Reality Check for all those fans of coal fired Automobiles - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 04:58:40 am
content: Like most problems the solution rarely is found within short sighted solution. Regardless of how many washed up sports and film stars become politicians,http://smh.drive.com.au/motor-news/petrol-cars-greener-than-electric-20120705-21ifc.html

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 06:28:09 am
content: The funny thing is,after starting out with that headline,the article seems to "want two bob each way",& goes into ifs & buts,&" Yes this is so in this state but not that one." & so on.Typical Journos!

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 07:55:39 am
content: Typical Fairfax right wing trash. Instead of focusing on the source of our pollution problems - i.e. the fact that we are shoveling brown coal (the worst polluter of all fossil fuels) into a furnace, they opt to attack electric vehicles instead. I mean what do they propose? Function on petrol for eternity? What the article fails to emphasize is that electric vehicles offer the flexibility to run onanythingthat produces electricity. The reality check for all of us is that we need to change the way we produce and consume power, because petrol won't last forever and coal is just good way to screw up our climate.p.s. combustion engines suck, as I've ranted in the shout box before. Bring on electric. Less moving parts, more compact, more quiet, more reliable.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:07:49 am
content: Idiots with short term thinking, and assuming we all use coal fired electricity, and will continue to do so into the future.This sort of crap does nothing to help progress our renewable energy future.Note how the electric car can go down to ZERO. The petrol car cannot - ever.Dave.

author: ejeffrey
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:15:04 am
content: Also, they are comparing highway driving performance of a car designed for urban use.It isn't like full electric vehicles don't have problems: cost, range, and battery lifetime. Also, as a short term solution their advantage over hybrid cars is not huge in the majority of cases where the electricity comes from fossil fuels. This article however starts off as sensationalist crap, and then spends a page of text walking it back.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:40:12 am
content: Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on July 05, 2012, 07:55:39 amYeah all those right wingers Marr, Carelton, Fitzsimmons. Where were you planning on get a more balanced POV, Get-Up? The Greens?QuoteAnd what were you proposing all electric cars powered only by windmills?QuoteBecause after all coal is an infinite resource right?QuoteWhat you fail to mention is that a shitload of electricity does very few Km of useful work. You also failed to mention exactly how much of that electricity is produced by something other than the burning of fossil fuels.QuoteAlong with the reality that electric powered vehicles are not within coo-ee of being any sort of replacement in any foreseeable future no matter how many pimple faced youths are convinced by the propaganda.QuoteThey also exhaust and they do the job far more efficiently than any bucket-o-batteries shitbox alternative that has been offered to date.QuoteThere's you mistake. You'd thought people were taking notice of you! The fact your Datsun is broken is not a general representation of available technology.QuoteWhy who wants a slow, poorly performing expensive buzz box?QuoteIt may have escaped your notice while flipping the pages of "boys own book of future cars" but almost the sole purpose of a car is movement.QuoteThat'd be damn handy for those wishing to sniff their own scrotum whilst driving. Themore educated amongst us prefer to relax and look out the windscreen.QuoteSo yo can hear all those doof-doof sub-woofers right?QuoteMuhahaha.!!!! If you had a clue you'd be dangerous!

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:45:50 am
content: I wonder how efficient it would be to have two electric cars. The idea being that one was always at home being recharged from the solar panels on your roof.Since the main issue with solar panels is storage and that they produce the most power when you (and your car) is at work. If you had two cars you could alternate between them. They would also travel half the mileage, so would last longer before needing replacement.Obviously the best idea is to use some sort of environmentally safe battery or capacitor bank to recharge during the day and dump that energy back into your car at night so you only need one car.But we don't really have any eco batteries or big enough super capacitors yet.You could easy fit an array of 4 by 6 (24) 200W panels on the roof. It would cost around $10k and produce max 4.8kW per hour. The Nissan leaf battery is 24kWh so only 5 hours is needed of max sun/output to fully charge a leaf.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:50:30 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 05, 2012, 08:07:49 amYou do! Regardless of whether or not you are paying the feel good levy on your bills.QuoteNeither does an industry crippling carbon tax, or adoption of flawed technology such as electric cars.QuoteThe electric car cannot go to zero emissions! The only way to go to zero emissions is to return to the cave and all die of exposure. I have no issue with the fact we should be making conscious efforts towards reducing man-made emissions,but these cars are simply bunkum. The only emissions saved are those that are simply off-shored to pollute somewhere else.QuoteEfficient petrol engines are doing more useful work relative to electric and hybrid alternatives with lower emissions.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 08:55:05 am
content: Quote from: ejeffrey on July 05, 2012, 08:15:04 amIt may be different where you are, but for most the daily urban commute does involve highway and motorwayuse.QuoteThe whole premise of general use electric vehicles is based on equally sensationalist crap. Sure there are places where electric vehicles are the only sensible option, that place however isn't in personal or light business transport.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:04:45 am
content: Quote from: Psi on July 05, 2012, 08:45:50 amDave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:10:29 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 05, 2012, 08:50:30 amNope. I was very careful to pick a plan that is 100% new technology and I keep an eye on the audits to ensure that there is no (legal) funny business like there is with the lesser plans.I pay for a chunk of the renewable energy infrastructure, and on average, it all works out. I help drive demand for it with my wallet. Been doing that for a decade now instead of just not giving a shit like most people do. The ones who think that renewable energy will just magically happen one day and they'll be able to switch over overnight for cheaper than fossil fuel.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:16:49 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 05, 2012, 08:50:30 amShort sighted thinking.So there is no future at all for electric cars? No point bothering at all?If everyone thought like that, the technology will never progress.Once renewable energy and order of magnitude storage technology takes over mainstream, you'll be begging for that electric car.Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:27:18 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 05, 2012, 09:10:29 amMay be you have, I still hold doubts, but without going into the specifics of your plan, there is no escaping that more energy is being sold as green than there is renewable electricity produced.QuoteAgain maybe you do but for a lot the whole green plan thing is a penance that makes them feel good while doing nothing practical in their day to day consumption. The old whack in a few Turnbull subsidised CFL and think your saving a baby fur seal.QuoteCommendable because truth be told most including all the smug Prius pilots don't give a shit.QuoteIE: most of the population, including the noisy green lobby. I take more of an engineering approach, I'd rather look for the best way of doing things with what we have, and work on ways of doing things better in the future. I've knocked thousands of KW'hrs of consumption off many CBD installations, often by throwing some consultants you-beaut energy strategy in the bin.In short if people started looking at and working through the real problems rather than running about half cocked, panicked and clueless about carbon taxes and electric rickshaws our society would be a much more comfortable and environmentally friendly place.

author: hans
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:29:03 am
content: We have the green energy offers in the Netherlands as well here, and you basically get the same electricity and same price. So it doesn't do anything at all, just says it's green (marketing)If you do pay more, I still think you get the same electricity but your money is used to invest in new plants and good initiatives. A wind mill produces more electricity when it's windy, a solar panel when it's sunny. They can be predicted short term, but some people claim you always need a gas power station or something to back it up in case.And yep, you need to keep it running, because such a station costs days to boot up.I do believe in Electric cars. If you look at it, some people talk about hydrogen being great, because it can be produced with green energy. Well, so you can power electric cars. Hydrogen fuel cells are just inremote, I believe not even proven reliably in a lab and require all kinds of strange materials.Batteries are getting better and better. I recently read some wikipedia article about lithium air batteries, which are very light (as the name suggests).A fossil fueled car is so inefficient. Think about it: let's pump up oil, 'filter' it to diesel (costs a ton of energy), ship it to a gas station (a truck has to ship it), use many pumps to move the stuff around (although this is a small fraction of energy, you still need the things!) and then use a horribly inefficient engine with technology from 1893 to burn it. A maximum efficiency figure for a diesel is 40-50% maximum. For a petrol this figure is about half. A big (gas) power station has the same efficiency and requires less trouble getting energy transported to your car.The efficiency of the car, electrical grid and charging/discharging may be a few % as well. But the idea is that you shouldn't use a gas power station to power your electric car, but green energy. If that is accomplished, your car is basically running CO2 free (except the effort required to make it - but I don't know how much bogus is made up in those figures).In the end, you CAN make an electric car CO2 free, and you can never do that to a diesel or petrol car. Those two will always ignite fuel in a 1890's technology engine.We just need better battery technology (lighter, more dense, less expensive) and a smart power grid. Smart Grids were cars can request a charge period, and the grid figures out what the most efficient way is of charging all the cars on the grid (assuming you have like 50% of the population on electric).

author: _Sin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:34:39 am
content: As much as I love my petrol drinking monster, I'm very much of the opinion that electric is probably the future. However an awful lot needs to change for it to happen.If we're all running around in electric cars, the demand for energy will go up such that all these solar panels and windmills being installed will be next to useless. We need far greater supply of clean energy, and as I said the other day, IMHO the natural candidate is nuclear fusion.Combine that with a battery technology which can charge in minutes and support a range of hundreds of miles, as well as being chargeable more or less anywhere, and which does not need to be expensively replaced every few years, and maybe we're in business.I'll happily invest/support anyone pushing for that kind of future. I have no desire to invest in tilting at windmills in a giant lithium powered (and expensive!) golf buggy - that stuff is a dead end.Until then, I'll stick with petrol.

author: Rerouter
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:38:02 am
content: i suppose the bigger problem is that is only starting to appear now is, say not only renewable energy but consumer level solar take off (yes its a feel good thing whatever, the panels are worse than the energy they will displace, blah!)is that you see spots in the grid saturate, come a little past 9:30AM to about 4PM, my line voltage is lucky to fall below 263V, roughly the cutout point of most grid inverters, from all the solar installations pumping in power at a period of low demand, now i get the batteries will store it,but what happens when our net energy production from intermittent sources exceeds our usage, short of all the inlets fighting for a chance to pump the voltage up, what happens? i myself am unaware of what happens with solar panel inverters when they cannot apply a load, do they float open circuit at some higher voltage?

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:41:01 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 05, 2012, 09:16:49 amThere is very little future for electric cars becoming a viable replacement for current technology! Most of it is century old technology! None of the problems that limit electric vehicle technology have been meaningfully addressed.QuoteHang on a minute! I didn't suggest current technology was infinitely viable! Nor did I suggest we did not need development of alternate technologies. What I am suggesting is that in terms of anything other than marketing, electric vehicles have achieved no real progress and at times even with all their limitations and restrictions these vehicles are environmentally no better than IC engines.QuoteHow is any of the current batch of rubbish any nearer that end goal? There is no indication of long life instant recharge super batteries appearing from any of this bunkum. Hell there is already pressure for a multitude of high current curbside recharge stations. Do the sums and you soon realise it'sone massive hoax, to appease some clueless politicians.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 09:51:35 am
content: We're well overdue for a massive leap in battery technology, it has to happen sooner or later.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 10:11:40 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Excellent article, one which has the kind of facts that seem to cause some folks to want to start biting the furniture. The time for the electric car is not quite here yet, but it may well be soon. When the technology is mature it will grab an appropriate share of the market, without the Government(s) forcing marginally effective units onto the road with subsidies.--Countries with huge taxes on gasoline are already doing the electric vehicle a huge favor by distorting the real difference in cost between petrol and electricity. Unfortunately most Government(s) have plans to stick their fangs into the jugular of the electric grid, for questionable renewable schemes forcing some rate payers into the Don Quixote mode. About the time EVs are looking likely, the Government(s) will either double the cost of electricity or start taxing by the kilometer, and probably both.--Just how does using taxpayer money to subsidize vehicles that turn in the kind of numbers, reported in this article, actually do anything but waste money. No one is against electric vehicles. Build enough to test the concept, record the numbers, then on the next attempt. There is no need to build thousands and thousands of dead losers at public expense. Save the money, and use some of it for research. The person who wrote the article, probably wrote it because he does give a sh*t. Just because you want something does not change the math, go figure.--Uncle has you all dead to rights. Do not tell us how he does not care, or how short sighted he is, confront his facts head on, please. Science is numbers not sanctimony.“Wish in one hand, and whiz in the other, and see which one fills up first."Gator Dundee 1948 -Best RegardsClear Ether

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 10:36:30 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 05, 2012, 09:41:01 amI agree,we shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for new breakthrough storage technologies.I am old enough to remember when atomically powered cars were quite seriously proposed.New,lightweight radiation shielding materials were "just around the corner"----Hah!Or the gas turbine cars,------ acceleration lag killed them!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 10:37:46 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 05, 2012, 09:41:01 amSo what?Just give up?, take your bat and ball and go home and never put another research dollar or effort into it again?Anyone who thinks those limitations won't be addressed in the future has not studied the history of technological development in society. They will be wrong.QuoteThen we are in agreement.The fun thing about the future is that it always progresses.Those betting against electric cars long term are on a sure losing bet IMO.QuoteOnce again, so what?It's not about doing the sums now. That is just your personal choice and needs as a consumernow.The point is that it is massively important that electric cars and associated technology be encouraged and invested in, heavily. Which is why I hate anyone who poo-poo's the idea because it doesn't seem viablenow.Why? because the car, as one of the worlds most indispensable tools for modern society, it is the financial and technological driver we need to ensure that society progresses and gets away from absolute dependence upon fossil fuels, that WILL run out, or more likely become not financially viable into the (not too distant) future.Dave.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 10:42:24 am
content: While i'm all for electric cars but I think we need to develop renewables even faster. Yes charging an electric car off a coal fired station is not doing much to help the equation and will end up wasting more energy. The car looks greener because it does not have an exhaust but the damage was done when charging the batteries.Most people don't grasp the power requirements of moving 1 ton of steel so no you won't be charging it off a couple of panels on your roof in a few minutes. As a friend wisely suggested we will needed industry standardised batteries that can be swapped in and out of the car in about the same time you refuel a petrol vehicle so that the battery can be charged in it's own time. This means government involvement or at least a decent infrastructure that works.And i ask whatever happened to "fuel cells" ? they use oxygen and hydrogen to make water both obtainable from electrolysis that can be solar powered. I'm sure a "gas infrastructure" carrying the two fuels would be more efficient than all those cables and transformers we currently use for electricity.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 10:47:34 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 05, 2012, 09:41:01 amBTW, for my own personal needs, something that operates like the new Holden/Chevy Volt would be almost ideal. And this is still relatively primitive technology at the present time. Imagine how much more ideal they will be for a broader range of people when Sagan starts driving, or his kid starts driving!I could use it fully electric for probably 99% of my needs, with hardly any disruption to my lifestyle in terms of charging. Saving massive amounts of fuel for the benefit of those who want to piss it away when they don't need too.In fact, dare I say it, it would save me time and frustration too, because there is very little to go wrong with the thing, rather than my hideously complex gas guzzler that needs endless constant repair and maintenance.BTW2, I hate the Prius, it should never have gone into production unless it had plug-in capability. It was a ridiculous idea.Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 11:08:28 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 05, 2012, 10:37:46 amWhen did I suggest that! What I have a problem with is the bunkum before research that is being shovelled towards us. Instead of farting around and heavily subsidising this kind of crud, I'd like to see some real research and industry assistance. Hell we have a carbon tax that has just signaled the end of Australian production of photovoltaic panels. But hey I'd better not shout the linkage too loudly because the ACCC has been instructed that only the Greens?Labor coalition is authorised to misrepresent on any kind of scale.QuoteWhat bit of history shows technology driven by emotion rather than need and invention?QuoteThe not so fun thing about junk science is that it stifles that same progress.QuotePrepared to put a timeframe and your house on that bet?QuoteIt is absolutely about doing the sums, and about practicality and real world results.QuoteIt wont be viable without quantum leaps in energy storage and transfer. Those leaps show zero signs of happening in any foreseeable future. At least the fuel cell and hydrogen ideas have some merit in the energy vs fuel mass equation.QuoteHow is widespread adoption of electric vehicle even remotely viable. And how are they escaping the dependence on fossil fuels? They're not. You could not build enough windmills or solar panels to power one tenth of the current fleet!I have no doubt mankind ultimately has wean itself of fossil fuels, but will bet you London to a Brick, viable replacement technology will have SFA to do with storage batteries. The longer minds are closed and the paradigm is restricted by an old tech sphere of thinking the further we are from real solutions.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 11:30:12 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--I agree that the Volt will make a good vehicle for some people. If you want to buy one, more power to you. I do not know what the details of Holden's deal with GM are, so I cannot comment. But here in the US, if you study what went on at GM, the bilking of the previous bondholders so the Government could award the company to the Unions, and the failure of the GM to make good on Government loans, so far, makes the whole deal a very questionable proposition. Like the failing banks, failing companies should be allowed to fail. Right now in the US the Volt is subsidized, and being supported by Government purchases and by companies like GE, for reasons that are not dollars and cents business propositions.--Merely because you can buy a Volt, and it works for you does not automatically mean that the decision to produce it, was motivated by common sense economics.--I notice people keep saying "Do research, but quite producing, unprofitable subsidized vehicles" And, the response is "Well, sniff, you just do not want to do anything" That is a refusal to confront the question. It is just finger wagging instead of mathematics.--Please, buy all the EVs, you want, but please do not make the poor harried tax payer pay for them."If we leave it any longer, and no politician seems to be taking Peak Oil seriously, then we are going to see total economic collapse." 2008"It’s probably too late to prepare for peak oil, but we can at least try to salvage food production." 2009"Peak oil hasn't happened, and it's unlikely to happen for a very long time." 2012George Joshua Richard Monbiot - 1963Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 11:43:21 am
content: Quote from: Simon on July 05, 2012, 10:42:24 amNot directly from panels in a few minutes, but as i pointed out earlier, if you charge some fixed home energy storage system from a decent number of panels on your roof over the sunlight hours you will have enough energy stored to fast charge your electric car when you need.Studiesdone around Australia show the average energy output for solar panels during the day is around 4 times their rated max power. So for example, a NZ$10k investment in panels gets you a 4.8kW solar panel setup which will generate ~19.2kWh per day.Since the Nissan leaf has a 24kWh battery we can atleast half charge it, and probably 2/3 charge it (taking into account switch mode charging loses etc.)And most people wouldn't use the entire battery in one day anyway.

author: Simon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 11:52:16 am
content: Quote from: Psi on July 05, 2012, 11:43:21 amWell in sunny england that will not help us. You also forget the losses in charging and discharging (at high speed) your home reserve that most likely will be inefficient lead batteries and that is again hoping you get sun. You can't be in a position where you can't get to work because it was cloudy yesterday. I have been showered in scorn before for suggesting it but i think fuel cell batteries should be investigated further I know that the electrolysis is "only" 50+% efficient but when you consider all of the power transformations i think it's tit for tat. the other option is to just keep the hydrogen and use it in combustion engines but i gather that is dangerous due to the quantities needed and it's volatile nature.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 12:01:01 pm
content: Quote from: Simon on July 05, 2012, 11:52:16 amYes, different parts of the world do have more or less sun. So that is an issue, it isn't going to be practical for everywhere.Quote from: Simon on July 05, 2012, 11:52:16 amI wouldn't do it with lead acid. This system only works when we get the new battery technology that's coming. I'm hoping for some sort of ultracapacitor or chemical capacitor hybrid which is better suited to fast charge/discharge without losing too much energy.Quote from: Simon on July 05, 2012, 11:52:16 amI doubt that would happen. I just looked up some stats for the average distance between home and work."67 percent travel less than 10km"So for those 67% they would get 10 trips or so on a 110km/charge Nissan leaf before needing a recharge.10 days is plenty to get your home energy storage unit charged from the sun, even in overcast weather.And if you did run out of charge, just take the bus, it's not the end of the world.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 12:03:46 pm
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 05, 2012, 11:08:28 amWho said electric cars are based on emotion and not need?My petrol car breaks down all the time due to it's mechanical complexity, I'd like one that's simpler and more reliable. That's a need.Petrol cars are noisy, I'd like cars that are quieter. That's a need.Fosil fuels will run out and/or become too expensive in the not too distant future. That's a need for an alternative sooner rather than later.I wouldn't mind walking around the city and streets without choking on exhaust fumes. That's a need. Heck, I even have to briefly breath the shit in in my own garage.Electric cars smoke any petrol car at the lights or on the drag strip. That's a need (for some).It would be convenient to be able to "fill up" my car at home. That's a need.Invention?The energy storage and charging needs for electric cars can be amassivedriver for many other areas of technology.QuoteHard to say. But given that something as primitive a Holden Volt looks like it can do 99% of what I want on fully electric powernow, to say the future is not bright would be extremely foolish.It would take any current alternative battery technology say 5-10 years to get to production mainstream, at best. For example, the liquid metal technology I showed before. That's game changing stuff.So time frame wise, it's 5-10 years absolute minimum in practice. More realistically, 20 years before electric is an obvious choice for most consumers. I fully expect Sagan's first car to be electric, with petrol being still available, but a poor choice. I'd be very surprised if that does not come to fruition.QuoteNow, yes. I am not arguing that. My arguments are all mostly long term.Quotezero?Have you even watched the liquid metal battery TED talk I posted?QuoteYou are not thinking fourth dimensionallyIt will be a combination of technologies over many decades that enables the electric car mainstream. Something like fusion power for example. Renewable energy is more than just solar and wind. We could completely eliminate our need for fossil fuel burning energy for electricity production right now using current technologies if we really had to. It's essentially just about cost a present.Add in liquid metal batteries or some such quantum leap in storage and you have the recipe for an electric car revolution.Once those happen, the electric car needs to be ready to go, and a hundred years from now our great grand kids will be laughing at our internal combustion engined cars.Dave.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 12:09:24 pm
content: I don't get excited about battery technology videos any more.There have been so many companies with supposedly"game changing battery technology" that are "almost read for mass production".Until i can order one of the batteries from digikey i'm just going to watch the video and hope.However i do feel we are very close to the tipping point when they do all start coming to market.

author: _Sin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 12:23:54 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 05, 2012, 12:03:46 pmNot every electric car is a Tesla.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 12:27:24 pm
content: Quote from: _Sin on July 05, 2012, 12:23:54 pmTrue, but that is mostly because the cheap batteries can't handle it.The cost difference between a 80kW electric motor and a 180kW motor isn't huge.It would probably only add $4k to the price to up the motor and controller spec to tesla power levels.The cost of the Telsa is mostly from the batteries/battery management, the sports car handling and the ultra light design materials.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 12:29:35 pm
content: Dear Psi:--Regarding that NZ$10K you speak of, I have 3 questions if you please; 1) The NZ$10K is for the entire installation all the way to the breaker box, is that correct? 2) Are there any monies provided by the Government as subsidies that are not included in the $10K figure, and if so, how much are they? 3) You will need additional panels if you also want to power all or most of your household requirements, would you not? This is the kind of thing I would like to do (if I had the money), and I certainly agree that you, or Dave, for that matter should take advantage of any subsidies that come your way, I am just not, as a general matter, in favor of them being offered.--I would have to agree with Simon, that I think fuel cell technologies merit further research. I am just not ready for the Government to subsidize installations. With the coming Gas Glut, gas powered fuel cells will soon be coming out of the wood work, I think."You should never bet against anything in science at odds of more than about 1012 to 1."Ernest Rutherford 1871 1937Best RegardsClear Ether

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 12:41:03 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 05, 2012, 12:29:35 pmThe NZ$10k was just the cost of buying 24x ~200W panels. I had a look on trademe for companies selling panels.eghttp://www.trademe.co.nz/electronics-photography/other-electronics/other/auction-491278036.htmhttp://www.trademe.co.nz/motors/caravans-motorhomes/parts-accessories/solar-panels-accessories/auction-490855942.htmhttp://www.trademe.co.nz/business-farming-industry/industrial/generators-power-supply/solar/auction-489960544.htmYou'd get it a little cheaper if you bought 24 of them.You would need some sort of controller to regulate the power into something usable. So unless you built that and installed the panels yourself there would be some additional costs.Quote from: SgtRock on July 05, 2012, 12:29:35 pmNo idea sorry, there might be.I do know that in NZ electric cars are exempt from the RUC (road user charges) that all other cars pay.That will probably change though, once electric cars become common and the effort vs reward is enough for the government to change the law. Currently there are so few electric cars on the road it isn't really an issue the government cares about.Quote from: SgtRock on July 05, 2012, 12:29:35 pm24 panel is a pretty large setup. I think if you had gas hot water it would be enough panels for both your car and house.You'd run out of roof space if you had many more.I know there are subsidies for solar hot water heating in NZ, however that isn't electric it's actual sun heating the water stored in blank tanks on the roofIf you invest in a proper grid tied inverter setup you can back-feed the national grid, use it to store energy during the sun hours and then pulling it out during the night. If you can put more energy in than you take out the power company pays you(although some of the power companies insist on charging you retail prices and paying you wholesale prices).

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 12:59:28 pm
content: QuoteAgreed although the timeframe of sooner is a continual debate. Who says the most likely alternative to emerge will be electric?It may not be, but it's the obvious solution.For a car to work, wheels need to turn. The most sensible solution for that appears to be electric motors. Which offer some other benefits like regen braking too. Please tell me if I'm wrong?What actually powers those electric motors and how it's stored etc is open to debate. But I don't see anything else as a viable drive mechanism alternative to the gas/petrol powered IC engine.For all I know is 50 years time we might have fusion reactors powering our cars, but I'd bet the drive mechanism will be the electric motor.And if you were the market that's fine, but all those hilux's laden with crud from the burbs aren't catered for, nor is the good majority of the market.A good majority of the market is not like me who has to travel less than say 50km/day??May not be a majority, but it's surley a big enough market to drive a massive industry for EV's?QuoteIt's only a few now, but it's easy to see how that will become much larger.QuoteBut surely you'd agree that EV's, like it or not, will be a BIG industry in 20 years? (barring anything else magical that comes along)And remember, I'm not just talking pure EV's, but ones like the Volt with a small IC engine for recharging.QuoteSurely you know that massive resources are going into battery technology research, and there is an obvious big revolution on the horizon?QuoteNone. But electric makes sense.And you know what's clever about the Volt. It's not that bullshit useless prius crap. it's a 100% electric EV car that uses a small IC engine to charge the battery. So you get the best of both worlds. The huge power density and convenience of petrol if needed for long distance, with the advantages of the EV's. The user has the choice how they want to use it.These types of cars will clearly be a big deal in terms of reducing fuel consumption globally. They are not going to go away.QuoteYou doubt they will happen?And what about the hybrid EV like the volt, that offers the best of both worlds without compromise? That's availablenow.QuoteSure, no doubt.But how many people still fly spitfires, compete in chariot races, or drive a 1960's mustang?It's a niche hobby industry.I have little doubt that Sagan's obvious first car choice (if it's new) will be at the very least a Volt-like EV with IC engine charging backup.Dave.

author: Tepe
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 01:17:05 pm
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 05, 2012, 08:40:12 amWe already produce a substantial amount of our electricity that way in DK and we have a fair amount of water to plant those mills in:

author: Bloch
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 01:38:22 pm
content: Quote from: Tepe on July 05, 2012, 01:17:05 pmWe sure dohttp://energinet.dk/Flash/Forside/index.htmlAnd our neighbors also have abundant hydropower. So we import it when there is abundant water in their lakes.The Power use for Denmark is right now 4075MW1851 MW = import (Mostly hydro power)0587 MW = Windturbines1176 + 462 = Waste incineration / gas / coalActually quite good for 2012

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 01:42:47 pm
content: Oh poop, sorry UncleV, I accidentally edited your post instead of quoting itA goofing privilege available only to adminsNo undo feature that I am aware of...Dave.

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 03:20:28 pm
content: Quote from: Uncle VernonWe have enough coal reserves to last us approx 500 years at the current rate of consumption. But that's beside the point. The point is not to use coal.QuoteObviously I don't have solutions for all these problems, otherwise I would be ridiculously wealthy by now. There are other avenues, such as nuclear. Australia exports Uranium by the metric tonne, why not utilise that resource for ourselves? Why not conduct research in Thorium reactors, if Uranium is a bit hard to digest? If nuclear is not an option, then large scale solar farms might be. There are three places on this planet where solar harvesting is economically viable: The Atacama desert, Sahara and Australia. Why not use a combination of all, solar, wind, wave, fossil and nuclear? There are options. The are not the cheapest options, and we might not abandon coal completely in the foreseeable future, but I'm sure as shit we can take the load off coal stations.QuoteYou have given up, that's cool. Others want to move on and explore other avenues. Nothing wrong with that.QuotePossibly. But what you and the article has not accounted for is the pollution costs of extraction, refinery, and the delivery of the said fuel per capita. If you combine that with the CO2 emissions of the actual fuel burned, I'd be very interested to see how it matches with the emissions figure due to electric vehicles hooked up on the grid.QuoteOf course it's expensive. It's new tech. Like with most things introduced on the market. Do you honestly think EV is already a dead-end technology? The car industry only started to seriously look into EV just less than a decade (i.e. throwing real money into research), compared to combustion car tech, which had 100 years to mature. And yes, damn straight I want to drive a slow buzz box. It's not like I'm compelled to do a few doughnuts in the supermarket car park after my grocery shopping.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 03:27:42 pm
content: Quote from: hans on July 05, 2012, 09:29:03 amEngines powered by wishful thinking would solve all our problems.Electric vehicles are expensive and have shit performance because batteries are expensive and have shit performance. I don't see that changing significantly in the future.We are never going to be flying anywhere on batteries so we will continue to need chemical fuels and should be looking at ways to synthesise them using energy from renewable and nuke sources.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 03:31:40 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 05, 2012, 01:42:47 pmThat's OK we have a pm who misrepresents herself then uses the ACCC as a tool for suppression. I wouldn't put anything past you rampant lefties, certainly don't expect you to play fair!

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 03:36:21 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 05, 2012, 10:47:34 amThe only way batteries can be made to last ten years is by not using them much. The Pious normally only uses the middle 40 or 50% of its battery capacity for that reason. It wasn't a ridiculous idea it was a requirement (because batteries are shit, no matter how much you wish they were not).

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 03:51:44 pm
content: Quote from: AntiProtonBoy on July 05, 2012, 03:20:28 pmKinda blows the ass out of your wet dream of electric vehicles.Quotegoes without saying .QuoteNah all the ideas have beendeleted by oil companies. The APB drive would surely go that way tooQuoteBrowns greens and a lot of of other chicken little nambies. Still when governments can even run a rail I have to feel a bit concerned at there ability to run much at all.QuoteOnly thing I ever gave up is believing things without proof.QuoteIf you want to blow $60K on a POS hatchback with poor performance to achieve bugger all, then hey explore away.QuoteHave I? Show me the figures!QuoteBe interested all you wish. Where are the numbers?QuoteFraid so.QuoteFunny the facts say from 1828 although in the USA they did not get serious with it till as late as 1890.Quotewell since 1823 actually a whole five years earlier. Yet both have seen nearly two centuries of development.QuoteHence the Datsun right?QuoteAfter observation I'd assumed with "P" plates it was compulsory.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 03:58:03 pm
content: I would like an EV, preferably with NiFe batteries ( ancient tech, poor as cr@p and such, but cheap to make, long life and totally recyclable and the original electric vehicle battery) along with roof top solar at home and the office. Solar on industrial buildings will save both on cooling and peak demand ( not talking about my bank with 24kW of solar on the roof and a 42 inch flatpanel ( mostly with a message that iToons wants to update bcos it is installed on this thing for some reason) showing that it does sweet bugger about reducing the demand of a city block sized complex, but it is at least better than the electricity department across the road where they installed a 50W grid tied wind turbine ( in a turbulent built up environment as well, it never turned even if the wind was blowing) as an energy saving thing) if you allow them to be installed - cut tax and VAT on them to zero, and allow them to be depreciated over a 3 year period rather than subsidise, most businesses will buy then as a investment, no subsidy needed and no way to skim money, just an incentive to spend a little on something.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 05:18:19 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 05, 2012, 10:47:34 amThat completely misunderstands the design purpose of the Prius. It isn't an electric car and it isn't meant to be plugged in. Having it plug into external power would completely change the design and engineering of the car and it would not be Prius anymore.Just so we're on the same page, the Prius is a hybrid. The idea of a hybrid is to get better fuel economy in town driving by using a small battery to aid in power management during stop/start driving conditions. The idea is that when you slow down the kinetic energy is stored in the battery, and when you speed up the energy is released back into the vehicle again. This reduces the energy waste that occurs in a regular vehicle when you press the brake pedal.It makes no more sense to say the Prius should be plug-in rechargeable than it makes sense to say a capacitor can replace a rechargeable battery in a torch. They both store electricity, but the applications are mostly different.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 05:27:19 pm
content: Quoteironically, some people who do not believe something without a proof, believing other thing without a proof... "hope" and "belief" from their "collective learning experience". extra claim needs extra proof. if its no good, i'm not buying itwell if nasty things happen on your circuit, point your finger at the "ground". but if something wrong going on out there?... point your finger at the government!

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 06:40:05 pm
content: The one question I have not seen answered is what do we breath after all or most of the oxygen has been used in burning all the fossil fuel over the next hundred years or so and all the forests have also been burnt.

author: rr100
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 07:07:34 pm
content: This is one of the easy ones, earth atmosphere is so big that whatever humans burn is not creating that much of a disturbance in the proportion of O2/Co2. At least in terms of human not being able to adapt; yes, those small changes are messing up the balance of heat received/reflected from the sun and other finely tuned things but humans can easily breathe over much larger variations.Let's put some numbers, straight from wikipedia. CO2 is the gas of consequence here, O2 is in the tens of percent range in the atmosphere and a few percents difference won't be missed.But let's evaluate CO2:- there is now in the air 392 ppm rising with 2 ppm/yr- In higher concentrations 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% may cause suffocation, manifesting as dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.So 1% looks to be really survivable (and maybe many times that), especially that it wont happen for like thousand of years at these rates. But by then there will be much larger problems to tackle, we bicker now over CO2 going from 200ppm to 392ppm imagine how it will be (climate-wise not breathing-wise) when it is 10000 ppm!!!

author: bullet308
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 10:24:22 pm
content: I imagine we would encounter some really nasty extinction scenario well short of 10000ppm. Global thermohaline collapse followed by an oceanic anoxic event, something along those cheerful lines. You know, the oceans just DIE all of a sudden. As a species, we may weather that somehow (some small fraction of us), but as a civilization, our asses are DONE.So, I would not be too cheerful while rolling those dice, because the consequences of coming up snake eyes are almost too grim to contemplate.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 10:47:34 pm
content: I'll say it again, I think electric motors are the best alternative to the ICE, and they have a lot going for them.The ICE is inefficient (25-30% typical, hitting 40-50% for a good diesel), generally unreliable (requiring continuous maintenance) and expensive to manufacture, consisting of many pieces of precision engineering. It also works only well in a certain power band. In city traffic, the engine must continuously idle to prevent stalling.The electric motor is about 95% efficient, and after inverter drive considerations is still at least 90% efficient. It also can act as a generator to recharge batteries. It is very reliable, consisting usually of only one moving part, the rotor. Maintenance program consists of at most keeping the motor lubricated, but even that would be an uncommon service. The coils and stator are fixed, limiting wear and tear. And the most difficult manufacturing process is winding the motor. No selectable gearing is required as very nearly equal torque is provided across the full power band (some motors use fixed gearboxes, but there's no clutch or reverse gear.) There is essentially no minimum speed, meaning the motor is truly stopped when the car is stopped.Batteries can deliver incredible power outputs. Most electric cars however are designed for economy so acceleration and top speed are deliberately limited. I cannot see any reason why an electric motor could not beat any reasonably sized ICE.Longevity and range are killers really - so until a battery with high capacity and reliability hits the market, the electric car will be relegated to the low performance end of the market.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 11:03:59 pm
content: When you compare the efficiency of an electric motor with an internal combustion engine you are not comparing like with like. To make the comparison valid you need to look at the whole energy chain from primary fuel source (coal, oil, gas) through to the point of use. For electricity, you have to look at the conversion efficiency of the power station, the transmission efficiency across the grid and distribution system, the storage efficiency of the battery (you don't get the same energy out of a battery that you put into it), and then the efficiency of the motor drive system itself. When you take all this into account you are down below 50%.Compare this with petrol or diesel engines, where you have to consider the cost of refining and distributing the fuel, and then the efficiency of conversion in the car itself. Electric vehicles may still be a little better, but the difference will not be as dramatic as you imagine.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 11:08:44 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 05, 2012, 11:03:59 pmAre you sure about 50% lost? The UK power grid is about 97% efficient in terms of transmission, mainly because of the bright spark who thought of using high voltage transmission. I've no figures on the efficiency of coal, but consider the cost to the customer and the per unit CO2. I did a post on this a long time ago:QuoteIt's the last part that's crucial. Halving pollution is great but then having the ability to power it from any source - polluting or not - allows so much more flexibility.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 11:27:38 pm
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 05, 2012, 11:08:44 pmIt's what happens before the grid that makes the difference. The thermal efficiency of a typical power station varies from about 35% (coal) to 55% (gas combined cycle).Also consider that rechargeable batteries only give back 80-90% of what you put into them.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 05, 2012, 11:57:18 pm
content: Quote from: IanB on July 05, 2012, 11:03:59 pmAt least someone is considering the extents of the problem. Well put IanB!

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:01:54 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 05, 2012, 11:08:44 pmYou are lucky to get 98% efficiency from a single transformer and there a multiple transformers required to step up/down between distribution voltages. The 97% figure where ever it came from likely represents just cable losses.The thermodynamic efficiency of power stations burning fossil fuel is mid 30's for coal and low 40's for gas so you are well below 50% before the electricity leaves the power station.There are losses recovering, processing and distributing fossil fuels to power stations and vehicles. There is a lot to consider. The relative efficiency of the electric motor and ICE is a small part of the whole analysis.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:16:02 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 05, 2012, 10:47:34 pmWhich is precisely why the likes of the Volt with it's ability to recharge the battery from convenient existing petrol is the killer bridging idea until the better storage and charging solutions become mainstream.Those who poo-poo the electric car can't escape the fact that you can by an EVright nowwhich has no additional limitations in terms of range, and some big advantages offered by EV's. And EV's are still in their infancy. And somehow many people think they will not catch on and simply go away or won't be viable in the future?Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:16:56 am
content: Quote from: tom66 on July 05, 2012, 10:47:34 pmThey have. But Electric motors are not the whole picture.QuoteBiased bunkum. Where is your proof on comparative reliability? It doesn't exist or is biased greenie nonsense. I could claim a Ferrari is more reliable than a Golf because we see lots more example of broken down Golfs.Diesel is yet another folly for passenger vehicles, and generally unsuited for those lighter vehicles, it popularity based more upon pricing interference than on efficiency, even if it can whip a Prius in cost per km.QuoteEver looked at the service manual for a volt or a Prius? More than a motor involved.QuoteVW, Volvo and a whole mess of uninspiring rattle boxes have managed a no idle city-cycle for some time.QuoteLiquid fuel can deliver far more incredible explosions for a given mass.QuoteRubbish. They are trying to sell the things. The have crammed every bit of range and performance possible at a given price point. If you even attempt to make the speed and acceleration comparable with everyday vehicles their range becomes nonviable.QuoteI can! It's the length of your power cord or the weight of your battery source.QuoteWhat was that about batteries and incredible power again?QuoteYes properly designed EVs make an excellent choice as a milk float, fork lift or pallate truck.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:20:24 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 12:16:02 amAnd the EV fans can't escape the fact thatright nowyou can buy 3 non-EV cars of similar specification for the same money.

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:27:23 am
content: Quote from: Psi on July 05, 2012, 12:27:24 pmBut EV owners won't be thrashing away from the lights anyway. The instrument clusters flash red images of a man clubbing polar bear cubs when you floor it don't they?As if watching your battery gauge and predicted miles remaining dive wasn't enough.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:31:12 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 12:16:02 amHang on wasn't that the reason you were slagging off Toyota's Bucket-o-Batteries?QuoteWhere? You show me an EV with comparable price and performance to any of my vehicles? Show me one that can do the trips without effort, or one that can carry or tow even the equivalent to the modest capabilities of my ute. Show me one I won't have to heavily subsidise and I'll consider it as a business vehicle.QuoteA similar 200 year infancy to the ICE as it happens. EVs have been developed and used where they suited for decades. While ever they depend on batteries they are on practical in a very limited sphere.Quote

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:42:49 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on July 06, 2012, 12:27:23 amActually it's a baby seal cub. AU models will show a Bilby and a Golf Club!

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 01:00:18 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 06, 2012, 12:31:12 amThe Prius is not like the Volt, you can't plug it in an run it as a real EV. That's called the "plug-in" Prius which isn't generally available yet. Well, it just came out in a few US states I believe a few months ago.QuoteThe Holden/Chevy volt can.You shouldn't compare price on new emerging technology like this. It will get better, just give it time.If you don't like the price, fine, don't buy it. But don't poo-poo others who wants to be early adopters.QuoteOnce again, give it time. It's not viable for your needs YET, and indeed may never be viable or the best option for YOUR needs for several decades. But so what? That's YOUR need. There is massive market for other peoples needs, like mineQuoteI think it's not as limited as you might think.QuoteFFS, we have to get off our ridiculous dependence upon fossil fuels at some stage, and anyone who denies that is just an ignorant fool.So of course I'm going to support EV's, they are clearly the best candidate for the future.What do you suggest as an alternative that I can support instead of EV's?If I had the Volt, yes I could easily sell the 2nd car and use it for everything, without hassle. It is the best of both worlds.Dave.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 01:28:53 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 06, 2012, 12:16:56 amAnd what do you think will happen if they used a 180kW motor instead ?The already limited range will go to absolute shit, not just because of the extra weight but because people will test drive it aggressively without thinking.It will get reported that the realworld range is 1/2 what the company say. People will assume the company is lying about the range.The rumor/reputation of an electric car having short range will kill sales stone dead.Range is the absolutely key, electric car makers are trying to extend it as much as possible and that requires they use small electric motors.Also the target market for current electric cars isn't speed freaks, it's people who care about the environment and drive carefully/efficiently.:Note: I removed the last part of your quote because you 'rubbished' what someone said and then agreed with them in the next sentence, it was quite confusing.

author: vk6zgo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 01:54:57 am
content: Quote from: Rufus on July 06, 2012, 12:01:54 amYes,no matter whether we burn coal,oil,gas.or use Nuclear,conventional power stations are Steam Engines,with the inherent efficiency limitations ofExternal Combustion engines.(OK,turbines are more efficient than reciprocating steam engines,but not that much)There are also some Gas turbines,but they are very much in the minority!If Steam had been efficient enough,we would all be driving steam cars run on kerosene.Back in the early 1900s,they out performed both ICEs & electrics,except for things like long warmup time,& fuel economy.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 02:02:05 am
content: Quote from: Psi on July 06, 2012, 01:28:53 amI apologise if that was taken as a personal attack, it was not intended as such and I believe we both generally agree.What I saw as rubbish was that EV manufacturers were deliberately limiting their products. They are they are doing everything possible to deliver the best performance compromise. Sure you can trick an EV up for a damn quick quarter mile run, what they cannot do is offer anything like an overall performance match with even the most mundane petrol driven appliance hatchback, an equation that only gets worse when purchase price and TCO are factored in.Even the most ardent EV fans here still acknowledge that any EV they possibly utilise will be done at an overall cost premium.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 02:14:16 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 06, 2012, 02:02:05 amNo doubt about that at all. No argument what so ever.And of course that is not the least but surprising, given that it's new emerging technology, EV's can't hope to compete with the highly evolved ICE for a long time.Like I've said, it will take the next leap in storage technology before the equation starts to equalise I think. That's a good decade away at least I think, but it will come.It is very clear EV's are going to be huge, and will almost certainly make up large percentage of general use cars in a few decades time.The Nissan CEO has said he has no doubt that EV's will make up 10% of sales by 2020.Dave.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 02:17:10 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 06, 2012, 02:02:05 ami don't think the quoted person meant it quite like that.I think they meant... They chose a smaller electric motor than they could have, in order to get more range out of the car.Since the car only needs enough performance to be usable but with range you really need as much as possible because the range is already so limited.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 02:45:08 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 02:14:16 amHow is it any more an emerging technology than any number of advances and technologies applied to the ICE? Both have been around for nearly two centuries. Both have been in common usage in various forms throughout the last century.Incremental advances in battery technology are whole lot less an emerging technology than some of the recent ICE applications such as direct gas injection, idle stop, etc.I don't argue that ICE is the only option or that we should not be looking to fossil fuel alternatives. We should. But these current market offerings do more harm than good. They are not practical in any usage. If you want to pay a premium to suffer the limitations fine, I hope you,love the thing. But that in no way makes it any type of solution for our communities. More to the point the rest of the population is paying to subsidise the folly of the few wealthy enough to consider adopting these things.The EV that can present itself unsubsidised to the marketplace simply does not exist.

author: Mechatrommer
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 03:51:35 am
content: i can see semantics confusion. we cant compare ice and ev side by side in term of performance (range, emmision, power etc). the word "alternative" should prevail its meaning. its supplementary to existing well established technology (ice) but not to compete with it. we running out of fuel, we must do something, i believe thats the point of ev. but until it become useful (more economical), i will stay with my ice. toyota or honda are the best in this regard afaik on normal consumer level. i'm not the one with money to easily trash away.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 05:11:44 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 06, 2012, 02:45:08 amWhat limitations does the Volt have?It has the range a normal car, 500+ km. Plus it has the option of going fully electric with hardly using a drop of petrol if your lifestyle suits that, just like Jay Leno is famously using his in that mode quite happily.Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 07:06:27 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 05:11:44 amPassenger comfort, towing capacity, yada-yada-yada. The real limitation is that it cannot be built without heavy subsidisation from other parts of the industry/economy. If you want a Volt that's great but why should other US and AU be perpetually subsidising your or anyone Else's choice?How good a solution would it be if you were copping the full whack? These kinds of market distortions just force up costs and condemn a lot of others to be stuck with the oldest and most polluting and fuel inefficient transport. Volt and it's ilk are no real solution to anything.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 07:19:07 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 06, 2012, 07:06:27 amHave you driven one?I'm betting it's not that bad. Actually, for $60K it'd wanna be pretty good.It's supposed to be Vectra sized, which is what I drive now, a nice medium size car.QuoteHow do you know?With the torque at zero, it might be capable.QuotePlease define yada.You made the claim, you have to back it up.So far I have seen no evidence of any limitation this car has over a conventional similar sized ICE car.QuoteWhat is the value of this subsidy exactly, and how much of the price is subsidised?.How much does it cost to actually produce vs how much they sell it for?Please provide some real figures.QuoteI don't know, you haven't provided any real figures.EV's ae bound to be expensive at present because a) they contain some currently expensive technology, and b) they aren't making many of them. They are effectively test marketing them.QuoteYou are missing the point of them, massively.Dave.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 07:35:54 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 07:19:07 amThis sounds a bit like that religion thread.It is not for people skeptical of the viability of the Volt to prove anything, it is on the contrary for people claiming the usefulness and practicality of the Volt to show that it is indeed so.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 07:40:54 am
content: Only thing i can think of is that there's more to go wrong. And the electric stuff is new to car makers, so there could be issues with the first generation.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 07:41:11 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 06, 2012, 07:06:27 amAccording to this:http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2010/11/steven_rattner_chevrolet_volt.htmlEach volt costs about the same to produce as what they sell it for. i.e. no profit, yet.I don't have too many problems with a subsidy on EV's, it's MUCH better than a lot of the shit the government pisses away my tax money on.And of course don't fall for some dodgy reporting going around:http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/26/bad-math-makes-claim-that-each-volt-cost-taxpayers-250-000-go-v/QuoteSounds like the "full whack" is the asking price.http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/The list the subsidy separately.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 07:47:48 am
content: Quote from: IanB on July 06, 2012, 07:35:54 amUncleV made the claim:Quote(my bold)I thought that claim was incorrect when it comes to some EV's, so I'm calling him on that and claiming that an EV like the Volt has little or no limitations over a similar size ICE car.The claim "not practical in any usage" is clearly wrong, and I'm calling it.Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 07:49:17 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 07:19:07 amNope! I haven't drive a late model Great Wall Utility either, and I don't need to, to know both will be a mediocre to uncomfortable driving experience.QuoteJust looking at the thing say, you don't want to climb in there.QuoteWhy? The wow factor has people prepared to pay way over Vectra money for a less than Vectra experience.Quoteyou have my deepest sympathy!QuoteNow there is an Oxymoron, much like "fine handling front wheel drive", or "practical SUV".QuoteRead the specs. The Holden variant isn't going to differ much from Chevrolet.QuoteThe spec sheets say differentlyQuoteOnly GM would have exact figures. In AU we are lucky that the US population has stumped up 100s of million. You don't have to do much searching to unearth some of the extents.QuoteJust look at the development subsidisation that has been poured into just one model, that alone says it's not a proposition.QuoteNor are there any figures about to suggest I am wrong. We do know subsidisation has been massive and the showroom price is still double the Vectra you put up as an IC equivalent.QuoteYet much of the parts base from Volt is supposedly sourced from existing GM inventory, electric motors in sorts of configurations are economically produced in even small quantities? Why double the sticker price? Why the need for exotic material copies of common parts?Something is very wrong with the whole equation.QuoteNo I'm one of those souls burdened with a keen sense of reality and practicality.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 08:06:04 am
content: The total transmission loss in the UK from power station to plug is in the order of 20 to 30% so it is no good saying the grid which is just the HV lines is 97%.Also is the manufacturing energy being factored into the equation, so called green energy wise it is better to be driving an old clunker than a nice new efficient ICE powered car the energy and other resources going into the manufacture of the EV are probably greater than for conventional cars, the electronics will have absorbed a vast amount of energy and other resources and caused a fair amount of pollution on their own.I suspect that a lot of government pressure on the purchasing public to buy new lighter more fuel efficient cars is about getting people to buy new cars, well this has now run its course most people have a car that is under ten years old and with the increased life expectancy of modern cars they have got to push the public into buying something new, hence all the souped up milk floats, When the likes of Skania and DAF start building electric artic units that will be the time to move to electric cars.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 08:08:45 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--I hardly think that demanding cost of production, and profit percentage figures from Uncle will be terribly productive when only GM knows what the true figures are likely to be. These kinds of numbers can be as difficult to tease out of a struggling company like GM, as the Russian economic numbers. In any case they are not likely to be anything we want them to be, more likely they will succumb to the financial laws of gravitation like everything else. Please see below article from the Detroit New about Volt, sale, subsidies, and performance. Also please note that thought the article is titled "GM sells 1,760 Volts in June, double from 2011" it really should have been titled "Volt Still Sucking Hind Teat"http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120704/AUTO0103/207040345/GM-sells-1-760-Volts-June-double-from-2011?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|FRONTPAGE|s--Lot of people believe the Volt is a profitable car for GM. Lots of people believe in Peak Oil but citations of hard data go missing, while people are called fools for wanting to see the numbers, kind of like hard data on projections of cost benefit ratios for the Kyoto treaty. Overwhelming Scientific proof is available for The Universal Law of Gravitation, and even for Evolution, but ask to see the numbers on AGW and you are back to being called a fool again, which in itself is proof of something else, namely that you are so beneath contempt as to not even merit a serious answer."Business is never so healthy as when, like a chicken, it must do a certain amount of scratching around for what it gets."Henry Ford 1863 - 1947Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 08:15:24 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 06, 2012, 08:08:45 amI just posted the numbers that managed to leak out.Dave.

author: _Sin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 09:29:06 am
content: I'm no more convinced by the Volt than any other current generation EV.Firstly, it's all-electric range is abysmal, less than 40 miles. After that you're back to burning fuel.If you want to go electric only, you still have a 4 to 10 hour charge time. 10 hours to go 40 miles. You could just about outpace it on foot!So not much cop if you want an *actual* EV.The fuel-only efficiency as actually pretty poor too, you can certainly do a lot better in a conventional vehicle.They say "oh, it's not a hybrid", but you pretty much have to pretend it is, and drive it like one.And while the hybrid efficiency might beat a normal vehicle, you're not removing the dependency/demand for conventional fuel, and you'll still be charging. Maybe not just at home, either, with that short range.Now you're probably not buying a hybrid for performance, and it certainly lives down to expectations there. You won't be beating much away from the lights. If you happen to live somewhere where the speed limit lets you get into triple digits, the Volt doesn't, so best stick to the slow lane. Again, not what you're buying it for, but for £35k shouldn't you expect a bit more?Then there's the issue of the battery. They don't last forever. What's the replacement cost? What are 2nd hand prices going to be like? Can it end up in a bricked state if parked up for a long time? All cars need maintenance, but generally they don't need major components completely replacing every few years.The failure mode can be pretty spectacular too - in testing, one of them turned into a fireball in a car-park, several *weeks* after damage occured... Now they've supposedly made changes to try to prevent that in future, but I'm still not sure I want that large a lithium power unit, being continually stressed electrically and mechanically, stored in my house. Perhaps I'm being a bit of a luddite there, but they have *already* failed in that manner.Thing is, I *want* to like these things. petrol cannot seriously be the future. But this still looks like an evolutionary dead end to me.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 10:01:25 am
content: Electric cars will in all likely hood never meet the performance criteria that we expect due to the limitations of present battery technology. Now something along the lines of the liquid metal salt battery that Dave talked about on the amphour could have the performance required especially if combined with an ICE, the exhaust and waste heat from the engine would keep the battery hot helping to enhance its performance in a small size unit.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 10:05:57 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 06, 2012, 10:01:25 amThat statement doesnt make much sense, unless you believe battery technology will never improve, ever.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 10:21:07 am
content: Quote from: _Sin on July 06, 2012, 09:29:06 amTell that to the people who's needs it fits almost perfectly.Like me, and Jay Leno for example (that's about the only time you'll see us compared I suspect :->)QuoteEvene when you factor in the electric part?IIRC the industry standard consumption figure for the Volt is 1.2L/100kmFor you Yanks, that's about 1/6th of the best figure my Vectra (same sized car) is capable of.Dave.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 10:53:41 am
content: Quote from: Psi on July 06, 2012, 10:05:57 amI don't believe that conventional battery technology is ever going to get to the point where energy density is great enough for anything other than ultra lightweight cars but trucks are something else, we have had well over a hundred years of development on batteries ( approaching two hundred) and they have no where near the power weight ratio of internal combustion engines, something radically new is required and the liquid metal salt cell that Dave was talking about on the amphour may well be it.

author: _Sin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 11:08:59 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 10:21:07 amI'm not claiming that *no-one* can find a use for this car. But equally I don't think you can claim that because a few people find it "perfect" that it is in any way a solution for the mainstream. And if you want to see a radical change in habits, a solution for the mainstream is what you need. Most people are not Jay Leno.QuoteYour Vectra uses 7.2L/100km? That's what - 32/38 MPG (us/uk)? You could do a lot better than that without going electric.Meanwhile, I'm not convinced by the 1.2L/100km figure either.I looked at the figures listed on Wikipedia, which were sourced from multiple different tests. The best results were around 120mpg, which is almost 2L/100km, and the worst is down at 75mpg, or >3L/100km. The variation seems to be down to the length of the test. The more miles you put in, the less advantage the electric gives you. It seems to drop very quickly down from the efficiency of an electric.Those are still good figures, but the latest VW engines, for comparison, can get around 75mpg on traditional fuel alone.So that's only around 2x what you say you're getting in your current car, and 'only' equal to the best available.Again, if you only use it for short trips, and can charge it cheaply and cleanly in between, then I guess it will work. In a more typical scenario it will probably be more efficient than a traditional vehicle, but not by a significant factor - the lower values for the Volt are at the upper limit of the best conventional cars, and over a longer mileage the conventional car may even come out in front.It sounds to me like you have a pathologically worst case for traditional fuel economy, and the converse for electric. That's obviously going to tip the balance.But you mentioned these cars as basically testing the water. That doesn't make sense to me, because they're clearly targeted at only a small subset of the market. All they prove is that there is a subset of the market willing to pay top-dollar for a niche product. That's nothing new.

author: Psi
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 11:41:09 am
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 06, 2012, 10:53:41 amand that would be a.. liquid metal salt battery!

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 11:50:56 am
content: Quote from: _Sin on July 06, 2012, 11:08:59 amAnd that subset are mostly buying 'look at me I'm saving the planet' badges. I read the Honda hybrid hasn't sold well because it doesn't look like and isn't well known to be a hybrid. For plenty of them it is a 2nd or 3rd car and in the case of Jay Leno about 100th.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:08:14 pm
content: Quote from: G7PSK on July 06, 2012, 10:53:41 amI agree, something radically new is required, and not only for EV's.The good news is that there are plenty of people working on.The liquid metal battery may or may not be it, but it has the required out of the box thinking that ticks all the right boxes. So any battery revolution will be something along those lines. It won't come from tweaking currently technology.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:13:57 pm
content: Quote from: _Sin on July 06, 2012, 11:08:59 amI never claimed it was,yet. I have said that some technology leaps and time are required for EV's to be suitablw for the mainstream.QuoteNot a whole lot better.But you don't get it. I don't want better, I want zero. I want an electric car.QuoteNo guessing required. It would. Just like Jay Leno I'm sure I could do 16,000 miles in the thing without filling up.QuoteFor the same size mid size car? Make sure you are comparing apples with apples.But like I've been saying, it's almost not the point about the practicality of the EV for the mainstream now.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:19:15 pm
content: I just watched Revenge of the Electric Car, highly recommended.It was fun to see Mr Detroit Gas himself Bob Lutz of GM say that's "the electrification of the car is a foregone conclusion". He seems to have genuinely seen the writing on the wall..And the Nissan CEO betting the farm on EV's etc.The current temporary dip in oil price and the GFC have not help the EV revolution much unfortunately, but they are here to stay.People can argue all they want about the viability/benfits/downsides/costs etc of electric cars today, it's all pointless. Electric cars are the long term future, no doubt.Dave.

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 12:32:26 pm
content: I concur that the internal combustion engine will eventually go the way that the horse and cart did, but I don't think it will be ousted by the present range of batteries but I am sure that one day something will come along to replace it.One of the problems as I see it to replacing it the Manhattan project syndrome, the political thinking that if you throw money at the problem you will find a solution, that worked for the atomic bomb and the moon landings but not with most things since, mostly due to the underlying science not being there.

author: Write_to_Smokegenerator
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 01:07:56 pm
content: HiThis Topic is a neverending Story. A Friend of mine is car Engineer, so we had a lot of these discussions.I've got some points to add to the discussion:[bPower for EV'sIt is true that a EV has a much more CO2 emission if the power comes from a coal plant. coal plants are really bad, about 40% efficiency, but if you use power-heat coupling the efficiency can go up to about 85+ % in general efficiency (unfortunately only in Winter)But if the power comes from a hydropower plant the CO2 Emission is 0 (only if you don't look at the power that is required to manufacture the car)But hydropower plants are a big interference in the natural flow of the river, not only that many countries can't use them. In my country we have a real big part of the power produced byhydropower plants, we still need to import power though (a little off topic).One the other hand I never saw someone talking about the amount of fuel needed to transport oil ,these ships are huge, have really big engines powered by heavy oil. Clearly not so good for CO2 Emission.fuel costsFossil fuel is finite so we need for a long term solution which is renewable.Electrical power is the purest form of Energy so the costs is clearly higher.But the cost of petroleum differs greatly from country to country. We pay about 1,42€/ liter. at some point it will be cheaper to use "renewable Energy" (i don't like this word).Raw Earthsfor the batteries in today's Ev's you use as all of us know lithium batteries, but Li is not cheap, maybe because it's not easy to get it.This week i read in an article in the local newspaper that China starts to stockpile raw Earths. Thus Li will be much more expensive.So as long as raw earth are used for the batteries it's clearly that EV will cost more. Also the Environmet factor of Ev's is reduced because of this factor.(off topic)in my state is Europe's biggest Li deposit, which will be mined by an Australian companyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KoralpeEV vs ICEUncle V pointed out that EV is almost as old as the ICE. I know that in ca.1900 in Berlin and Vienna the Cars from the Fire Brigade had Electric Engines.But after the invention of the starterg the E cars became less popular because oil was much cheaper and the use of the starter was much easier than to use the crank.Thus the Industry did intense research in ICE so there are much more hours of research in the ICE than in EV.So as Dave mentioned the EV has much lesser reserach hours than the EV and that's why I think the EV has much more potential as it has todayOil has a really good energy dense. F.efuel/system MJ/kgpetrol 43*wood 18-19*Li Po Batteries 0,54*atomic hydrogen 216**German wikipediaIt's clear that EV will not take over the market in the next 20? (who knows) years or so. i also belive Trucks will drive with Diesel for a longer time because of the energy dense of oil and the fact, that they must have an enormous amount of power.As many stated the current E Cars are no match for a normal car in terms of range,power and costs , but doesn't mean that it always will be.Also many technologies where leading and then sudden a new technology breakthrough and the old technologies died out.Also there's this documentation:author and Reggie: Chris PaineI could write longer but I fear it is to long as it is nowcheers

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 01:19:09 pm
content: As most of the lithium is in the oceans I don't think that the Chinese will be able to lay claim to it. At one time lithium was so cheap that they filled grease with it, not sure but I think that was the residue left over after the isotope used in bombs had been removed.

author: _Sin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 03:09:43 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 12:13:57 pmIn which case the Volt, which has an engine, seems like an odd choice. Even if you never engage the engine, you are wasting energy lugging it around. And given the range, *never* engaging it, and thus keeping your fuel use at zero, sounds next to impossible. Your regular daily use may well be under 40 miles, but your driving habits would have to be really unusual if you *never* do so.I would *also* really like an electric car, as it happens. It would be nice to think that my next car *could* be an electric. But I can't see it happening, because that car would need to be quite different to anything currently on offer.Quote90mpg (european) in a VW Passat:http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/volkswagen-world/news/259I think that's a reasonable comparison, if we're looking at hybrids like the Volt.Pure electric is a different ball-game, but if you're going pure electric the Volt has much greater compromises (such as range).

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 03:32:18 pm
content: Lithium in grease is a lithium based clay used as a matrix to hold the oil that is the lubricant. The lithium is used rather than a sodium based clay as it is both softer and less abrasive, and as well is more water resistant so it does not wash out if exposed to water.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 06, 2012, 05:38:58 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Earlier Dave posted a link to an article refuting "dodgy figures" on Volt subsidies. The article correctly points out that the refuted article stated subsidies of $250,000 per vehicle were arrived at by dividing the subsidies across only the number of Volts sold as of that time, and did not point out that the subsidy figure per vehicle would decline as more are sold. See below the link to the original article cited by Dave.http://green.autoblog.com/2011/12/26/bad-math-makes-claim-that-each-volt-cost-taxpayers-250-000-go-v/An article cited within the above article is marked voices, see below:http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1071027_if-you-want-to-attack-the-volt-try-to-get-your-math-right--Which make all of this more clear:"Dividing the number of Volts sold to date (6,468 as of November 30) into the total incentives that apply to all Volts past, present, and future is either dopey or intellectually dishonest. You could as easily say that on December 15 last year, the day the first Volt was delivered to a retail buyer, it carried a stunning, incredible, unconscionable $1.5 BILLION in subsidies. You'd be doing the same thing: dividing by the number of Volts sold, or 1." More reasonably, fast-forward to the end of next year, by which time the two-year total of Volt sales is likely to be about 60,000. The number plummets to $25,000. And so on."--Of course GM will indeed be lucky to see half that amount this year.--So the article(s) cited by Dave as refuting dodgy figures, do not, repeat do not say their are no subsidies but only point out they must be apportioned on a per vehicle basis.--So when Dave tells you, as far as he knows Australians will be paying full whack, there are a couple of things which have not been considered:1) Apportioned subsidy per vehicle. Which is definitely not zero.2) Dave points out the the Volt is being sold at cost, which means it is being subsidized by every other GM product produced at at profit.--I completely understand the argument that consumer vehicles of the future, are likely to be EVs and I agree that this is indeed possible. What I do not understand is trying to make the Volt a financial winner by failing to note easily obtainable facts. Like the additional $6,000 per Volt subsidy by the state of Colorado. Subsidies like this one and the US Federal $7,500 subsidy would all have to be added in to the mix. See Below:http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/03/chevrolet-volt-subsidized-heavily-by-colorado-government.html"While other states are discouraging people from buying cars like the Nissan Leaf, Colorado is offering up to $6,000 in incentives which combined with the already-available $7,500 in federal tax incentives. That adds up to a maximum $13,500 lopped off the Volt’s price tag, making it a reasonably-riced car for folks living in the mountainous state."I just do not think that the Volt is a reasonable expenditure of public monies. How much EV research, and battery research, or other research could have been funded in its stead, and how many jobs would have been "created or saved" by leaving the money in peoples pockets.--I encourage everyone to read all of the articles cited by Dave (including contained links). They are indeed a good source of data, not to mention rosy scenarios.--Currently the US Government is still 16 Billion dollars shy of breaking even (not counting the cost of money) on the GM bailout, based on present value of GM stock."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: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 03:01:19 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 06, 2012, 07:19:07 amFor your usage, equally you made the claim that your vehicle needs are typical, I'll state without fear of reasonable contradiction that they are not! Would travel to and from your previous employer fall within your suggest average daily distance travelled. Would all those condemned to the daily gridlock on Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane motorways have a round trip travel distanceless than your suggested average?Here is a quick compilation of biased and unbiased references to match the green tilted references you have offered.Rudd gave Toyota a $40MAU free kick as well purchase of Prius vehicles for his entire ministry. How many ministers have you seen in a Prius lately? It's Chauffeur driven 6L V8s all round for our nations environmental champions.GM/Holden gets a $275M free kick of taxpayer subsidisation for which it offers back "No guarantees were given yesterday on productivity gains from the 4600-strong workforce nor job numbers, especially in highly skilled staff."http://news.investors.com/article/601207/201202141851/obama-administration-raises-chevy-volt-subsidy-.htm?p=fullhttp://dailycaller.com/2012/02/13/obama-hikes-subsidy-to-wealthy-electric-car-buyers/http://news.drive.com.au/drive/motor-news/aussie-volt-delivers-sticker-shock-20120113-1pxy8.html"In November, the same authorities replicated the test on three Volt battery packs in a laboratory. Two of the three devices caught fire - one after a few hours and the other six days later.GM has since called back about 8000 Volts for rectification work; a handful of customers have asked for and received their money back.GM said the Volt's battery should have been drained after the crash but it never told the safety authorities to do that. GM had no formal procedure to drain the batteries until after the June fire."http://canberratimes.drive.com.au/motor-news/holdens-volt-to-cost-more-than-bmw-20120704-21gp1.html"Holden has already suggested the Volt willprobably appeal more to technophilesthan buyers suffering from a twinge of environmental guilt, and has equipped the Volt accordingly."As a further incentive to buyers, Holden has capped the cost of the first four service intervals at $185, as long as they are done within 60,000 kilometres or the first three years."Four services in 60,000km, what was that about more reliable than conventional ICE again?http://afr.com/p/national/no_job_guarantees_in_holden_handout_cHQeMhsqTSIFIXMbF4IIwKhttp://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_are_we_subsidising_slackness_at_holden/http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2012/03/chevrolet-volt-subsidized-heavily-by-colorado-government.htmlhttp://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3912434.htmlhttp://www.evhub.com.au/?p=288http://www.news.com.au/technology/no-longer-be-holden-to-the-petrol-bowser/story-e6frfro0-1226358438795"Holden said the Volt would run on 100 per cent green power from a charging station or owners could recharge at home from a standard power outlet for just $2.50."100% Green power if you can conveniently drive to Port Melbourne and wait till a time there isn't another Volt grabbing the manufacturer freebie! I'll also call the $2.50 per charge figure and the claim that most peoples daily journeys are less than 60Km. Round trip from Liverpool, Penrith, Blacktown to the CBD are the curse of the majority.The Volt charge cable has a 240V 32A fitting for a reason. Holden are pretty coy about the battery charge current. Lets re-run that $2.50 figure on current carbon taxed rates, then add the result to the necessary fuel usage for MOST owners anticipating a daily home/work round trip.http://gm-volt.com/2010/10/06/gm-announces-chevrolet-volt-240v-charger-pricing-and-installation-service-provider/3.3Kw of power? That's Kw's not KW/Hrs. Take integrals latest rates and that new battery Charge is at least $3.94 inc GST and Carbon Tax, and that's when the battery is new as the battery ages charge times will increase proportionally.Those of you cursed with the predatory pricing of a smart meter will routinely be hit for around $5.14 for the same service if you wish/need a daytime top-up. Figures are of course for domestic use you'll pay more again for a green tariff and/or recharging at from the officeand don't forget that all these prices are expected to double within the next few years.Volt battery life figures are based upon a 10 hour charge from a 110V source so expect reduced life and higher power consumption when utilising a more rapid high current charge.These are just a sample of the plethora of information and disinformation on the Volt, that is out there. Any reasonable person can conclude, GM Volt has, and will continue to be. heavily subsidised in both AU and US. Their consumption claims are best case estimates which will vary greatly with use, much like the sticker quoted consumption figures for IC engines that are seldom realised in real world use.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 03:37:56 am
content: Quote from: Uncle Vernon on July 07, 2012, 03:01:19 amI don't recall that.Someone else posted some typical figures in this thread, what was the average distance/day? 20km or something?Joe average does need the big monster car you need either, nor to tow anything.Not that it natters, I'm not going to debate the nitty gritty numbers on today's available models. If you want to do that, go right ahead.QuoteThe Volt would be able to do it easily one way, yes, without a drop of gas. There and back, in theory for the new model, yes as well.As would the electric only ones like the Nissan Leaf, both ways, easily.Dave.

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 04:30:46 am
content: I've spent a lot of time looking into renewable energy and haven't found it practical beyond niche environments(lots of windy and sunny places, but distribution is also a problem), some places are good for wind, some good for solar. "Green" energy right now is only being driven by corporate welfare in places outside of where the economics are good for wind/solar/hydro/geo.The Chinese and Indians have a real energy problem, two of the biggest consumers, pollution killing the population, relying on limited fossil fuels, the Americans interfering with supply.You're going to see real innovation there, they don't have much interest in solar and wind, their energy demand is too large to use such expensive sources.India is working on CANDU-Thorium, they don't have a large uranium supply like Canada, but they paid big money for what they believed is the best form of conventional reactor, unfortunately French lobbyist money is steering them towards conventional PWR, which is simply not as good.China also bought CANDU, liked it, but found it was too expensive, only a small fleet.China... they've got the American government talking, they have a LFTR experimental reactor already online, Liquid Thorium reactors are worlds ahead of old 60's Uranium reactor designs, they're extremely safe, common-more failure resistant. China wants to become a net energy exporter, and synthesize fuels with LFTR, every car on the planet can run on ammonia and Dimethyl ether.

author: TheWelly888
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 01:17:38 pm
content: When I saw the subject line, I thought,"Steam powered cars chuffing along the roads with tooting whistles instead of parping horns!"

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 01:45:31 pm
content: Quote from: _Sin on July 06, 2012, 03:09:43 pmI never said the Volt would be my actual pick for my own use, I just like it's "no limitations" utility when compared to ICE cars, so I like to use it as good example of a hybrid electric car.For my own circumstances, as we have a 2nd good ICE car, I would have no real need for a "no limitations" hybrid/electric car like the Volt. A fully electric car like the Leaf would do me just fine. And if I was up for another new car for myself (and had the dosh), a fully electric car would be high on the list.When I said I want an electric car with zero emissions, I of course mean for the vast majority of my use, of which I estimate the volt could close to all (i.e. 99%) of my miles fully electric.QuoteGoing to tell us what that is?QuoteWell, the Voltisn'ta pure electric car, so the point is moot.Dave.

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 02:34:51 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 06, 2012, 05:38:58 pmThat's an entirely different kettle of fish, and actually in reality has absolutely nothing to do with the Volt itself. The Volt itself is just the pawn in a big political game. That pawn could have just as easily have been anything else.BTW, you can't do real world EV research without actually building them and see how many and what type of people buy them etc, and what the issues are etc.That is why I have no real real problem with it.I know it's easy to see how it's "a waste" on the surface, but I think those that do aren't quite seeing the bigger picture.Personally, in the scheme of things the money that the government (Oz, US, whoever) pisses away on EV subsidies is nothing, and I'd much rather have it spent on EV's and EV technology than a ton of the other stuff they spend it on.Given the $3B figure is bogus (because it includes loans (that usually get paid), and not yet delivered money), let's take a fairly generous $1BN government stimulus here. Reality check of what $1B means in the scope of the US government money orgy:- 1 weeks worth of maintenance on their nuclear arsenal- Only half of one destroyer (you chose which)- (insert your favourite military hardware here)- One years worth of advertising (http://edition.presstv.ir/detail/233035.html)- 1/2000th of what the pentagon "lost" and could not account for.- Half a bee's dicks of the what Iraq and Afganistan wars have cost.- About half the cost of what it takes to maintain the few thousand US troops in Darwin (Northern Australia) per year.- About double what the government loses per year because they don't churches minsters houses.- about 1/25th the cost of maintaining empty government building every year.And of course I could go on and on.And for those playing along at home:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_incentives_for_plug-in_electric_vehiclesDave.

author: _Sin
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 02:55:44 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2012, 01:45:31 pmWhat would I like from an electric car?I originally answered this with a big list, but really I can distil it down to more or less this:Like a normal car, but without the petrol.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 03:04:13 pm
content: Myself I would buy a conversion kit for a VW Golf, as there is a kit available, which is fairly easy to fit and which is quite nice looking. The Golf is a pretty common vehicle as well, spares are plentiful and cheap ( I drive one. even if half the parts are marked SEAT and half are marked VAG) and are available also as "Pirate Part" or second source.

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 03:50:50 pm
content: Quote from: SeanB on July 07, 2012, 03:04:13 pmI've seen the Jetta converted to electric, it's somewhat similar to the Golf.The Golf is a nice car, could have a supercap bank so you can get the power of a sports EV and the efficiency of one of the runty EVs, supercaps are also GREAT for regenerative breaking.I find the lack of a big capacitor bank a big flaw in EVs right now, big battery banks are slow to discharge(unless you have huge parallel uppers) and especially slow charging for regen unless you're pushing LiPos really hard.

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 03:52:14 pm
content: Supercaps aren't that great, volumetric energy is about a tenth of a lipoly and they cost a fair chunk. Maybe in a sports car but not in the average vehicle. Good lipolys can take 200A charging briefly and 50A continuously, which is plenty for braking.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 05:35:32 pm
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Although I might not agree with the political thrust of Dave's arguments, I cannot quibble with his numbers. Almost any single program will look rather inconsequential when compared to the Government Defense Budgets, or Welfare Budgets for that matter. The subject of the thread was EVs, and inevitably, all Green Programs are related, I.E. Ethanol, Bio Diesel, Wind, Solar etc. Now, I am no expert, but if you add of all of the money Government(s) have spent on Green Programs that turned in performances well short of the promises under which they were sold, it still amounts to a pretty penny. To me it looks like Government(s) are throwing money, a lot of money, at the perceived twin problems of Peak Oil and AGW, without hard engineering data. Granting arguendo the importance of these problems, it does not appear to me that this money has been well spent. I agree that you have to experiment to find facts, but all of these programs, have been sold to us not as experiments, but as sure fire money savers, and they have bigfooted thousands of other Green experimental programs, right out of existence. What if Edison had decided that instead of doing thousands of experiments in any given case, he had decided to pick one and put all the eggs is that basket. That is the problem, which is an altogether different question than whether the US is a War Monger."There are two possible outcomes: If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."Enrico Fermi 1901 1954Best RegardsClear Ether

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 07, 2012, 10:59:39 pm
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 07, 2012, 05:35:32 pmWhen it comes to AGW, I don't buy all the correlation crap about we can lower the temp by X degrees in X years if we reduce our carbon output by X amount. That is complete bullshit, you can't predict that.But unfortunately, that's what is required in order to for Joe Average to understand and have by-in into the problem, or at least that's what they think.So I'm begrudgingly ok with all the BS if it's working toward the ultimate goal of a sustainable energy future.Same with EV's.Dave.

author: Unknown
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2012, 02:11:22 am
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2012, 10:59:39 pmThat's correct and equally claims that the planet will be doomed in X years with X amounts of emissions are bullshit regardless of how many celebrity geologist are put behind them.What isn't bullshit is thatman-made emissions are doing harmand thatwe should be making REASONABLE effort to halt and rectify those effects.Unfortunately we have completely clueless rampent green lobby groups who have no concept of REASONABLE and a bunch of stand-for-nothing politicians pandering to what they see as easy votes.QuoteJoe average probably has a better grip on all of this than all the fanatics from both sides of the argument ever will. All the denier bullshit and the refusal to question has no place in any real science. Equally any effective solution does not have to mandate higher cost and reduced amenity.QuoteI'm not I despise it! I want to see researchand investment in progress and better technology, not this current nonsense which is pissing billions away with no outcome other than to offshore industry away from western countries. The ultimate irony being an AU carbon tax effecting the last straw closing of doors for local renewable manufacturing.

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2012, 05:40:16 am
content: Greetings EEVBees:--Uncle has stated:"... that the planet will be doomed in X years with X amounts of emissions are bullshit regardless of how many celebrity geologist  are put behind them.What isn't bullshit is that man-made emissions are doing harm and that we should be making REASONABLE effort to halt and rectify those effects."--Since CO2 is not toxic, I assume Uncle is talking about, NOx, H2S, CO, etc., in which case I would agree, provided the efforts are, indeed reasonable, and not just another effort by the Greens to encumber the "enemy".--Dave stated:"So I'm begrudgingly ok with all the BS if it's working toward the ultimate goal of a sustainable energy future."--I can just imagine what would happen, if Bill Nye retired and they tried to hire Dave to be the "Science Guy", complete with white lab coat, glasses and a clip board, for one of Al Gore's "infomercials"; definite script problems, and lots of bleeps in the out takes.Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people."William Claude Dukenfield, W. C. Fields 1880 1946Best RegardsClear Ether

author: tom66
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2012, 08:42:54 am
content: Quote from: SgtRock on July 08, 2012, 05:40:16 amHave you tried breathing CO2?

author: SgtRock
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: July 08, 2012, 09:35:28 am
content: Dear Tom66:--You asked:Have you tried breathing CO2?--Yes, I exhale it all the time. I have not tired breathing H2O, on purpose that is, but I understand it to be, as a general matter, non toxic as well.--Please see below article, from which I quote.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide"Carbon dioxide based fire protection systems have been linked to several deaths, because it does not support life in the concentrations used to extinguish fire (40% or so), however, it is not considered to be toxic to humans.:"I wear suspenders and a belt. I am a security man all the way"Justin Wilson (The Cajun Cook) 1914 - 2001Best RegardsClear Ether

author: G7PSK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2012, 11:58:01 am
content: Just been researching liquid metal batteries, appears that there is nothing new under the sun, they were pioneered by Ford for early electric cars in the 1960's. They come under Nas batteries,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium%E2%80%93sulfur_battery

author: TheWelly888
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2012, 12:58:05 pm
content: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/siemens-misguided-idea-about-putting-power-lines-on-german-roads-a-842834.htmlSiemens have received funding from the German government to experiment with putting up overhead trolleybus wiring to power electric lorries. The linked article is rather critical of the idea.

author: djsb
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2012, 01:05:53 pm
content: I've been following the development of the SMART ED (electric drive) which is going to be available from September this year.Wikipedia details the development phases that it has gone through so farhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_electric_driveand PluginCars has more info.http://www.plugincars.com/autocar-calls-2012-smart-fortwo-electric-drive-most-credible-pure-electric-date-122341.htmlIt's interesting how the battery capacity, range,top speed and acceleration has changed over the development phases.Battery rental has to be a sensible option as impovements in battery capacity can be taken advantage of.They are still too expensive for my liking and the range needs to be around 150 miles per charge (same as the range of my motorcycle on a full tank (10 litres)).Nice for driving and parking around the crowded London streets though (when we finally get the charging infrastructure).However I don't need a car for business or a family so I can manage with less.I'm in favour of EV's but I wont be an early adopter.David.P.S I also think this article in Technology review is relevant to our discussion.http://www.technologyreview.com/featured-story/428145/the-great-german-energy-experiment/

author: Rufus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 08, 2012, 02:46:14 pm
content: Quote from: EEVblog on July 07, 2012, 10:59:39 pmSo lies, half truths, made up numbers and bullshit is OK as long as it supports my beliefs and agenda?Spoken like a true politician.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2012, 04:42:59 am
content: For now, EVs make a lot of sense for short distances, not so much for long distances. Hybrids and especially plug in hybrids are a great interim solution until pure EVs are practical for long distances.One thing I dislike about the auto makers is that many efficiency features that are not hybrid specific are only available in hybrids. Since I'm a hypermiler, the hybrid system itself would offer little benefit most of the time, certainly not enough to be worth its cost. (A plug in hybrid system would be a different story, but the price for that is still too high.) The Atkinson cycle engine, better aerodynamics, clutchless "transmission" (technically part of the hybrid system), and more efficient accessories are very useful to me, but they're not currently available in a non hybrid. It's all because of business reasons - if an auto maker makes a hybrid car as well as a non hybrid version that gets the same or higher highway MPG, they would have a hard time selling the hybrids. So they intentionally cripple the non hybrids in order to prevent them from cutting into the hybrid market. (I believe Ford and Nissan are planning to break that trend given all the competition that's going on. They don't sell very many hybrids so they don't have much to lose, but they would have a chance of cutting into a competitor's hybrid market.)

author: HardBoot
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: July 09, 2012, 01:20:09 pm
content: Hybrid cars just aren't very good because they're so heavy and use inefficient parts, a tiny road use motor dragging a heavy car, regular rechargeable batteries, often using a motor/generator all-in-one which isn't good at either.With a lightweight supercap bank and high-efficiency diesel electric you can destroy hybrids.With a small engine tuned for maximum efficiency rather than road use powering a generator to go to a supercap bank you can get efficiency as good as direct and careful driving, and can get a boost of power greater than what the engine is capable of outputting for acceleration, the only challenge is regenerative braking, divert to generator with a fancy transmission, or use the motor which is single-gear'd to the wheels.