Who Killed the Electric Car?

[Ziggurat]

Unfortunately the response doesn't seem to address why GM subsequently sued the State of California.

Why did they sue California? Easy: they didn't want the state to require them to sell cars at a loss just to meet essentially arbitrary government percentages.

 

[aggle-rithm]

What's really holding electric cars back is battery technology.
Batteries still have a bad output to recharge ratio. They're also expensive. Replacing the battery on a hybrid (civic, prius, escape etc.) runs about $7000.00. (I checked at a dealership for the current price.)

Feul cells are still expensive and industry is still reluctant to set up hydrogen stations.
I saw a show on the Dicovery/Times Channel (I believe the show was called "Addicted to Oil") where a family volunteered to use a hydrogen car for a few years to see what the impact was on the family. The car cost $1mill (a prototype) and they used a series of refilling stations that used solar power to separate Hydrogen from water. The station could only produce one tank (the car's capacity) of hydrogen every 24 hours. And I think they only got about 200 - 300 miles on one tank.
They also intervied a representative for Honda who said that they purposly marketed thier hybrid to the american public on the basis that the hybrid does not need to be plugged in. A rep for GMC said that the American public has an aversion to cars that plug in. (the Japanese and european version can be plugged in)
The honda hybrid can actually be driven on the electic motor only. There is a switch, which is disabled on the American version, which can put the car into "stealth" mode or fully electric. The gas motor never engages.
There is a company, however, that will, for $10,000., re-engage the switch add a recharge circuit (or make it pluggable) and replace the battery with a more recharge friendly one.

You solve the battery problem and the electric car will dominate the roads.

I saw that show. It made some good points, but I could tell in a few places that crucial information was being withheld to strengthen the arguments against oil and the American auto industry. In one scene the host confronted a representative from an auto maker at a trade show, who was describing an environmentally friendly car. When he asked him what mileage it got, he replied, "On gasoline...? 12 mpg".

The host of the show ridiculed this answer, saying "no wonder we're behind the Japanese!" However, is it possible, considering the "On gasoline...?" reply, that the vehicle runs on fuel other than gasoline, and perhaps THAT's why it's environmentally friendly, and not because of superior gas mileage? He never explored this possibility, not surprisingly.

 

[tableplay]

Why did they sue California? Easy: they didn't want the state to require them to sell cars at a loss just to meet essentially arbitrary government percentages.

Agreed, but odd that the GM Executive didn't include this fact in the GM response -- he should have addressed all the major points of contention in the movie and the lawsuit was one of them.

 

[jimlintott]

I don't know how large cities in the far North manage this. It may very well need innovation and new infrastructure. I'm just pointing out that where I lived in the Rockies, we all plugged in our engine heaters at night in the winter, including at the hospital I worked at. Had I not plugged in I wouldn't be able to start the car after an 8 hour shift. Your oil gets too sluggish and the engine literally will not turn over fast enough to start.

Perhaps someone on the board from Anchorage or other cold winter big city can tell us what facilities they have.

Wait, I see others have commented.

It is not uncommon for us in the dead of winter to not be able to plug in the vehicle. Some work places with staff parking lots will have outlets, public parking doesn't. You have to make sure that your car is in good running order and / or carry booster cables. When it gets really cold, tow truck operators are very busy. There certainly isn't the facilities for everyone to plug in all the time.

Another reason your car barely turns over is because cold kills batteries. A wet cell car battery loses something like 35% of its power at 0C (32F). At the coldest temps here over 75% of the batteries power is lost. This is even worse in a battery that is weak.

Cold kills batteries. Apparently some types less than others but it would be a big concern to me in an EV.

The argument that auto makers would want to keep ordinary brakes because they're a large service industry doesn't make any sense either, though: if repairs are done under warranty, the manufacturers lose money, and if they're not done under warranty, it's individual mechanics doing the service who pocket most of the profit, not the manufacturers.

Quick note: Normal brake maintenance from normal brake wear is not a warranty item under most warranties. There may be exceptions.

 

[Ziggurat]

Agreed, but odd that the GM Executive didn't include this fact in the GM response -- he should have addressed all the major points of contention in the movie and the lawsuit was one of them.

Yeah, it would be nice if the response was more comprehensive, but considering the response was written without having seen the movie, but only second-hand reports, I can't really fault it for that.

 

[fsol]

I think you misunderstood:..

No, I get it. I just didn't see the value in the argument I quoted. Hybrids use regenerative braking *now.* I don't see the car companies bemoaning the increase in brakes life span because of it. You'd think if it was a factor in the demise of the EV-1 they wouldn't have gone and used the same tech again, unless maybe there perhaps was no conspiracy afterall...well that and that the tech actually works.

 

[Ziggurat]

No, I get it. I just didn't see the value in the argument I quoted. Hybrids use regenerative braking *now.* I don't see the car companies bemoaning the increase in brakes life span because of it.

You're right, I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

 

[Peskanov]

Ripley Twenty-Nine,

And this is essentially the problem with electric today, besides technical limitations with the battery.

Skeptigirl, YOU may absolutely love an electric car. Your friends may love an electric car. Is it feasible? Would you be able to use the EV1 as your primary car? Would all of your friends and family? How about Joe Sixpack? How about the inner-city drivers? How about people like me who commute 200km every day?

With adequate support (plugs in streets and parking lots) an EV could cover that range, and would save you a lot of money in fuel. The problem would be the speed.
You surely run a lot, if you are doing 200 kmh each day. An EV would be a nighmare for you.
But I am no sure this an EV problem, I would say that it's mostly a problem of your way of life. Wasting 2/3 hours each day in transports is not a good way of living. I tasted it once, and I don't plan to repeat...

 

[Peskanov]

jimlintott,

Another reason your car barely turns over is because cold kills batteries. A wet cell car battery loses something like 35% of its power at 0C (32F). At the coldest temps here over 75% of the batteries power is lost. This is even worse in a battery that is weak.

Cold kills batteries. Apparently some types less than others but it would be a big concern to me in an EV.

That's one of the reasons ultracapacitors and flywheels are so interesting; they stand cold weather perfectly. Also, they have longer lifes...

 

[Ziggurat]

With adequate support (plugs in streets and parking lots) an EV could cover that range, and would save you a lot of money in fuel.

This argument amounts to "If you don't have to pay for massive infrastructure development but can pass that bill onto other people, then you would save a lot of money." Which may be true, but it doesn't actually solve the problem.

Are all these sockets going to be free to use? Or do you need to build some sort of billing process on top of it? If it's for free, well, you're looking at a tragedy of the commons in the making. And if it's metered, you're talking about a VERY expensive infrastructure. Who foots the bill?

 

[Ziggurat]

jimlintott,

That's one of the reasons ultracapacitors and flywheels are so interesting; they stand cold weather perfectly. Also, they have longer lifes...

Any flywheel that can get close to the same energy density as a battery is going to be fantastically expensive (not to mention difficult to engineer safely, especially for crashes). And ultracapacitors cannot get close: even those fancy nanotube capacitors, which are likely at least a decade away from commercial production (if they even can be mass-manufactured cheaply enough), would only reach parity with current batteries. Both flywheels and ultracapacitors can serve a purpose because their peak power output can be very high compared to batteries (meaning you can move energy into or out of them very quickly, which you can use to even out transient loads to the battery), but they don't solve the energy density problem.

A quick google search turned this up:
http://www.evworld.com/archives/interviews/cellis.html
It talks about a flywheel design (a cylinder in this case) for hybrid cars. They're basically taking the approach I suggested above: use the high power output potential of flywheels, for transient power needs (accelerating quickly on an onramp, for example), but don't even try to get the energy density high enough to replace the fuel engine. You can get efficiency and performance advantages that way, but you can't eliminate the fuel without running into basically the same problems that all-electrics face: the energy density just isn't high enough.

 

[Peskanov]

Ziggurat,

Interesting. And it pretty much shows my main point: the only contender to internal combustion engines for sufficient energy density is the hydrogen fuel cell, which is an advanced fuel technology rather than a battery technology. Add some supercapacitors to boost the peak transient power output and you've got a contender (provided you can solve the storage problem). There's a reason the car manufacturers are investing heavily in fuel cell vehicles and not electric-only vehicles, and it's not because of any conspiracy: the former have some promise, but the latter have been a dead end for over a century.

I am aware of the difference of power between EV and internal combustion, but I don't agree about the lack of competitiveness.

Check the horsepower of some popular european cars along the years:

- Citroen 2CV (1955): 9 hp
- Fiat 600 (1945): 21 hp
- Renault 4 (1961): 35 hp
- Fiat Panda (1980): 50 hp
- Volkswagen beetle (1960): 45 hp
- Volkswagen beetle (1970): 60 hp
- Citroen CX (1982): 75 hp (least powerfull)
- Citroen CX (1982): 150 hp (most powerful)

It's important to notice that very low hp is necesary to have an useful vehicle; a 10x increment in power does not provide a 10x increment in speed, and that's the reason internal combustion engines are better, but not as much as many believe...

At 9 hp, one person could use an EV with solar photovoltaic cells and drive 1 hour each day, without recharging. This is an extreme example, I know. But think about plugging the vehicle to the electric grid or using small fuel cells for peak consumption.
I certainly see the advantages in an EV, I would like to buy one with the right pricing.

 

[Peskanov]

Zigggurat,

This argument amounts to "If you don't have to pay for massive infrastructure development but can pass that bill onto other people, then you would save a lot of money." Which may be true, but it doesn't actually solve the problem.

Are all these sockets going to be free to use? Or do you need to build some sort of billing process on top of it? If it's for free, well, you're looking at a tragedy of the commons in the making. And if it's metered, you're talking about a VERY expensive infrastructure. Who foots the bill?

errr...I didn't know that gas stations and oil distributions were cheap to build...And the people working there seems to want me to pay the gasoline each time I fill the tank.

Obviously, I am talking about pay-per-watt system. Of course I expect to pay for the energy I buy from the electric grid, which is (btw) much cheaper than oil.
I don't think this is so difficult: cities are already wired with high power lines...

Any flywheel that can get close to the same energy density as a battery is going to be fantastically expensive (not to mention difficult to engineer safely, especially for crashes). And ultracapacitors cannot get close: even those fancy nanotube capacitors, which are likely at least a decade away from commercial production (if they even can be mass-manufactured cheaply enough), would only reach parity with current batteries. Both flywheels and ultracapacitors can serve a purpose because their peak power output can be very high compared to batteries (meaning you can move energy into or out of them very quickly, which you can use to even out transient loads to the battery), but they don't solve the energy density problem.

I know, but there is room for improvement in both technologies. As I said, the advantage is fast recharging, long life, and bearing cold temperatures.

A quick google search turned this up:
http://www.evworld.com/archives/interviews/cellis.html
It talks about a flywheel design (a cylinder in this case) for hybrid cars. They're basically taking the approach I suggested above: use the high power output potential of flywheels, for transient power needs (accelerating quickly on an onramp, for example), but don't even try to get the energy density high enough to replace the fuel engine. You can get efficiency and performance advantages that way, but you can't eliminate the fuel without running into basically the same problems that all-electrics face: the energy density just isn't high enough.

Yes, flywheels are used in lots of hybrid techologies. But the interesting thing is not current uses, but possible future ones. The best flywheels have better wh/kg than the best of the batteries. New materials will improve power density.
Security certainly remains a problem for flywheels...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

I went speed dating once it was a interesting experience. When women are give only 2 minutes to evaluate you every single one of them asks what kind of car you drive. Its on the short list of qualifications maybe even #1. Until that changes we will continue to but the penis cars at any and all cost.

My response to such a woman would be, "Thanks for giving me an up-front heads up on just how superficial, shallow, and empty you are, so I don't have to waste any time and energy whatsoever trying to live up to your sad little unrealistic expectations for... Oh, wait a minute, I just noticed the size of your breasts. Strike what I just said."

 

[Ziggurat]

errr...I didn't know that gas stations and oil distributions were cheap to build...And the people working there seems to want me to pay the gasoline each time I fill the tank.

Indeed. The price of the gas station is already factored into the gas you buy, though. Have you priced what it costs to make the kind of electric grid required for what you proposed?

Obviously, I am talking about pay-per-watt system. Of course I expect to pay for the energy I buy from the electric grid, which is (btw) much cheaper than oil.

It's much cheaper as delivered by the current infrastructure. That says nothing about the price if you need to build a new infrastructure and scale up capacity.

I don't think this is so difficult: cities are already wired with high power lines...

Difficult? No. Expensive? Yes. Who pays? The government? Then you're doing what I said you're doing: making someone else pay for your driving preference. Private enterprise? Good luck getting anyone to take that kind of financial risk.

I know, but there is room for improvement in both technologies. As I said, the advantage is fast recharging, long life, and bearing cold temperatures.

Yeah, there's "room" for improvement. Just like there's room for materials advances for a space elevator. Just don't hold your breath, because it can't be done within the next ten years.

The best flywheels have better wh/kg than the best of the batteries.

So what? They aren't safe to put in a car. Are you aware of what happens when a high-energy fly wheel fails? Do you understand how hard it is to guarantee that it doesn't fail if you crash? Security isn't just a problem, it makes high-energy flywheels as the primary energy source an impossibility for cars for the forseeable future.

I am aware of the difference of power between EV and internal combustion, but I don't agree about the lack of competitiveness.

Check the horsepower of some popular european cars along the years:

You're confusing power and energy density, which leads you to false conclusions. They are not the same thing. Energy density is the amount of energy per unit mass. Power is how fast that energy can be converted, but says nothing about the total available energy. Ever since cars started using gasoline, they've had basically constant energy density. That applies whether you've got a 1/2 hp gas-powered lawnmower or a 300 hp truck. The size of the engine may determine how fast you can usefully consume that fuel (power), but the energy density is still the same: the energy density of gasoline itself. And it's that energy density which all-electrics can't compete with, because batteries simply don't store enough energy. The power of electric engines, or batteries, is not the limiting factor, and I never claimed it was.

 

[The Don]

Ziggurat,

I am aware of the difference of power between EV and internal combustion, but I don't agree about the lack of competitiveness.

Check the horsepower of some popular european cars along the years:

- Citroen 2CV (1955): 9 hp
- Fiat 600 (1945): 21 hp
- Renault 4 (1961): 35 hp
- Fiat Panda (1980): 50 hp
- Volkswagen beetle (1960): 45 hp
- Volkswagen beetle (1970): 60 hp
- Citroen CX (1982): 75 hp (least powerfull)
- Citroen CX (1982): 150 hp (most powerful)

It's important to notice that very low hp is necesary to have an useful vehicle; a 10x increment in power does not provide a 10x increment in speed, and that's the reason internal combustion engines are better, but not as much as many believe...

At 9 hp, one person could use an EV with solar photovoltaic cells and drive 1 hour each day, without recharging. This is an extreme example, I know. But think about plugging the vehicle to the electric grid or using small fuel cells for peak consumption.
I certainly see the advantages in an EV, I would like to buy one with the right pricing.

Except for a few things...

I have driven a number of the vehicles you have listed and as a practical form of transport for my purposes all bar the Citroen CX are a complete failure. The reasons are may and varied but include:

(1) The inability to travel at speed (> 120 km/h) for distance (> 150 km) which I need to visit my clients (cannot get to many places by public transport)
(2) The level of safety equipment I require (airbags, abs etc.) which means that unless exotic (expensive) materials are used the vehicle will be heavy
(3) The level of comfort I require (those old "deckchair" seats in the Panda were a joke)

I would consider that for a practical car, 50 hp is the very bare minimum, 100 hp closer to the mark


Remember, the top speed of the original 2cv was around the 60 km/h mark and the accelleration glacially slow

 

[The Don]

Oh, and as an answer to the OP "Who Killed the Electric Car ?"

The Consumer - hardly anyone wants one

 

[Belz...]

Hang in there Belz, global warming is just around the corner. Even Canada will be inhabitable before too long.

Right, and then we can all get out of our igloos...

 

[Ripley Twenty-Nine]

Right, and then we can all get out of our igloos...

I'm from southern Ontario (About 1 hour from the most southern point of Canada). Once while I was in northern Michigan, I was asked where I was from. When I said I was from Ontario, Canada, the lady said,
"Oh wow, Ontario. Is that anywhere near Toronto? It must be pretty cold up there now." (I think it was in May).
I said, "No, actually, it's colder here than it is where we live. We're down south, you guys are a few hours north of us."

She could not wrap her head around this. Wasn't Canada all igloos and polar bears?

 

[articulett]

The one true benefit from using biodiesel is that the emissions smell like popcorn. Yay.

I wonder if this might lead to hunger--then fatness...

Anyhow, I did hear that Bush is on top of things:

Bush: I'm 'solving' global warming debate

WASHINGTON, July 6 (UPI) -- In an interview with People magazine, President George W. Bush said there is "a worthy debate" on whether global warming is caused by human activities.

"It's a debate, actually, that I'm in the process of solving by advancing new technologies, burning coal cleanly in electric plants, or promoting hydrogen-powered automobiles, or advancing ethanol as an alternative to gasoline," he said.

(Solving???)