Who Killed the Electric Car?

I just rented this movie, for those who don't know all about Saturn's EV1 project ( I didn't know much until seeing this movie and googleing for more info) it is a definite eye opener and very informative on where alternative powered car technology started and where it is going and especially what or who stands in the way of progress. Some links, including the movie are below. If you have known about Saturn since thier beginnings, you may well remember the name Chelsea Sexton. Makes we wonder what other great Saturn projects have been quashed by the General.
formatting link
formatting link
formatting link
Reply to
marx404
In article , snipped-for-privacy@404.com says...
Marx...to put it lightly...that movie is a load of monkey crap.
Reply to
BläBlä
You know, you could elaborate on WHY you feel that way.
Lane [ lane (at) evilplastic.com ]
Reply to
Lane
In article , snipped-for-privacy@NOSPAMevilplastic.com=20 says...
=20 It's very simple; would you rent or buy a post by M1chael K0rman?=20 Obviously no so why in the world would you pay for a movie full of=20 irrational conspiracy nuts of the same caliber? It was bad enough=20 skimming his post for a fraction of a second let alone having the same=20 exact drivel in a 1? hour movie.=20
>
formatting link
Reply to
BläBlä
BlaBla, if I were to base the movie itself upon that Google post, yup I'd agree that the movie is drivel too. However the movie is about more than that and while I don't agree with everything said in the movie, it is nonetheless an eye opener on what technologies have been neglected since the EV1 and worth watching IMHO.
And yeh, big batteries and more did kill the EV1 from the start, but most would be suprised that much more viable longer running batteries were available then, yet GM decided to use huge outdated batteries with limited run times. This is the arguement that Chelesea Sexton made in the outakes in the movie, why they were in the outtakes and not a primary part of the movie, I dunno.
The movies Guilty/Not Guilty segment takes an almost Micheal Moore nonsensish turn, but most of the movie does hit upon some questions that will send most running for the internet and suprised as to see what EV technologies have already been out there that have been overlooked for one reason or another.
Um, anyone remember when a certain Bill Gates said" Nobody will ever need any more than 640k RAM"? This thain of thought seems similar to what is happening to the evolution of the EV. marx404
Reply to
marx404
The biggest problem with a electric car is energy storage. It needs to store about 100 KW or more to have any real range (more than 30 or 40 miles) and that takes sace and weight. Plus, such high amount of storage is not easily charge at home as it would take a 230 volt powered charger drawing 50 amps or more to recharge it overnight when it is depleted. It is not like some think that you can simple plug it in to a regular outlet as that would only store enoungh power to maybe get it 5 or 10 miles tops after a overnight plug in. Most do not realize the amout of energy a electric car actually requires. The best and smartest setup would be a hyrid that is all electric drive with a small effiecent motor running on alchol, gas or diesel that can keep a smaller battey pack topped off mostly when cruising longer ranges and make vehicle not need a plug in to take it on a trip when no plug in is availible. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Reply to
SnoMan
"It is not like some think that you can simple plug it in to a regular outlet as that would only store enoungh power to maybe get it 5 or 10 miles tops after a overnight plug in."
Actually, the new technology will allow over 200 miles on a single charge, which with the new batteries will take only 6 hrs tops recharging time. Take teslamotors new EV for instance. However, you are right as the most practical application is that which GM is workign hard at right now which is Gas/EV combo, but will only use the gas engine to regerate electricity. E85 is a joke as it burns twice as fast as petrol, however, Brazil has had sucess on making E85 from sugar not corn, and has had advances on longer mileage. Hybrid, whatever fuel is used, is the immediate answer, but as battery size and charging times decrese, the viability of the EV will go up. And thats another one that GM (and Saturn division) are working on currently, including usung a 110 volt plug, not 220 as predecessors used.
marx404
Reply to
marx404
Maybe from a 230 volt charger drawing 100 amps which would exceed most house panels. there is 728 watts in a HP at 100% efficency but for a electric car figuring battery efficency losses and motor/controller losses figure at least 1 KW charged in for 0ne HP out (it will likely take more than this) This weans to produce say 100 HP to accelerate or climba hill at speed you will be using energy at a rate of 100KW a hour. When cruising you might get by on 20 to 25KW/hr running cars and accessories. Again to go 200 miles your are in the 100KW batery capacity range. A charge powered by 230 volt drawing 100 amps would add abaout 20KW of energy a hours to batteries after efficency losses in charger and battery will take about 90% of theat energy and convert it to stored energy so about a 6 hr charge would be needed to charge a 100KW battery pack with a 23KW charger. ( as a comperison a dryer draws about 5KW and a electric range with all burners on high and oven on too can use about 8KW) A regular wall outlet can powr at most a 2KW before efficency losses so it would take about 3 to 4 days to charge it. People want to believe tha you can just plug car into a regular outlet and drive bu the energy is not there. Also the average rate for electricity is over 10 cent a KW so it would cost about 15 bucks to charge it or more (likely a lot more) As a comparison there is the equivlant of about 38KW in a gallon of gas. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Reply to
SnoMan
How do you figure that? At 10 cents / kwh, 100 kwh costs ten bucks. At fifteen cents, 15 bucks. To be "a lot more" than $15, you'd need to be paying "a lot more" than 15 cents / kwh for your electricity. Maybe you are. I'm not.
And as an even better comparison, that $10-15 for 200 miles worth of electricity works out to five to seven and a half cents a mile. In a car that gets 30 mpg, it takes 6 2/3 gallons to go 200 miles. At $2.25 / gallon, that's $15, or -- you guessed it -- seven and a half cents a mile. Obviously, if the price of gas continue to increase, it will cost more, "likely a lot more".
As far as I'm concerned, with the costs being roughly equal, I'd much rather power my commute with electricity that's generated by burning American coal, than by burning gasoline that comes from imported oil.
Reply to
Doug Miller
wrote:
You left out efficency losses in charging and discharging batteries. It will take a lot more than 100KW for wall scoket to yeild 100 KW of usable power from battery pack. Also check out you electric bill and you will likely find that you are paying a lot more than 10 cent a KW. Plus if everyone starts doing this them power grids will be overloaded and the upgrade will cost mega bucks which will equal higher electric costs too
In theory but then do not forget about battery pack replacement which will set you back about 10 grand for a 100KW pac that may last 50K miles or so in heavy usage which adds about 20 cnt a mile so it is now 27 cents a mile to drive or 54 dallrs for 200 miles verse 22.0 for same distance with gas at 20 MPG ot 11.25 at 40 MPG. (BTW, at 40 MPG gas is cheaper to drive just on energy cost alone and only take a few minutes to recharge it with fuel)
Not really because the invironmental cost are even worse because you are shifting from one polution source to another. Last I heard coal plants are about 35% efficent so 65% is wasted and tons of CO2 released. Nuculear power lants would make it more doable environmentally. The real longer term future lies in electric cars powered by fuel cells that are zero emissions and extract nearly all the energy from fuel used in them rather than wasting two thirds of it. A gas engine is maybe 30 to 33% efficent at best today and a diesel 35 to 38% which means the rest is wasted. Eliminate this wast and our energy problems are over as it would cut fuel energy needed for transporttion by over 50% while greatly reducing CO2 green house gasses. Lots of ideas look good on paper like electric cars or corn based fuels (BTW a ethanol poweedr vehicle emitts 40 to 50% more CO2 than a gas powered one) but when you add it all up there is no simple soultion. It will take change and the first of which is for Detriot to stop promotting big high profit iron and focus on truely more efficent cars not just concept ones. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Reply to
SnoMan
No, I didn't -- because you already figured them into that 100KW estimate, remember?
Guess again.
Offset by lower gasoline bills...
Entirely speculation on your part, and you ignore the cost of repairs and maintenance on gasoline-powered vehicles.
You need to get out more...
Reply to
Doug Miller
wrote:
Yes you did because I said 15 bucks to charge 100KW of usable energy in a battery pack at 10 cents a KW and you said 10 (100% efficent which it is not)
Maybe you are not (I am not either) but a lot are paying this and more especailly in big cities were electric cars are most viable.
Nope, no money saved because it is far cheaper to drive a gas car that need no expensive battery pack replacement. Heck you can replace a conventional engine and tranny for less than a big battery pack
No it does not, Most cars have a 50K or so warrenty and I have run a few car well past 200K with routine maintainance which I do myself. THe big battey pack will wear out and it will be VERY expensive to replace and it does factor in on operating cost. You might say sell car before you replace battery pack? Okay but then you will take a hosing on the sale because nobody is going to pay much for a electric car that has a battery pack at end of service life so you will loose your shirt.
I think you do. I think you are one of those head in the sand looking for a magic cure that does not realize that for every cause their is a effect and we are killing our ecosystem and denial will not change it. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Reply to
SnoMan
wrote:
Like you do??? you are pretty clueless about anything involving physics and science. YOu motto is if you cannot understand it, it must be wrong and ofciurse you do not even use a viable email with posts because you need to hide. Qucik throw some stones and duck behind fence so nobody knows you did it. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Reply to
SnoMan
Pay close attention here: your figure of 100KW has the inefficiency built in already.
Remainder snipped... you obviously don't want to hear anything contradicting your preconceptions.
Bye.
Reply to
Doug Miller
In article , =20 John R Stan says...
Funny, with a little research one will find that's exactly what=20 everybody everywhere says about you except with far fewer spelling=20 errors.=20
formatting link
you honestly think people are too stupid to see you for what you are? You will find insults from a blatant hypocrite such as yourself have=20 little effect on me. Personally I don't think its anyones business who I=20 am or who anyone else here is. I couldnt care less about anyones=20 identity here because it is not relevant to any discussions here. If=20 anyone really needed to reach me they can ping me here because this is=20 where I am a few times out of the week. Though from what I have seen you=20 have yet to respond to a lot of repeated point blank questions in other=20 groups. Odd considering your statement don't you think?
Now if you really want "your" information up for everyone to see I can=20 do that for you since from what I can see you aren't very willing to=20 list any "real" personal information.
This should be easy one for most to figure out - 39.9305 83.9696
You should be thankful I'm adding you back to my kill filter though if I=20 find you mouthing off again I am going to visit some of these "other=20 groups" you dart in and duck out of and strick up a chat with all those=20 "friends" you've made.=20
Reply to
BläBlä
formatting link
Production and conversion BEVs [Battery Electric Vehicles] using NIMH battery chemistry typically use 0.3 to 0.5 kilowatt-hours per mile (0.2 to 0.3 kWh/km). Nearly half of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries: The manufacturer of the Li-ion Tesla reports usage of .215 kWh per mile.
- end quote -
I think it is wise to be at least as skeptical of BEV performance claims as for EPA mileage estimates. Using the upper end of the energy use claim, 0.5 kWH/mile, and a 40 mile range overnight charging at 120v should be barely possible.
I would like to see someone really test the Tesla. Drive it like a sports car. I be after 20 miles it would be a hurtin' cowboy. A little misjudgment and you are going to be crawling home with grandma riding your ass in her Civic.
Reply to
satyr
wrote:
You need to because you are the one that siad it was cheaper
Guess again, while I enjoy a good debate I try to use science in them too and when it exceeds the understanding of some they respond such as you have. People want to beleive in magic cures but they do not exist. John Q. Publics loves for cars and SUV's is blind to real soultions and they only see what supports what they think is a cure. BTW, A electric car would realy suck in a cold climate because it would have to make heat and that will take a fair amount of power shortening its range a good bit rather than using waste heat that comes from a gas engine that would be otherwise discarded. ----------------- TheSnoMan.com
Reply to
SnoMan

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.