What is Digg?41 Comments
- asimo8, on 10/12/2007, -5/+27Why bother with all the internal combustion stuff?
We shouldn't have to pay for an engine block, head(s), exhaust system, fuel system, cooling system, ignition system, O2 sensors, EVAP systems, catalytic converters, PCV system, timing belts/chains, emissions systems, oil changes, transmission fluid changes etc.
All these hybrids on the road today should have been pure electric cars.
It's almost 2007. We should have flying cars by now and food in pill form, not vehicles powered by fire. - Crave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16It actually is that simple. Watch "Who killed the electric car". It was on youtube and daily motion for a while.
Edit: Unless you're talking about the pill food and flying cars. I'm still waiting on those, dammit. - felixkramer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This idea has been talked about for quite a few years...but now that PHEVs are getting closer, people are getting very excited about it. Utilities are starting to realize that they could store night-time wind-power in thousands/millions of car batteries and avoid costs for all sorts of things: "regulatory services, spinning reserves, peaker plants" -- cars as distributed energy storage can be a big deal!.
Felix Kramer, Founder, The California Cars Initiative -- lots more info at http://www.calcars.org and the latest news at http://www.calcarsorg/news-archive.html - EntangledPhysx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8You don't need a vehicle that runs on gas to be able to move in snow. They have hybrid trucks... soon they could be all electric, too. And with the advent of new battery technologies (like the ultra capaciters that can hold a huge amount of energy, and can be fully charged within seconds) I would be very surprised if they don't eventually make them. Then again, how many people need a car that can do major offroad? most gas cars can't do that, either.
- OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7[quote]The gas-engine turns the drive shaft much more efficiently than the electric engine,[/quote]
That is completely wrong. Gas engines are far less efficient. A gas engine loses a great deal of energy every time the car has to accelerate, an electric engine always provides 100% torque. This is why there is such a discrepancy between city mileage and highway mileage.
There was a story and video about the electric racecar here on Digg a few months back. You should look that up, because you'll see how much an electric race car pwns a conventional one. - asimo8, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Think about it. Almost all the hybrids on the road today are essentailly an electric car with an internal combustion engine there to complicate things.
All they need is the internal combustiion engine and related components removed and add some more battery capacity. They would all make great electric cars. - bowe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Since Electric Motors are used to power FREIGHTTRAINS, I don't think this will be a problem. They have a gigantic advantage in torque.
- OmegaNine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I think its the gear heads keeping it down. Thats the one place geeks feel lost is in a garage... If they make the move, we would be at home there too. :P
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Beware posters claiming there's something "we" don't recognize.
This is called the 'long tailpipe' theory and it has been thoroughly disproven countless times.
Electric cars are far more efficent than gas powered cars (electric motors, 95% efficient - internal combustion engine, less than 25% efficient.) Distributing power via wire (95% efficient) is also far more efficient than trucking gasoline around the country. Greatly improved efficiency translates into greatly reduced pollution per mile, regardless of what is being burned at the plants (even coal is burned with up to 85% efficiency at modern powerplants.)
It's absurdly easy to prove the efficiency argument when you look at relative fuel costs. Electricity to move EVs costs only about a penny per mile. Gas costs about ten times that. - OmegaNine, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8The biggest issue with pure electric cars is the batteries. They have to be freakin huge, and way way heavy...So there has to be more to pull the weight of the batteries....But that adds more weight...Its a chain reaction. Battery technology is catching up, but its doing it slowly.
- asimo8, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Pimptastic:
They did make, in very limited numbers, and electric Ford Ranger, Chevy S-10 and Toyota RAV-4. They were each just as capable as it's gas-guzzling counterpart.
Small cars are more capable in snow conditions than many people think. They usually have tires that are more narrow than your average tire. These narrow tires are better in the snow. They dig down into the snow better.
Snow racing tires are usually extremely narrow (165mm or even smaller). - OdinEye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The Phoenix will be a wonderful advance - if it turns out to work as advertised. The proof will be in the pudding.
Plug-in Hybrids are a good partway step, and nothing in "who killed the electric car" changes this. While people in urban settings may be able to meet most of their needs with a standard electric car, a fair percentage of the population does not live in a setting where they will be able to work within the operating limitations of an electric car. For any trip, commute, etc, outside the single charge distance the car loses all practicality when compared to an internal combustion vehicle. I do consultation in rural settings. I can easily put 200-300 miles on in a given work day moving from site to site. Mileage is very important to me, as fuel represents a major business expense. An electric car, under current limitations would not meet those needs. And yes, I could take other work that doesn't involve driving, but I offer a service to an underserved area - if I wasn't doing it, someone would be.
A plug in hybrid would absolutely meet my needs, allowing me to increase my mileage considerably over my current solution (a civic hatchback) by running on electric for the first third, or so, of my driving day.
What would seem to make the most sense to me in this area would be a hybrid with the combustion engine functioning as a generator - completely detached from the driveline. This would allow the engine to run constant speed within it's most efficient operating range, and save the additional weight that comes with dual propulsion systems. This certainly isn't my idea - it's been shown on multiple show cars, and I believe is how locomotives work. I'm waiting to see it show up on a production car (hopefully before my civic dies - which appears to be coming soon). - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There are some pretty amazing electric cars coming down the road, as we speak. Not just the Tesla electric sportscar ( http://www.teslamotors.com ), but also the Phoenix.
The Phoenix (out next year) goes up to 250 miles per charge, does 95 mph, holds 5 passengers plus cargo, and can charge in TEN MINUTES.
http://phoenixmotorcars.com
- TVarmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The idea is that you park your electric car at your work's building's lot and plug it into the municipal power plugs that the city installed. While you rot in a cube from 9 to 5, your car acts as a "flywheel" for the grid.
Oh, and with current battery technology, many car manufacturers limit the battery to about 50% capacity because it reduces the wear on the battery(Making a battery that lives for 15 years rather than 10). There's probably a safe buffer above that that could shortly hold a bit extra and then give it back (I'm just guessing on that, electrical engineers can call my BS, thanks). In a metropolitan area with hundreds of plug in cars hooked up, that "bit extra" could end up being very small. - TVarmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My neighbor has the Rav-4 EV. It's so cool! It looks just like the regular RAV4, but it's much more efficient, to the tune of 105 MPG, I believe (If you pretend electricity is gas based on their prices). It's near silent. It's "snuck" up on me several times.
If you're wondering how he got it, don't ask me. Probably used. It's in New Jersey next to my house pretty much every day, but it has Florida plates. I thought they were only sold in California, so who knows its story. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"What would seem to make the most sense to me in this area would be a hybrid with the combustion engine functioning as a generator - completely detached from the driveline."
Further, it allows the possibility to include the generator in trailer format. As has been pointed out, most people do not travel over 50km / day, so the range of EVs is suitable 99% of the time. When you go on your yearly vacation, simply attach the small trailer which allows for the range and convenience of a petrol engine without carrying the weight around when not in use. - masamunecyrus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FTA: "Millions of cars, each with several kilowatt hours of storage capacity, would act as an enormous buffer, taking on charge when the system temporarily generates too much power, and giving it back when there are short peaks in demand."
Yea, that's great when you want to drive your car at a time when there happens to be a peak demand and you have no battery left. And if you live in California -- the first-adopters of these cars, anyways -- EVERY time is peak demand. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2WelI hope that will be an IPv6 network.
It is an interesting concept. The weaknesses of many renewable sources are consistency. Because of this, they can not be relied on for base load. (The wind stops or you get a couple of cloudy days or whatever). But if you have a bunch of electric or hybrid vehicles 'plugged in', then the peaks and troughs could be normalised.
Btw, there is nothing wrong with the long tailpipe theory (especially when you consider some people believe that electric cars have no emissions), but the electricity -> transmission -> battery -> drive is nearly 70% efficient. Even using old coal technology (about 35% efficient), the combined efficiency is around the same as an internal combustion engine. Of course, where renewable sources are used, it is much better than internal combustion. - mark101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2So everyone would have a meter that measures forwards and backwards electricy use in their homes/cars. There still is a huge problem with it, when you want to drive your car... your batteries have to be charged and if they were just feeding the electrical grid I don't think they will be charged. If the power companies using your batteries for power all the time how freaking far can you drive?
- gostars, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I already have enough problems when the power goes out and my alarm clock fails to go off on weekday mornings.
- Pimptastic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2intresting, I did not know that. (about snow racing tires).
As for the electric pickup, I know that will be the next car I get. only 250,000 miles to go till I can get a new one - mfearby, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If every car will have its own IP address, it won't be long before somebody spoofs it to steal your V2G credits. Still, I'm sure (hope?) they'll think of a way to make it secure. It's a great idea.
- inmatarian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Err, wow, I got called a Tard.
Let me correct myself for posterity. Direct electric energy into a Motor is more efficient than Burning Fuel. What I meant to say, and did say actually, is that burning the gas in the engine is more efficient than having the energy cross the country with all of the losses at step up and step down transformers.
Yes, the electrical grid CAN be improved for efficiency, which would make the electric car very viable. And, I would want it that way. A good side effect of a more efficient electrical grid is BPL (Broadband over Power Lines) won't put out RF interference on AM and Sideband frequencies. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1digg-down, replied under wrong message
- TVarmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1With current battery technology, many hybrid car manufacturers limit the battery to about 50% capacity because it reduces the wear on the battery(Making a battery that lives for 15 years rather than 10). There's probably a safe buffer above that that could shortly hold a bit extra and then give it back (I'm just guessing on that, electrical engineers can call my BS, thanks). In a metropolitan area with hundreds of plug in cars hooked up, that "bit extra" could end up being very small.
This wouldn't be as practical for an all electric vehicle, because it'd seriously reduce your range (unless you could get 200 miles out of half a battery, few people would accept it.). But a hybrid lasts longer with a 50%ish battery, so I think this would be okay.
This is probably a stupid idea, but what if electric rails were installed into the road (level, so as not to mess up non-electrics, and they only carry power, they don't guide the car) along with a third rail for usage logging on the freeway, so that electric cars could go on long trips if one stuck to main roads? I know there's a few mechanical burdens to work out, such as how to retract the contacts when going onto an older road, or when changing lanes, and safety issues, but if we assume these are worked out, would this be anywhere near practical? - TVarmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ masamunecyrus
Oh, I felt I should also mention that if carbon nanotubes live up to the hype, they could distribute grid much farther than ever before, so problems with the grid are shared farther and wider, meaning that local problems won't matter as much when using the plug-in flywheel scheme discussed here. I'm figuring I should mention that so long as we are guessing about what would work in the future. But if carbon nanotubes don't pan out, what you said in your last line would be a big issue. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"When the power fails during the day, people are off at work and the cars aren't plugged in. So, no backup power."
I imagine the car will leave you with at least the same amount of juice you had when you plugged in. It can easily do this by noting the remaining capacity at the time you plug in and then switching off if the capacity drops below the original plug in capacity. - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Mark101 said:
"How many tonnes of pollution does a SUV or car make in its lifetime?
You do have to include that in your calculations."
I said:
"For petrol, that includes drilling, shipping, refining, trucking, pumping and combustion."
Please remind me what combustion is for it seems that I must have been mistaken? Silly me always thought that was the chemical reaction that converted the petrol into energy producing other chemicals that we refer to as pollution.
In fact cars contribute much more to pollution than simply what comes out of the tail pipe. Oils that must be constantly changed are not particularly good for the environment either.
But to claim EVs produce no pollution is wrong. You don't magically plug your car into the wall and it magically gets totally refilled with no environmental impact.
Lets look at some figures. Apeweek above claims the Rav4 EV achieve 4 miles per 1KWH (which is 1KWH for about 6.5km) .
I don't know whether that is an average figure or an exceptionally good one.
The average car where I live travells 15,000km per year (9,300 miles).
So a bit of math later:
You need to generate 2.3 Megawatt Hrs per year per average car.
Mark101 said:
"the average car on the road today uses 11.8L/100km and therefore generates 5.57 tonnes of CO2 each year."
So how many tonnes of CO2 per year does it take your power grid to generate 2.3MW of usable electricity (after you take out transmission losses)? Don't forget to include digging up the coal, sending it by train to the plant and burning it.
A side note, outside the US, our cars are probably closer to 6 or 9 L/100 km depending on highway or city. 11.8 is probably V8 territory. Also, again this is in isolation, looking only at combustion. Don't forget to include pollution from drilling oil, shipping oil, refining oil and trucking fuel around to world. I think you will find that 5.57 tonnes is way under the true environmental impact of even a small car.
Again, to consider either petrol or EVs at the road is silly. The EVs will of course be pollution free, but the grid will need to distribute over 2MW more per car per year.
Back to the article, this idea is promising because it allows us for really the first time to consider using renewable energy for base load power (except hydro which is a bit more stable). - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The combined efficiency of electric drive is most definitely not the same as an internal combustion engine, even using old coal plants (35% efficient). Newer coal plants, BTW, are up to 85% efficient. An internal combustion engine is about 25% efficient under ideal conditions (that is, running in its optimum powerband.) Since it spends much of its time out of its peak powerband, and additional efficiency is lost to braking and idling, you're lucky to get maybe 10% of gasoline's power to the road. EVs don't idle, and they recover braking energy. Plus electric motors have very wide powerbands, and put almost all of their energy onto the road.
There's lots more I could say here, but bottom line, look at the cost of fuel. A toyota RAV4 EV gwts 4 miles per KWH. So depending where you live, off-peak electricity costs anywhere from 1/2 cent to 2 cents per mile. What does gasoline cost? five to ten times as much.
If EVs are not more efficient, why the large disparity in fuel cost? - grumpyrain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The combined efficiency of electric drive is most definitely not the same as an internal combustion engine, even using old coal plants (35% efficient). Newer coal plants, BTW, are up to 85% efficient."
Can you please quote your source(s)? According to Wikipedia, even ultra-critical steam plants only achieve 48%. Of course, I am not overly interested in the boiler efficiency as it is only part of the story.
What needs to be compared is the ground-to-road efficiency. For petrol, that includes drilling, shipping, refining, trucking, pumping and combustion. For EV, that is the mining, shipping, training, feeding, then your power generation, transmission, charging and then running the electric motor. To consider any technology in isolation is useless.
"An internal combustion engine is about 25% efficient under ideal conditions (that is, running in its optimum powerband.) Since it spends much of its time out of its peak powerband, and additional efficiency is lost to braking and idling, you're lucky to get maybe 10% of gasoline's power to the road."
I am not going to discuss the figures, I will assume for the discussion that your figures are accurate. This is where hybrids have an advantage over gasoline. There are two reasons that you don't switch off a pure gasoline engine at idle. Firstly, it takes a second for it to switch back on. This delay is unacceptable in a lot of cases. Secondly, it takes more fuel to switch off then on than for a short idle. The first problem could be largely taken mitigated by using an ultra-cap or equivalent - a battery that holds just enough power to get the car moving again while the gasoline engine starts with regenerative braking. Of course if you are going to put all the electronics to achieve this, you might as well put in enough batteries to get a decent range to achieve consistency and to better handle true stop start.
"EVs don't idle, and they recover braking energy. Plus electric motors have very wide powerbands, and put almost all of their energy onto the road."
No questions about that. Electric motors have a mountain of torque. Regenerative braking can save from memory 70% or there abouts of the kinetic energy under a normal stop. Obviously 'emergency stops' need to rely on a traditional mechanical brake.
"There's lots more I could say here, but bottom line, look at the cost of fuel. A toyota RAV4 EV gwts 4 miles per KWH. So depending where you live, off-peak electricity costs anywhere from 1/2 cent to 2 cents per mile. What does gasoline cost? five to ten times as much."
I don't know if that is a good argument. Unleaded fuel here is taxed at well over 50% (in case you were wondering why governments are less than enthusiastic about seeking alternatives). Not only that, but OPEC is pretty much a cartel, so we pay what they demand or can not fuel our vehicles. It shouldn't surprise us that gasoline is really expensive.
"If EVs are not more efficient, why the large disparity in fuel cost?"
Are we talking about different things? "$ per km" or "environmental impact per km" are two different things.
Don't misunderstand me, I would agree that we are better off with EVs (and I mention this in my OP), but I think if it is as simple as EVs are cleaner and cheaper with comparable range, convenient charge, we would be seeing a lot more EVs out there. - lifewithout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Freight trains are diesel/electric and use a lot of diesel.
- jpop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's a nice idea, but it doesn't really seem to have been thought through too much. Asides from the whole issue of discharging your car when you're going to need it mentioned earlier. When the power fails during the day, people are off at work and the cars aren't plugged in. So, no backup power. You can set up facilities at work for it, but then you're spending big bucks to support something that might not be used. If it is used, then people are stuck at work and can't get home...
- lifewithout, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This would work well if there were more than 2 or 3 electric cars in your town. Getting to the point where electric car sales rival internal combustion will require massive government subsidies. With massive government subsidies we could also start using the metric system and learn to speak esperanto.
- mark101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oh you want to argue impact? you wrote
"To consider any technology in isolation is useless."
How many tonnes of pollution does a SUV or car make in its lifetime?
You do have to include that in your calculations. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Electric cars don't generate electricity that is fed back into the grid. Also, contrary to popular opinion, electric cars do not eliminate the emission of pollutants, they merely shift these emissions back to the source (the electricity producing plants) so there is no net gain. This is well-known by the car manufacturers, but unfortunately it continues to go unrecognized by the public.
- mark101, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0ok I found a source www.davidsuzuki.org/files/CNDsolutionsNEW.pdf search "tonnes". {the average car on the road today uses 11.8L/100km and therefore generates 5.57 tonnes of CO2 each year.}
- justinlarsen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2please never post anything from treehuger.com again thank you.
- inmatarian, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4@Asimo8
Yes and no. Most of the elements of a car are mechanically driven by the drive shaft, that runs underneath the car from the back to the front. So, yes, it is an electrical engine, which just supplies energy from the batteries to the drive shaft. No, the internal combustion engine isn't complicating things. The gas-engine turns the drive shaft much more efficiently than the electric engine, and powers up the batteries via alternators.
Plug-in systems are a good idea, as it would drive development of the technology; but current efficiency rates are less than the gas engine itself (plant to wires, cross-country, to transformer, to house, to car) so on the global scale, plug-ins would increase CO2 emissions. - Pimptastic, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3I am all for these nice electric cars. Except one thing. What happens when there is a foot of snow on the ground? All those little cars stuck while I'm pulling them out of the snow in my big old gas guzzlin pickup.
- vizerei, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Sorry, digg this down, I almost feel bad for flaming this tard.
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -15/+1Because it's not that simple, regardless of what you think.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is