The Electric Car

[xelasnave]

I find formula E encouraging
But batteries need to be better
Will electric cars replace petrol
Limited range seems insurmountable
Any ideas?

[Shiraz]

these look pretty good overall with 500km range - wouldn't mind being able to afford one.

http://www.teslamotors.com/en_AU/models

[raymo]

Range is improving all the time, but I think that in the medium
term, fuel cell cars hold more promise. There are now prototypes
on test.
raymo

[OzStarGazer]

Today I went to the beach and on my way home a car puffed BLACK smoke into my face. I wish it had been an electric car... :help:
I don't even know if it is legal to have a car with such old exhaust pipes? I don't think it is...

[xelasnave]

I like it.
Not bad range.

[simmo]

check out lightning motorcycles. Would love one.

[Shiraz]

just did a bit more reading - if I got it right, the Tesla is basically a mobile computer with seats and the operating system is regularly upgraded over the internet in the background (much like a Win8 PC). Crikey, that has some implications - "sorry I'm late, but my car was downloading an update and wouldn't go" or "I wasn't speeding your honor, someone hacked my car and they made it go faster".

[Chif]

Yes batteries need to be better, and preferably also produced using renewable energy. Not only that, but the ability to charge them quicker needs to happen also.

When we are at that stage (not too far away), electric cars will definitely replace petrol. They are faster, less components to break down and of course better for the environment.



It was probably a diesel. It's not to do with the actual exhaust pipes, it's the engine itself (whether it's leaking oil or air fuel ratio was off).

[xelasnave]

I have a design for a golf cart covered in solar panels.
Just for around the property.
The panels are for charging not drive.
Just for short trips that once were walkable

[Bassnut]

Great idea, but unfortunately electric cars generate 30 to 200% more greenhouse gas than internal combustion engines when used in Australia (guess where the electricity comes from), hydrogen cell powered is the worst by far, insanely inefficient.

[Peter.M]

I would 100% buy one if I could afford it, in the US they have "supercharger" stations all over the country where you can fully charge it for free in about an hour. That fact alone gets around the range issues, and they have just started rolling them out here. I even read in the states some people were getting a bit cheeky and reversing the charging station in their house so that the energy they got for free from the supercharger powered their house.




It is a good point to bring up the issue of power generation in Australia, but to say that an electric car generates more greenhouse than an ICE is a bit of a stretch. If anything it highlights the need for an alternate energy source. I would like to see nuclear developed, specifically in South Australia because I am of the opinion that providing cheaper power is one hurdle to innovation such as this.

[Shiraz]

different in SA Fred - we currently get over 30% power from renewables and are on the way to 50%. On some days, we have generated more power via wind than we could use - and solar can be as high as 20-25% at the daily peak. I guess that means that electric cars would be roughly equivalent to IC in carbon output, in this state.

[Bassnut]

Its not a stretch, its a fact, electric cars in Australia right now are a potential enviromental disaster. Although on board energy conversion to traction power is efficient, the generation, delivery and storage of this power is wildly inefficient and expensive (let alone the enviromental impacts of actually building them and the infrustracture to support them, which is very energy intensive). Until these factors are resolved, electric cars are vastly more enviromentaly damaging than internal combustion. I agree, alternative energy scources are the key, but let us not kid ourselves, right now, electic cars are NOT the answer to anything.

[xelasnave]

I think there would be less noise and petrol exhaust fumes if we had only electric cars.
Burning oil, coal or gas to provide them with electricity does not make since but making them solar dependent would be doable.
Storing solar power or wind power is the key..we need better batteries or should I call them accumulators.

[Bassnut]

what!, do you consider the exhaust fumes and noise of IC bother for you to be more of a problem than the enviromental damage that electric cars cause to be a more important issue?. Thats a bit selfish.

[xelasnave]

I only said there would be less fumes and noise and made no comment on the desirability.
Did you notice I suggested a dependence on solar energy.
On the basis that electric cars be powered by solar do you suggest there is higher environmental damage. Solar to charge the batteries.

[acropolite]

Fred, it's refreshing to see someone who has an understanding of the limitations of electric vehicles.

The real issue is the enormous amount of power required to push a car around and the lack of sustainable capacity to feed the worldwide demand in to the future.

Combustion engines generate enormous amounts of power, an engine averaging just 25Kw over a couple of hours and would need almost 3 times the daily household national average to run for those couple of hours electrically.

Extrapolate that to the numbers of cars worldwide and you'll understand why electric cars aren't the future.

IMO future transport needs to be more efficient, public transport, foot and bicycles.

[Bassnut]

Well yes actually. Solar panels are made of Silicon, steel, aluminium and glass. All those materials require high temperature foundries that use vast amounts of power to produce. Ive seen research that shows (depending on the scource of power, mostly coal if from China) that the carbon footprint of manufacturing solar panels can have an enviromental payback time in the order of 15 years, about the same as the usefull lifetime of a solar panel. This is improving all the time with panel efficiency BTW, but as it stands, the enviromental impact of solar panel manufacture/lifetime output use has no enviromental damage advantage over fossil fuel. Are you suprised?.

[torana68]

Convert your car to methanol (NOT ethanol) it's renewable, you could make it at home �� even lpg is better than the current electrics , consider where the electricity comes from now and the really environmently bad stuff in the batteries that are in use.

[xelasnave]

Yes and no.
There are no free lunches.
Phil is right about energy demand and how difficult it would be to have electric cars world wide.
I wonder what the current draw is on a formula W car..
You need 4 panels for 1000 watts which is small horses.
Your battery bank would be huge...I can work it out if I know what power an electric car would use...but indeed you would need many panels and large battery capacity just for one car.

[Bassnut]

Yes, the energy density of petrol to volume and delivery/storage efficiency is insane, nothing else comes even remotely close, in orders of magnitude. Unless we have an absolute revolution in power delivery/battery technology, electric power is but a pipe dream.

[Shiraz]

what research is that Fred? - everything I have ever seen shows an energy/carbon payback of less than 2 years for modern solar panels, typically about a year and even less for newer technologies. interestingly, wind generators also seem to have short payback times of less than a year.

[acropolite]

http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/35489.pdf

This document outlines energy payback for manufacture. I've seen other papers that are in agreement with the figures presented.

I think perhaps the high figures were never anything other than urban myth.

[xelasnave]

I purchased 2 panels 20 years ago.
They both still work.
However in that time have had 3 sets of batteries and 4 cheap two stroke gennys and 2 good 4 stroke gennys and 2 inverters one of which still works.
Off grid is expensive and very high maintenance.
You need to keep panels.clean and battery maintenance required topping up water and keeping terminals clean.

[Shiraz]

And that paper was from 2004 - latest figures are way better.

[Bassnut]

I must say, the article I saw was from "New scientist" many years ago. Yes the new figures are way better.

[clive milne]

With all due respect Fred, I disagree for a number of reasons.

Whilst it is true that fossil fuels have a high energy density, it is also true that the means by which we convert that energy to motion is incredibly inefficient. In a typical vehicle, only 10% of it reaches the back wheels, and only 0.3% is used to actually move the occupant.

Furthermore, the battery storage technology is viable but has been prevented from being deployed by patent encumbrance - bought out by Chevron (gotta love free market capitalism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automot ive_NiMH_batteries

Physicist, Amory Lovins is worth watching:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D-uhKHy7mk


Also, the story of the Aptera is worth a look.
A 360mpg car which was set to retail for $30k (developed almost a decade ago)

The company eventually had to file for chapter 7 bankruptcy.
This had nothing to do with the viability of the vehicle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptera_Motors
You can see it in action here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrQqCLRXl2w

Or... the General motors EV1 from two decades ago.
Withdrawn from circulation by GM and every single example crushed (bar one - in a museum) in spite of the howls of protest from the people who had them in their driveways.
Why? because they worked.
You can watch the documentary 'who killed the electric car' here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r75lqbA0uMM

Anyone see a pattern emerging?

[Bassnut]

Clive, yes on board electric power to traction power is efficient some 85% I think. The big problem with electric is the reverse of IC. The generation, transmission and battery storage is very inefficient, im loose with the numbers, but its about 10-15% energy efficient I think. Petrol generation transmission and storage is very energy efficient indeed.
So, the IC path from oil in the ground to traction power, is about efficient as coal in the ground to traction power for electric, all things considered.

The whole "the barstds killed electric cars" conspiricy theorys are a myth, debunked years ago and im supprised you believe all that shiet.

Electric cars back then were leased and then trashed at the end of the lease for a very simple reason. The infrustructure required to support them was expensive for such a low volume production. Consumer law requires support and spare parts etc is available for the life of a product if they had sold them. The cost to make all spare parts available country wide for 20 odd years for such a specialised low volume product would have been insane. Or imagine actually resetting up an entire production line 15 years after it was shut down to make 3 spare batteries or motors!

[Eratosthenes]

source for that claim?

....a combustion engine is about 25% efficient, with about 40% going out the exhaust, 30% into the coolant and 5% as frictional losses. Combustion engines generally use fossil fuels which are one-off burns. Insanely inefficient, and environmentally destructive..I suppose we do need to keep all those wars chugging along for the sake of controlling the fossil fuel reserves.

http://bioage.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/energy_path_gasoline_ice.png

(incidentally, a formula 1 car which is about as efficient a combustion engine can get, barely achieves much better at about 32%)

[Slawomir]

The future is in electric cars. No oil changes, filter replacements, periodic tune ups, exhaust system repairs, fixing water pump, fuel pump, alternator...

Only one moving part thus little maintenance. Just need to develop better batteries. Hopefully those carbon nanotubes will meet expectations.

As for environmental sustainability, we better buy less stuff and repair what we have instead of throwing things away as soon as they break down. How many toys amateur astronomers have nowadays? :)

[andyc]

Along the same lines, this "Test drive of a petrol car (http://teslaclubsweden.se/test-drive-of-a-petrol-car/)" by Tesla Club Sweden is funny, and very close to the mark. Best read in a comedy Scandinavian accent:

The petrol engine consists of literally hundreds of moving parts that must have tolerance of hundredths of a millimeter to function. We begun to understand why it is car repair shops that sell the cars – they might hope for something to break in the car that they can mend?
...
The seller looked very puzzled at us and explained that it is not possible to refuel gasoline cars at home, and there are no free gas stations. We tried to explain our questions, in case he had misunderstood, but he insisted that you can not. Apparently you have to several times a month drive to the gas station to recharge your petrol car at extortionate prices – there are no alternatives!

I think good electric cars will change personal transportation, and I'm looking forward to the day I can get one! And networks of charging points are only going to grow, quite apart from home charging/power generation. If a significant chunk of the energy used in manufacture and recharging is renewable, then the environmental impact argument is easily lost by the fossil fuel companies. Bye bye dirty coal :D

Fred, try this for size (http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html#.VVqL3HZ-8RY) - EV cars produce fewer lifecycle emissions than internal combustion cars, even when the electricity source is coal. If the electricity source is renewable (significantly in South Australia, for example), then EVs win by a large margin. Also try the "State of Charge" report (2012)" (http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/clean_vehicles/electric-car-global-warming-emissions-report.pdf) which has an interesting map showing how well the cars rate depending on geographic areas of the USA (depending mainly on electricity generation mix).

[Slawomir]

That was a great read from Tesla Club, thank you Andy.

I am also looking forward to the day when I will be able to afford an electric car with a decent range. I am not an engineer, but know a thing or two about electric motors and they seem to be a very logical move from combustion engines. Now, back to the batteries...

[Bassnut]

Look, im not against electric cars persay at all. I deal with electric vehicles in my job, and they are way more efficient and superior in many ways. EV is certainly the way of the future. Its the generation, transmission and storage technology that has to change/improve, and it is improving all the time.
Im a bit behind in developments obviously and have learnt a lot in this thread. Thanks for your input Andy, I stand corrected.

[cometcatcher]

The present power grid can't handle very many electric cars. If we all went electric, the grid would crash.

I drive an electric vehicle, but it only has 2 wheels. The (near) future of electric vehicles are e-bikes. :P

[AussieTrooper]

Just got back from Hawaii, and there are quite a few of them around. And it really makes sense. Highest gas prices in the country (about 70c higher than the mainland) and range/lack of refuelling points isn't a problem when you are on an island.
Keep up the tax on petroleum, and subsidise electric vehicles. Our lungs will thank us.

[AussieTrooper]

That's not true, for two reasons. :)

1) The national grid has been designed for steadily increasing demand. In the last few years, we've actually seen a drop. As a result, there is now more spare capacity than there has been since the 80s.

2) Electric cars largely charge at night, when demand is at its lowest, and the lower tempreratures actually increase it's rating.

I'm a massive fan of seeing electric cars roll out here. Now that are stopping producing fossil fuelled cars here, there's no economic reason for not doing it either.