 Teslas.Quote from: free_electron on June 03, 2013, 02:50:57 amWhich produces exactly the same amount of CO2 as a combustion process and are about as efficient as modern CHP power stations. Wonder how much 600kW of Bloombox costs? I read $12.50/W or $7.5 million for your 600kW supercharger - will weigh about 60 tons as well but I suppose with a 5000 m^2 solar cell roof there will be plenty of space.Of course you could just carry and burn liquid natural gas in the car with about the same pollution/CO2 emission - no range angst, no superchargers no expensive batteries.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 09:14:30 am
content: It's quite rare for a gas station to be full all the time. In fact quite often there is only one or two cars there. And gas stations make pennies on the gas. They make most of it on convenience foods, snacks, services.Since the chargers are rarely full Tesla can sell any extra energy to pay for maintained costs etc. Then they buy any extra required energy from SolarCity which Mr Elon has a ~11% share in. Since, at present at least, they believe the superchargers will provide back more energy than is consumed, they will eventually pay for themselves (installation cost around $20,000 per charger, plus solar canopy costs (?) from what I've read.) And that's not forgetting that the cost of the vehicle helps subsidise that too. Tesla pulled a profit this quarter so despite all the building of superchargers and new vehicles they must be doingsomethingright (even if the 12% from ZEV helped they're predicting full profitability minus ZEV in Q4.)I'm not sure if I can believe 75% efficient, from what I have heard it is closer to 90~95% efficient even if supercharging.Interesting that they quite recently announced they are upgrading superchargers from IIRC 90kW to 120kW. My guess is they had not yet fully qualified the li-ion pack in the car for 120kW charging, and that the superchargers were fully capable of it at the start, and just require a software update.I would sure like to see what a 120kW DC-DC converter looks like inside...

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 09:25:28 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 03, 2013, 09:14:30 amIndeed.Maybe we get one of the hardware guys on The Amp Hour?

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 09:29:16 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 02, 2013, 11:06:59 pmI've been on 100% renewable electricity for a decade now (an option with all energy providers in Oz), and will be getting a 3KW solar system in the coming weeks. And I feel like I'm behind the times...

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 09:29:32 am
content: I'd imagine it's all under NDAs and such, Tesla proprietary. As much as Elon says they want to kick other automakers into making electric cars, I'm pretty sure he'd like if they kept their current position of making electric cars that have limited range and don't compete with Tesla's luxury "no compromise" ideal.I've tried to find some teardowns of EVs. You can see a Prius inverter (a poxy 33kW):http://techno-fandom.org/~hobbit/cars/ginv/i2compon.htmland some of the Chevy Volt (but sadly no powertrain stuff):http://www.driveforinnovation.com/tag/chevy-volt-teardown/

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 10:48:38 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 03, 2013, 09:14:30 amIf cars took more than 20 minutes (and in reality hours) to fill up it would be more common.Quote from: tom66 on June 03, 2013, 09:14:30 amThere will not be any extra energy unless they are empty most of the time. The roof of a 'supercharger' covering 5 bays will provide about 10kW which is enough to slow charge 1 Tesla over several hours. They won't have an energy to sell but they will probably get to use the grid as a battery that someone else is paying for (like all the other solar power generators).Between 92 and 98% of the energy used for supercharging will come from the grid, and so between 64 and 68% from fossil fuel. Claims that the superchargers are solar powered are between 92 and 98% bullshit.Quote from: EEVblog on June 03, 2013, 09:29:16 amI look forward to a teardown of a renewable energy discriminator - perhaps they photograph the electrons and check for smug expressions.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 01:10:53 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 03, 2013, 10:48:38 amAh, the standard typical cynical response to green power plans.I could say it's government audited, but then of course you'd be cynical about that.Well, all the info is publicly available (by law) about what green power is generated into the grid, how many people buy it, whether it's "old" or "new" capacity etc, if you care to actually investigate. At least it is in this country.Yes, I have bothered to investigate it, and yes, it is above board.But note that there are some plans that use old infrastructure and partial etc, you have to chose your plan carefully.So yes, I am confident the green power I am paying for is extra green capacity into the grid.The only smug expression is those who think it's all scam, continue to use fossil fuel power, and refuse to invest anything into a sustainable energy future.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 01:12:56 pm
content: Quote from: free_electron on June 03, 2013, 02:50:57 amYou better run the numbers first before suggesting something which is impossible. Like I said: EVs need massive amounts of electricity.By using the distance travelled by all cars in the NL anually I calculated that the electricity production in the NL needs to be increased 8 times if every car is an EV. And electricity production is least of the problems. Transporting electricity is expensive. In the north of Germany they have a lot of wind turbines and solar panels but the energy can't go anywhere because the multi-billion euro investment in the electricity grid hasn't been made yet. And then again, the amount of energy generated is peanuts compared to the total consumption (not including massive use of EVs).I'm not against renewable energy but a lot of things we see nowadays are just half assed attempts and outright lies (EVs for example) which lead nowhere and are designed to make politicians look good. Take the green electricity for example. It turns out that the electricity isn't green at all but a scam around emission trading. Electricity companies make their coal & gas electricity green by buying emission certificates from third world countries which have no industry to speak off so don't reach their CO2 quotum.It takes radical and bold steps to really move forward.It makes more sense to invest in technologies which are close to current technology like bio-fuel, natural gas or maybe even hydrogen. A cheap way to produce electricity is CSP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concentrated_solar_power). There are lots of desserts on this planet which would be an ideal place to setup a CSP plant. If the electricity is converted into fuel then it is easy to transport as well and no batteries required. Maybe even using existing pipelines. In countries where the climate allows for it you could grow sugar cain which can be converted into alcohol very efficiently. Over 50% of the fuel used in Brazil comes from sugar cain. And there are other ways to create bio-fuel as well. POET-DSM (http://www.poetdsm.com/) is working on turning leftovers from growing crops into ethanol. That means no extra land is required to make a significant amount of bio-fuel.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 01:58:06 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 03, 2013, 01:10:53 pmDo your lights go off at night when there is no solar? Do they go off when there is no wind?You may choose to subsidise renewable generation with your energy bills but claims to be "on 100% renewable electricity" are as bullshit as the solar powered supercharger claims.

author: saturation
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 02:18:38 pm
content: Interesting sales data. The website collates and uses good sources ie., trade journals, that track sales, production and news:http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=DATACENTER#axzz2VA9YfI6yshould skeptics wish to analyze it on your own.http://www.goodcarbadcar.net/2013/06/most-popular-cars-goodcarbadcar-sales-figures-may-2013.html

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 04:06:40 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 03, 2013, 01:58:06 pmrenewable energy sources for Australia (2010):

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 03, 2013, 05:09:44 pm
content: I think part of the thing with the supercharger network is people who have a $70,000 luxury car don't drive a car across the country, they drive to a nearby airport and fly the rest. Road trips might last one or two superchargers, and are unlikely to go cross country. The aim is to put them there to reduce range anxiety -- fear of running out of charge.Tesla plans to ship some 20,000 vehicles this year -- for comparison, GM shipped 9 million in a year, and tere are 254 million reg'd passenger vehicles in the USA. So if gas car takes ~5min to fill up (Tesla takes ~20min), but there's say 100x more of them than an electric car, then the ~127k fuel stations in US serving all these customers (best estimate I can get:http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_gas_stations_are_there_in_the_US#page2) would be more equivalent to ~40 superchargers, for the same level of convenience, assuming Tesla does not sell a lot more vehicles, and being a luxury brand at the moment, they are unlikely to. This would appear to be the way they are going.Now, when they do ramp up production of hopefully a sub-$30k car then you need to start getting concerned about whether superchargers will be available. In which case I can understand them charging for the service... they've only promised that it'll be free forever for Model S.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2013, 12:52:00 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Many people, myself included, love the concept of the EV. They are indeed "way cool", they are quiet, and they smell, usually, much better than an ICE powered vehicle. They do not use toxic coolants, use very much less in the way of lubricants, and the pollution that they cause, for the most part does not occur in your yard, garage, or neighborhood. Yet people are largely unconvinced. Perhaps because the Press has hammered them so much, and so often, that the no longer know what to think. Let me make a comparison. Here in Florida, it is an established fact that roof top solar water heat is a dead winner and has an acknowledged payback time of 2 to 5 years depending on siting, most often closer to two years. PV Solar one the other hand is a complete can of worms with regard to verifiable payback time, if ever. The odd thing is that very few people seem to be investing in either one. I attribute this to skepticism, caused by the Press trying to bigfoot all energy issues. In short, I would love to be proven wrong with regard to my less than sanguine opinion about the present state of technology of, PV Solar, Wind, and EVs. But as Martin Luther said "Here I stand. I can do no other."--Very, very, interesting posts. Just as soon as pros have it, the cons respond with an answer which trumps, and then versa visa. I started this post, mostly in order to learn. The folks who have presented numbers and statistical data, impress me much more that those who claim that anyone who disagrees is a fool, idiot, creationist and so forth. Thus far I think there has been a gold mine of verifiable information posted in this thread, and I am still trying to comprehend all of it. I have opinions, but I am well aware that I might be wrong (not possessing God's truth) and so I find it difficult to get particularly angry with people who disagree, even if they attempt, however pitifully, to make it personal. When I first joined this Blog, there was an ongoing dispute between two rather outspoken individuals. One of them insulted the nationality of his opponent. I then called him on it, with the result that he has evermore accused me of defending his opponent (said opponent has since been banned), never once addressing the accusation of insulting people on the basis of national origins, which was my only objection. In a similar vein, I have been accused of "hating EVs" merely because I poke a little gentle fun and GM and the Federal Government. I have insulted no one on a personal basis, and I shall try not to do so, but I am not afraid of an honest, straight up debate, or of being proven wrong, and when I am proven wrong, I will admit so, as I did when Tom made me look rather foolish is regard to Wind Power, bird strike numbers.--I take the position that, although I favor government funding [of research] sic (within reason of course), I am not it favor of the government trying to pick winners. If the government could successfully pick winners, it could fund itself with the money it made in stock markets. Those who insist that EVs are going to take over the market, seem to me to be very very careful, not to put a date or a percentage on any of it, which could be verified anytime soon, which is similar to most predictions of average global temperature, and kind of like the swami who will predict your death, but will not say when.--My own prediction, say within 10 years, is that when, and if, reasonable numbers of used EVs are allowed to reach the market, at low prices, and more and more shade tree mechanics, and marginal dabblers, begin playing with them, we will finally be off and running. My brother and I are both retired, we both drive almost all short run, non peak hours. If the price were right, we would love to play with an old beat up EV, even if the range was only 25 miles. I want to thank everyone for the interesting and informative posts, and please keep them coming.--In the early days of the invasion of the German and Japanese sub compacts, a popular practical joke was to sneak over to your neighbor's house and put a gallon or two of gas in his Volkswagen or Datsun, every few days. When he claimed 63 or 85 MPG we would of course believe him but show facial expressions which indicated slight skepticism, which was very hard to do, without peeing one's pants. Great fun! Now if we can just figure out a way to charge up the neighbor's EV surreptitiously, or even the old way of adding petrol in the case of the hybrid. Buy some Depends."It is of great advantage to the student of any subject to read the original memoirs on that subject, for science is always most completely assimilated when it is in the nascent state."James Clerk Maxwell 1831 - 1879Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2013, 01:12:08 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 03, 2013, 01:12:56 pmThat's why it's up toyouto demand that change and put your money where your mouth is and buy 100% audited renewable energy.QuoteWhich includes individuals and the choices you make.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2013, 01:24:31 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 05, 2013, 12:52:00 amThat's because of several factors:- The fossil fuel car industry is massively entrenched with 99% of the market (<95% in some US states as I pointed out).- The media who beat up EV's one week, and then praise them the next. It's unpredictable, and as you said has a massive effect.- No one can predict when the next oil crisis will hit. Note that I said when, not if. That should put some fire up some butts. Petrol is currently cheap, ridiculously cheap. Cheaper than bottled water at the same serivce station.- No one can predict the political effects of subsidies/support etc, and given that it's in multiple countries who could potentially come out the "game changer EV's", that makes it even harder.But I have stuck my neck out and confidently said several times that when Sagan is old enough to buy his own car, that the obvious choice will be electric or Volt-like electric with petrol backup (for a new car). That means, the next 20 years,tops. I'll eat my hat if that's not the case.QuoteI would buy a Volt-like electric in heart beat, it's just a matter of price. I'd even a buy fully electric the price was right, as we have a 2nd petrol car for long road trips.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 05, 2013, 01:32:06 am
content: Dear Dave:--I stand corrected, your prediction is much more precise than I indicated in my overly generalized statement. When the time comes, you just let me know, and I will send you a gingerbread hat, as I would not want you to eat the tinfoil one, which is the only one I have seen you wear, so far."In the first place, God made idiots. That was for practice. Then he made school boards."Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens ) 1835 - 1910Best RegardsClear Ether

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2013, 02:11:07 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 05, 2013, 12:52:00 amIt's interesting what technology catches on in 3rd World countries, because of being cost effective.Saw multitudes of solar water panels and tanks on the roofs in Nepal, 15 years ago. Every house that could, did. Cheap to build, free hot water thereafter.In Bangkok they had a problem with vehicular pollution and decided to switch to LPG for it's city buses, tuk tuks, boats, taxis and encouraged it for private cars. You can now walk the streets in Bangkok without gasping. Even took an LPG taxi from Poipet to Angkor Wat (150km) in Cambodia. The taxi driver filling up before leaving Poipet, pumping from a larger horizontal tank into the taxi tank at some repair shop.Solar Water and LPG vehicles, make sense.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2013, 04:35:00 am
content: Solar water heating was subsidised here by the electric supplier until they ran out of money, as a way to shave peak power demand. Now they are encouraging you to use LPG for heating water and cooking. That actually does work out cheaper, as you can run a few months on a single cylinder depending on usage.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 05, 2013, 03:24:04 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 05, 2013, 01:24:31 amThat is also because EV makers goof up on marketing. Marketing technology is an art in itself (how many people think Apple is the inventor of the tablet?).Tesla for instance has a range indicator in their car which is a really BIG mistake. This review shows exactly why every normal car has a fuel guage:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Instead of acknowledging the problem Tesla puts on the gloves and starts a fight they simply can't win:http://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller/2013/02/26/elon-musk-bad-review-in-new-york-times-cost-tesla-100-million/Besides that the EV isn't new at all. Over 100 years ago when the car was invented there where an equal amount of electric cars and cars based on IC engines. The biggest problem back then where also the batteries:http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/the-electric-taxi-company-you-could-have-called-in-1900/72481/The amount of research already put into electric cars is huge. The big car makers have been experimenting with electric cars for decades and the results aren't very promising. The capacity of the batteries continues to be the bottle neck. All in all you better start looking for a hat made out of your favorite candy O0edit: IMHO the electric car has no future. It is an overengineered solution which causes more problems then it solves. A car (or any vehicle) needs to carry energy with it to propel itself. Using fuel directly makes so much more sense than using an inefficient and lossy(!) intermediate form like electricity, compressed air, kinetics, etc. The math also shows this. So the real problem is to make fuel in a sustainable way.Quote from: EEVblog on June 05, 2013, 01:24:31 amThe problem is that in many countries owning a car is heavily taxed. Over here approx 40% of the price of a car is tax and then you have to pay ownership taxes as well. As a result people usually have an oversized-fits-all car which is too big for everyday use because it also needs to big enough to go on a holiday with the entire family. Parking space is also a problem. Having one fuel efficient car and one big car is not an option.Quote from: EEVblog on June 05, 2013, 01:24:31 amThat is if you have a choice. Over here there just isn't enough renewable energy hence the CO2 emissions scam. Land is very scarse in one of the most densily populated areas in the world which is generally hard to imagine for people from the US or AustraliaOver here any significant amount of renewable energy has to come from the Sahara desert and the rural parts of Spain in some form of solar power.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 04:55:02 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--While on the practical side EVs could still stand a lot of improvement. Toys do not have to be practical or economical. When the Mission Bike technology comes in to production, I predict it will find itself with a slice of the market, given what some bikers a willing to spend on custom bikes. I know I would love to have one of these. See below link for a Jay Leno review of this very interesting prototype."Thunder is good, thunder is impressive; but it is lightning that does the work."Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens ) 1835 1910Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 05:53:26 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 05, 2013, 03:24:04 pmFor a direct replacement for todays car forevery current needin terms of range and refuel time, yes.But you are missing the point that there is a very sizeable market for which something like the Volt fulfills perfectly. It's (lack of) widespread adoption is simply a price point issue (and poor marketing), and nothing more.QuoteAn electric car is over-engineered?Clearly you have not looked inside a modern petrol car and the over-engineering involved in getting these to work reliably!To assert that electric cars have no future is to completely miss all the current indicators.Do you think the current figures approaching 10% adoption in some US states of electric cars (hybrid + full electric combined, mostly hybrid at this point, approaching 1% electric) is going to magically go away, drop to zero, or never increase?

author: Harvs
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 06:40:36 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 06, 2013, 04:55:02 amElectric bikes are currently economical and practical for a daily ride vehicle (maybe not this particular one.) We went through this on the last thread of this kind. The cost makeup of running a modern motorcycle is very different to a car, and electric bikes consume a lot less electricity than a electric car, however a modern bike that can cruise at highway speeds comfortably will use a similar amount of petrol to a modern small petrol car.If I were to swap my modern BMW for a Zero, I would be saving about $2000yr in fuel costs (taking into account the current retail price of electricity and premium unleaded in West Australia.) If I had BMW maintain my bike I'd be saving a further $1500 yr in maintenance costs as well. But why don't I? The only reason is they don't have a dealership in West Oz, and right at the moment they don't have a distributor in Oz.But will they catch on in somewhere like Australia? Right at the moment it's not that likely because for the most part motorbikes here are toys. What people want to buy is either a Harley to annoy the shit out of everyone with open pipes, or they want a Japanese or Italian bike with more hp than kgs to have stationary in front of cafes. My bikes is a serious novelty when it goes to the dealer for tyres because it puts on 25,000kms/yrs. After the first year I had more kms than some secondhand bikes 10yrs old.On another note, I haven't looked very closely at the EV cars that have come out of late, but are they being engineered from the start to be active participants in whatever "smart grid" ends up being adopted wherever it happens to be? I'm aware as anyone that the whole smart grid thing has a long way to go (not in terms of research but in terms of practical adoption), but it would seem like a fatal flaw to not be including at least some sort of add-on capacity to include comms to whatever smart grid infrastructure is chosen in whatever country. At the very least participate as dispatchable load.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 07:53:36 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 05, 2013, 03:24:04 pmThe above is totally incorrect.Consider the idiotic complexity of a mechanical machine designed to convert chemical energy into kinetic energy. It's ludicrous that we all have our own little generators toting around with us all day with their camshafts, crankshafts, water pumps, catalytic converters, valvetrains, timing chains, oil sumps, coolant sumps, geared transmissions, etc, etc. They are massively complex and massively inefficient. A combustion engine can achieve around 25% efficiency at best.Doing something is always more efficient on a large scale than a small scale - whether you are talking sending containers of cargo around the world, producing a product in a factor, or producing energy. For a given amount of fuel X, you will get much more energy if you burn that fuel in a huge generation plant than if you split it up and use it at the point-of-use (your car's engine).You say electricity is "lossy". That is a myth and untrue. Depending on what kind of plant the power is generated in, the efficiency ranges from about 35% to over 80%. Losses "to your door" are just a few percent of the amount generated. And losses to charging are also just a few percent, and almost all the battery power stored in an EV make it to the motor (and electric motors are in the 90% range for efficiency too). Whenever people knock EV's, they also forget that while the electricity was transmitted with just a few % loss, that their gasoline had to be mined, then refined, then stored, then transported to their local gas station.There are only 2 problems with EV's. Price, and battery capacity. Both of those will be solved very soon through technology advancement, economies of scale, and consumer demand.There are additional benefits to EV's as well - massively less complex and therefore much better in maintenance. Quieter. More torque right from the get-go. Easier to diagnose/fix. Safer and better handling.If there was no such thing as the automobile - and two inventors came up with competing designs...one being the combustion engine and the other being the electric car.... we would laugh the combustion engine guy out of the room. There are so many inherent bugs and issues with the combustion car that decades of botch-jobs and work-arounds have mitigated, that we forget how overly complex they are (engine oil, coolant, catalytic converters, valve trains, timing chains, distributors, EGR systems, carburetors, idle control, fuel maps, mass airflow sensors, radiators, exhaust systems, and so much more).

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 08:52:35 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 07:53:36 amJust in passing why are the micro-generation schemes sticking a couple of kW of solar cells or small windmill on your roof for example so popular and supposedly green then?Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 07:53:36 amSure I keep waiting for this wonderful new battery technology to appear, not like we haven't been trying to make better batteries for more than a century. What we really need is a motor powered by wishful thinking.Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 07:53:36 amOnly if we were stupid enough to not notice one guy has a fork lift carrying a $10,000 box which he can fill with 100 miles of travel in a few hours and the other is carrying a tin can costing $10 which he can fill with 200 miles of travel in a minute.Since we don't have these wishful thinking batteries yet the only (im)practical solution is to make something with combustion engine, motor and battery resulting in even greater cost and complexity and not having any significant renewable energy generation only allows us to pointlessly burn a proportion of the fossil fuel we use at a remote location.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 09:56:56 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 08:52:35 amJust keep waitingAnd that doesn't include any radical leaps in new material/chemistry technology, and is a 7 year old chart already.Only a fool would bet again battery technology continuing to improve by leap and bounds.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 10:05:00 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 08:52:35 amThe Volt already exists. It is no less reliable than a regular car. In fact, likely more reliable because it's basically an electric car with a simpler petrol backup generator. Hence the ICE motor does not have to be as complicated and integrated into the car.QuoteWhat about my solar system I'm getting installed next Thursday?If I had a Volt or other electric car then my petrol usage would drop to close to zero.My car could charge from solar during the days I'm home, and would cover almost all of my travel needs. If I chose to charge it at night, I'm effectively using other renewable energy I chose to buy form the grid.And whilst my situation is not typical, it would not be unusual either.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 10:25:25 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Please see the below link to a rundown of the predicted future of batteries EVs, which is much more sanguine than the title suggests, and tends to support Dave's position.http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/without-a-technology-breakthrough-battery-costs-are-likely-to-limit-widespread-adoption-of-electric-cars-over-the-next-decade-says-the-boston-consulting-group-80924367.html"Injustice is relatively easy to bear; what stings is justice."H. L. Mencken 1880 - 1956Best RegardsClear Ether

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:13:53 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 07:53:36 amYou make several mistakes here. Earlier on I calculated that an EV like the ones you can buy now produces about 104 (NL) to 125 (Germany) grams of CO2 per km (depending on where you live and how the electricity is generated) while an efficient car you can buy today can do much better (less than 100). That is a direct indication of how inefficient electricity actually is! Electricity needs lot of conversions and while each conversion is efficient in itself, the whole chain is terribly inefficient. Storing electricity is also a problem. Batteries always have a bit of self discharge and they can loose quite a bit of charge when they are cold.BTW: A combustion engine (especially a diesel) can be over 50% efficient. Is this a fairy tale? No, BMW has them.EVs are complex beasts as well. If you think an EV is a bunch of batteries connected to a DC motor then you are sadly mistaken. This is a teardown of the Toyota Prius:http://k0bg.com/images/pdf/890029.pdfOn a typical EV the motors use water cooling. Some EVs (the Nissan Leaf IIRC) even have a system for heating and cooling the batteries to get the most from the charge.And you clearly didn't read up on history. Electric cars and combustion engine cars where invented at the same time 120 years ago and they had an equal market share at that time! I'd almost say it has been easier to put people on the moon than to come up with a decent EV.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:28:59 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 06, 2013, 11:13:53 amYou have made the mistake again of assuming that the person is using fossil fuel energy. It is very likely that a large percentage of the people who would currently buy an electric car are quite environmentally aware, and likely either buying green power and/or have solar cells, and have probably thought about charging scenarios to limit CO2 production.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:34:35 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 06, 2013, 11:13:53 amA pointless fact because battery, motor, and charging technology back then was very primitive compared to today. And at the same time, the oil industry took because it was easy to get and looked practically unlimited. The winner was always going to be obvious.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:46:29 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 06, 2013, 10:05:00 amAnd to do that in US $ you pay 40,000 for the volt (and someone else pays 7,500 for your volt) you pay around 1000 a year for battery replacement cost. You pay 10,000 or whatever for your panels.For that you get 30 miles a day on battery (when it is sunny). Say you do that 52 * 5 days a year that's 7800 miles which in an economical IC car at 40 mpg would be 195 gallons which would cost you about 665.So for a 57,000 investment (lets call it 30,000 over a conventional car) you get to spend 1000 a year on batteries instead of 665 on gasoline - way to go.I read Chevy volt battery replacement cost is expected to be $8000 to $9500. Battery capacity is limited to about 11kWh (because as I have said before if you want batteries to last a long time - don't use them much). The battery has an 8 year warranty no doubt based on average expected use. 8 * 52 * 5 * 11 = 22880kWh life time throughput. 22880kWh from the mains will currently cost you about $3000. The Volt battery (like all other batteries) costs much more than the mains electricity it can charge and discharge in its lifetime.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 12:37:55 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 06, 2013, 11:28:59 amYou make the mistake in thinking there is enough 'green' electricity available all around the world. The way I see it an EV can only become a solution for reducing CO2 siginificantly IF they have a decent range IF they can be charged fast IF many people can afford them IF there is enough real green electricity and IF there is an electricity distribution network that can handle the amount of energy. That is a whole load of IFs and some take major investements to solve.The reality is that coal is extremely cheap nowadays so it makes sense to buy emission certificates to wash the electricity green. But that still doesn't solve the shortage of green electricity. Solar and wind power maybe be nice but their output fluctuates a lot. For that reason there have to be extra power plants online which can regulate fast. Unfortunately those are very inefficient. At some point adding extra solar panels and wind turbines will actually become counter productive. Storing the electricity continues to be the challenge. For example: the excess (yes, excess!) green energy generated in the north of Germany is transported to Norway and used to pump water into a lake so it can be converted back to electricity later on. This actually costs money but the owners of the solar panels and wind turbines have a contract which says they can put as much energy into the grid as they can and get payed a fixed price.Just run the numbers on how much energy your solar panels can provide for an electric car: you say it can output 3kW. Say it does that for 8 hours per day (I have no idea about your weather conditions) so you get 8*3=24kWh per day. At 225Wh per km you could drive over 100km per night. If you charge during the night you'd still depend on electricity made from coal. Maybe your cost drop to zero, but your carbon footprint / dependancy doesn't.Maybe its time to get more radical. The French car maker Renault came up with this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Twizy. I've seen these driving around in Paris and I must say the concept isn't bad. If they can make a version with windows which can be used on the highway then it could be a real hit. I think I can park one in my front yard.And ofcourse you could look for other alternatives as well. My father drives around in one of these:http://en.velomobiel.nl/quest/and its easy to travel tens of kilometers at about 25 to 30km/h.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 01:17:17 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 11:46:29 amWho said they were cost effective at present? We were talking about CO2 emissions, not cost.If they were cost effective, I'd have one, as would everyone else. They wouldn't be able to make them quick enough.

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 01:19:54 pm
content: Unfortunately we had to make a decision last week to delay production ofwww.popsci.com.au/new-issue/popsci-46-september-2012It was to be ready for OCT 2013 World Solar Challenge, but as we're losing our premises, we need to find a new home and move10K sqFt of vehicles and equipment by year end. Design work, in collaboration with Swinburne University is continuing though.Current specs -2 seater, 2 door + luggage area, dual Wheel motors,ADR approved15KWHr, 2x 33Kg easy removable LiION battery packs = app 350Km rangeApp 1.2KW Solar panels, capable of app 350Km range per day or app 65Km/hr directThe final shape will have a "traditional sports car" look (the magazine image is our original concept and a few years old)Having designed and made Solar EV cars for 25+ years, we don't need to prove the concept. It's come time to put them on the road.The WSC race this year will have for the first time, a category for Road registrable EV Solar cars.So, IF anyone has a spare 5-10K sqFt available, We'd certainly like to hear from you :-)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 01:22:59 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 06, 2013, 12:37:55 pmNo I have not made a mistake. At present (at least in Australia), there is enough green power going into the grid for those who want to pay for it.The more that put their money where their mouth is, the more renewable infrastructure is built.QuoteAnd that money won't come you you, because it seems you won't put you money where your mouth is. Please correct me if I'm wrong.QuoteI'll say it again. I pay extra for 100% audited green power into the grid, and have done so for the last 10 years.So you are simply wrong.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 01:24:58 pm
content: Quote from: digsys on June 06, 2013, 01:19:54 pmSpeaking of which, I'm going to visit this this Sat:http://www.meetup.com/AEVA-Sydney/events/121753062/http://www.uwssolarcar.com/

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 01:32:35 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblogOne of our competitors :-) That's the current class, they may also be entering an ADR compliant vehicle as well. You should ask ifyou can have a sneak peek :-) We'll still be entering that class this year, just not the ADR.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 01:39:05 pm
content: Quote from: digsys on June 06, 2013, 01:32:35 pmI also have a very long standing invitation to visit the UNSW Sunswift team, the current world record holders.And BTW, for those that haven't seen this crowd funded car:http://www.pozible.com/project/22101

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 02:45:08 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 06, 2013, 01:22:59 pmI put my money on bio-fuel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel). The technology is on its way and it doesn't take huge investments or changes in the infrastructure or radical changes to cars. Besides that it can also be used for trucks.Quote from: EEVblog on June 06, 2013, 11:34:35 amIn hindsight yes. But 120 years ago it was probably easier to find an electricity outlet (at home) than a gas station. The oil industry wasn't as well established back then as it is now. IMHO the range of the combustion engine is what tipped the balance in favor of it. The rest is history (which tends to repeat itself).I wouldn't count hybrids as electric cars though. The aim of those is to make a combustion engine more efficient. The Toyota Prius is pretty good due to its Atkinson engine but the Chevy Volt (Opel Ampera) has an awfull efficiency if you run it just from fuel. The actual savings depend largely on the driving style. The gentlemen from Top Gear UK proved that to its extreme by testing which is more efficient: a Prius or a BMW M3 (watch from 4:20):

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 02:52:48 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 06, 2013, 01:22:59 pmYou pay a small amount extra so your suppliers can tell you your electrons come from renewable sources. According to the charts staxquad posted 93.2% of Australias electrons come from fossil fuel. 63.4% of what's left come from hydro which always has been viable and would be there anyway. 11.5% from bio which presumable would include waste incineration etc and would be there anyway.You are left helping to fund the the 0.5% wind and 0.04% solar which is probably already significantly subsidised. So you have been paying extra for 0.54% of the electrons you use, and more likely lining the pockets of the energy companies and/or subsidising the 93.2%+ of consumers who didn't fall for it.I looked up a Greentricity tariff and noted it is not available to companies. Probably because there isn't enough renewable generation to go round and the premium paid isn't nearly enough to justify building more.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 05:08:48 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 02:52:48 pmAs always things vary a lot depending on where you live. In 2012 49.2% of the electricity production in Denmark came from renewable sources. Of those 49.2% no less than 72.2% were produced by wind turbines. Of course that it not the whole story as we also imported electricity in 2012 - the total domestic production was 15% lower than the consumption. In 2011, we produced a surplus.The 195 gallons of gasoline for $665 you used in an earlier post would cost more than $1500 here. To round off the story, the price of anOpel Ampera starts at DKK 648100 or about $115000 (http://www.opel.dk/koretojer/opel-program/personbiler/ampera/index.html).

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 06:09:32 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on June 06, 2013, 05:08:48 pmDenmark at the mercy of the wind and taxation....

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 08:47:30 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 06:09:32 pmThere's plenty of both...

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 09:50:53 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--A minor quibble, upon which of course, I am willing to be proven wrong. If EVs can be powered by alternative energy sources, then so can ICEs, IE Biogas and Biodiesel. I already have a friend who is making Biodiesel for his VW at a cost of about 80 cents US per Gal. On this basis then, the Carbon Argument favoring EV over ICE, becomes moot does it not?--It also bears mention that the oil and gas companies are increasingly beginning to use insitu "site derived" natural gas to replace imported, and then transported gasoline and diesel, for a better than 50% (my guess) CO2 and cost reduction. In some cases they are using recycled helicopter turbines (with generators on trailers) to provide light weight (more savings) electrical power supplies for pumping and other uses.--Let us assume arguendo that AGW is a given. Can anyone attempt to quantify any aspects of this question; How many government dollars, in say trillions, spent on CO2 reduction, will cause a reduction of how many degrees C in the global average temperature by what date? Far be it from me to question anyone's faith but, as Richard Feynman said, and I paraphrase, "If you cannot put numbers on it, it is not Science:"I could see that, if not actually disgruntled, he was far from being gruntled."P. G. Wodehouse 1881 - 1975Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 10:07:25 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 08:52:35 amI would guess because people can buy something that has an immediate and measurable personal impact on them and that is a motivator to buy. But that's a very different thing from efficiency. You wouldn't dispute that generating power on a small scale at the point of use is more efficient than on a large scale centrally, would you?Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 07:53:36 amI bet there isn't a person on this whole website who hasn't personally seen the transformation of battery technology before their very eyes. When I was a kid, it was lead acid. Then NiCd, then NiMH, now various forms of lithium ion. My cell phone today has a lighter smaller battery that produces more power over a longer period of time and charges faster than the same battery I had in my cell phone 15 years ago.http://www.mpoweruk.com/images/energy_density.gifQuote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 07:53:36 amMeanwhile, an 80-mile range of even current EV's (which are only 2-3 years old) meets the needs of over 85% of all driving. And they are less complicated, more reliable, emit less toxins, are smoother, cleaner, more efficient, offer a better driving and ownership experience compared to the internal combustion car, which has had over 100 years of tweaking to get where we are today.QuoteConsidering you can buy battery only EV's today, you're wrong.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 10:29:06 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 06, 2013, 11:13:53 amWith all due respect, I have no idea how you came up with your calculation, but I will trust the calculations from experts over someone on the InternetAs for diesel engines, they are 35-40% efficient. Some large diesel engines (like in ships) can be more efficient, but there is nothing like that in passenger cars that I know of. If you disagree, I'd appreciate a source on it - I'm also not interested in things that are done in the lab. What matters is real world technologies... after all, we've heard about fuel cell cars for, what, over a decade now?As for CO2 emissions, the US Department of Energy has a comparison that shows for a 100 mile trip, an average gasoline car will produce 87lb of CO2, and an all-electric will produce 54lbs for the same trip, and a plug-in electric will produce 62lbs for the same trip. Every legitimate unbiased source you will see will confirm this.And, that is using the current mix of electricity production, which in many places (including the USA) includes lots of coal. It is infinitely easier to upgrade a small number of power plants to natural gas, or clean coal, or add hydro/solar/nuclear production capability to the power grid than it is to replace hundreds of millions of cars... so the "they burn coal indirectly" argument does not have any merit, not on a "how electricity is generated" today basis, and most definitely not based on the future of electricity production. Sources:http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.phphttp://www.betterplace.com.au/media/technical-notes/how-do-the-co2-emissions-from-an-electric-car-compare-to-a-petrol-car.html(Australian website confirming the results for Oz, with Australian sources)As for complexity, do you really want to make the case that an EV is more complex mechanically than a combustion engine car? We both know sold state electronics are infinitely more reliable than moving mechanical machines. And the electric vehicle drivetrain has essentially one mandatory moving part - the rotor. It obviates the need for-Camshaft-Crankshaft-Oiling system-Coolant system-Exhaust system-Valvetrain-Timing system-Distributor system-Fuel pump/lines/injectors and metering system-Air manifold/intake/ducting/throttle body-Mechanical control of fuel (either direct by cable or indirect through motors)-Catalytic conversion and exhaust gas recirculation-TransmissionAnd more. All those systems are eliminated. Furthermore, many EV technologies (like wheel hub motors) make things such as anti-lock braking, traction control, stability control, 4-wheel drive and such all lines of code in software, whereas in combustion cars they are often extremely complicated additional mechanical subsystems (like ABS, 4-wheel drive).I'm aware of the history of electric cars - they never gained mainstream acceptance because they took too long to charge and their range was limited. It took a revolution in battery technology to change that, in the form of Lithium based batteries. That's why there is a sudden surge of EV's out and coming out. Every single major car manufacturer is jumping into the EV market. It's not because they all like wasting money, but rather they have all run the same calculations and realized that we're right on the brink of the cost/benefit breakthrough that make EV's take over. And they all want a piece of what they know is a huge coming market.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 10:49:31 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 11:46:29 amNonsense.There is no "battery cost" as you claim. The cost of the battery is included in the cost of the car (which is $38,500 less a $7,500 tax credit, for a net of $31,500). The replacement cost of the battery is already counted in the depreciation of the car. There is no annual $1k cost for owners to cover. Also, nobody is paying $7,500 for someone else's EV anymore than they are paying someone else's mortgage due to the home mortgage interest tax deduction.As for your other points, proposing what you think a battery may cost in 8 years is irrelevant. Technology is advancing and batteries are getting cheaper. What a Volt battery costs today is meaningless. And the battery does not die on the 8th year + 1 day. It loses capacity over time. It may last 10 years, or 15. It depends when the consumer chooses to replace it. And as I said, that cost is already factored in to the depreciation of the car. To claim EV owners are "spending" $1k per year on their battery is as disingenuous and logically wrong as claiming gasoline car owners are spending $1,000 per year, because that's what a replacement engine will cost in their car in 10 years. Again, there is a word for that and it's depreciation - these costs are already figured in to the ownership cost of all vehicles.Your calculations of the energy cost also make no sense. Let's talk factual numbers.As for a genuine comparison, again the US Department of Energy calculates the Nissan Leaf costs $0.87 to drive 25 miles. The average fuel economy of passenger cars (again, from the US DOE) is 35.6mpg. The average cost of gasoline (again from the DOE) is $3.646 per gallon (nationwide average for the week of June 3rd, 2013). That means an average passenger car will cost $2.56 to drive those same 25 miles. The average American drives 12,000 miles per year. If they keep the car for 5 years, that's $2,088 in fuel costs for the Nissan Leaf and $6,145 in fuel costs over that same period for the gasoline car. That also assumes gasoline prices remain stable, which is anything but assured.Sources:http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/evsbs.shtmlhttp://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_04_23.html

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:05:47 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:"The average fuel economy of passenger cars (again, from the US DOE) is 35.6mpg.""As per usual, would it not be more fair to compare EV mileages to comparably priced new turbo diesels or other efficient new vehicles rather than the average mileage of the entire fleet which has 10 and 20 year old cars in it, Nay."Measure twice. Cut once"Norm Abram 1950 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:30:28 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 10:49:31 pmThe more that battery is used the quicker it will die, if they are all going to last significantly longer than 8 years they would offer a longer warranty. After 8 years you spend $8000-9500 on a new battery or are you telling me the car is scrap in 8 years?Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 10:49:31 pmThe $8000-9500 was an estimate made by others of the cost in 2020. You crystal ball is no better than anyone else's just has a stronger rose colored tint.Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 10:49:31 pmThe life is considered to be till it is 30% down on capacity - your plug in hybrid becomes less and less of a plug in as it ages, the longer you delay a new battery the worse it getsQuote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 10:49:31 pmSay it a third time if you like it won't make it any less ridiculous.Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 10:49:31 pmYeah lets switch to talking about pure EVs with their inherent limitations instead of hybrids which can only do 35 (and 25 when they get older) miles from the plug and then lets compare them with average gasoline cars which don't make large sacrifices to improve economy and provide bearable range.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:31:58 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 06, 2013, 10:49:31 pmAnd that sort of saving could likely pay for any battery pack replacement down the road if needed.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:37:50 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 06, 2013, 11:05:47 pmAlso @: Corporate666There are no old EVs to compare with... But if you choose to buy anewcar you can either buy an EV or a car with an efficient combustion engine. The numbers show that in many places the car with the efficient combustion engine beats an EV hands down when it comes to CO2 production. Not to mention an EV takes way more energy and polution to build. Some say an EV is more poluting over its lifetime than a regular car. There seems to be a report made by some Norwegians backing that bold statement but I haven't looked it up yet.

author: Harvs
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:40:36 pm
content: To answer my question earlier, I had a look and the Volt is offering an OnStar API. Whilst this may be primarily for developers of apps, apparently allows smart grid integration as variable dispatchable demand. Now we need smart grids to make use of it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:41:22 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 11:30:28 pmThe fact that they offer a huge 8 year warranty on the battery pack tells you everything!It tells you that they are so confident in that life span that there must be huge margins in that for them to get that confidence. That means it is almost certain that the battery pack will last a lot longer than 8 years on average, albeit at lower capacity. And that might suit many people just fine. In fact most probably wouldn't even notice the gradual reduction.QuoteWhere does it say it's a 2020 estimate? Is it official factory estimate, or third party estimate? What's the pricenow?I concur that you'd be foolish to think the prices won't drop in that time frame, or that there won't be third party packs etc.QuoteAt least you are up front about setting up a straw man to knock down.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:46:08 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 06, 2013, 11:37:50 pmOnce again, that comparison is just silly. Because EV's offer the option to use 100% renewable energy, petrol cars do not.Dragging down the EV to the level of the petrol car and assuming it's always going to use fossil fuel energy is to ignore one of the major points of EV'sQuoteComplete lifecycle energy assessment on such a complicated device (or even simple things) is essentially impossible. The error bars are almost as big as the number itself.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:47:54 pm
content: AFAIK battery technology is well known and when buying an EV you don't really have to worry about the batteries if you keep it connected to a charger when the car is not in use. In EVs they typically charge to 80% and discharge to 20% or so. This makes batteries lasts extremely long. I keep an eye on a diy car fixing forum as well and I've never seen a complaint about the battery pack in a Toyota Prius needing replacing. And due to the regenarative braking etc a battery pack in a Prius gets charged/discharged all the time.

author: HackedFridgeMagnet
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:49:10 pm
content: QuoteI think this story is an example of the vested interests at play from both sides.From what I have read I am sure that the original author Broder is not to be trusted. I can see what must be deliberate misleading in his articles.Once somebody looses that much credibility they may as well be arguing for the other side.QuoteI assume the wheel size would effect the speedo as well as the odometer so this has got to be a red herring.QuoteI'm not saying anything about Musk being right but I am sure by his poor denial that he was caught making his own newpaper story and as such anything he says should be disregarded.http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html?ref=automobiles&_r=0original story,link posted previouslyhttp://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drivehttp://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/14/that-tesla-data-what-it-says-and-what-it-doesnt/

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:50:13 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 06, 2013, 11:46:08 pmBuzzz. Wrong. If I drive 30km I can fill both our cars with 100% bio fuel. The diesel will probably work. I'd need to check the petrol powered car (it does OK on E10 which is 10% ethanol). I just have to wait for a bio fuel gas station to open nearby and I can go green without needing to buy a new car at all.

author: Harvs
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 06, 2013, 11:58:01 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 06, 2013, 11:37:50 pmTo be honest I think this discussion is far too complex, and is over simplified on both sides of the equation. For example have you taken into account the "embedded" CO2 production in the fuel by the time you get it? For example this whitepaper:http://www.silverspringnet.com/pdfs/whitepapers/SilverSpring-Whitepaper-ElectricVehicles.pdf,suggests there's 100gCO2 per km already spent by the time you buy the fuel. But then what has gone into their calculations? And are they really valid since they're trying to sell smart grid products...And where do you stop? This has always been the problem of researchers, one will neglect some effect as being insignificant, and another will say the research was meaningless because of it. This goes on in the peer reviewed journals constantly.In Oz, we have enormous coal and natural gas reserves. In my opinion if we shift some of our reliance on oil imports to an energy source (great if some of that can be renewable) that we can locally control, and the cost of doesn't wildly vary because of some conflict we have no reason to be a part of somewhere else in the world.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 12:05:44 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 06, 2013, 11:50:13 pmStop shifting the goal posts.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 12:06:10 am
content: Ok so I buy an EV for 25,000 dollars. I Have lower maintenance costs probably. I can charge over night and the next day drive 80 miles. I can have air conditioning or heat during the 80 miles. In 8 years I maybe have to get a new battery or a motor. Considering my driving habits and the cost of a replacement gas car, under these conditions an EV might make sense.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 12:37:25 am
content: Quote from: Harvs on June 06, 2013, 11:58:01 pmThat is a problem which is why I refer to the CO2 'production' per km to compare. It is a number which cannot be disputed by endless discussions over efficiency losses.Coal and gas to feed the electric power plant don't grow on trees either. Coal needs to be mined as well and gas often doesn't just come from the ground either. Especially when its shale gas obtained by fracking.Anyway, suggesting 100g CO2 per km is grazy. That is close to burning away 30% to 50% of the oil before it gets in the car. Perhaps they have forgotten about the other products that are obtained from crude oil.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 01:07:23 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 07, 2013, 12:37:25 amyet you seen to refuse to acknowledge the fact that EV's can be used with 100% renewable energy, and locally produced energy at that.And probably a large percentage of people who buys these cars now understand this fact.QuoteThere you go again!

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 01:25:23 am
content: The same goes for combustion engine based cars. They can also run on 100% renewable energy. In my case the gas station is just too far away.EVs are covered in layers of mist trying to make them look more efficient, cleaner, etc than they really are. The fact that people are comparing average fuel consumption with the energy consumption of a particular car just proves that. Lets get to the truth first and then see what is going to save our bacon.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 01:30:49 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 07, 2013, 01:25:23 amBio fuels are not and can never be 100% pollution free, unlike EV's which can be. (Production/distribution debate aside of course).Bios fuels also are not easy to produce. An EV on the other hand can be charged with no effort, it just take sunshine and time.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 02:50:48 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 06, 2013, 11:30:28 pmI'm not sure you understand depreciation.An item that costs $X when new will cost less than that used. The amount it will cost used is based on what someone is willing to pay for it. All things have a life span, including all kinds of cars (gas and electric). That is why people will pay less for a car with 200,000km on it than one with 2,000km on it.The cost of ownership is factored into the depreciation. Cars like AMG Mercedes' have very bad depreciation, largely because they have high repair bills.But regardless of what kind of car one buys, there is no "cost" associated with a future maintenance event that must be considered each year. That is true for all cars and all things which depreciate.If you think that is "ridiculous", it just means you do not understand fundamental economics, or you do and you're pretending not to and hoping we won't catch on. As I said, saying an EV "costs" $1k a year because you must replace the battery eventually is exactly the same as saying a gas car "costs" $1k a year because you'll eventually have to replace the engine. That "loss", *is* depreciation.QuoteAgain, you are stuck on the range issue. There have been studies done on this where the vast majority of people are more than served by the capabilities of current EV's. The remaining minority will be included as battery capacity increases and charging time decrease, both of which are happening at an increasing rate.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 02:54:34 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 06, 2013, 11:37:50 pmI don't believe that to be true. Please provide a source.QuoteI don't believe that to be true either - please provide a source.There are so many falsehoods that are created and repeated regarding EV's. People, for some reason, are heavily biased on this topic and can't think straight... so when they hear something that supports their cause, they repeat it as being factually true.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 03:14:58 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 07, 2013, 01:25:23 amA couple of pages ago you made the CO2 emissions comparison between the Volt and other cars, and then talked about how you can get even cleaner combustion-engined cars - so I think you did exactly the same thing.Many people bring up 50+mph diesels when comparing to the Volt. The Volt is not supposed to be an economy car. It's supposed to be quite luxuriously appointed and, while in the USA it might be mid-size, I bet it's considered a rather large car by Euro standards. In other words, it's not an exercise in EV efficiency, but is always compared to exercises in Diesel efficiencies - which is unfair.In short, the Volt is a very average car and absolutely comparable to average American cars in terms of fuel efficiency - because the people buying a Volt are not people who are seeking out the utmost fuel efficient car they can buy.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 03:26:26 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--The 2020 estimate was done by the Boston Consulting Group, which I quoted about 4 of my posts ago.--Please see the below link to a rundown of the predicted future of batteries for EVs, which is much more sanguine than the title suggests, and tends to support Dave's position, albeit not in all particulars.http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/without-a-technology-breakthrough-battery-costs-are-likely-to-limit-widespread-adoption-of-electric-cars-over-the-next-decade-says-the-boston-consulting-group-80924367.html"To show how battery costs will decline, BCG uses the example of a typical supplier of lithium-nickel-cobalt-aluminum (NCA) batteries--one of the most prominent technologies for automotive applications. BCG's analysis suggests that by 2020, the price that OEMs pay for NCA batteries will decrease by 60 to 65 percent, from current levels of $990-$1,220 per kWh to $360-$440 per kWh. So the cost for a 15-kWh NCA range-extender pack would fall from around $16,000 to about $6,000. The price to consumers will similarly fall, from $1,400-$1,800 per kWh to $570-$700 per kWh--or $8,000-$10,000 for the same pack.Even in 2020, consumers will find this price of $8,000 to $10,000 to be a significant part of the vehicle's overall cost. They will carefully evaluate the cost savings of driving an electric car versus an ICE-based car against the higher up-front cost," explained Massimo Russo, a Boston-based partner and coauthor of the report. "It will be a complex purchase decision involving an evaluation of operating costs, carbon benefits, and potential range limitations, as well as product features."--Thus the prediction of a 60 to 65 percent drop in prices, could hardly be called an extremely skeptical scenario.--Petrol cars are not exactly the same thing as ICE powered vehicles. Cars running on Biogas and Biodiesel are also using renewable energy, No? So since some EVs are using renewable energy and some ICE powered vehicles are using renewable energy, the Carbon argument only applies to petrol, and not to biofuels, Yes.The question would seem to be not what any one individual uses in terms of energy buy what entire classes of vehicles us in terms of energy.--And while we are looking for sources, has anybody yet found the article where the GM executives claim to now be making a 10K profit on each Volt produced.--As long as the Volt is compared to the DOE estimate of the average american car, it would seem to be fair to compare it like for like to other brand new cars, or is it unfair to compare?"My baby said I was crazy my momma called me lazy,I was going to show 'em all this time...Livin' on Tulsa time."Don Williams 1939 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 03:32:08 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 07, 2013, 03:26:26 amNo.Bio fuels are renewable, yes, but they are not zero CO2 as EV's can be.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_biodieselQuote

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:01:55 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 07, 2013, 02:50:48 amWhile I am sure you don't.By your argument as long as the dealer supplies a new car with a full tank of gas the future cost of filling the car with gas is zero it being covered by depreciation. Depreciation is limited to what you paid for the item and is a loss of value. Anything you spend on the item after purchase adds value and is clearly not a loss or depreciation. It is a cost.After 8 years my crystal ball says you are going to have to spend $8-9000 on a new battery which is a $1000 a year cost. I will give you that you could consider some of that cost to be offset by the increased value of the car should you sell it.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:06:28 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:"Bio fuels are renewable, yes, but they are not zero CO2 as EV's can be."--Point granted. And a second bonus point is awarded, because the EV will always produce less pollution in the urban environment, where it is most important. However, biofuels are largely made from plant stock which re-uptakes the CO2, over and over again. Hence biofuels are much less carbon intensive than fossil fuels, in that, although they add CO2 as a result of production, they also recapture some of it in plant growth. If one keeps burning wood from the same lot year after year, I would argue that CO2 is being repeatedly reused, since identical atoms cannot be told apart. Surely one cannot assign all of the Hydro, Wind and PV to EVs and assign all of the Gas, Coal and Oil to everything else. Energy is largely a fungible commodity, at the macro level, no?"If you build a better mousetrap, you will catch better mice."George Gobel 1919 1991Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:10:08 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 07, 2013, 04:01:55 amThe battery has an 8 year warranty!Clearly it is going to have useful service life well beyond this.http://gm-volt.com/2010/07/19/chevrolet-volt-battery-warranty-details-and-clarifications/So at the very least your figure of replacement every 8 years is not realistic.Given the big one-off cost of a replacement, I suspect many won't do it, and will simply put up with an ever declining capacity.Which for many will not be a big deal.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:49:37 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 07, 2013, 04:01:55 amI have demonstrated I understand the subject by very clearly laying out my argument - which is indisputable. You are the one who is double counting the battery cost, both in depreciation and in a mythical annual fee.Ask yourself this... who does the car owner pay this yearly fee to if they sell the car before the battery needs replaced? What if, at the time the battery needs replaced, they choose instead to sell the car - who does the $1k yearly fee get paid to? At what point does the battery "need replaced"? Does the car become undrivable and the fee becomes due? If not, what if the owner decides to put off the replacement and deal with the reduced capacity. What happens to the fee? What if they need a battery but choose to drive the car until they can afford a new one and trade the old one in... who does the fee get paid to?All of the above is accounted for already in depreciation. We have been dealing with this for decades because all cars have a finite life, just like an EV does. Do you think EV's are somehow immune to the laws of supply and demand, and that EV owners will somehow get a fixed price for their car but will be required to pay a fixed price as well?Or do you think combustion engine cars are immune from these future necessary costs you seem to think EV's are saddled with? I am honestly not sure if you are being sarcastic or you really don't understand?In short, owning an EV does not carry an inherent $1k per year cost anymore than owning a combustion engine car carries an inherent $1k per year cost for a replacement engine that will eventually need replaced.If you do not agree, then please elaborate on who this fee is paid by and to whom, when it is paid, and how it is handled in the event the owner sells the car before the battery expires.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:54:23 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 07, 2013, 04:10:08 amOn the Volt forum, there is a big discussion about battery replacement cost. There are a few parts to the battery - a "case" which includes the monitoring/conditioning apparatus, and three "battery modules".The case has an MSRP of $3,000USD. Each of three modules have an MSRP of $1,400. Total MSRP for all = $7,200. In today's money.In reality...-Prius batteries are way beyond their "expected service life", and they are not failing or needing replaced. I suspect the same will be true for the Volt and Leaf and others-Dealers will discount the batteries, so the street price will be substantially lower-Prices will drop-Aftermarket suppliers will develop alternative options, just as your local auto parts store will sell you 20 different brands of brake rotors of varying price-There will likely be some sort of trade-in/trade-up program offered where you can get a much higher capacity battery, or get a trade-in allowance on your depleted battery.One thing we can say with confidence is that it will not cost $8-9k as is being quoted here for a battery replacement after 8 years.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 06:58:20 am
content: In addition, the mileage of an ordinary gasoline car will be lower after 100,000 miles -- due to increased wear and tear.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 09:25:03 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 07, 2013, 03:32:08 amFirst the plants take the CO2 from the atmosphere and then the car releases it again. Nature works that way! Plants get eaten by animals and the animals release the CO2 absorbed by the plants by burning the energy. The net result is zero! And no coal required!You want to do the same with your solar panels in a convoluted way. During the day when you are away you want to supply the grid with electricity from your panels and during the night you want to charge the car with electricity made from coal. The net result is still zero but it smells fishy...If you've read the Wikipedia article you'd known bio fuels aren't impossible to make. Again in Brazil bio fuels already provide 50% of the fuel consumption of the entire country. Someone already mentioned its good to look at systems/methods which catch on in relatively poor countries.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 09:32:42 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 07, 2013, 02:54:34 amYou can look at the EPA website to learn an average EV uses about 225Wh per km. The 475grams of CO2 per kWh come from my electricity bill. If you know the energy mix of a country you can estimate your own numbers:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources. For the car you can look at the vehicle emissions specifications. And you don't have to buy a micro car. Volkswagen has several mid sized cars with low fuel consumption.According to this report from 2009 (http://www05.abb.com/global/scot/scot316.nsf/veritydisplay/cccca72c3e6f9f66c1257864004cedc2/$file/australia.pdf ) Australia produces over 900 grams of CO2 per kWh which is a lot.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 10:41:33 am
content: From an environmental point of view electric cars may or may not be good at the moment, but I do believe they are likely to be the future -- at least in countries which have a good investment in renewable sources of electricity.But the performance aspect alone -- if you take the Model S -- it's got a 400hp+ electric motor, 0-60 in less than 5 seconds and no gear shifts at all. And it does some 130g/km CO2... YES it may use more than a lightweight diesel but you have got a lot more performance than a lightweight diesel!A lot less maintenance too -- occasional replacement of brake pads, tyres and wiper fluid top up. (Probably NOT an issue for someone buying a $60,000+ luxury sedan but it will be interesting to see how this trickles down to other EVs, because unless the parts are intentionally designed to fail, there will be much lower maintenance costs for every EV than a petrol/diesel.)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 11:34:17 am
content: I'm not convinced the maintenance costs are lower. There is still need for a (fixed ratio) gearbox between the motor and the wheels and the motors of an EV typically run at high rpm. Whether this causes more maintenance depends on the build quality (IOW: you pay a high price first or spend the extra money later on). Secondly a typical EV has a complex cooling/heating system for the power electronics and the batteries. I doubt that is maintenance free.EVs come with their own set of engineering challenges... :http://www.dailytech.com/Nissan+Leaf+Battery+Cant+Take+Arizona+Heat+Dealerships+Knocking+5000+Off+Price/article25210.htmhttp://gm-volt.com/2010/12/09/the-chevrolet-volt-coolingheating-systems-explained/

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 12:10:39 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 07, 2013, 09:25:03 amYes, I stand correctedQuoteNo, I can charge the car during the day at home.I could also do that at work if they had solar panels installed there.And for the last time I (and many others if they chose too) do not use electricity made from coal! I have not done so for the last 10 years.QuoteI did not say they are impossible to make, they are not easy (or convenient) to make. i.e. you can't grow it on the roof of your house or workplace. And it doesn't take zero effort to do i.e. install and forget.It actually takes a lot of effort to make biofuel, along with a lot of arable land. So it's something that can obviously only be done on a large centralised scale that requires irrigation, machinery, manpower etc. It's not something the individual can contribute too.Huge difference from solar panels.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 12:23:45 pm
content: For those playing along at home:"Irrigating biofuel crops on a grand scale would be disastrous"http://spectrum.ieee.org/green-tech/conservation/biofuels-water-problemQuoteQuoteAnd to be fair:Quotehttp://spectrum.ieee.org/image/1597262But once again that doesn't take into account the fact that the EV's can be charged from 100% renewable resources, and sources that an individual (and businesses) can afford to own and run to boot.Biofuel is a better future than EV's? Good luck with that...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 12:48:06 pm
content: Now all of the sudden water is the problem... Water can be pumped into reservoirs using wind mills and/or solar powerd pumps. Wind mills and solar power are ideal for that purpose because the reservoirs serve as a buffer. Besides that bio fuel can also be made from waste water using algea and agricultural residu (see poetdsm.com) so no extra irrigation water is required. That latter are still in development / proof of concept phase but look promising enough to invest millions of dollars.edit: the author of that IEEE piece must be raving mad by suggesting bio fuel should be grown in tropical areas. He obviously never heard about rain forrest.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 01:44:07 pm
content: The cooling system in an EV is under a lot less stress. In fact many low-power EVs (<20kW) use air cooling for the motor and a mix or air or liquid cooling for the inverter. Higher power EVs use water cooling for both (plus the battery in the Model S) but only to enable high acceleration and high performance driving continuously without power train failure. Most of the time, the cooling system will be under a lot less stress than in a petrol/diesel vehicle, because in those, the engine is continuously hot.The gearbox is going to be the main concern for long term reliability -- will have to see how that lasts. In future, changes in motor designs will allow for 1:1 wheel to motor ratios, e.g. all wheel drive (one wheel in each motor) or improved motor technology (I think increasing the pole count would do it, but don't quote me on that.)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 01:57:23 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2013, 01:44:07 pmIf you look at the Volt's cooling system you'll see the battery is cooled / heated using an airconditioning system. An aircondition isn't exactly maintenance free. It may seem logical to put the motors in the wheels but car builder's 101 says you must keep the wheels and whatever is attached to it as light as possible to reduce losses in the tyres and maintain good handling. I doubt we'll ever see direct drive. A regular car with front or rear wheel drive produces a torque over 1000Nm in first gear. This is necessary to pull away, especially when hauling a lorry or caravan on an inclined road. I think we'll see EVs with an automatic gearbox real soon. The top speed of EVs is usually quite low. Even though electric motors have a much wider rpm range it is still too limited so the current EVs compromise on maximum pull-away torque and speed.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 01:59:01 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 07, 2013, 12:48:06 pmNope, water has always been a major problem. It simply hasn't been mentioned yet.Inconvenient facts are still valid facts regardless of when they are raised.QuoteAssuming you have the spare water to begin with.Many countries don't.QuoteNo doubt, because water supply is a big issue.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 02:03:01 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 07, 2013, 01:57:23 pmModern ICE cars that can do 250kmh are really useful, huh?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 02:22:12 pm
content: EV electric motor can produce 400Nm at 100mph.ICE can produce 1000Nm... at a few mph.Not much use for that torque to get to 30mph if you have to shift gears... and decelerate in between. The (variablespeedratio) gearbox incidentally is one of the major losses in an ICE based vehicle. Something like 20% of all losses. Model S is 86% battery-to-wheel typically. For other EVs up to 98% has been demonstrated in ideal situations (minimal acceleration, low drag.) This high efficiency means far less power is being lost, which means the cooling system doesn't have to be very complex. The cooling system in an EV need be no more complex than that of an ICE; a pump, thermostat and radiator, with water as the coolant. Except it can be a lot smaller, because it's not used to dissipate as much power. With some clever control logic and hardware, you can reduce wear and tear on the pump motor by using a variable-speed AC drive instead of a DC on-off drive (with brushes to fail, etc.) Cooling limits are about the same for EVs and ICE -- no hotter than 100C is typical.GM's dealerships and parts business depends on vehicles requiring maintenance... it's probably one of the reasons they tried to destroy the EV1s. So they may have made the Volt design more convoluted to ensure that maintenance is required regularly.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 02:24:43 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 07, 2013, 04:10:08 amWhile Tesla only offers 3 years/36000 miles, what do they know that GM don't?If 8 years/100,000 miles is so conservative then why wouldn't they stretch it to 10 years/150,000 miles which means their Californian customers would qualify for a $5000 rebate?$1000/year battery cost wipes out the savings of 30 miles of gasoline free driving per day. GM have to offer a battery warranty which at least promises to break even, we don't know what risk they are taking. It might cost them dearly. We will see in 4/5/6 years.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 02:48:13 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2013, 02:22:12 pmIts not about the torque than can be produced while moving (when moving only the power the engine can provide is meaningfull: E=m*v^2 and you can't convert Nm to J without taking rpm into account. RPM and Nm combined happens to be power... basic physics but people like large numbers even if they are meaningless). Anyway... a certain amount of torque is required to pull a car away from 0 to some speed. In an electric motor torque is proportional to the current but there is only so much current you can supply to an electric motor without burning the windings. Besides that high currents mean a lot of losses in semiconductors and wires. Hence the need for a fixed ratio gearbox in an EV.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 02:57:36 pm
content: Most EVs seem to have settled on a 350~500V system. I'd imagine this is because most IGBTs are the least lossy at this point. In theory someone could build a low voltage & high current EV... most EV conversion kits people build are 72V or 144V DC systems. And they do have good torque but low overall power. So there's a trade-off. If a manufacturer wants to produce a 1000Nm torque EV, I don't see anything really stopping them (apart from the marketing department telling them most people want more overall power instead of more torque.)

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 03:19:52 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 07, 2013, 04:49:37 amYour failure to explain how gasoline is free and covered by depreciation in the same way you claim batteries are free and covered by depreciation demonstrates you don't understand.Volt owners will (according to my crystal ball) have to fork out $8000-9000 in 8 years time to keep using it. Otherwise they sell it or scrap it and that is when take a hit called depreciation.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 03:40:37 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2013, 10:41:33 am310kW motor, 85kWh battery - time with foot on floor to flatten the battery 16.4 minutes (except the everything would overheat an throttle back before then).Each 0-60 in 5 seconds eats 0.51% of your battery capacity or 1.4 miles of your drive ever so carefully at 55mph range.EV drivers will spend most of their time staring at their eco green bouncing ball efficiency indicators not thrashing away from the lights.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:00:20 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 07, 2013, 12:10:39 pmFor the last time you might choose to believe your electrons come from renewable sources - most everyone else sees it as bullshit.In Australia at least many others can not choose to because there are not enough electrons from existing renewable sources (the majority of which is hydro) to go around. They would have to pay the real costs of adding renewable generation like the cost of ridiculously high feed in tariffs which caused the explosion of small solar installations in Germany for example.I would have more time for these EVs are green arguments if you lived in France where 80% of their electricity comes from Nukes.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:04:17 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 07, 2013, 03:40:37 pmAnd how long will slamming your foot down last on an equivalently powered (400hp) gasoline powered vehicle? I'd estimate equivalently as long (i.e. the same ratio taking into account the limited range of the EV) ... if not a little better for EV because there are less losses at higher speeds. Oh, and a gasoline engine will overheat too if you try and dissipate 200kW with only air flowing through that radiator (remember losses are around 65~70% in a gasoline powered vehicle...) I would expect the Tesla electric drivetrain is capable of dissipating the 5~10% (~1.5-3kW) or so it needs to in this situation (total 16% losses are due to tyres, gearbox, friction, etc.)400hp is great for acceleration and overall performance... but like a gasoline car, any attempt to use it continuously is only going to result in tears.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:33:23 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2013, 02:57:36 pmActually torque is a meaningless number when trying to describe the performance of a car. Power = torque (Nm) * rotation (rad/s)So if you have two engines each delivering 100kW but the first is running at 100rpm and the second is running at 1000rpm the torque of the second engine will be 10 times lower but the amount of energy delivered by both is still the same and they will accellerate a car just the same. The only thing is that the second engine will need a gear ratio which is 10 times larger than the gear ratio for the first motor.Another consequence of the formula is that when the rpm goes up then the torque goes down. That doesn't mean the car gets slower though. The amount of energy is still the same (energy cannot be lost) and so is the rate of accelleration.But there is more to it. Combustion engines in cars are often 'programmed' to deliver a flat torque curve so the power rises linear with the rpm. The reason behind this is that research has shown that the fastest accelleration is not experienced as such. While the power is increasing it feels like the engine is pulling. Therefore the engines are optimized for maximum experience and not maximum accelleration.edit: for EV makers there is an interesting dillema: Using a low torque (=low current) engine at high rpm which limits the top speed or using a high torque (high current) engine which can reach high speeds at the expense of more switching and wiring losses.@tom66: Cars from the US are often not designed to work at full load. European en Japanese cars however are designed to run at full load and will do so without problems even when its hot outside.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 04:48:52 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 07, 2013, 04:04:17 pmGasoline has an energy density of 13kWh/kg, lithium iron batteries have an energy density 65 times lower.Even with a generous 4:1 increased efficiency of battery and electric motor a gas car will drive 16 times longer on the same weight of fuel.That is why EVs have enormous batteries and piss poor range. Of course gas cars don't carry the same weight of fuel, the huge range would be pointless, especially when replenishing it takes a couple of minutes.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 05:09:18 pm
content: Ididsay that the range ratio was to be considered... Of course the Model S isn't going to last as long as a petrol ar.Fine, I'll bite.Model S = 265 mi = 85 kWhAverage petrol car = 450~500 mi on one tank (assume average of 12 gallons / 40 mpg). Energy in this fuel = 33.1kWh per gallon * 12 gallons = 397 kWhModel S lasts 16.4 minutes at maximum power, let's assume 100 mph = 25 miles travelled.400hp car at full whack uses 900kW (30% efficient). So your fuel is all used up in 26.4 minutes... 10 minutes longer than the Model S (37% longer.) But, the Model S has a range that is 44% shorter than the petrol car. If the Model S had the same range then it would last only a couple minutes less. Probably longer actually, once you consider the extra efficiency at higher speeds compared to a petrol engine.Short answer is, neither car is going to run for long at full whack... but this is obvious.

author: justanothercanuck
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 07:59:39 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 07, 2013, 03:40:37 pmIs that such a bad thing in today's rush-rush instant-gratification society?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 11:22:18 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 07, 2013, 03:19:52 pmIt was you who said that thinking there is not an annual $1k cost for the battery is like thinking a car with a full tank will never need gas because it is covered by depreciation. You failed to answer my questions - why? I asked you who the $1k annual fee is paid to? And what happens to that fee if the owner sells the car before the battery dies? What if they trade the car in - who is the fee paid to and how much is paid?You don't answer the questions because we both know the answer - there is no annual fee. The cost of the battery is amortized over the life of the car in the form of *depreciation*. Just the same as the cost of a replacement engine or transmission is amortized over the life of the vehicle in the form of depreciation. That's the definition of depreciation - an item loses value based on what someone else will pay for it. What someone else will pay for it has many factors, one of the major ones being the cost of service/repair/warranty work.There are countless examples of this in the automotive world, whether we are talking about desirable cars with horrible depreciation due to maintenance (Mercedes AMG), or cars that have expensive periodic services due (Ferraris, Lamborghinis). There is no need for you to invent silly comparisons and arguments for the EV scenario, because the solution has already been addressed and resolved a thousand times over by the marketplace.Depreciation.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 11:33:52 pm
content: I think you both agree on the same thing but put a different tag on it. According to a Dutch website where you can find the depreciation of most mass produced cars the Opel Ampera (the Chevy Volt's European version) depreciates 43% each year in the first 3 years (about €38500 lost after 3 years). A similar sized gasoline powered car from Opel depreciates 22% each year during the first 3 years (about €10000 lost after 3 years).

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 07, 2013, 11:55:44 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 07, 2013, 09:32:42 amThanks for the link!-I did a search and the first utility company to come up was PGE, they list their emission rate as 0.524lb/kWh of CO2 (237.7g/kWh)-The EPA link you listed shows the average CO2 emissions for a gasoline passenger car are 8,887g/gallon and 10,180g/gallon for diesel.-You noted the average energy per km is 225Whr/km for EV's.So, by my calculations, the average EV could travel 166km to output the same amount of CO2 as the gasoline car. For the diesel, it's worse... the EV could go 190km on the same Co2 output as the diesel.I don't think there are any gasoline cars which can hit 166km/gallon or any diesels which can hit 190km/gallon. Now, it's possible there are some ultra-efficient cars which might come closer (i'd appreciate someone posting a link proving the emissions if they claim such cars exist). But then we are back to comparing an ultra-efficient combustion engine car with an EV that's not designed to be ultra efficient, but rather a well-appointed mid-size car. If we want to consider efficiency, the Chevy Spark has more than double the range of the Chevy Volt with a similar sized battery pack, which would mean an equivalent gas car would need to get over 300km per gallon or a diesel almost 400km per gallon. They don't come close. I realize that is range, not emissions, but I doubt there are any gas or diesel cars which match the Volt, and I'm sure there aren't any which match the Spark.EDIT: I just found a website that lists the most efficient cars in terms of emissions. According to that site, the most efficient car is the Peugeot iOn at 88g per km. At 225W-Hr/km, an electric company would need to produce 391g/WHr for electricity. That seems very "dirty" considering PGE lists 237g/KWhr. It also still doesn't account for a car like the Chevy Spark which would have about half the kilowatts per km of the Volt.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 12:20:08 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 07, 2013, 11:33:52 pmThere is definitely a mistake somewhere in those numbers from that site. According to the first article that popped up on Google, the worst depreciating car in the UK was the Volvo S40 1.6 which lost 58% of it's value in 3 years. In the USA, the worst 5 depreciating cars hold between 27 and 30% of their value after 3 years.43% annual deprecation would be retaining only 18% after three years. Now, the Ampera has not been on sale for 3 years in the Netherlands, so I am guessing something was entered incorrectly or calculated incorrectly by that site. A quick look at Autotrader.co.uk shows 6 Amperas for sale, the oldest being 2012's with between 6k and 10k miles, selling for 25k and 30k pounds. MSRP on the cars is 28k pounds, and 2 year old 2012 models would be around 9k pounds if there was 43% annual depreciation.Anyway, as for Rufus' an my disagreement - we're definitely not saying the same thing. He is claiming that in addition to depreciation, there is a $1k annual cost to the buyer for a battery. That is not true - all long term costs are amortized into the vehicle cost through depreciation, whether it be the battery on the Volt, or engine replacement, transmission, engine-out services and such on other cars. These costs are part of what make up the depreciation.There is an additional component to depreciation on EV's, which is technology advancement. Personally I would never buy an older used EV, I'd always go for a brand new one because the technology is progressing so quickly. I bet most would do the same - meaning depreciation tends to be worse.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 12:35:45 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 07, 2013, 11:55:44 pmI think you got some numbers confused. A diesel always has a lower CO2 emission because a diesel engine is more efficient. You have to compare emissions per distance (km or mile). Besides that its no use to compare average emissions from existing cars. You'll be comparing apples with oranges. At this moment you can choose to buy a new EV or a new efficient gasoline/diesel car. Both will do much better than 'the average car'.QuoteLike I typed before: in some areas the electricity is relatively clean so driving around in an EV could help. In other areas electricity production isn't very efficient so an EV is actually putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.Oh and I'd recommend driving around in a Chevy Spark. Its actually a Deawoo (die-woo) Matiz which is by far the worst car I've ever driven. Its more like a go-kart with a roof... The energy usage isn't stellar either at 212Wh/km (EPA rangehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Spark#Spark_EV).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 12:53:19 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 08, 2013, 12:20:08 amLike on Ebay there can be a huge difference between the asking price and the price something actually sells for. Depreciation rates are often 'predicted' by experts. If I look at the Dutch autotrader site the difference between a new Opel Ampera and one from march 2012 is about €19000 euro. That is close to 38% and we are talking about asking prices. There is always room to haggle.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 02:10:15 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 08, 2013, 12:20:08 amFFS there is an $8k cost to buy the next battery. Buy a Volt and 8 years later you have to spend $8k on a battery, 8 years more you spend another $8k. If my car had 8 year batteries it would be on its third. One of my motorbikes would be on its 5th. Despite being so incredibly complicated with so many expensive moving parts they are both still on their first internal combustion engine.The only way battery cost is covered by depreciation is if the car is scrapped when the first battery is dead. Scrapping a car and making a new one after 8 years isn't economical or green and they are supposed to be the reasons for buying an EV or hybrid.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 07:34:49 am
content: I agree. That Renault Twizy I linked to earlier on is very interesting but you have to pay €60 each month for the batteries. I guess at some point you can buy replacement battery packs from Ebay.

author: poorchava
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 11:41:47 am
content: Well, I would like to see EV's becoming practical in 10 years from now or so, but I think all people here underestimate the power and money behind fossil fuel industry. Someone - be it either a brilliant inventor or a bigger or smaller company - invents a new type of battery which can store - let's say - 1000kms worth of energy in 1/3 of the volume of current batteries. Now please, point at one person (or a few people) who will not kill the inventor and burn all of his stuff to ground for a modest amount of let's say $200 million? I doubt you will. And that sort of money is simply a change for a fossil fuel corporation. And there goes your ingenious technology... And income for the fossil fuel industry is not endangered. Or they will buy out all the intellectual property behind the new technology and put it into a locker (and then sink it in Mariana Trench or wherever).Another thing: if some technology is not invented, which will make batteries extremly cheap, only people in rich countries will be able to afford an EV, and the rest of the world will drive 30year old clunkers, because all that shit that is being manufactured now won't last more than 10 years.Even now, in Middle- and Eastern Europe, Africa and most of the Asia a new car costs something like 5-6 year sallary (assuming you don't spend a single penny). One example: in Poland is I believe still on the 1st place in Europe in terms of percentage of vehicles running on LPG. And it is not because of ecology (which is expensive and 90% of Polish people don't give a shit and the other 10% have emigrated to US/UK/Germany/Netherlands/etc) but because it's cheap.Who is going to buy a high-tech EV in coutries, where maybe 1 in 20 or 1 in 30 families can afford a new car, and the rest drive 2nd/3rd/4th hand ones? Damn - I actually could afford a new car, but what's the point, when a new Compact/City class car with manual transmission, no ac and 1.2l engine (which puts out 100HP and will die after 100k km) costs like 12k€ and for that amount I can buy a 5 year old BMW 5-series in nearly perfect shape?

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 12:00:31 pm
content: Quote from: poorchava on June 08, 2013, 11:41:47 amYou are being paranoid. Batteries which are magnitudes better than what we are currently using are announced on a daily basis. The problem is bringing a lab project into viable production. Believe it or not but at the moment portable computer-ish equipment is the driving force behind battery improvement.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 12:21:12 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 08, 2013, 12:00:31 pmThe big money players have never been able to hide technology.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 12:25:32 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 08, 2013, 07:34:49 amThe Twizy provides interesting perspective of what a large manufacturer thinks the cost of EV batteries is.It has a 6.1kWh Lithium-ion battery. You have to take out a contract which can not be cancelled. In the UK the contracts cost GBP540 to GBP804 a year depending on contract length of 1 to 5 years and annual mileage limits of 4500 to 9000.So between $840 and $1250 a year for a small 6.1kWh battery.

author: justanothercanuck
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 01:56:40 pm
content: Quote from: lemmegraphdat on June 08, 2013, 12:21:12 pmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 02:09:40 pm
content: Lithium-ion battery breakthrough for Aussie researchers:http://www.motoring.com.au/news/2013/lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough-for-aussie-researchers-36561

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 02:58:34 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--With regard to the article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries--A careful reading seems to indicate that this is much ado about nothing. The last of the the article reads:"On July 28, 2009, Automotive News reported that Cobasys would be bought from Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices by battery maker SB LiMotive, a joint venture of Bosch and Samsung. At the time of the 2009 Cobasys sale, control of NiMH battery technology transferred back to ECD Ovonics. In October 2009, ECD Ovonics announced that their next-generation NiMH batteries will provide specific energy and power that are comparable to those of lithium-ion batteries at a cost that is significantly lower than the cost of lithium-ion batteries.On February 14, 2012 BASF announced that it had acquired Ovonic Battery Company from Energy Conversion Devices Inc."--The article probably should have been titled "Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries - NOT!""The lady doth protest too much, methinks."William Shakespeare 1564 - 1616Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 03:06:22 pm
content: But it WAS a problem a few years ago.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 03:27:28 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--With regard to Dave's mention of the Aussie Boffins discovery of a Li technology that will increase battery density up to a factor of 5:http://www.motoring.com.au/news/2013/lithium-ion-battery-breakthrough-for-aussie-researchers-36561--This is probably the most hopeful of a number or recent potentially earth shaking battery developments, one of which will probably eventually come to market, and is a consummation devoutly to be wished. But it is still early days for counting the chickens. And, as per usual, production costs remain a problem. What with Ge going for more that $1500 per Kg. Possibly heavy demand could lower prices considerably."The major barrier to entry at the moment is cost, she told media at the festival. “The price of producing the batteries is very high. But the Germanium-based materials we use are quite abundant in the earth’s crust. They’re very simple to synthesize and cost-effective. They can be fabricated in large-scale by industry, and therefore have great commercial potential.”--However, this would seem to be our best chance yet. It only remains for the nay sayers to point out the fire dangers, and compare it to nitroglycerin."If it were done when 'tis done, then t'were well. It were done quickly."William Shakespeare 1564 1616Best RegardsClear Ether

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 03:56:42 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--The article:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries--Was provided to counter the contention, that:"The big money players have never been able to hide technology."--But all the article proved was that, as commonly happens, patent owners were sticking to their rights, and not bending over backward to help their potential rivals. No information was hidden. I honor and respect the non PHD Rogue Boffin Stanford Ovshinsky, but he could be a bit of a raver at times, and he had a tendency to walk back his most bizarre statements.--The notion that the Big Three ganged up to prevent the development of the EV, is about as credible as the urban legend that the Oil Companies murdered the inventor of the 900 MPG carburetor and hid his research. Strictly flaming faucet stuff."A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool."William Shakespeare 1564 - 1616Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 04:01:59 pm
content: Quote from: DiligentMinds.com on June 08, 2013, 03:29:42 pmI don't see they are trying to rip off customers with the battery contracts. They want to sell their cars. I see it as a measure to remove uncertainty about battery costs for the customer to encourage them to buy the cars. I think most customers would be happier with a battery lease and sticking $4/5/6000? on the price of the car to include the first battery would lead to comparisons with real non-EV cars.The problem is the battery costs are too expensive compared to possible savings, the cars are expensive to buy, and they are only superficially green anyway.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 04:18:27 pm
content: Apparently the new NCR18650(something? not "A") batteries from Panasonic have a 5,000 cycle life to 80% capacity over a 4.1V~3.0V range.Will be interesting to see if Telsa are using these (some speculation on the forums and circumstantial evidence, but no-one's torn apart a battery pack yet to find out if this is actually the case.)If you assume 80% to be a good cut-off for end of life and each cycle gives you 265 miles then that puts it near 1.325 million miles lifetime, more than acceptable IMO.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 05:08:49 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 08, 2013, 03:27:28 pmYesterday I read something about using sulfur (which is very cheap and easy to find) in a solid electrolyte. I think we need to be realistic here. Earlier on Dave posted a graph which showed it takes 10 years for the energy density of batteries to double. So an increase of a factor 4 takes 20 years.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 05:31:45 pm
content: Quote from: DiligentMinds.com on June 08, 2013, 04:28:03 pmOnly Lithium Cobalt oxide batteries contain anything of significant value (the cobalt) and they are very expensive to process. I read the other day a company in Holland is the only place in the world able to recycle them. Other types will just be scrap.It surprised me that that the battery materials are cheap. The cost must be in the processing.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 05:46:47 pm
content: I think even 50% capacity would still be usable and would put the vehicle well past 2 million miles. The cells are individual 18650 and presumably could be removed with some care and used in other applications.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 05:47:29 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 08, 2013, 05:08:49 pmThat graph has flattened off in the last 5 years. The slope for batteries containing Cobalt continued upwards but they are too expensive for wide application.Like they say about the stock market past performance is no indication of future performance. They might get better slowly they might get better in jumps they might stay more or less the same.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 05:54:03 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 08, 2013, 05:46:47 pmI looked at an 18650 data sheet 20% down after 300 cycles. Panasonic managed to increase the life of these batteries by a factor of 16 in one go and casually stuck a C or D on the end? No one else has got close?Smells like bullshit to me. If Tesla are using batteries good for 1.3 million miles why won't they warrant them for more than 36,000?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 06:48:27 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 08, 2013, 05:54:03 pmThey warrant the battery for 125,000 miles/8 years.Numerous reasons why they may not warrant it for longer... If say 5% of electronics fail after 10~15 years then warranting them for 10~15 years can add 5% to your costs, which may be a significant portion of the margin for an early bird product, which can be pumped back into paying off massive R&D costs.Or if there's a software or hardware fault causing damage to batteries that they don't pick up immediately such a fault could bankrupt them.Another thing is if they plan to add to sales revenue, warranties are something you want to -SELL- as insurance for the customer -- not give it away. Perhaps they'll announce additional pricing for this in the future. Warranties on proven technology are basically pure profit.The particular Panasonic batteries are Lithium-Cobalt-Nickel-Silicon(?) based and began production in 2012. They have less capacity than typical Li-Ion I believe (30% difference, quite significant.) I imagine they are an expensive product, so it's uncertain if Tesla are using them, as cost is critical, even for a $70,000+ premium sedan.Either way, I won't be one to buy a first gen EV, probably not even a 2nd or 3rd gen. I'll wait until the technology is a lot more refined and we actually know if the batteries will last long, and for the range to go up and price to come down.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 07:03:50 pm
content: First gen is ok as long as you realise you are the beta ( or even the alpha) test pool. If I could afford an EV I would buy one, but until they are in the second hand car market and have service spares and such available from second sources not likely.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 07:26:13 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 08, 2013, 06:48:27 pmThe roadster battery is warranted for 3 years/36000 miles and $7500 to extend that by 3 years and 36000 miles.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 07:31:45 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 08, 2013, 07:26:13 pmBut that's their first gen product, they had NO idea how long that would last as the vehicle was basically a prototype put into production. Oh look almost 6 years later and no major issues.

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 09:02:59 pm
content: I see that electric cars are viable, but not with the balance of the type of energy production that is being used. Electric cars actually produce more pollution in the end as has been stated, inferred, or mentioned many times in this thread.The electrical infrastructure is just not in any kind of state to provide renewable energy and until it is we would be just shifting the pollution to the power generation plants and with less efficiency in energy conversion by the time the power hits the road.We need to build Thorium reactors all around the world, supplement it with wind and solar where it is viable and not destructive to the environment, and restrict the use of energy to what people should be using. Thorium is what we should have been using the whole time, not that other crap. It was the original idea but the military machine could not get weapons out of it so Uranium and Plutonium reactors were what got pushed into use. Thorium reaction waste products are benign.Yes wind a solar are not the fix. Start extracting energy from the wind sufficient to power the world and you will change weather patterns. There are places in the world, probably most where people live, where solar electricity is too expensive and not viable at all in some. Solar water heaters are viable almost anywhere because any calories you can grab from the sun will save quite a bit heating energy from other sources.My point is that pushing electric cars right now is putting the cart before the horse. An apt analogy, especially when the horse shits.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 10:54:18 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 08, 2013, 04:01:59 pmIt's talk like that that gives EV's a bad name, please stop it, or at least provide a caveat, as you are not telling the whole truth.EV'scanbe powered from 100% renewable green energy if the owner so chooses.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 11:04:18 pm
content: A basic 4kW home solar system charging 8hrs/day can provide 100+ miles of range on a typical EV getting ~300Wh/mile. (Model S: ~250-300Wh/mile, Roadster: ~150Wh/mile)

author: Lightages
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 08, 2013, 11:48:12 pm
content: Quote from: DiligentMinds.com on June 08, 2013, 10:31:12 pmActually I made an error. The waste is hazardous, but what is the real benefit is that the waste is usable for weapons.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle#Advantages_as_a_nuclear_fuelEdit: Morehttp://energyfromthorium.com/2012/12/30/energy-from-thorium-top-10-attributes/

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 12:01:48 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 08, 2013, 11:04:18 pmIn the summer when it is not cloudy and especially if you live somewhere sunny, and when you can leave the car next to your panels for 8 hours, but, see below.Quote from: EEVblog on June 08, 2013, 10:54:18 pmWhich is typical eco green gesturing bollocks.Installing renewable electrical energy generation is green. While there is stillsome(never mind the 92% currently in Australia) fossil fuel burnt for electrical generation using your newly installed renewable capacity to power your car or your microwave makes no difference.Of course it is much easier to flaunt your green credentials driving round in a car than it is trying to show people photos of your solar panels. Look at what you can have plastered on the side of your new Leaf - don't tell me that flaunting green credentials isn't a major consideration when technically illiterate eco green tossers buy these cars.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 12:35:28 am
content: What puts me off is the endless amounts of smoke screens around green energy. According to the IPPC every kWh produced by solar panels still produces about 30 to 40 grams CO2. Ofcourse that is an effect of being in a transitional phase but its good to at least specify that fact so people can choose truly green solar panels (if they exist) or know what they are getting into.And if you think you've found a very efficient hybrid car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_1-litre_car) which should run 100km on 1 litre of diesel it turns out it actually needs 2 litres of diesel but during the range testing they are allowed to recharge the batteries from the mains. As we al know electricity flows from the magic fairy land into the outlets. Anyway, the word 'cheating' comes to mind.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 05:35:16 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 08, 2013, 02:10:15 amNo.There are some people who predict that the cost of a new battery will be around $8k, and it's unknown when that battery will need replaced. You claiming that it needs replaced after 8 years because it is warranted for 8 years is no different than someone putting up an equally bullshit argument that a combustion engine needs replaced after 5 years/50k miles because that's what the warranty is for.All such costs are covered by depreciation. You still have failed to explain who this $8k (or the prorated portion of) is paid to in case the owner sells the car before the battery gets replaced. You know the answer as well as I do - which is why you are refusing to answer the question. There is no $1k annual cost for batteries - and that cost is covered by depreciation.If you continue to want to claim it's not, then explain who the $1k annual fee is paid to if the car is sold before 8 years are up. We both know the answer.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 05:43:55 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 08, 2013, 12:53:19 amFor sure there are big differences between ask and sell.. however I looked on the USA eBay website and there are several Volts that have sold (you can filter by actual completed auctions). For 2 year old cars, the lowest price was $24k, the highest $28.5k, and the average $25.5k. MSRP after the tax credit is $31.6k, so that means these cars retained just over 80% of their original value after 2 years.Depreciation will be something the market will decide of course, but there is definitely something wrong with the Dutch website claiming 43% for year - no way can that be accurate... I'm guessing it's either because the cars have not been out long enough, or perhaps there is some error in their calculation based on taxes or something? I'm not really sure how the Dutch do such thingsOne thing to keep in mind is the tax credits really skew the numbers a bit... the depreciation calculations are based on MSRP, but nobody is paying that for the car.. if they do not qualify for the $7,500 credit in the USA, they can lease the car and still get it in their lease monthly payment.http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2012/12/12/chevrolet-volt-nissan-leaf-electric-car-resale/1761805/

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 05:51:21 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 08, 2013, 10:54:18 pmI've already posted sources that prove that EV's output less CO2 and other greenhouse gases per mile than gasoline or diesel cars. Whenever people have a bias against EV's, they ignore such proof and keep repeating the counterpoint, regardless of how often it's been proven untrue.... such as "EV's aren't green anyway".You could run a 10 year study proving it false beyond any doubt, and those who already have a conclusion in mind will never accept it.It's like religion Dave. If we had a way to absolutely prove that god is fiction - how many religious kooks would say "well, you got me there!". I say somewhere around zero

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 06:51:25 am
content: In the case of a vehicle the depreciation is a total loss and is not recoverable. An EV is a depreciating asset, chattel in fact and a use of money that could be spent on something else, just like a gas car, just like my toaster and clothes. The only way the electric car will appeal to the common man is if ownership is not seen as a burden over what the gas car is.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 11:23:30 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 09, 2013, 05:43:55 amThere are always crazy buyers on EbayAnd your statement only goes for cars with extremely low mileage or show a pretty chick in the picture. The others with more miles don't get sold at all. To go back to the Dutch prices. What I forgot to mention is that the cars on sale on the Dutch Autotrader website are sold by car dealers. They took the cars in looking for a profit. The margin is often around 10% to 20% to cover for expenses and make a profit. So a car which is on sale for €32000 they bought for around €27000. This means a 'loss' of around €24000 for the original owner (47% depreciation).

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 02:26:33 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 09, 2013, 05:51:21 amThe only proof you provided is the statement that the average car is less efficient than the most efficient cars. Such a statement it true by definition and doesn't even remotely prove EVs are the solution.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 03:29:29 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 09, 2013, 02:26:33 pmThere is some funny stuff on wiki about the Tesla roadster petroleum-equivalent efficiency in cost terms. The roadster looks like it might be doing a cost equivalent 270mpg or 123mpg depending which figures you pull out of your hat. The funny bit is if you take up Teslas offer of paying $12,000 now to have a replacement battery fitted in 7 years or 70,000 miles. Including that in the calculation drops the 270 mpg variant to 21.5 mpg. Corporate666 will now tell us this is all wrong and the batteries are free.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 04:01:53 pm
content: Why would you replace a 10-year warranted battery after 7 years?

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 04:32:09 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 09, 2013, 04:01:53 pmThe roadster battery has a 3 year 36,000 mile warranty. The expected (by Tesla) life is 7 years. The $12,000 price is supposed to assume some reduction of production cost in 7 years time.Last time I looked the Tesla S has an 8 year battery warranty.I read up some on Li battery life, quite interesting. If you live somewhere warm the battery will die in about 8 years (30% down on capacity) without using it at all. Using it reduces the life and somewhere warm you will probably be using it more for aircon. Somewhere cold it will last much longer but you will probably be using it more for heating.Your geographical location makes a lot of difference to EV running costs as does your political location with its effect on taxation.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 04:55:31 pm
content: Why are you using the Roadster? They do not sell those any more. The chemistry and battery type is different to the Model S, so the expected lifetime will be shorter.You're right. 8 years on the warranty. My error.One reason I will not buy a first gen EV (I would consider Model S a first gen) and would only consider 3rd gen onwards.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 05:16:35 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 09, 2013, 03:29:29 pmThe company will likely not be in business in 5 years.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 05:17:04 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 09, 2013, 05:35:16 amThere are 100 year old functional engines, there will never be a 100 year old functional Li battery (unless you keep it in a freezer). People know an engine will wear out at about the same rate as the rest of the car. Buyers expect an engine warranty to cover early failure, particularly due to latent manufacturing defects. After that they take on the risk of failure and can insure against it relatively cheaply if they want to.Buyers know or at least suspect an EV battery will wear out much faster than the rest of the car. They expect a warranty to cover early failure but they also require assurance that the battery will not wear out too quickly (it being a substantial proportion of the running costs of the car). Manufacturers have to give a long warranty on batteries to satisfy buyers and that warranty will be as close as they dare get to what they think the life of the battery will be.I posted before if GM think all their Volt batteries are going to last much more than 8 years or 100k miles why don't they offer a 10 year or 150k mile warranty to get their California customers an extra $5000 rebate?Quote from: tom66 on June 09, 2013, 04:55:31 pmBecause the wiki article showing miles per gallon cost equivalents was about the roadster. The batteries haven't changed that much. Telsa think the roadster batteries will last 7 year and the S batteries not much more than 8. The biggest difference is more of their S customers will care about running costs and require a longer battery warranty.

author: ddavidebor
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 08:24:50 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 06, 2013, 01:22:59 pmYou're right dave, australia probably has enought green power to live of solar, water etc etcUnfortunately that is not true for all the places in the world.There are a lot of more or less available solution for word grade problem.Like 4th generation nuclear and OGM.Unfortunately, people don't use to think, they use to refuse everything they don't know.Some of they don't know how a nuclear reactor work, some of they don't know about power grid, some about ogm, some about solar panel, some about politics, some about electric cars.It's everytime the same story.

author: justanothercanuck
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 09:48:11 pm
content: Quote from: lemmegraphdat on June 09, 2013, 05:16:35 pmTesla recently repaid their debts to the US Government. They're doing just fine financially. Proof?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 10:02:05 pm
content: In addition profitability with ZEV credits was achieved in Q1 and expected profitability with no ZEV credits in Q4.Gross margin is 25% per Model S and they have huge back orders to fill.They're leasing/selling tech to Daimler and Toyota.They're doing just fine.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 10:05:46 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 09, 2013, 05:35:16 amSo I buy a Volt in 2013 and in, say, 2021 it needs its battery replacing. I go into my local Chevy dealer and say:"Alright mate, my battery needs replacing"."That'll be $8000 please, sir" comes the eager reply."Nah mate, that's covered in the depreciation", I argue. "I paid $45,950 back in 2013 and it's now worth $1500.""Excuse me sir?" says the Chevy rep, getting a bit agitated.I continue: "Well, the car has lost $44,450 in value over the past eight years. That should more than cover the cost of the battery replacement...""I'm sorry sir, it doesn'tquitework like that..."

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 10:07:03 pm
content: Quote from: justanothercanuck on June 09, 2013, 09:48:11 pmBy borrowing money from shareholders... It only shows shareholders are believing the story Tesla presents to them.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 11:10:22 pm
content: The shareholders aren't fools, Tesla made a profit so they are drinking the kool-aid but being cautious (rightly so!) hence why it's been relatively stable around the $90~$100 mark.Musk also is worth about $3.8bn (from almost nothing left in 2009) so it'd take a lot to knock Tesla out. He seems passionate enough to take the company private and run it his way, if the shareholders object to the way he runs the business. The only reason it went IPO in the first place was because funding was tight.Also SpaceX and SolarCity are doing quite well at the moment as well.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 11:12:28 pm
content: Quote from: justanothercanuck on June 09, 2013, 09:48:11 pmAlmost 100% of all new companies are gone in the first 10 years. They have lasted that long. But I wouldn't buy any of their stock. One good year means nothing and we haven't seen one yet.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 11:25:22 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 09, 2013, 11:10:22 pmMaybe he's another rich guy with his head up his butt. Maybe he forgot to pay his taxes like Buffet.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 11:39:30 pm
content: Quote from: lemmegraphdat on June 09, 2013, 11:12:28 pmAFAIK that is because most startups end up being bought by a big company once the product is mature and the customer base solid.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 09, 2013, 11:59:38 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 09, 2013, 11:10:22 pmPlenty of shareholders are fools ask those who bought into the Facebook IPO how smart they feel.Tesla shares have gone completely stupid recently. There is a definite possibility that Tesla investors will make Facebook investors look smart.Quote

author: staxquad
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 12:39:12 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 09, 2013, 05:17:04 pm“California’s rebate program has funds tocover fewer than 700 customers, total, for vehicles from all manufacturers – and future funding is uncertain”The warranty does not cover normal battery degradation. [GM estimates that the Volt batteries will degrade by 10 to 30% after 8 years or 100,000 miles] Doubt that 10%, even if the battery was unused and frozen for 8 years."However, your primary concern with these batteries should not be their outright death, but rather a gradual drift into senescence. Lithium-ion batteries lose storage capacity over time; how long does your 5-year-old laptop battery hold a charge? This means your EV's range will decrease as it ages — and the more aggressively you drive, the faster that happens. Nissan and GM both acknowledge that their high-voltage batteries will hold less and less electricity over the years, and thattheir battery warranties cover only what they deem abnormal decreases in range.This means that if you buy a Leaf, which has a 100-mile range, and your commute is 50 miles each way, you might have to move in a year."

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 12:57:45 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 09, 2013, 11:10:22 pmGo check SolarCity's financial statements and latest Q-10. Maybe I missed something, but that company seems to suck.

author: justanothercanuck
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 02:09:50 am
content: QuoteLast I checked, the Model S was meant to be high-end... They haven't even started making the econo version yet...?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 03:27:57 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 09, 2013, 02:26:33 pmI don't disagree with you but I don't think EV's are being sold as the solution to pollution (hey that rhymes!). I think they are being sold as a cleaner/greener alternative, which they are. They also have significantly more potential to be even greener, whereas I think we are already at a stage of diminishing returns from combustion engined vehicles. I also think that the numbers I posted prove that while a super-green combustion car can be greener than an 'average' EV, a super-green EV is much greener than a super-green ICE car.I expect the green-ness of EV's will only improve with time, especially if/when we improve the green-ness at the production end.I'd wager it's a lot more efficient, reliable and cost-effective to implement green-nees at the electric production level than implementing/maintaining/upgrading emissions controls at the consumer level (I'm sure in the your country it's at least as much of a burden to maintain compliance as it is in the USA, maybe even more so).

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 03:33:46 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 09, 2013, 05:17:04 pmNone of that changes the fact that there is no annual $1k (or any amount) cost required to operate an EV anymore than there is an annual fee to operate a gas car. The long term costs of ownership are what depreciation is all about - it's essentially the definition of depreciation. How many people are driving 100 year old cars? Even if the engine is technically functional, they do not meet emissions or safety regulations and are only operable under special grandfather-in laws that give them a pass. Are any of those 100 year old cars still running leaded gas? Or solid rubber tires? Or gas-powered lights? No. And why would you assume the battery will wear out quicker than the rest of the car? 100k miles is the design life of modern cars.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 03:44:32 am
content: Quote from: lewis on June 09, 2013, 10:05:46 pmThe answer is the same for a combustion engine car.Let's say you buy a Chevy Camaro in 2013 and in 2021 it needs a new engine. You go to the local dealer and they tell you it will be $8k. Does that mean there is a $1,000/year cost to own/operate a Camaro?If you believe the ongoing costs of major maintenance are not covered by depreciation and there is an annual cost of this major maintenance, then what are the answers to my questions:-If you sell the car after 4 years, who is the $4,000 payable to?-What if you go to the dealer and they say the battery is below replacement threshold and you decide to "drive it into the ground", what happened to the annual operating cost?-What if you trade the car into the dealer just before the battery needs replaced - who do you pay the $1k/yr to?-What if you trade the car into the dealer just after the battery needs replaced - who do you pay the $1k/yr to?After 8 years, the car will have depreciated to maybe 10% of it's original purchase price. So the book value would be maybe $3-5k. There will always be a floor on depreciation because the car will have some value in parts. Furthermore, the battery will not just suddenly stop working one day - rather, the capacity will decrease gradually over time. When the replacement threshold is met, the battery still operates, it's just below a range threshold.So the answer to your question is that nobody would pay $8k to replace the battery on a car worth $1,500 anymore than they would pay $8k to replace the engine on a car worth $1,500. They would either sell the car, trade it in, part it out, give it to charity for a tax writeoff, etc. In other words, they would cash in the value of the car. And the cost of that battery (or engine) would be covered by the depreciation hit they took.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 05:50:30 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--This has been a very rewarding discussion, so far. I have learned and unlearned an then learned again various facts both pro and con. I want to thank everyone for keeping the discussion, for the most part, on a professional level. I have a conservative approach to things political, but I have learned much, and have received much technical help and advice from the other side of the isle, for which I am very grateful. If there were to be a lot of personal, and/or profane comments and subsequent reports to the moderators, this thread, would have been closed by now, as moderators tend to get tired of getting 40 emails a night and having to supervise juveniles. As usual my thanks to admin and moderation for taking the risk of letting me start this controversial topic. Keep the big effing stick to hand, so as to institute the kibosh early, in order to quiet things down. So, thanks to all. And please consider becoming a supporter.--Now to open a new can of worms, and to be just a little provocative for the sake of debate, I humbly introduce the latest link (see below) about Ohio Legislators considering a mileage tax on Hybrids, which is a live topic in all government bodies, and in all nations. One and one half cents per mile is currently the most popular figure being bandied about. My fear is that like the "Value Added" this will, in the end" be an "In Addition To", rather than a "replacement of" present taxes.http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/06/09/states-consider-fees-for-hybrids-to-recoup-loss-of-gasoline-taxes/--One Volt owner opined:"The policy looks especially arbitrary when more and more conventional cars are achieving fuel efficiency that’s comparable to some hybrid cars, Turner added."Ryan Turner, an IT professional in Chapel Hill, said he and many other drivers of alternative-fuel vehicles chose their cars because they’re concerned about the environment and the country’s dependence on oil. The Chevrolet Volt driver helped advocate for a statewide plug-in vehicle readiness plan.On its face, it’s reasonable for electric owners to contribute toward road tax in some way,” he said. “I think what’s suspect is that, given all the issues we have in this state, given the state’s woeful effort so far to promote electric vehicles as part of some statewide agenda, it is suspect that this vehicle tax is a priority given the small amount of the revenue it will bring in.”--So, it looks like Turner is advocating for the "in addition to" tax, so that as a matter of fairness, efficient ICE vehicles, which already pay gas taxes should be punished, with additional "per mile" taxes, for saving customers money and creating less CO2.--Usually EV and Hybrid advocates prefer to compare to the "average vehicle" which includes all the cars that are still on the road, rather than the latest and most efficient ICE vehicles, (comparison unfair), but in this one case they make a straight up comparison. Interesting! It worries me when the governments absorb a greater and greater fraction of the GDP, taking more and more blood from the femoral artery of the Golden Goose. But when they start taking it from the Aorta it frightens me even more."I'll have the Alfalfa sandwich, and the smashed yeast"Woody Allen 1935 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 09:20:25 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 10, 2013, 03:44:32 amYes. It's $8000/8yr, $4000/4yr, $2000/2yr, $1000/year, $83.33/month, $19.23/week, $2.74/day, $0.11/hour, 0.19cents/minute, 0.00317cents/second... you get the idea. I can amortize the cost over whatever period I like. I could do it for miles too - if I do 12,000 miles/year, the battery might fail after 96k miles. Although that's a cost of 8.3cent/mile, it doesn't mean I have to pull over every mile and put nickels and pennies in a Jack Daniels bottle under the seat. But If you think an $8000 item is going to fail after 8 years you better stick $1000 every year into a savings account just in case...QuoteYou get to keep the four lots of $1k you've been putting into your savings account for the past 4 years.QuoteYou get to keep all the $1k annual savings deposits.QuoteYou get to keep all the $1k annual savings deposits.QuoteYou get to keep all the $1k annual savings deposits.Basically, if you don't spend any money on maintenance you get to keep what you would have spent on maintenance. I'm not sure what sort of corporate environment you work in, but that seems pretty simple to me.QuoteKind of smacks of eco-lunacy dosen't it? Buy a hunk of rare-earth metals and toxic chemicals, manufactured with tons of energy, and throw it away after 8 years? But no. the cost of the factory-fitted battery (or engine) is covered in the purchase price of the car. The depreciation does not 'cover the cost' of the replacement, because there is no replacement! The vehicle depreciatesmorebecause it will eventually need a replacement.If everyone knew the Volt's battery lasted 100 years and never needed replacing in it's lifetime, then it's reasonable to assume the car would depreciate less. Maybe a volt with the 100 year battery would sell for $9500 after 8 years rather than $1500. So after 8 years, with the 8-year battery, the car was worth $1500, but itcouldhave been worth $9500 with a decent battery, that's still an $8k loss. Whether you replace the battery or not, the car has still cost/lost you $8k over 8 years: If you want $9500 back when you finally sell it, you'd better be putting $1k every year into a savings account.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 09:40:49 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 10, 2013, 05:50:30 amWhere do you get all these quotes from? I must admit I do enjoy them!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 09:43:24 am
content: Quote from: lewis on June 10, 2013, 09:20:25 amAnd once again, no one is going to throw that car away after 8 years.The battery will still have at least 2/3 capacity left after 8 years (if it doesn't it's covered under warranty)They might trade it in yes, they might sell it, yes, but it won't get scrapped.Rest assured that someone will drive that car until it goes into the ground, just like they do with most ice cars.In fact the loss of battery capacity with age is not much different to old ICE cars. The older it gets the worse it performs in all sorts of ways, and the less you want to spend on it.I suspect very people will ever end up replacing the battery packs, whether it's the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd owner, and even if the price drops to a few $K for a 3rd party replacement.My ice car is now 10 years old, has done 200K, and is a heap'o'shit worth only a couple of grand. It's almost worthless, so much so that I didn't bother comprehensively insuring it any more.It's simply not worth spending the $700 basic excess on it to fix anything.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 10:59:41 am
content: Does anyone know how much the range of a gasoline car decreases by after 8 years?Anecdotal information: my dad's diesel Peugeot 206 did 56 mpg from the factory, but it's now doing around 47~48 mpg. It's 5 years old, with about 80,000 miles on it. That's a decrease of about ~17%/100k miles.That being said... you could probably get that closer to factory specs by replacing worn out parts, cleaning other parts, etc.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 12:10:59 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 10, 2013, 09:43:24 amThe economics say it will be scrapped or sold of to Africa. Nobody will spend $8000 on an 8 year old car. So in a few years you'll be able to buy a Volt for a couple of hundred dollars/euros and use the ICE all the time at which point the Volt is extremely inefficient compared to other cars. Remember Chevrolet (Deawoo) is not known for their excellent build quality.Quote from: EEVblog on June 10, 2013, 09:43:24 amI don't know what kind of cars they sell in Australia but a reasonable car (Japanese or German) with an ICE lasts for at least 20 years /400k km without needing replacing major parts like the engine or without losing its performance.@tom66: a lot can depend on what quality of fuel you put in your car. Because diesel needs to be 'atomized' by the injectors a lot depends on the age of the injectors and the dopes added to the fuel. My previous diesel car got 15% less milage from cheap fuel compared to BP or Shell which only costs a few cents more.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 12:50:26 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 10, 2013, 12:10:59 pmYou completely ignored my point about the car still havingat least2/3 capacity, and that would still be useful to someone. To say such a car would be sold off as scrap to Africa is just crazy.You also ignored my point of why no one would spend $8K on a new battery.QuoteI think you'll have a very hard time backing that assertion!To my knowledge it is generally understood that all cars will decrease significantly in performance and millage with significant age, based on regular scheduled servicing.I know jack about cars, but that's what I've always heard, and what my brother in law who has been a car and truck mechanic for 30 years has assured me is the case.BTW, mine is German and has had no less than 7 coolant system failures (including an engine surface re-machine), a timing belt, half a dozen different oil leaks, various sensors (some twice or three times), several emission system failures, and more, all in less than 200K and 10 years. And yes, the performance and millage started decreasing after a couple of years. (I used to track and graph the millage fairly closely)And like Penny from TBBT, I've driven the last 70K with my check engine light permanently on.My previous car (Mazda) was Japanese, and was very reliable (but still had it's fair share of component failures), and did 300K+ before it finally fell apart. But to say either never lost performance would be crazy, both started going downhill after about 100K or so.And once a car gets to a certain age and millage, only fools keep spending money on it keeping it at peak performance. So they just naturally wear down in many ways.I'd be surprised if you can find anyone to back up your claim of no performance or millage loss after 20 years and 400K. A modern cars performance and millage depends upon ahugenumber of precisely engineered complex systems that do lose tolerance and wear with age.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 01:33:16 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 10, 2013, 10:59:41 amIIRC correctly both of mine dropped by a good 10% after 100K.My current one is maybe around the 30% figure after 200K, but I would not class that as typical.QuoteOf course, but almost all people do just the regular scheduled maintenance, which actually isn't much in the scheme of modern complex cars.Heck, neither of mine, or my wifes two cars (Toyota + Nissan, that's 4 brands total) don't even recommend cleaning the fuel injectors for the life of the car.Even I know they have a fair bit to do with the performance and millage. Let alone other stuff?

author: Ferroto
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 01:56:47 pm
content: The government should have let GM and the big banks fail. They got themselves into this mess and they should be responsible for getting themselves out of it.As for electric cars for better or worse they are here to stay. Oil will keep getting more and more expensive by the day and according tohttp://www.worldometers.info/we only have 41 years of oil left. We're either going to go to electric cars or we're going back to the horse and buggy.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 02:33:08 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 10, 2013, 12:50:26 pmIt showsI do most of the repair and maintenance on our cars myself and even altered some bits of my diesel car to get an extra 5% better mileage. If mileage goes down it means a lot of fuel goes down the tailpipe without getting burned or something is dragging the car down. In the old days the carburator needed careful adjustment and it did waste quite some fuel nevertheless. For the past 20 years all cars have electronic controlled injection and fuel/air mixture ratio sensing (lamdba sensor). The performance can go down if the air inlet filter gets clogged but the mileage can't just go down otherwise you fail the emission test. If the mileage goes down you need to look at the fuel (less calories? mixed with something else?), suspension or the tyres.Things like filters and suspension need replacing on regular intervals. Also the valves need to be checked and adjusted every now and then (unless they adjust themselves automatically). The fuel injectors wear and the inlet gets dirty which means you need fuel which disperses properly even in less than perfect conditions. Adding cleaning agents can also help. Even after 320k km my diesel car still gets about 18.5km from a litre of diesel which is slightly worse than the 19.6km/litre specified by the manufacturer but then again I never drive slow and the NEDC test used to get the mileage numbers is known to be optimistic.The mileage going down significantly is not acceptable (for me). If that happens something is wrong and needs to be fixed. I know many car dealers dismiss 'little' problems like cars using too much oil, pulling to the left/right, using too much fuel, etc ,etc to get rid of waranty claims or try to get you to buy a new car.I find it interesting you invested in solar panels but don't stop your cars from wasting precious fuel even though the fixes are probably simple

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 03:11:37 pm
content: Just a quick back of the envelope calculation comparing EVs to conventional vehicles in terms of fuel filling time.It takes about 5 mins to fill my car with enough fuel to go 500 miles.Someone posted earlier that an EV needs 0.3kWh per mile. So for a 500 mile range it needs 150kWh. To 'fill up' the battery in 5 minutes corresponds to a power requirement of 1.8MW. Yep, megawatts. If the charging voltage is 600V, that's a charging current of 3000A. That's one hell of a bit of cable and one hell of a connector to safely leave in the hands of the average punter.Even with the fanciest battery technology in the world are we ever going to see EVs that fill up as fast as conventional vehicles?

author: WV1800es
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 04:08:38 pm
content: Why on earth is the government subsidizing/promoting these electric vehicles, when the US has so much natural gas it can't be sold for a profit? Conversion of existing vehicles is not a big problem, manufacture of NG/Gasoline vehicles has been done for years. The cars last forever, no engine wear, and virtually no emissions- There's a LOT of energy out there, that's much more usable than electricity. No lithium disposal problems either...

author: Excavatoree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 05:15:41 pm
content: Quote from: WV1800es on June 10, 2013, 04:08:38 pmBack when I worked at the school bus company, they were greatly increasing the CNG (Compressed natural gas) offerings. They were well received, but for some reason, they didn't catch on.To meet the diesel emission regulations, there is a lot of expensive equipment that needs to be added - both to on-road and off road equipment. (like excavators) I always wondered why my company doesn't go with CNG power. I believe a CNG powered engine meets Tier 4 requirements with no Catalytic converter, no DPF, no SCR system (pee injection) or anything like that.I've always wanted to buy a CNG car, but there's nowhere to get the thing filled.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 05:27:29 pm
content: Quote from: WV1800es on June 10, 2013, 04:08:38 pmElectricity is the universal fuel. You can burn natural gas and convert it into electricity. Isn't something like 30% of the US powered by natural gas? Why build an infrastructure around natural gas when you can build it around electricity, and be able to mix and swap fuels without completely replacing the infrastructure?And to say natural gas produces "virtually no emissions" is misleading. It produces about 50% less CO2 than gasoline, but that's still a fair share of CO2.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 05:33:00 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on June 10, 2013, 03:11:37 pmProbably not via electric charging. But prototype liquid electrolyte designs have been proposed. The depleted electrolyte in your vehicle is pumped out and stored. Fresh, charged electrolyte is then pumped in. The fuel station takes your depleted electrolyte and recharges it for the next customers. Gas-pump speed would be easily achievable.There are many problems with this, namely, developing energy-dense batteries which can use such electrolytes, but it may be one solution to the problem. Plus, there is a lot more infrastructure to be built than a simple charging point, which only needs to be plugged in. Theoretically, if there were onboard chargers on a vehicle, this would give you the best of both worlds -- slow, overnight electric charging which can be done at home, and on the go pumped charging which can be done in under 5 minutes...

author: Excavatoree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 05:34:58 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 10, 2013, 05:27:29 pmDoes it somehow produce less CO2 to burn it to create electricity? Isn't it more efficient to use it directly for transportation if the CO2 emissions are equal?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 05:41:17 pm
content: Quote from: Excavatoree on June 10, 2013, 05:34:58 pmIt depends.Building a small natural gas engine for a car may allow you to achieve 30~40% efficiency (for example...)Whereas a natural gas plant can achieve 60~70% efficiency.It's more efficient to burn it in a large, efficiency optimised continuously running "engine", than in one that must constantly rev/slow down, stop in traffic, and has to be optimised to hit a sticker price.Plus, a large power plant can have carbon capture or other initiatives to reduce emissions.Grid-to-plug efficiency is 97%+, so there's no major loss transmitting electricity across the grid, as it stands.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 05:48:46 pm
content: Over here most of the electricity is produced from natural gas and its still more efficient to run a car directly from natural gas than electricity. The CO2 footprint of an EV versus an efficient car just proves that without going into a debate about efficiency of parts of a long chain. The problem with electricity is that it is not a fuel but an intermediate form of energy which needs to be converted several times. Each conversion while being efficient in itself causes losses and many conversions in a chain cause a lot of loss.

author: Excavatoree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 05:55:01 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 10, 2013, 05:41:17 pmAh, I see. Well, I obviously didn't think about that enough before replying. I know better. Similarly, electric/IC hybrids are more efficient because the engine can run at optimal RPM. IC intake and exhaust systems can be "tuned" for more efficient operation at one RPM rather than a compromise over a range. After all, locomotives have been hybrid designs for a while.I was considering using CNH as an interim measure, as battery technology improves and electric and electric/hybrids become more practical. After all, 50 percent fewer emissions is significant, and the changes to the vehicle are mostly positive - less emissions equipment required, and natural gas fuel systems are well known and readily available and no more complicated than gasoline systems.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 06:32:14 pm
content: Why interim? You propose upgrading the entire gas station industry to CNG, only to replace it with an electric infrastructure in ~10 years time?

author: Excavatoree
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 06:50:34 pm
content: Of course, it depends on the timing, but there is already a lot of CNG infrastructure in place, at least in the US. Many municipalities have CNG fueling stations for all city vehicles. Large portable tanks could be used in some cases. (as they are at large factories to power lift trucks, tugs, etc.)Obviously, in some places it would be completely impractical, in others, it may be possible to continue even after EVs have further gained acceptance.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 08:47:17 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on June 10, 2013, 09:20:25 amYou're correct in that it is very simple. What you have just described "amortizing the cover over..." has a name - it's called depreciation.Your words imply that if you sell the car one day before the battery hits "terminal", the running costs for the battery are $0, whereas if you sell it one day after it goes terminal, the running costs were $8k. That is not true - because the same car with an 8-year old never-replaced battery will have a different value than the same 8-year old car with a freshly replaced battery.So, as I have been saying all along - the costs of major service work on any vehicle is accounted for in depreciation. There is no annual fee associated with that work in addition to the depreciation of the car.QuoteThe bolded is confirming what I said - that the replacement cost is accounted for by depreciation - there is no annual battery replacement cost associated with owning/driving a Volt or any other EV.It's also not true that the vehicle depreciates more due to the potential battery replacement cost. You may not agree, but residual values are actuarially determined and they are pretty accurate. The depreciation curve of a Chevy Volt is established, and the facts are that while the Volt does not have the best depreciation out of available cars, it is not worse than comparable gasoline cars, nor is it the worst depreciating car (or even on the lists of top worst depreciating cars).QuoteYou proved my point again. The cost of the battery replacement as well as the likelihood of needing to replace that battery is covered by depreciation. One could argue that a Volt will depreciate more because the cost to replace a battery will be higher and more likely to happen than the cost to replace an engine... but firstly, that is still depreciation, and secondly, the data is out there and anyone can look it up - and it proves the Volt does not depreciate at some large delta due to battery costs.As for "terminal depreciation" where the cost to replace/repair a major component exceeds the price of the vehicle - that happens right now with ICE cars and has for years. The manufacturers sell hundreds of millions of cars per year... what do you think happens to all the old cars? There is a chain of use... new car gets sold as used, used car gets sold as even-more-used. Eventually they get sold for parts, or are crushed/recycled. Some wind up in developing countries, or are used as cheap cars by students, etc.It's no different for EV's. There are $500 cars that you drive into the ground and take them to the junk yard when they break. There will be likewise $500 EV's that you drive into the ground and take them to the junk yard when they break.

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 08:53:28 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on June 10, 2013, 03:11:37 pmThe Chevy Spark already allows recharging to 80% of max capacity in 20 minutes. Max capacity is around 80-100 miles.I see no reason why that number will not continue to improve (in charge stored and time taken). There are a whole lot of folks "calculating" why EV's won't work, all the while EV's *are* working. People arguing how they depreciate more (they don't), how there is a $1k annual cost for batteries (there isn't), how the electrical grid won't sustain charge requirements (it will), how they emit more CO2 (they don't), how they pollute more to make (they don't), etc, etc.As I said to Dave earlier, this topic brings about an almost religious dogma in people. I am a car guy. I have my SCCA racing license and I used to compete semi-professionally. I've rebuilt probably 10 engines over the years and I like to tinker with my cars - and I've always owned performance cars. I'm the furthest thing from a tree-hugging greenie. But even I can see that EV's are the future. They offer so many advantages and comparatively few disadvantages.There is a reason why every single major car company in the world is investing billions into EV's. And it's not because none of them took the time to run some numbers and learn that EV's are not going to work

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 08:57:16 pm
content: Quote from: WV1800es on June 10, 2013, 04:08:38 pmNG cars have been around forever, but have never caught on. There are issues...1) Storage of highly pressurized CNG2) The energy needed to compress it3) CNG has less energy per weight than gasoline IIRC, so it's not really getting you anything4) The user experience is crap. Dunno if you've driven a CNG conversion, but they are total shit. Shuddery, noisy, clunky, etc. Just like diesels never really caught on (at least in the USA) because they are clunky, sooty, noisy and rattly... people just don't want that in a car.Honda has had a CNG car for years - they sell almost none. Nobody wants them. The conversion to EV's will come about as the user experience exceeds that of the gasoline experience. Considering reduced complexity, better packaging (no need for a big driveline tunnel), drastically quieter and smoother, much better reliability/simpler design, more convenience, etc... it's just a matter of time before EV's supplant ICE vehicles.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 09:07:34 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 10, 2013, 08:53:28 pmAnd the sales are sky rocketing! Woohooo!http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427118/another-slow-month-for-volt-sales/You probably don't know that car makers are forced to put cars on the market which are supposedly green (at least can be made look green to fool politicians) to avoid paying extra taxes. That is where the benefit of EVs is for car makers.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 09:12:38 pm
content: The volt is a hideous vehicle.4 seats only? Battery intrusion into the cabin? 40 mile range on a good day? $40,000?I'll take a Model S or Roadster, if I could afford one. But since I couldn't, I'd probably get a Leaf... $10k cheaper, achievable 100 mile range and a decent five seater vehicle.Sales are booming for cars people actually want to buy like Tesla and Nissan vehicles.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 09:25:20 pm
content: OK... I'm glad we're singing fro the same hymn sheet.Quote from: Corporate666 on June 10, 2013, 08:53:28 pmWhat sort of power source is required for this?

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 10:02:49 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 10, 2013, 09:07:34 pmThat article is more than a year old.Here are the real numbers:http://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/The Volt is not representative of EV's as a whole. It is but one choice of many. It may be that the Leaf wins, or the Plug in Prius wins in the marketplace. But one thing is absolutely undeniable - EV sales are growing at a rapid pace - somewhere around double what they were last year.It is also not true that "car makers are forced to put vehicles on the market which are supposedly green... that is where the benefit is of EV's to car makers". There are emissions standards that fleets must adhere to, but those standards do not require EV's to meet.And the claim is also contradictory with your claims that EV's pollute as much or more.Fact is, you've said quite a few things in this thread which are factually untrue, and I've corrected you several times. In each case, you just switch to another unfounded criticism. As I said earlier, it is no different than religion. People have their conclusion before they form their argument, and their argument is created to fit their conclusion. There is a reason all of the car manufacturers are spending billions on EV's. And it's not because they aren't as smart as a few guys on the Internet who "have it figured out" (but are unable to post any legitimate facts to back up their claims, and rather just repeat previously debunked claims).

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 10:07:36 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on June 10, 2013, 09:25:20 pmNot sure...http://www.chevrolet.com/spark-ev-electric-vehicle.htmlBut it's apparently an SAE standard. Not sure if you are familiar with the SAE, but it's Society of Automotive Engineers. They come up with all the standards and test regimens that vehicles must meet (and our NHTSA/DOT - analogous to the TUV) mandate compliance with. So I expect it will be a pretty well documented universal standard that will apply to lots of different vehicles.Could be the same thing Tesla is using on their network of fast-charge stations on major highways in the USA?EDIT:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAE_J1772looks like 240V, 80 amps as of the 2009 revision - and it is the same method that Tesla uses for their quick-charge.GM claims quick charging can be done multiple times per day and does not affect battery life. Very interesting.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 10:20:55 pm
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 10, 2013, 10:02:49 pmI've backed up every claim by solid math. Now you claim math is religion?

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 11:06:42 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 10, 2013, 02:33:08 pmOh horse pucky. 5% gets lost in the normal deviation.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 11:37:16 pm
content: My car is a POS also. But the thing is that the value of my car has always been as transportation. The monetary value went to the dealership I bought it from. I can only realize some of that value if I sell it. I didn't buy it to sell it. I bought it to drive it. Same thing for an EV. It's just transportation. If buying a new battery for an EV makes sense, it makes sense if the other systems in my EV are in good shape and the battery is not satisfying the demands of the vehicle and my driving habits. Bottom line is, do I spend money on a new EV or is it cheaper to keep her.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 10, 2013, 11:54:36 pm
content: IMHO many here are completely missing the point of the Volt or other EVs.I will likely replace my current car with a Volt in the next year. Here's why:I commute 6 miles each way to work.95% of my driving is within a 10 mile radius of my home.99% of my driving is within a 20 mile radius of my home.For the 2-3 times a year I drive farther - to a big city (Seattle or Porltand) -I can take the Volt and burn a little gasoline.We have a 4500 watt solar PV system - which supplies more electricity than we use in the summer months.My grid electricity is primarily supplied by Hydro power (Columbia River) and costs $0.065 per kwh.A Volt will cost me $32K and will save me approximately $100 per month in fuel costs (and likely more in the future as gasoline costs rise).

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 12:32:14 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 10, 2013, 08:47:17 pm

author: Corporate666
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 12:40:28 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 11, 2013, 12:32:14 amPlease do not misrepresent what I have said.I have said "covered by depreciation" and "amortized over" - which is the same thing as depreciation. I have never "flipped" anything nor have I changed my stance one bit since the beginning of this debate.You stated that there was an annual cost associated with owning/driving an electric vehicle that was in addition to the depreciation. That is not true. The cost of major repairs, whether they be a battery or any other major system, are included in the depreciation cost of a car. They are all the same "column" - which is a delta in value between new and resale price. There is no out of pocket annual cost as you claim.I've challenged you numerous times to answer my questions, which you have refused to do, because the answers clearly illustrate that there is no mythical annual cost associated with owning/driving an EV beyond depreciation. I'll repeat some of those questions again, in case you choose to answer them this time, or at least admit you were wrong.1) If you trade the car in just before the battery needs replaced, who does your annual $1k cost get paid to?2) If the dealer says you need a new battery but you choose to "drive it into the ground", what happens to the $1k annual cost?'3) If the dealer says you need a new battery and you choose to instead trade the car on a new one, what happens to the $1k annual cost?4) What if you lease the car on a 3-year lease, what happens to the $1k per year cost you claim EV owners take on?5) What if you keep the car for 5 years (IIRC, the average time new cars are kept) and then sell it. Who do you pay the $5k in accumulated annual costs to?You know the answers as well as I do. Those costs are depreciation. A car depreciates based on various factors, including the long terms repair/replacement costs of major components. Which is why an AMG Mercedes has such high depreciation - they break a lot and are expensive to fix, so people are willing to pay less for the cars.So the deal "annual cost of owning an EV" is not the mythical $1k you claim, but rather the delta in depreciation between an equivalent gas car and an EV. Depreciation values are accurately calculated by actuaries and their data is authoritative.And if you look up 3-5 year depreciation values on the Volt, you will see that it is not amongst the lowest of vehicles, or the lowest in it's class.Therefore, the claim that there is a $1k annual cost associated with owning a Volt is... bullshit.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 12:42:43 am
content: Quote from: lemmegraphdat on June 10, 2013, 11:06:42 pmNot if you measure the same trips (daily commute to work) over a long time / thousands of kilometers.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 01:14:46 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 11, 2013, 12:42:43 amThat's when the normal deviation is a factor. Not when the car is in the garage.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 01:37:44 am
content: Quote from: Corporate666 on June 11, 2013, 12:40:28 amYes you are right the Volt has an extra $1k annual depreciation to cover the battery and if you want to keep your Volt running after 8 years you will have to spend $8000 on a new battery to cover the $1000 extra depreciation for the next 8 years.It was really stupid of me to think that having to spend $8000 every 8 years was some kind of $1000 annual cost.Meanwhile here is what someone who studies these things for a job rather than bitching on forums thinks.http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/24/electric-vehicles-may-be-the-green-car-of-the-future-but-hybrids-are-the-green-car-of-the-present.htmlNo doubt he belongs to some anti-EV ministry or is being paid by big oil or terrorists or someone to undermine America's EV future.I'm beginning to think you must have bought some of those expensive Tesla shares.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 02:12:44 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on June 11, 2013, 01:45:05 amMy crystal ball says so, but there are lots of others you can choose to believe. It will vary depending on use and the temperature it experiences over time. You can also choose to accept less electrical range and spend more on gasoline lugging around a half dead battery and the paraphernalia required to support hybrid operation.You get an 8 year battery warranty. If it doesn't make economic sense with an 8 year life it is up to you to gamble on it lasting long enough.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 03:53:33 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 10, 2013, 02:33:08 pmThanks for admitting that your assertion is false and I was correct. Cars loose performance and mileage with age.QuoteThe car hardly does any miles any more, and simply is not worth spending a cent on unless I have to.I do not maintain my own car, so it cost real money to have anything done to it.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 03:56:59 am
content: Quote from: wilfred on June 11, 2013, 01:45:05 amIt doesn't, he's picking a published warranty number and blindly (actually deliberately) applying it wrong.It is ridiculous to think that they can offer an 8 year warranty on the battery, andnotfor it to have a useful life much longer than 8 years.These companies are not stupid.8 years is the absolute minimum it will last on the lower side of the bell curve.

author: GK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 04:15:22 am
content: Gosh, 19 pages of blah blah.EV's suck anyway. Who wants to drive a car that sounds like a hairdryer?

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 08:22:40 am
content: They don't make much noise at all? You get some wind noise at high speeds, and a "weeeeeee" from the VFD drive for the motor at lower speeds. But that's about it. Some owners of the Model S are complaining that the fan inside the touchscreen computer makes too much noise when they are driving...

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 09:53:26 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on June 11, 2013, 03:53:33 amSigh. Cars don't loose performance and/or mileage unless something is broken. The way gasoline cars work is that the fuel/air mixture is constantly monitored and adjusted so the engine always runs at optimum fuel efficiency. There is no way around that! However if something breaks it may start to use more fuel but the check-engine light will be on as well and the CO, NOx or hydrocarbon levels will be through the roof (and probably ruin the catalytic converter). For a diesel its quite similar; diesels start to smoke when the fuel doesn't get burnt properly for some reason. The smoke causes a failure for the emission test so the owner is forced to fix it. But since you so proudly touted you have driven 70k with the check-engine light on I suspect they have no mandatory annual car check for safety and environmental problems where you live. Ignorance is bliss.I'd like to be the building contractor for your new home. If you complain your roof is leaking after a year I'll simply dismiss that by saying 'every roof starts to leak after a while' and you'll probably be happy with that just like you are with your broken cars. Do I need to rub more salt in or do you get the point?

author: tinhead
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 10:11:48 am
content: Quote from: free_electron on May 22, 2013, 07:20:53 pmthe price here (120k EUR for all you can get) is in my opinion acceptable, a good car costs money.The only disadvantage (for us here in Germany) is the fact that Tesla S can only drive 210km/h,something like 300 (or at least these "magic" 250km/h) would be better for such good car.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 10:43:51 am
content: It's theoretically possible to make an EV go faster than the 120~130mph of the Tsla, but I'm not sure what the point is, aside from racing on a closed circuit. If you need fast, the inverter drive needs to be a lot more powerful. (It's currently a mere 310kW at 400VDC, or 775A DC.)

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 10:58:05 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 11, 2013, 09:53:26 amThe stupid light has been coming on since I got the car brand new, it's been "repaired" about 3 times. Some stupid sensor being marginal or something, common for this model I have been told. So it's borderline a design fault.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 11:03:29 am
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 10, 2013, 11:54:36 pmThat's very admirable sentiment, but the Volt will take over 26 years to pay for itself, not including the installation and maintenance cost of your PV system. You could get faster payback by buying a smaller second hand ICE car for a few hundred bucks that gave you better mileage. (Peugeot 205 diesel can easily get 70mpg.)Using cost savings as a justification for buying an EV doesn't quite stack up just yet.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 11:41:12 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 11, 2013, 10:43:51 amThe problem is not the power but the maximum rpm. In some countries there are no speeds limits so yes there is a practical use for having a fast(er) car.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 12:15:33 pm
content: Yes, since it is a VFD driving a three-phase AC motor, RPM is proportional to the drive frequency (and the pole count, I think) you can either increase the pole count (more expensive motor) or increase the maximum drive frequency (more expensive inverter.) Increasing frequency increases losses.Have you seen how small the 310kW inverter is for the motor? It basically bolts on the back of the motor and is about the same length of the motor. Connects direct to the battery. I'm amazed that it fits in something that small. I'd imagine it's directly liquid cooled, along with the motor and battery pack.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 12:16:40 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on June 11, 2013, 11:03:29 amNo car has to pay for itself.When you pay extra to buy a car because it is more economic to run than the alternatives the economies have to cover the extra. I would say that is marginal with the Volt depending on how long the battery lasts.If it wasn't marginal why would Uncle Sam feel the need to force others to pay $7500 of the extra?

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 12:22:16 pm
content: Quote from: tinhead on June 11, 2013, 10:11:48 amNot a lot of point doing 250km/h down the autobahn when you have to stop every 8 minutes and 'super'charge the battery for 20 minutes.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 12:37:39 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 11, 2013, 12:16:40 pmThat's true, but if it's a choice between spending $32k to save $100/month, or 0$ to waste $100/month, it's not unreasonable to think of it in these terms. Unless, of course, the purchaser has another reason, other than saving money, for buying an EV. Also, one doesn'tneedto spend extra to get better economy; smaller and cheaper ICE cars tend (yes, not always) to be more economical than big and expensive ones.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 01:37:14 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 11, 2013, 12:22:16 pmUmm, no.http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/autopia/2012/05/graph1.jpgThe Model S has 180 miles of range at 80 mph continuous. More than 2hrs of fast motorway driving.Following the (somewhat)linear decay at ~120 mph you should be able to get around ~120 miles range i.e. 1 hour continuous high speed driving.At 155 mph I would expect 80 miles or so (if the vehicle were capable... it is electronically limited), which would get you half an hour of insane speed driving. Fun, until you hit that roadside barrier. You had better hope the better crumple zones due to no ICE will save you. Even the best ones will probably not.EVEN if you were pulling the full 310kW motor power continuously (accelerating) you'd still get 16 minutes of driving.Main losses at higher speeds are due to friction and air drag. Lower speed losses are mostly due to car systems (lights, touchscreen, cabin heat, A/C etc.)Most petrol cars would last only a little longer at that speed.Please, at least use facts to back your arguments up: I like ICE cars, and electric vehicles, and we understand the limits -and- advantages of both types of vehicle.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 01:59:40 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on June 11, 2013, 12:37:39 pmActually the cheapest way to drive a car is to buy an efficient second hand one and drive it until it stops. Our diesel car costs less than €0.25 per km (even with insane taxes on cars and fuel).

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 02:12:19 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 11, 2013, 01:59:40 pmThat's exactly what I do. Don't think I've ever sold a car in my life!

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 02:30:31 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 11, 2013, 01:37:14 pmPower required to overcome air resistance is proportional to the cube of velocity and that cube law quickly makes air resistance dominant with increasing speed. So doubling speed from 80 to 160 mph reduces the driving time from 135 minutes to 17. 'super'charging restores half the battery capacity so stopping for 20 minutes every 8.5 remains a reasonable prediction.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 02:52:22 pm
content: But efficiency of the motor increases at higher speeds, and the losses due to car systems become minimal, hence why it's a nearly linear curve. I am just interpolating, though. Neither of us have real data, so speculation is pointless.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 04:17:57 pm
content: The variation in efficiency of an electric motor is marginal over a wide rpm range (See the link I posted for the Prius teardown). IIRC the Bugatti Veyron needs 400bhp to cruise at 300km/h. It needs its extra 600bhp to reach its top speed of 415km/h. No change in efficiency is going to compensate for that.edit: for an ICE the optimum efficiency occurs when the torque is close to the maximum at any given rpm. So even at low speeds you can drive efficiently.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 04:37:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 11, 2013, 04:17:57 pm(415/300)^3 * 400 = 1058It is physics and arithmetic not speculation.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 04:47:42 pm
content: Quote from: lewis on June 11, 2013, 11:03:29 amI wasn't using cost savings as a justification for anything , just pointing out what my monthy fuel savings will be.As others have said - no car has to pay for itself - that is not true of ICE cars and does not need to be true for EVs.My current ICE car cost me $30k 10 yrs ago and I lucky I could sell it for 10K now.My PV system was put in for other reasons - I have a grid-interective system with battery back up which means I have power even when the grid goes out (not uncommon where I live). I have net metering and I also get a $0.18- per kWh I produce- incentive payment every year. My gird power costs $0.065 per Kwh so I end up with $0.245 per kWh I produce with my PV and I have power even when the grid is down.I am going to replace my current car anyways - replacing it with a Volt just means that my monthly gasoline costs will be nil and that I will be free of worries about increasing gasoline prices - or more likely - gasoline shortages in the coming years...

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 05:11:23 pm
content: Quote from: mtdoc on June 11, 2013, 04:47:42 pmYeah it is great when you end up with the $0.245 per kWh. Not so great for the people who's pocket the $0.18 per kWh is coming from (mostly the ones that can't afford $20,000 to install solar panels to allow them to milk the system). Don't expect they feel great about buying $7500 worth of the Volt for you or the $3 billion they they gave to GM.I liken it to seeing someone drop $10 which you pick up and put in your pocket, and don't feel bad about it because politicians made holes in pockets that money falls out of a legal requirement.

author: mtdoc
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 11, 2013, 05:35:50 pm
content: Quote from: Rufus on June 11, 2013, 05:11:23 pmYeah, Kinda like the costs that I and everyone else pay when fossil fuels are refined and burned. Health costs, environmental costs, societal costs - oh and not to mention all those poor folks in the countries we bomb and "liberate" to get "our oil".Look - I'm no fan of the GM bailout - but that's besides the point. EV's make sense for all kinds of reasons. Subsidies for alternative energy and EVs are no worse (and some would say better) than the Trillions of dollars that have gone to subsidize ICE automobiles (know your history) and of course the fossil fuel industry.There is no innocent means of transportation other than walking, horses or a bicycle (maybe -depending on how it is made).Geez - you'd think most people would take that as a given..

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 19, 2013, 09:36:51 pm
content: Dear EEVBees:--Tesla has announced plans for battery swapping stations. See below link.http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/tesla-hints-battery-swap-thats-faster-filling-gas-tank-6C10382051"The electric sedan uses thousands of D-Cell-sized lithium-ion batteries hidden in the underlying platform of the vehicle. Apparently there’s a quick way to pull them out and slide in replacements."--Thousands of D cells? Does anybody know if this is true? We will know it is succeeding when battery thieves become a problem."Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, and the pig likes it."George Bernard Shaw 1856 - 1950Best RegardsClear Ether

author: justanothercanuck
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2013, 09:43:37 pm
content: No, that's a media fail... They're 18650s.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2013, 09:58:15 pm
content: The timing couldn't be more perfect. An Israeli battery exchange company called 'Better Place' just went belly-up after losing 800 million dollars. I wonder how Tesla's investors respond to those plans.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2013, 10:39:22 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 19, 2013, 09:36:51 pmThey are 18650 sized, 18mm diameter 65mm length. However, the pack is a sealed unit. So, Tesla will have to swap the whole unit unless they have not mentioned something yet (perhaps they will upgrade battery packs to multi-pack units but this seems unlikely.)

author: Stonent
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 19, 2013, 11:23:56 pm
content: I think it would be fun to drive around in a Fisker Karma and offer moustache rides to people.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 08:42:32 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Maybe Musk should start smoking something, or try a Foster's and Toad Whiz cocktail, then maybe he can get back into his gourd. See the below link for the latest from Reuters about the battery swap stations.--http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/tesla-swap-idUSL2N0EW23220130621"A battery pack swap will cost between $60 and $80, about the same as filling up a 15-gallon gas tank, Musk said. Drivers who choose to swap must reclaim their original battery on their return trip or pay the difference in cost for the new pack."--Why not loan the folks a kitty cat to keep them company until they bring back their original battery pack. Seriously, there is so much wrong with the above policy, I do not even know where to start. So now you get to pay just as much as the unsmug, but all trips have to be round trips, or there is huge fee, huh. And if you turn in a duff pack, the fee will equal the price of a new pack, for which you will get a half duff one. Fail! Muck had better go back to calling tow truck drivers, liars.--Now if, Tesla owned all the batteries, and swaps could be made for $20, with no worries, and no return trips then Musk would have a winner."People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) 1903 -1950Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 09:01:33 pm
content: I actually think the battery swap has real potential, but the implementation is key.I don't think they mentioned that the pack had to be returned to the same station? Presumably returning it to a different station could be supported. In order to do this, the batteries may need to be software limited in some way (to make cell degradation fair), or perhaps a little like a phone subscription where you subscribe to a 60kWh battery service for $300/month and an 85kWH service for $400/month or so -- the actual car being considerably cheaper than an ICE due to the significantly simpler drivetrain.I think the price should be lower but it creates an interesting dilemma. Do you consider 20 to 30 minutes of supercharging time more valuable than $60 to $80 swap fee?It solves one of the major complaints of EVs and that is charge time -- 90 second swap is impressive. Now you can drive crazy for ~20min and swap packs in 90 seconds at a time. With eventually larger packs you can go further on a charge -- maybe these will be available as loner packs. And now you can charge the batteries at the station from purely renewable power as you actually have somewhere to put it.Just hope they don't go how better place went...

author: justanothercanuck
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 09:05:00 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on June 21, 2013, 08:42:32 pmSo first you complain about the price of the battery pack, which you may or may not have to replace after 8 years, and now you're complaining that they implemented a quick-swap method because you have to pay for them? You can't get everything for free and handed to you on a silver platter.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 09:25:01 pm
content: Dear Tom:--Good idea. I would not have mentioned the return trip except for this sentence, from the original pull quote in my previous post."Drivers who choose to swap must reclaim their original battery on their return trip or pay the difference in cost for the new pack." [Hence the Kitty Cat.]--Other than that, your ideas, although a little pricey, do indeed have merit.--I am not complaining, I am not even a Tesla owner. I am criticizing, and I admit, I could be wrong. I just think that throwing out the idea of electric motoring being cheaper than gas motoring is not going to succeed. It seems to me that the arguments of EV advocates would cut a lot more mustard if they were to lay off with the ad hominem, about haters, complainers, personality disorders, and so forth and deal in the realm of ideas.P.S. When I typed in the word hominem the spell checker suggested I replace it with Eminem."He was an embittered atheist, the sort of atheist who does not so much disbelieve in God as personally dislike Him."Eric Arthur Blair - George Orwell 1903 -1950Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 21, 2013, 09:55:47 pm
content: If Tesla are doing it that way, IMO, they are doing it wrong.It would be best implemented in one of three ways:-- Renting a pack on a subscription service. The pack would belong to you, but wouldn't exist as a single pack, but any one of the packs at the swapping station, with the specifications you have subscribed to. You get a guaranteed capacity pack when you swap. There would likely have to be some annual mileage limitation.- Software limiting your rented pack to the same capacity as your original pack. No incentive to not return it. Tesla keep your pack; you keep the limited Tesla one.- Owning the car and renting the battery, but as above and the pack is different each time you swap, with no mileage limitation.Things I noticed from the pack swapping video:- When the battery was removed, all power to instrumentation, touchscreen, interior and lights is lost, so they go dark. Presumably the 12V power is lost, despite a 12V battery being available. I would hope they would keep the instrumentation available, by powering it from the 12V battery while the DC-DC for the main 12V is lost. It would ideally have a progress bar to indicate the time remaining before swap complete. In addition, it would make it faster: about 15 seconds after the swap was complete the car was stationary as it waited for the touchscreen etc to reboot. This might be sorted with a future software update.- The mechanism for swapping the pack is unclear. Does the car need to be lined up perfectly? Is it prevented from moving during the swap? The suspension appears to rise before, but this may be user activated. Without 12V power, how do they maintain brake pressure to prevent vehicle movement?- How do Tesla stop battery swap fraud (fake batteries swapped for real ones?)

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2013, 08:59:56 pm
content: Interesting point from Mr Musk recently:Q: [Something like: the new pack you get may not be much newer than the one you have]Elon: That's right, yes exactly. If you got a pack which is essentially the same as the one you dropped off, you don't need to drop it off again.So their may be an option when swapping: Fresh pack vs. Standard. And you don't need to return it then.90 second "recharges" are very impressive and hard to beat. Obviously a lot more infrastructure needs to be built to support them. And there's always the free super charging option.Next steps are to get the price below $30k to make electric vehicles more affordable. If Tesla doesn't flop somehow, then I can see them holding a large part of the $30k EV market in the next few years.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: June 23, 2013, 09:47:27 pm
content: Dear Tom:--Thanks for the update and the latest correction. I do not really have any objection to Musk doing this, I just think it would be a lot better if it were more financially advantageous to drivers, but Musk must know what is doable. Since he is no longer borrowing taxpayer monies, if he and his stockholders should lose money, there is no harm done. If he makes more billions, more power to him, and them. But before he can provide an all electric EV for 30K, he will have to get the battery price well below 30K. When Barron's attempted to question him on this point, he terminated the interview. See below link.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/barrons-tesla-lemon-without-cheaper-141435766.html--For those who are interested, the below link is a Reuters article about the chronology leading up demise of Fisker. DOE is to be congratulated, for pulling the plug before all of the money had been looted. Other government subsidized green projects had better connections inside the government, allowing management to top off their pockets, before the well went dry. In every case they kept pleading for more money, even though hope was gone.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/17/us-autos-fisker-specialreport-idUSBRE95G02L20130617"Progress is not an illusion, it happens, but it is slow and invariably disappointing."Eric Arthur Blair - George Orwell 1903 -1950Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 23, 2013, 10:17:44 pm
content: Currentestimatedpack prices for the Model S 85kWh come at around $15,000 ~ $17,500. This price is actually very low for the energy density (~$200/kWh.) Tesla aim for at least 25% margin on every Model S sold, so they've got a large margin to play in.So it's plausible that we could see a $12k to $15k pack in a few years time. The electric drivetrain -- excluding battery -- is very cheap to make. Only a few thousand dollars. (Motor+Inverter cheaper than all but smallest ICE.) So $25k to $35k with 10% margin appears doable. Obviously, you'd be looking at a rather basic vehicle: probably around 200 to 300 mile range, 150 to 200bhp, and probably no significant fancy touchscreen like in the S, nor sporty performance. Maybe it won't be under the Tesla badge either; they may wish to use that for their luxury vehicles only.So it will still be a compromise compared to an ICE, but it will likely pay for itself due to the low cost of electricity and free supercharging -- if it remains free for GenIII.Something else interesting; it was recently announced each swap station costs around $500,000 to build and will have around 50 battery packs in rotation. That makes for less than $10,000 per pack, before you even exclude the costs of construction and machinery -- so how are they going to achieve this feat? Are batteries a lot less expensive than we've been led to believe? Perhaps they're not included in that cost, but it seems strange to not include that.Apparently, while idle, these packs will be used as local grid storage. If they use half of each pack for grid storage, 43kWH and have 50 packs and 5 swap stations in the first few years, this gives the grid an effective 10.75MWh of energy storage. Useful for solar/wind power, would make it one of the largest such storage stations.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2013, 12:05:19 am
content: AFAIK the most expensive part of a car is the wiring because it needs to be made by hand and put into a car by hand. All in all I don't think the drive train of an EV is cheaper than an ICE. The power electronics come with strict cooling requirements. Even at 95% efficiency a 20kW drive for an EV needs to get rid of 1kW of heat.

author: lemmegraphdat
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2013, 01:11:25 am
content: So far the electric car is a very expensive but cool looking golf cart.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2013, 06:37:34 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 24, 2013, 12:05:19 amReally? I was under the impression it was the metal chassis of the car itself. Most cars have something like 30 to 50 individual modules for each control system. But they could be broken down in to a few single modules, it's just been decided that they shouldn't, andfor various reasons, we should also have long cabling bundles connecting them.The IGBTs in the inverter that Tesla are probably using are likely 600V, 1200A devices, which can be purchased for a couple hundred dollars a piece in half-bridge modules. Extra stuff like gate drive logic, control systems etc are cheap in comparison. The cooling requirements are in the range of a few tens of kilowatts, less than that of an ICE, and the temperature maximum of around 100°C is about the same.The actual inverter can achieve 99% efficiency, when you add motor, cabling losses, battery losses 85~90% is achievable.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2013, 12:31:44 pm
content: According to theDept. for Transport, we, in the UK, drove 303.8 billion miles in 2011. And according to Wiki, the total UK electricity consumption in 2008 was 344.7TWh.And because all the oil's run out, everyone has to drive about in EVs. So at 0.3kWh per mile, 303.8 billion miles equates to 91.1TWh. That represents just over a quarter of the entire UK annual consumption.With increasing population and decreasing generating capacity is this really viable? It seems chemical fuel, of some type, is here to stay for some time yet.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2013, 12:54:02 pm
content: I don't think we'll see everyone (>99%) using EVs for at least 50 to 100 years. I think 50% market penetration would take at least 30 to 40 years as it is. So there would be time to build additional power generation.As it stands, we may be lucky and have 50 years of oil left at current rates, but we have over 300 years of coal to burn. In an ideal world the majority of our energy would come from renewables, but I don't see that happening for a long time.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2013, 01:44:43 pm
content: According to the bio-fuel Wiki page bio-fuel already provides for about 3% of the world wide fuel consumption and bio-fuel just starts to kick in. Many new cars are suitable to run on bio fuel. If only more gas stations where selling bio-fuel...

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2013, 02:59:34 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 24, 2013, 01:44:43 pmBio fuel (from food crops like corn) is a bad idea in my opinion. Since it will increase the price of bio fuel plants considerably, thus increasing food prices. Fuel you can live without; food you cannot.Now if it could be done using something inedible like algae or bacteria then it could work, but I'm not sure if that has been practically implemented yet.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 24, 2013, 03:48:36 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on June 24, 2013, 02:59:34 pmThat used to be the case but newer bio fuels are made out of agricultural leftovers and don't affect food production. The effect could actually be reverse. By using more of the plants the price of food can go down.

author: lewis
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2013, 11:50:22 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on June 24, 2013, 03:48:36 pmHere's hoping!

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2013, 08:50:02 pm
content: The worry is farmers decide that producing fuel using the main material is better than using offcuts, so it would be preferred if the source used was completely unusable as food (or at minimal demand such that prices would not be critical. e.g. not wheat or corn, because those are pretty essential.)

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: June 25, 2013, 10:07:34 pm
content: I doubt that. Growing food is always profitable. Over here they grow lots of food and flowers in greenhouses using lamps. They use so much light they flood the night's sky. You can even see them clearly from space:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZMF5Xmkps9I/TyPmyoWOgiI/AAAAAAAAAow/p-QCKHTVu9c/s1600/benelux_at_night.jpgThe large yellow areas (which saturate the camera) between Amsterdam and Rotterdam are greenhouses.