digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at ecomodder.com

16 year-old builds electric pickup truck

ecomodder.com — "Andrew Angelloti converted his very own 1988 Mazda pickup to run on electricity last year, using $6,000 he had saved up from his part time job as a life guard. He built his truck using 20 flooded lead acid batteries to create 120 volts, which he couples to a 60 HP 9” electric motor."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rpi22, on 01/27/2008, -95/+16Cool, too bad the truck is such a piece of *****.
    • SVOboy, on 01/27/2008, -4/+21Indeed, he's working on a tercel now though. I've talked to him a bit, cool guy.
      • mattsidesinger, on 01/27/2008, -1/+6Make sure that he wears a Looney Tunes jacket and has a half-eaten taco on the floor when he drives that Tercel around.
        • JEWestbrookJR, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2This is AUTHENTIC looney toons apparel! Boiy-oy-oy-oyoing!
      • mightydavefish, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1You are cool just for talking to him.
    • antonio97b, on 01/27/2008, -2/+28Those Mazda pickups are sturdy vehicles. Don't knock them.
    • wfbnadador, on 01/27/2008, -4/+24Cool, too bad you're a douche. 80's vehicles FTW.
      • teamwasted, on 01/27/2008, -15/+2oh yea, 60 horses, for the win
        • Quakee, on 01/27/2008, -2/+11I guess you prefer $3.50 for about every 20 miles you drive, FTW.
          Douche
          • troye, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Wow, $3.50, we're paying $3.05 here in Florida.
          • schnikies79, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1$3.50?

            I filled up for $2.88 yesterday.
      • tgc1, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1260HP from an electric engine is completely different than 60HP (peak power) from an internal combustion engine. Remember, just because your engine may have a said amount of horsepower (say 120hp average) you are getting that power at a certain RPM (say 120HP peak at 5,500RPM), NOT continuously as with the electric motor. Electric motors also deliver all of their power at once, they have no real power band like an internal combustion engine.

        That said, you'd be surprised what you can do with 60HP from an electric motor. And then there's the savings of not having to replace 1 of 270 parts on the engine that break down over time. Electric motors are basically maintenance free. Just FYI.
    • ryanpoleary, on 01/27/2008, -3/+5Yeah, fashion over function, right?
    • hippykiller, on 01/27/2008, -5/+23Your a piece of *****, and drop that ***** anarchy symbol you stupid *****.
    • bigdeuscheguy, on 01/27/2008, -2/+11That Mazda happens to be one of the best vehicles ever made. Also, being an 80's truckwould make it lighter than most candidates, and more suitable for a conversion.
    • UnstableMind, on 01/27/2008, -4/+6Damn man, my first vehicle was an 89 Mazda B2000. I loved that truck. I got it for $1700. Tie Rod snapped and went off the road and hit a mailbox mounted on a 6 foot telephone pole. I miss that truck.
    • troye, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1Here are the stats on the vehicle (for people who didn't read the entire article). I assume he did the testing himself.

      RANGE: 40 miles
      TOP-SPEED: 55 miles per hour
    • chyya, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2any kid with the slightest bit of intelligence would have converted the almighty E30... not this pos
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1Many people have done this,and it is not even very hard. Here are hundreds of EV owners and their vehicles:

      http://www.evalbum.com

      Or buy somebody's used EV for as little as $4000: http://www.austinev.org/evtradinpost/

      Incidentally, here's my EV: http://www.evalbum.com/775
    • MyExSucks, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2If you're gonna completely disassemble a car and rebuild it to function in a manner it wasn't originally meant to function, would you be doing it on your new BMW? Didn't think so.
  • ammar456, on 01/27/2008, -8/+63cool.. couldnt wait for the big companies to do it first eh?
    • dinostabOMG, on 01/27/2008, -2/+20Guess not, and good for him!
    • scullyshouse, on 01/27/2008, -4/+32the oil companies are probably phoning their hitman right now
    • richbleak, on 01/27/2008, -1/+16I bet the 1988 Electric Mazda Pickup teams at the big auto-manufacturers are devastated
    • Whence, on 01/27/2008, -5/+8no this is great... because we all know how eco-friendly electricity production is, don't we?
      • sodade, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8You know what though? When this guy blows past me while I am on my roadbike, I won't be sucking his toxic fumes.
        • Zera, on 01/27/2008, -7/+2Yea, but when he throws those hundreds of pounds of lead batteries away and it leaches into your water, you'll be drinking it.
          • michelspc, on 01/27/2008, -0/+8Lead-acid batteries have one of the most successful recycling programs ever. Even after the batteries are fully used they still have value. See this Wiki article:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead-acid_battery#Env ...

            There are already recycling centers in place for these batteries due to volume.
          • Zera, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1From your own link.....
            "Currently attempts are being made to develop alternatives to the lead-acid battery because of concerns about the environmental consequences of improper disposal of old batteries and of lead smelting operations."

            See that.... the "smelting operations" is a reference to the recycling of the lead, and thus we have to remember the golden rule of recycling... Recycling is only a good thing if the act of recycling itself does less damage than disposing of the item in another way, AND if the damage done is less than all other alternatives. According to that wikipedia article, Lead-Acid batteries are on their way out to be replaced with more environmentally friendly options.
        • Whence, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2No, but you'll be thinking "I saw that on digg!" and crash.
          and - he's sixteen. He wont be driving past you very often.
      • Whence, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3No, but you'll be thinking "I saw that on digg!" and crash.
      • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8Electric vehicles are more efficient than gas vehicles. So even if electricity is produced from coal, less pollution is produced.
      • jvanasselberg, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3You are so right! I saw a commercial for CLEAN COAL a few weeks back, WTF?!?! That electric plant could made CLEAN- it's called hot dry rock Geo-thermal energy production & that plant would be perfect to retrofit for it. Get this, it produces 5% the CO2, but that can be pumped back into the ground.
    • ciaran036, on 01/27/2008, -1/+5well it'll be a long wait... the oil isn't finished yet and neither are the wars to steal more oil to make people rich... and also to move towards a global Orwellian state!
    • Dragular, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Screw the big companies. Yeah I know the Volt is only supposed to cost 20-30k... but then again my 1994 S-10 only cost me $2000, and if you're driving a more-than-ten-years-old vehicle it's probably not because you prefer it over the new stuff. Pumping out hybrids and electrics and all this is amazing, sure, but unless the batteries really last on these bastards it doesn't matter, used cars are where the majority of sales are in this country, not new cars.
  • syroncoda, on 01/27/2008, -9/+2mirror?
  • cowsgonemadd3, on 01/27/2008, -3/+8Mirror:
    http://ecomodder.com/blog/
    Front page.
  • jmjinks, on 01/27/2008, -6/+115If we leave it in the hands of the old boys club, we will never see this happen by a major car manufacturer. Its only with youth and curiosity that such things can be achieved. Good for him.
    • rarson, on 01/27/2008, -11/+1Huh? Never heard of the Chevy Volt, I guess. Digg is becoming seriously retarded lately.
      • shamanlife, on 01/27/2008, -1/+11chevy volt? That isn't even a real car. At least this kid built a real car that is moving and usable. I'd rather be driving this kid's pick-up than a pamphlet that says "chevy volt" on it.
        • rarson, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1What are you talking about? Chevy is trying to actually produce that car.
    • pands, on 01/27/2008, -8/+2DIRKA DIRK BERKA
    • rentmitchum, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2>_< Good for youuuu. Thyaaannks.
  • msaleem, on 01/27/2008, -8/+96Forget who killed the electric car, look at who's bringing it back. Yes, a 16-year old.
    • 07sheikh, on 01/27/2008, -25/+2I am pretty sure the 16 year old had a lot assistance in the making of it...
      • Bobboq, on 01/27/2008, -2/+8Prove it.
      • AgentMull, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5I'm 18, and I could have built an electric car 3 years ago.
        • 07sheikh, on 01/27/2008, -8/+6and I'm 2 and I could have built the flying car just 10 days after being born!
          • funkyjunk3, on 01/27/2008, -4/+2dugg UP for sarcasm
          • adminmatt, on 01/27/2008, -4/+1do some ***** research before you start throwing that attitude around.

            idiot.
          • 07sheikh, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1your mamma! hahahah
      • bloodypulp, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Not by any of the big auto manufacturers. If they REALLY cared about the consumer and reducing emissions/dependence on foreign oil, they'd snap this kid up and put out a production version of this vehicle.
    • stackered, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2Should have used Energizer... it just keeps going... and going...
  • Talcum, on 01/27/2008, -5/+47Keep it up. This should be done in every shop class in america
    • antonio97b, on 01/27/2008, -4/+4Honestly, can I ask why? I'm not trying to be snarky.
      • jpt62089, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Free labor of course! ;)

        Imagine, Ford sponsoring an electric car engineering class. While Ford gets to keep all the students creations and sell them as their own!

        It's the perfect plan!
  • doublsh0t, on 01/27/2008, -17/+1is it made of wood and glue?
    • 2oonhed, on 01/27/2008, -1/+9no...it is made of pressed flowers and spit.....what do you think?
  • Soliden, on 01/27/2008, -4/+27Even if it kept the same style I'd still buy one just to say "F U" to the oil companies.
  • warlokaz2004, on 01/27/2008, -2/+62it'll be really great when it tops out at 75 mph, making it good for a highway.

    on another note, how much does a 'charge' cost vs a tank of gas?
    • tgc1, on 01/27/2008, -2/+24About 2 dollars per fill. You are charging, so it depends on how many hours it takes to fill per kilowatt hour. It's not expensive AT ALL. You're talking a fraction of what it costs to fill your fuel tank.
      • roadracersweet, on 01/27/2008, -8/+2$2 a fill? where the hell do you live,cuz I am moving there! There is no way it only costs $2 to charge 20 lead acid batteries, Secondly, thats only 40 miles, and by the size of that truck its likely 20mpg before conversion, thus 2 gallons of fuel. Did all the Ron Paul supporters suddenly transfer their wisdom and insight to electric vehicle assessment?
        • joegibes, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Sit down, take some aderol, and tell me how much you pay per kW/h. Then do the math.
      • stoanhart, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3$2 per fill = $1 / 20miles.

        So a car that gets 20MPG would pay about $3 per 20 miles. So, this EV conversion is 1/3 of the price to drive, so 60+ MPG.

        Also, this is a first attempt. If he used 4 separate in-wheel motors for more precise control over the wheels and less turning metal (weight and frictino), possibly with regenerative charging, he could probably hit close to 90 MPG. Some day he could also use supercapacitors, which would cut back on the weight in the car.
      • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2I drive an EV as well, (a very old one.) It costs me even less than this. I get about 40-50 miles of driving for about 50 cents. It helps that my utility (here in Detroit) has an off-peak rate (overnight) of just 3 cents/KWH.

        Most electric vehicles can get about 4 to 5 miles per kilowatt-hour.
      • tgc1, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Well if you also charge via renewable independent sources (wind,hydroelectric,solar) then you fill up for free. Think about that a minute.
      • dareNmc, on 01/27/2008, -1/+0well, if you got all interstate to drive (IE no regen) then this would cost more than my car.
        IE my electric, with delivery cost is $.10 per KWH. if going 75 mph takes about 60 hp, at 30 mpg I would use 2 Gallons per hour or $6
        for electric 60 hp/hour = 44kwH, Lead Acid batteries are about 50% efficient, so it would take 88kwH or $8
        They do have the option of $.03 nite rate here, with $.02 delivery charge would be $4 (but I then have to $.18 / kwHr during the day for that plan)
        but with Regen braking you would do much better. But that is not easy to implement for a DIY project, I haven't read the article yet, but that typically cost 3* as much for a regen capable DC system.
        • Nerys, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Regular commuter EV's cost around $1 per 100 miles driven. NO thats not a typo YES that is accurate. That is recorded Data from GM's EV1 from over a decade ago. COULD get close to $2 per 100 miles if you have expensive Electricity where you are (such as california NYC etc.. but for most people its $1 to $1.50 per 100 miles driven.

          NOW combine this with a $500 solar panel and a $1500 Grid tie in and the car now costs NOTHING to drive. EVER AGAIN. On top of that its now 100% pollution free. Period. with ZERO increased strain on the power grid and in fact would RELIEVE the grid. How much E do you think they have to make to GET you that gallon of gasoline. OH you thought it was free?
        • apeweek, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Fuzzy numbers. In reality, the only time you would use 60 horsepower is while accelerating hard.

          More typically (I am an EV driver), your car would pull 60-75 amps while cruising at highway speed, or about 8000 watts (8 kilowatts.) Allowing for some inefficiencies, we'll round that up to 10 kilowatts. So an hour of driving costs whatever your electric rate per KWH is, times ten. My off-peak charging rate here in Michigan is 3 cents, so an hour of highway driving costs me 30 cents. At 10 cents/KWH, it costs a dollar.

          Lead-acid batteries are about 90% efficient, not 50%. Source: http://www.windsun.com/Batteries/Battery_FAQ.htm
          "Typical efficiency in a lead-acid battery is 85-95%"
          • dareNmc, on 01/29/2008, -1/+0If your slow charging from DC source.
            The above losses don't include losses in the charging circuit which may have an efficiency of anywhere from 60% to 80% - thus the overall- total efficiency is the product of these efficiencies and ends up being 45 to 68%
            also the motors are maybe 85% efficienent...
            Also all of your info is from a EV car. if I were to take a comprable car (ie not what this article is about) say a 50MPG VW rabbit, then sure thats another stroy)
            You get state basically a avg re-gen rate, and a car that is restricted to CA (4" wide low rolling resistance tires, 10hp drive, unsafe in snow FWD) All of these are good, but again not part of the story, the story is taking a pickup with pickup tires, that got 30 MPG, and takes alott more energy to move. And as a DIY, he doesn't have all the complicated charge/regen circuits a EV has.

            Also you better check your electric rate, because about 1/3 of the cost of electric is the quoted generated cost. If you take your electric bill devide by use, I bet your in $.15 basically your nite charge is subsidesed rate, so they can charge you more by day, to discourage that use. If lots of people do, as you do, the avereage will go way up.
          • apeweek, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1The efficiency numbers for lead-acid incorporates charge and discharge losses, so again, we are talking 90% efficient, not 60-80. If your numbers come from a source, quote it, like I quoted one for my numbers.

            I'm not sure what the rest of your post is trying to say, but I think I bottomlined the costs pretty well in my post.
    • tobias1482, on 01/27/2008, -11/+0stop asking questions!
    • ryanpoleary, on 01/27/2008, -5/+11Another "cost" to be considered is the burning of fossil fuel (namely coal) for the electricity. As more electric cars replace gasoline cars, consumption increases, supplies decrease, electricity goes up, and we experience the same "peak coal supply" as we can "peak oil supply."

      Of course that's a bit of a conclusion jump, but you can certainly follow that line of reasoning.

      Not to mention the pollution from the increased coal demand.
      • nedaf7, on 01/27/2008, -0/+24The power plants need fuel to produce energy too, but we can produce energy much more efficiently in power plants than we can in car engines.
      • TechCF, on 01/27/2008, -3/+8Yep. And the heat from the power plants are also used for heating up houses. Almost no energy goes to waste in power plants. The emissions are also collected and used for filling under roads etc...
      • aussieNickuss, on 01/27/2008, -0/+12Coal power plants are a point source emitter, while cars on the road are not. That means the pollution is more controllable and think about it......with petrol/gas cars....first the oil needs to be sucked out of the ground (a very damaging process to the environment), then it is shipped to a refinery, then it is refined (taking out energy in the conversion), and finally it is trucked to a filling station. The fuel you use in your car has emitted more greenhouse gases in its production (before you have even burnt it yourself), than the coal burnt to power an EV.
      • DeFex, on 01/27/2008, -0/+10only if you live in some backward country that still burns coal!
      • joesmeat, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Modern coal power stations are remarkably low-pollution. They're not as bad as everyone thinks.
        Especially compared to highly inefficient ICE's.
      • ciaran036, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1well then the government should be making dramatic attempts to move away from fossil fuels!
      • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2WIll the cost of electricity go up? Someday it will. But the cost of solar panels is going down. When electricity gets too expensive, put a solar panel on your garage for charging.
    • tenchi71, on 01/27/2008, -0/+12The real purpose of going electric is that it standardizes everyone on an energy source that can be reproduced in many different ways. Sure, at first the shift is from mainly oil to coal. But those aren't the only ways to make electricity. There's nuclear, solar, bio-fuels, fusion, teh lazers, dilithium crystals, what ever. It won't really matter to us where the electricity comes from as long as the power plants can still make electricity. Right now it does matter where the oil is coming from. See the difference?
    • CSharpSauce, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5Unless hes helping his parents pay the electric bill.... its free :)
    • digitalunit, on 01/27/2008, -4/+2It tops out at 55 MPH and lasts 40 miles, I read about this in the paper.
  • phore, on 01/27/2008, -6/+54It's kind of sad that a 16 year old can make his own electric car yet auto manufacturers continue to make all their cars gas powered. In a free market we should have choice when we purchase a car.
    • pattink, on 01/27/2008, -11/+1You always have the choice not to buy a car. Of course unless you live in the country or some municipality that doesn't have public transportation (which they should)
      • MacEnvy, on 01/27/2008, -1/+6You apparently have no idea how much of the US is devoid of public transportation. My only choice to get somewhere would be to call a cab from the next town over, which would take a half hour to get here, and the fee would be exorbitant. I agree that we SHOULD have more public transportation, but the fact is we don't.
        • GtCo21, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1Agreed, most towns are also devoid of decent sidewalks for people who wish to use a bike as transportation. Change needs to start with the government, and they won't do anything.
    • tgc1, on 01/27/2008, -2/+8Political sway dictates the course of our automobiles. If we all converted to electric cars overnight, not only would the big 3 be up ***** creek overnight, but so would the petroleum industry. And considering how much money in taxes the governments take in for fuel cost per gallon or litre, i'm pretty sure it's not in their interest to convert anything of ours over to electric in the near future.

      If you only knew how much power fuel companies have. *****, president bush was has had a lot of experience with fuel companies. I wouldn't be surprised if he still owned interests in some fuel companies.
      • funkyjunk3, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1A transition is a must for this country, i agree though it can't be "overnight". It certainly can be done (assuming the political/business will is there) in a few years to move the whole industry that way.
      • DeFex, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1no, they own him
    • freehand, on 01/27/2008, -7/+4No one would buy a car that has a 40 mile range and takes overnight to charge. You might as well just get a bike.
      • TheTaoOfBill, on 01/27/2008, -2/+5Dude. Research more on the technology behind electric cars because I can assure you the mile range is a lot larger than that and is a lot less time to charge.
      • funkyjunk3, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5An *American* hip electric car is already here: http://www.teslamotors.com/performance/perf_specs. ...

        zero to 60 in under 4 seconds
        200 miles to the charge (less than a buck $)
        3.5hour charge time
        batteries good for 100k miles
        top speed: 125mph
        current price: $100,000

        They aren't cheap, but they're already competing in the high-end roadster market. Not super fast roadster-wise, but sure as hell of a lot cheaper to drive gas wise!
        • schnikies79, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1And like you said, it cost $100,000.

          I'm never going to spend $100k on any vehicle. I'm never going to spend over $40k. Show me something that is realistic. How about a small electric pickup that has a 200 mile range?
          • funkyjunk3, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1You may not spend 100k on a car, but there's still a lot of high-end car buyers out there. However, there's still the Toyota plug-in hybrids currently for far, far less than that. Upcoming Chevy Volt is one potential, along with many others in the next 5-10 years commercially.
      • adminmatt, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1holy *****, the tesla roadster looks amazing
    • chingy1788, on 01/27/2008, -1/+340 miles = 1.6x40km, so ~64km
      thats here (sydney) to woollongong
      1.5HR drive

      gets you half way to newcastle

      I would like one of those air cars from Tata
      the compressed air is essentially a battery, i just hope in terms of holding charge its better than lead batteries and the other stuff they use
      • Bazookadub, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Buy his truck, I bet he'd sell it to you.

        Free market is still true, just dumbed down these days because of consumers. We could have 14 different computer OS's but people aren't comfortable with that. Comfort is the name of the game, and by comfort I mean: "predictable". That's how Shari's and Denny's and Red Robbin all stay in business, travelers find them to be "comfortable". Of course I blame, to some extent, big companies and manufacturers for producing such a limited range of supply, but let's realize, 90% of humans are what I would consider retarded.
      • DeFex, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1those new carbon nano batteries and capacitors ought to help in this regard.
    • cbuddha42, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4This is a free market and you do have the option to make any deal you want as long as it's mutual. Ford doesn't HAVE to make an electric car if they don't want to. This kid doesn't HAVE to sell you his car, but I promise if you go offer him 30 grand he would.

      Free market means companies can make whatever they want and you can buy whatever you want, not that companies are required to make what you want to buy.
      • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1If the auto market is free and open, how come no credible competition to the former 'Detroit big three' have appeared in my entire lifetime, or for that matter, my parents' lifetime?

        This is why foreign carmakers are so easily killing US cars. The market is stagnant here, with regulations (and other barriers) making it nearly impossible to launch a new auto company here in the US, no matter how good an idea you have.

        Besides the movie 'Who Killed the Electric Car', check out 'Tucker: The Man and His Dream' . If you have Netflix, I believe this is one of the movies you can watch online for free.
  • spineaches, on 01/27/2008, -2/+27thas pretty damn cool, all the 16 yr olds i know like to do is destroy their brain cells, be stupid or drink beer. (although theres not much wrong there besides the stupid bit..)
  • dierobots, on 01/27/2008, -1/+43most days i am too lazy to even make a sandwich. props, kid.

    and to anyone who hasn't seen the documentary 'who killed the electric car,' it's a good watch
    • aussieNickuss, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1WKTEC made me angry when I watched it. I felt like hunting down and kicking the asses of all the execs at GM.
  • fxu1989, on 01/27/2008, -9/+3I hope a big company sees this and picks up this kid to work for them.

    With the right tools and money, he'll achieve EASILY any future conversions.
  • mrASSMAN, on 01/27/2008, -12/+5Shouldn't have used lead batteries.. they often weigh something like 50 pounds each. Though I suppose with the cash that he had it was his only choice..
    • n4zhg, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1It's also easier to do. The problem with NIMH batteries is that you have to check every damn cell as you build the pack. One bad cell can make the entire assembly inoperable. I, too, am waiting for the Shipstone (high-density capacitor, read Heinlein for the name reference).
  • Dantetheinferno, on 01/27/2008, -15/+10Anyone else wonder what the purpose of an electric TRUCK with 60 HP would be?
    • dattaway, on 01/27/2008, -1/+11Getting to work and back? Going to the grocery store? Picking up a load of firewood? What would you use a truck for?
    • mike17032, on 01/27/2008, -1/+6Add in the weight of the batteries too.
    • charlietuna, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8Point is he learned a lot by doing this.
    • 2oonhed, on 01/27/2008, -1/+30short haul runabout, grocery getter, mail getter..........retard runner over.
      • PeterODactyl, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Wish I could have Dugg you twice for "retard runner over".
    • aussieNickuss, on 01/27/2008, -3/+11Anyone else wonder what the purpose of an SUV as a family runabout is?
      • onefix, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3The argument for trucks / SUVs tends to be that because you are sitting so high, it gives you a better field of vision than in a car. As far as the "family" part, it's easier to strap a child into a baby seat in an SUV, it's also easier to get into than a car (apparently the elderly find it easier to step up into an SUV than sit down into a bucket seat). SUVs also place the trunk bed in a convenient location for unloading groceries (no bending over). They are also considered safer than cars by most (which could be argued against).

        Myself, I have a compact car because I don't want something that sucks gas like that ... but I can see the argument.
        • MacEnvy, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4So in other words, it's completely about making things "easier". Sounds like a bunch of lazy-ass soccer moms to me.
    • delirium1086, on 01/27/2008, -0/+0Funny thing is, to get an electric truck going down the highway, one usually needs less than 20 HP (work out the math if you doubt it. Its even less if the vehicle is actually aerodynamic). While I have to give the kid props for going ahead and doing the conversion, this setup is far from optimal. Or even decent, which reflects even poorer on major car manufacturers IMO.
    • carpespasm, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2it's only 60HP, but that's not the same as a 60HP gas engine. Electric motors put out their power differently than gas motors, so they're generally able to get more done with less horsepower.
  • codyman, on 01/27/2008, -4/+12acceleration of "not too bad".... as in 55 veedub 0-topspeed of 55mph in ~25-30 seconds?

    I will, however, give him credit for going lone ranger on the project and doing it for on the cheap too
    • dattaway, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8Never underestimate the torque of a DC motor. A 10,000 pound electric forklift may have a 10 horsepower DC motor with a top speed of 7 mph, but it will reach that top speed in a few seconds.
  • mike17032, on 01/27/2008, -17/+6"How does it perform? Reaches a top speed of 55mph, has an acceleration of “not too bad…,” and can get up to 40 miles on a charge (which is more than enough to get him to work and back, and coincidentally, will be something similar to what the Chevy Volt is supposed to be able to do)."

    Not sure why everyone posting thinks this is so awsome, the thing sucks. 60 HP? Thats horrible. Range of 40 miles? Sorry not even close. Pickup of “not too bad…,”, lol please. I am sure the oil companies are ***** their pants over this thing...

    You can blame big automakers all you want, but there have been full electric cars on sale before. They didnt sell, people didnt want them. They were slow, tiny, and had ***** for range. This thing is far worse than those cars were, and they sure as hell didnt sell.
    • aclements, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7They didn't sell because GM decided the would only lease them. When the leases were up they crushed every one they made. There were more thank enough people that wanted to buy them. Not to mention that they actually had a pretty good acceleration and could run at freeway speeds.
    • yugiohdan6, on 01/27/2008, -2/+8OBVIOUSLY you never knew about the EV1... it's really a shame actually... so much potential and GM went and crushed it (literally!)

      People actually WANTED to buy that car but GM wouldn't let them because of the big oil companies...

      ... just watch the movie Who Killed the Electric Car? and you'll see what I mean...

      also, for reference
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ev1
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electr ...
    • IndianRivalry, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4Hey stupid. It's a ***** story. He's not going to change the world.
    • notadiggtard, on 01/27/2008, -4/+1Electric cars fueled by fossil fuel power plants do ZERO for the environment.And you ecotards won't let us build nuclear.Yea,yea,wind,solar are great but wouldn't be nearly enough to charge a fleet of cars.think of the impact of millions of cars all being plugged in at 6:30 PM....
      • MacEnvy, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Your username is false advertising.
      • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Electric vehicles produce just a fraction of the pollution of a gas and therefore vehicle, even when plants burn dirty fuel. Greater efficiency means more miles on less fuel, and therefore less pollution per mile.

        60 horsepower in an EV is worth a lot more than you think, because electric motors have all that power available all the time, not just at the top of a gas engine's powerband. I drive a (very old) electric car with a 20HP motor, and I can keep up with traffic, and even out-accelerate and pass lots of people.
    • jerryterhorst, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1i think you forgot the part where a /***** 16-year old kid with $6000/ made it. obviously a multi-billion dollar company with thousands of workers could /slightly/ improve these specs.
  • theoceanmusic, on 01/27/2008, -6/+18I can't believe people are still going with this idea that more efficient cars just aren't possible yet. It's become cliche at this point to even mention, but the oil lobby is huge. My Grandmother had some family Buick car made in the 80's that got better gas mileage than the cars of today, and it drove just fine.
    Look at our species as if you were some alien looking down on Earth. There is this stuff in the ground that makes us move. We are killing eachother over it and there is no end in sight. Then think that every planet that has intelligent life eventually runs into the same problem on their planet. Cosmic built-in limitations to civilization anyone?
    • rentmitchum, on 01/27/2008, -1/+5You need to lay off the cough syrup, alright man? I'm worried about ya.
    • notadiggtard, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2"Some" Buick?
      "The"cars of today?
      Could you be more vague please?
      • theoceanmusic, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3why would you want me to be more vague?
      • MScrip, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Could I be wearin' anymore clothes?

        /Joey from Friends
    • uncltim, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1see this movie. who killed the electric car. everything will become very clear
  • Daiken, on 01/27/2008, -16/+4Man, I can't believe people are digging this. Making an electric car isn't the difficult part. Car companies won't do it because it won't sell. Why won't it sell? Because of what the article and mike above say. In the current form, the car he converted can't go fast, and it doesn't get very fast on a charge. Plus it probably won't last for long either. Improving efficiency and parts (like engine and battery) is an expensive process and the costs skyrocket.
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2No car company has ever made a serious attempt to create and sell a real electric car. Therefore you cannot say that it would not sell. In fact marketing surveys have repeatedly shown demand for EVs, even EVs with limited ranges and other flaws.

      As for longevity, this is just plain wrong. Electric motors are extremely reliable - only one moving part. My own EV, a 'Jet Electra Van' from 1981, is still going strong over 25 years later with all the original motor and electronic parts. Nothing in the drivetrain of this car has ever failed.
  • androothebear, on 01/27/2008, -14/+4how the hell do you make, yet alone save, $6,000 from being a lifeguard?
    • jpt62089, on 01/27/2008, -2/+10The same way as any other job.
    • mark_in_bc, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1You don't buy beer, smokes, or a WOW account.
  • MaceSoul, on 01/27/2008, -18/+820 lead acid batteries. That will be nice for everyone in an accident. First the explosion, then the burning, the caustic vapors, HazMat. Please make lots more of these to populate our highways.
    • MaceSoul, on 01/27/2008, -10/+9And by the way, when you rapidly charge lead acid batteries, sulphuric acid aerates during the qualization phase. Great for the environment and will turn your house into Auschwitz if you try to do 20 of them in your garage at night.
      • hplasm, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3Engage brain before mouth, einstein.
      • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2I have an EV in my garage that I charge every night, and I equalize the batteries regularly. Mind you, I don't usually leave the garage door closed, but I would have no problem sitting in a closed garage with charging batteries anyday.

        How often have you sat in your closed garage with your automobile running?
    • PeterODactyl, on 01/27/2008, -4/+8Good thing gasoline isn't explosive. Could you imagine the mess then?
      • jasqwerty, on 01/27/2008, -5/+3>>Good thing gasoline isn't explosive

        For all the stupid people on digg, most of you, gasoline actually isn't explosive, regardless of what you might have seen in movies.
        • Nougat, on 01/27/2008, -6/+2You can usually get away with dropping a lit cigarette into a can of gas without any fire at all.

          It's the vapors that burn, which is why gasoline on the ground burns: because it's evaporating.
        • PeterODactyl, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2Which is why I said: Good thing gasoline isn't explosive... duh!
          • Nerys, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1And you think its not going to go vapor when you CRASH the damned thing? have you never seen a burning car on the news?
        • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2And I might add, for all the other stupid people on Digg, batteries are not any more dangerous than gasoline.
          • jasqwerty, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1So give a choice between putting your hand in a bucket of gas or the contents of some lead-acid battery, you really wouldn't kind either?
          • apeweek, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1I have had battery acid on my skin numerous times (I'm an EV owner as well.) Remember, battery acid is diluted with water. If I don't rinse it off, it will start to itch. I don't get a burn this way unless I leave it there for a while (and it is typically no worse than what you would get from briefly touching a hot stove.)

            Yes, I would put my hand in battery acid. I would be no more concerned with a container of battery acid than one of gasoline. Each has its dangers.
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Electric vehicle batteries would not explode in an accident. The 'vapors' are certainly not as much of an issue as gasoline vapors. Same goes for 'hazmat'. This comment is just dumb.
  • Aurabolt, on 01/27/2008, -8/+14This reminds me of Linux.
  • brevs, on 01/27/2008, -6/+13And it took the auto industry years to achieve this. What a joke.
    • yugiohdan6, on 01/27/2008, -2/+9actually they had it in 1996 with the EV1 but because "no one wanted to buy it" they crushed almost all of them except a few which they left for museums (innards disabled...) even though people DID want to buy it
      • Nougat, on 01/27/2008, -1/+6I just remembered something.

        For a car to be sold in the US, the manufacturer needs to provide a supply of repair parts for seven years after the last one is sold (at least that's how it was in the 90s). Sure, there may have been enough people to buy up the EV1s that were built and a few more, but perhaps the market research showed that the market would be insanely small, certainly not large enough to support having to keep seven years' of parts stock on the back end.

        Oh but Tesla Motors! you say. Yeah, and they're $100K. You don't think they actually *cost* anywhere near that to produce, do you? That's to pad the parts side of it, just in case they don't want to go bankrupt and vanish.
        • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2The spare parts issue was one of several red herrigs put out there to explain why the EV1 was removed from the market. None of the reasons, including this one, made sense. Ford and Toyota also had electric vehicles on the road in California at this time. Both these companies allowed their EVs to be sold and owned.

          Worst case, you leave a few donor cars sitting around for spare parts. EVs are very reliable - they need very little service. Electric motors have just one moving part.
          • Nerys, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3“They can BUILD them, but they can’t SELL them.”

            This is the crap that keeps us in trouble. TRUST ME an EV is something NO auto maker could PREVENT selling if they actually made one in quantity. All it would take is ONE test drive and the KNOWLEDGE that its $1 per 100 miles driven in Electricity to sell pretty much ANYONE instantly.

            Its not that they can not sell them its REALLY is as simple as THEY REFUSE to build them. EV’s built right (IE not conversions ground up EV’s) are virtually everlasting and virtually maintenance free. There is simply not a whole heck of a lot to break.

            THE ONLY reason this kid is limited to 40 miles has NOTHING to do with EV’s. IT DOES have to do with Chevron SITTING on the patent for large form factor NIMH packs that would have let this kid get TRIPLE that range for the SAME price AND the pack would last longer than the truck likely would last. GM Developed the LFF Nimh pack out of michigan for the EV They promptly crushed every EV they made and then sold the patent for that NIMH pack to Texaco. (Chevron later bought Texaco which is how they got it) Chevron REFUSES to license the patent for these batteries which could put EV’s with 100-200 or more ranges on the road right now. This kid could toss a $4k battery pack in that truck and go well over 300 miles on a charge easily. He could also dump more amps and accelerate faster. His top speed is a limit of his transmission not his battery pack unless he does not have enough amps available.

            ON TOP OF THIS if you consider Nano Solar just sold germany some solar panels at 90cents a watt. If they can get them to consumer hands at that price a $500 solar panel on your roof would be MORE than enough to produce MORE “E” than you would use every month to drive your electric car. DO NOT try to charge the car solar just sell the E back to the Utility. you would SAVE more money on your E bill each month than it would cost you to charge that car each month. This mens you would be driving for FREE NOTHING No dollars per mile at all AND you would be 100% pollution free.

            And you wonder why they “WON’T” build EV’s

            THATS why it was not enough for them to STOP MAKING EV’s they could NOT permit regular consumers from getting there hands on a reliable viable EV because WE WOULD DEMAND THEM if we knew about them.

            THATS why they CRUSHED every single one (yeah GM made over 800 VIABLE Practical EV’s over a DECADE ago it was called the EV1) and thats why they sold the patent to someone who would drop dead before releasing the technology to the public.

            Want a good video to watch? Go rent or download “Who Killed the Electric Car? Trust me you will be quite angry after watching that movie.

            I spend $3k or MORE per year on gasoline. thats over $30k in the last decade.

            TRUST ME if I had the cash to build an EV I would do it in a HEART BEAT but I need a drop dead range of no less than 70 miles (54mile commute each way and I can plug in at work) The only practical way for me to do this is with NIMH D cells (yes I said D cells there is NO practical way to buy anything larger they just don’t make them)

            for a 96v pack thats EIGHTY 80 cells. and thats just 10ah I need 50ah. DO the math. thats 400 cells !!

            The nature of mega cell packs means I NEED to individuall charge EACH cell or its not going to last very long. that means I need 100 battery chargers (there is no charger that will charge more than 4 D cells at a pop and these things are $22 a pop. thats $2200 JUST for the charging system and then I still need to wire up a diode system to isolate the cells during charging.

            NOW you know why people “DEAL WITH” the horrible range and lifespan of Lead Acid batteries. its a LOT easier and cheaper. I am not even sure if my D cell method will work.

            To get the same range from Lead you need TWICE the amp hours. you see if you drop LEADs below 50% you HARM THEM. they are not designed to be deep cycled like that not even deep cycle leads are designed for that. NIMH however (and lithium) can bee fully depleted. IE you need HALF the amp hours so 50ah nimh pack will do the same as a 100ah LEAD pack (I am guessing he is running a 50ah lead pack so he only has 25ah at his disposal OR worse he is using a 25ah pack and fully depleting it which will insanely shorten the lifespan maybe to even less than a YEAR !!

            the NIMH pack on the other hand could last a decade.

            Lithium is just too expensive right now. First same problem as NIMH. no “LARGE” lithiums are available. so you have to use a ZILLION small cells. (go look up how many cells they use in the tesla roadster and you will understand why its $85,000 :-)

            Second NIMH’s are KNOWN reliable and usable. The reliability and lifespan of lithiums are still a complete unknown.

            Well there you go a bsic primer on Electric Cars and why YOU don’t have one. It has NOTHING to do with trouble selling them. They would not be able to keep them stocked if they actually built one.
          • apeweek, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1Great post. You may be interested in some relatively inexpensive Chinese LiFePO4 batteries that are available now. See them here: http://everspring.net/product-battery.htm

            The drawback for hobbyist use is that these batteries need elaborate charge management hardware that has to be engineered - it is not an off-the-shelf item. Still, a few hobbyists have taken up the challenge and have engineered cars with these lithium batteries: http://www.evalbum.com/battb/THUN
    • jasqwerty, on 01/27/2008, -6/+4>>And it took the auto industry years to achieve this

      Achieve what? 60HP with ***** speed and crap range in a rolling chemical bomb? LOL, 20 batteries deep cycled twice a day, I hope he enjoys his $1,200 electric bill.
      • localzuk, on 01/27/2008, -2/+4That electic bill would be a lot less than a fuel bill for a normal car...
        • jasqwerty, on 01/27/2008, -2/+3With a true electric car designed properly by engineers, that's very likely.

          This crap setup though, not so much. It gets 40 miles on a charge max.
          • Nerys, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1and that charge will cost LESS THAN $1 (probably closer to 50 cents depending on his charger and discharge curve) Once Nano solar kicks in this kid can put a $500 solar panel on his roof and $1500 inter connect in his garage to sell that solar power back to the Utility. NOW his car after that intial investment will be FREE to drive ZERO cost ZERO load on the grid average and ZERO pollution (lead acids have a 98+% recycle rate!! the most succssful in the world!)
          • jasqwerty, on 01/28/2008, -1/+1>>Once Nano solar kicks in

            And once I find that oil deposit under my backyard I won't have too many energy concerns either. Ifs and maybes aren't the present.

            >>and that charge will cost LESS THAN $1

            For 1 battery, yes, you're forgetting he's using 20
          • Nerys, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1No I am not. It should cost bout 40-50 cents to charge that ENTIRE 20 cell lead acid battery pack. (have you ever done any math on your E usage? $1 will buy you about a kilowatt. Do you really think there is more than a kilowatt in 20 car batteries?

            Nano Solar just shipped there FIRST massive order of solar panels out to a german power company. Total cost? 90cents a WATT !! Cost to PRODUCE them ? 30cents a watt. How many business can keystone there markup and still give an amazing deal.

            Once they an sell to consumers IE smaller orders at $1 a watt a $500 solar panel and $1600 grid tie in is all you need to drive an EV for free.

            Please go research things before you reply to them.
          • jasqwerty, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1>>Do you really think there is more than a kilowatt in 20 car batteries?

            That's like asking me if there's more than 7 oranges in a lawn chair. Your question doesn't even make sense. A kilowatt is a unit of power, not energy. A car battery has 4,000,000 J in it. You work out the math yourself.

            >>$1 will buy you about a kilowatt
            >>Total cost? 90cents a WATT !!

            So solar is roughly x1000 more expensive than power from my utility company? Fantastic selling point
          • Nerys, on 01/30/2008, -0/+190 cent a watt. That means that this solar panel will generate around 250-300 watts a month. so after one month my cost is 3 tenths of a cent a watt. Onto month TWO now my cost is .015 cents a watt. See where I am going here ? 3000 watts a year or 0.0003 cents a watt and ONWARD for another 19 years. you see that 90cents KEEPS MAKING watts for me over and over and over and over again for me. You see its GENERATING POWER FOR ME. Or did you miss the "solar panel" part of that 90 cents a watt. This makes it CHEAPER than coal DUH !!

            A $500 solar panel and a $1600 grid Tie in would sell enough power each month back to the Utility to more than 100% offset the power I would use in an electric car every month. This means it would cost me NOTHING EVER AGAIN to drive my car (by the time those solar panels wear out in 20 years they will be replaceable for $500 and likely a WHOLE lot less) it would pay for itself compared to gasoline in under 9 months at the rate that I use gasoline.

            SO lets compare your math again. Solar Panel. Lets say 100 watts. thats $90 from Nano Solar OR Pay for power from the utility lets see what happens over 20 years.

            Solar 7.3 MILLION watts in 20 years produced power. Dammit my calculator won't even DO a number that small :-) so lets go PER YEAR cost. The Solar Panel costs $4.50 PER YEAR

            How much will I pay per year to get that power from the utility? $49.64 is what I personally would pay PER YEAR (I pay .000136 cents per watt when ALL costs are factored in ie total bill not just generation charges)

            And there is no reason that solar panel will not last longer than 20 years. Its rated for that so I am giving you that benefit of the doubt. That means your Utility power is 11 times more expensive than 90cent a watt solar power.

            thats 1100% ??? MORE money than solar. So where exactly did you get your x1000 more expensive numbers from or did you do the math right but accidentally type solar is more instead of the proper grid power is more ?
          • jasqwerty, on 01/31/2008, -0/+1Calm down dumb *****, you said it cost 90 cents a watt and a kilowatt cost $1 from the grid, how the ***** am I to know that you're talking about amortizing the sunken costs per watt, I thought it was referring to how much it costs to maintain the system on a watt basis, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A ***** SENSIBLE THING TO TALK ABOUT ON A PER WATT BASIS. All you said is that it costs 90 cents a watt, you didn't mention per month anything...

            Also, I'm laughing at you avoiding my comment about the battery power total, you're still confusing power with energy, good job failing you moron. Typical for green nuts.
        • Nerys, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Oops that was supposed to sy TEN kilowats not 1 kilowat.
      • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Most EVs, even home built ones, get from 4 to 6 miles per kilowatt-hour. Even a botched job is likely to get at least 3 miles/KWH. Also, since EVs charge primarily at night, it pays to set up off-peak rates from your utility. Here in Detroit, I can get off-peak electricity for 3 cents/KWH, which is under 1 cent per mile for an electric car.

        Even at 10 cents/KWH and an inefficient EV, it would be hard to top 3 cents/mile. That's still way cheaper than gas.

        I think by your definition, a gas car would be a 'rolling chemical bomb' too.
        • jasqwerty, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1>>I think by your definition, a gas car would be a 'rolling chemical bomb' too.

          No, over 20 loosely chained lead-acid batteries bulging with sulphuric acid fumes from rapid deep cycle charge/discharging isn't what a standard car is.

          Your math is way off as well, at least going by the figures the kid provides. Guess he really botched the job.
          • apeweek, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1No, my math is not wrong.

            I drive an EV conversion, which really does get 4 miles/KWH. Here's proof this is a common number - here's an article than mentions 4 miles/KWH for a Toyota RAV 4 EV: http://baltimorechronicle.com/2005/083005Korthof.s ...

            Here's proof of my electric rate - it's rate D1.7 in this document:
            http://my.dteenergy.com/myAccount/pdfs/rates.pdf

            I don't see the figures the 'kid provides' - where did you find these? Are you interpreting them correctly? I have provided the source of my numbers above so you can do the calculation yourself.

            My EV is also very safe. We have just become used to the dangers of gasoline. Remember we live with electricity every day, too. Your EV would be no more dangerous.
          • jasqwerty, on 01/28/2008, -0/+1The kid says the range on the thing tops out at 40 miles, that's with 20 batteries.
      • jmpkay, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1what a jasq ass!
    • daxsymbiont, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2if i wasn't logined i'd login to digg this.
  • transcendz, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4What we need is a radical change in the way we move : how far, how often, etc... For example, having big offices in big towns spreaded in smaller ones, closer to where people live, would be far more efficient than trying to repeat the same error we did with petrol fueled cars. We need to learn not to make so much distance all the day/week/month/year ! And I don't talk about telecommuting, which is, IMHO, a social death.
    • Nougat, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Telecommuting FTW.

      I work in IT, supporting servers. I travel 1.5 hours by car/train to my office in the big city. And then 1.5 hours back at night. During the day, I sit at a desk, work on servers remotely. Since the rest of my team is several states away, I don't see them in person. Since the office is small, I can go a week without actually seeing another person. And yet, they won't let me work from home for some reason.

      I sure would like that three hours a day back, not to mention the gas and parking costs.
  • aceakm, on 01/27/2008, -3/+10He should've used a DeLorean.
  • EricG, on 01/27/2008, -11/+13Still needs electricity to recharge the batteries and i'd bet that comes from good old polluting fossil fuel sources.. in reality all it does is shift the pollution from the vehicle to the power plant (as additional load) .. no real "green" savings there just where the pollution comes out.. unless they happen to recharge said car using solar, water, wind or nuclear.. (very unlikely for any of those).. Neat idea.. but this isn't a "green" solution.. Still I give the kid props .. nice work!
    • KennMac, on 01/27/2008, -1/+8Electric motors are FAR more efficient at applying stored energy than the combustible engine. Your cost per mile will be a fraction of what it would cost to deduce the same energy from gasoline. There's plenty of "green" savings here.
    • aussieNickuss, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Think about the whole process and all the energy that goes into drilling, extracting, refining and distributing oil for use in cars. A tank of petrol would have emitted more pollution in its production, before it has even been burnt, than the coal used to charge this dudes electric car.
    • notadiggtard, on 01/27/2008, -4/+2Ha!Add in the cost of of exploring,mining transporting the fossil fuels to run the power plant(maybe 30% efficient).Then subtract power transmission losses,then the loss in the process of charging the batteries...not so awesome now,is it?
      Then there is the nice little problem of disposing of his batteries probably yearly...
      • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3As an EV owner, I can answer this. EVs are indeed much more efficient, and this is reflected in the price of fuel. It only costs 1 to 2 cents per mile for electricity to run an EV. There is very little transmission loss from the plant to the car. Contrast this with gas, which must be trucked to thousands of service stations.

        Lead-acid batteries are good for about 20,000 miles. In my case, my battery pack costs $800, so that's 4 cents per mile. Total cost per mile, about 5 to 6 cents. That beats gasoline by a lot.

        There's a hefty deposit on the batteries, so you'd better believe I recycle them.
    • LloydBentsen, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1Thank you. I was waiting for someone to bring this up. This only means more work for the coal power plant. Of course, we would still need to do a cost-benefit analysis to ascertain whether or not there would be fewer pollutants overall from a prospective change to electric cars. You should have many more diggs for your comment.
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Coal plants are base-load. They are too hard to restart, so they run all the time, EVs or no EVs. Electric vehicles cause very little new pollution (they are very much more efficient, for one thing.)

      Here's a study showing that just 3% of the pollution is created by an EV compared to a gas vehicle:

      http://www.electric-cars-are-for-girls.com/electri ...
      actual study: http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-1996-015.P ...

      "...in a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles."


    • NailToTheX, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Thanks for adding this. The notion of an electric car is great, but where does the power come from?? for the US its usually from coal. is burning coal to power a car a good idea? hopefully in the next few decades we can ween ourselves off of dirty power by better harvesting energy from the sun and the earth. If we can economically harvest all the power demands of the world cleanly, electric cars will work themselves out
      • Nerys, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Either way your burning fossil fuel right? Coal for power GAS for your ICE ? Lets look at that. Going EV you immediately use a minimum of 1/6 the amount of energy. so 6 times LESS energy. and we are NOT EVEN LOOKING at what goes into GETTING that gasoline.

        NOW 75% of our oil comes from FOREIGN nations. 100% of our coal is from the USA.

        ON TOP OF THAT EV's are SO damned efficient that you can now put a $500 solar panel on your roof with a $1500 grid interconnect and produce MORE E each month than your EV will use when you drive it. NOW your using 100% solar power (sold back to the grid lowering demand they PAY YOU with a credit on your bill) and since again its solar its now 100% pollution free.

        Nice ehh. Even if you forgo the "solar" option its around $1 per 100 miles. that would be like your car RIGHT NOW getting 300 miles per gallon. Ignoring solar THATS what you would need to get just to equal the efficiency of an EV.

        Then you have to go into maintenance..... lets not even go there. Lets just say HUNDREDS of moving parts in youir ICE powered car to ONE SINGLE moving part in your EV. Need I say more?
  • marffa, on 01/27/2008, -8/+6
    And it took the auto industry years to achieve this. What a joke.
    • Nerys, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1NO they buried it when they realized JUST how good it is. This poor kid is limited to crappy lead acids because NO ONE can make large NIMH's without violating the PATENT GM sold to texaco which now resides with Chevron. THATS why he is stuck with leads and a 40 miles range.
      • Nerys, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1"In 1994, General Motors acquired a controlling interest in Ovonics's battery development and manufacturing, including patents controlling the manufacturing of large nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries. In 2001, Texaco purchased GM's share in GM Ovonics. A few months later, Chevron acquired Texaco. In 2003, Texaco Ovonics Battery Systems was restructured into Cobasys, a 50/50 joint venture between Chevron and Energy Conversion Devices (ECD) Ovonics. Chevron's influence over Cobasys extends beyond a strict 50/50 joint venture. Chevron holds a 19.99% interest in ECD Ovonics. Chevron also maintains veto power over any sale or licensing of NiMH technology. In addition, Chevron maintains the right to seize all of Cobasys' intellectual property rights in the event that ECD Ovonics does not fulfill its contractual obligations."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-metal_hydride_ ...

        Just for the dork who dugg me down. refute that.
  • Link459, on 01/27/2008, -9/+5Makes us other 16 year olds look bad. >_>
    • AppleGeorge, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2No typing using gay ***** like >_> is what makes you look bad.
      • TrevorBelmont, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2...but using terms like "gay *****" makes you look like a scholar.
  • TheN0id, on 01/27/2008, -5/+7Something is a little fishy here. The formula for determining amperage requirements of a motor when horsepower is given is to multiply horsepower by 746, then divide by the voltage (120 volts) this totals 376 amps. There is no way 20 12 volt batteries can supply this kind of amperage on a sustained basis especially for the time it would take to travel 40 miles.
    • Osirus1156, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4Well it does Mr. Smartypants.
    • awasson, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7Depends on the battery doesn't it... What's the AH (amp/hour) rating? Another thing to consider is that the math for batteries isn't always correct. I see that you have given him the benefit of the doubt by not considering efficiency... If you consider efficiency the math says it would probably be in excess of 400 amps but even so, based on experience, I doubt the formula takes into consideration what an electrical car system requires in reality.

      A motor at rest is likely to stay at rest however once it is turning it takes less power to keep it turning and how much of the 60hp is he using going to work and back? Going up a hill will take more effort than going down. Many more considerations than are covered in the HP formula.
      • jasqwerty, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1Since the kid said it has ***** pickup, and the car is 20 years old, I bet it dissipate 60 HP quite easily going 55mph.
        • jmpkay, on 02/01/2008, -0/+1get an education, then get back to me.
    • Nougat, on 01/27/2008, -1/+6You people and your applied science -- go back to slashdot.
    • dattaway, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3Maximum horsepower isn't required to go down the highway at the legal speed limit. You only need about 20 horsepower for this. Far less for city traffic. 20 amps on these batteries will go for hours.
      • delirium1086, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Wow, someone else who's worked out the math.
        Thats assuming a standard vehicle though. If one were to actually start from scratch, low weight and drag, the required HP starts to get ridiculously low.
    • DeFex, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3it wouldnt need that much power all the time. just on acceleration from a stop or going up a hill
    • Numbski, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1We're making a whole lot of presumtions here too. We don't know if he has an alternator in there applying charge back to the batteries either. In some cases that's not going to make sense, but if he does a lot of downhill driving it works out well.
    • lucutus, on 01/27/2008, -1/+3Sure if he were constantly driving at full throttle it probably wouldn't last 40 miles not just because the batteries would die but because he would crash into a tree leaving his driveway.
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2First of all, the type of battery used in EVs are six volt deep discharge batteries, not 12-volt starter batteries. These batteries are rated up to 200ah, which means they can put out 200 amps for an hour (or 100 amps for two hours, or 50amps for four.)

      My own EV pulls about 60 amps while cruising - I might pull 200 amps while accelerating, but I have a 20 HP motor. He might well pull up to 600 amps while accelerating. The batteries and wiring can handle this fine. I know what you're thinking, this would be 96 horsepower, not 60. Most EV motors can indeed pull more than their rated horsepower for short periods of time. This is quite different from the way gas engines are rated - an ICE horsepower rating is it's peak output, available only at the top of its powerband, while an electric motor can deliver its rated output at any speed, and can exceed its rated output for brief periods.
  • TheN0id, on 01/27/2008, -9/+3This does not make any sense, the formula for determining amperage requirements when horse power is given is to multiply horsepower by 746, then divide by the voltage (120 volts) this totals 376 amps. There is no way 20 12 volt batteries can supply this kind of amperage on a sustained basis especially for the time it would take to travel 40 miles.
    • chingy1788, on 01/27/2008, -2/+1if 20 batteries are in series how does he get 120V
      20x12v is 240v

      car batteries can handle up to 70Amps each, but thats used for engine starting
      • lingum, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2How about 2 banks of 10 batteries in series that are parallelled together?
    • DeFex, on 01/27/2008, -0/+3this does not make any sense, I just read the exact same post above this one!
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+220 six-volt deep-discharge batteries in series = 120 volts.
  • jobney76, on 01/27/2008, -7/+1http://www.laweekly.com/news/features/whos-resurre ...
    Low rider don't use no gas now: Tommy Chong's Olds, a.k.a. "Ace," gets electrified by Reverend Gadget
  • jobney76, on 01/27/2008, -6/+3http://www.laweekly.com/news/features/whos-resurre ...
    Low rider don't use no gas now: Tommy Chong's Olds, a.k.a. "Ace," gets electrified by Reverend Gadget
    • jobney76, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2odd, I took too long to find the link so when I posted digg said my session had timed out and to reload the page then post again. I guess It did go through.
  • freehand, on 01/27/2008, -4/+19Imagine how much gas he could've bought with 6 grand!
    • lucutus, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2For me that would take about 1.3 years.
    • Gardimus, on 01/27/2008, -0/+0Imagine the scholarships this kid will be offered.
  • forgiste, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2dude, no way. I used to have a truck just like that and I couldn't afford an electric car.
  • optimisb, on 01/27/2008, -2/+11hmmm let's see. At current gas price, that's 3 years of gas in my car for $6000
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1And at the end of three years, you're still paying for gas and he's not!
    • Nerys, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Even better FIRST subtract what each if you paid for your CARS. I bet his deficit is a lot less than $6k after that. The only part of his car that should be compared to FUEL is the battery pack itself since thats the fuel source and thats the only thing he will have to replace later.
  • Porch, on 01/27/2008, -2/+7Why is this news? They have been selling KITS to do this for 20 years. The only hard part is getting it past smog. Ya, the DMV still wants a smog check in CA.
    • leprix, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1This is a problem in GA too, event the Prius can't pass the emissions test because the engine has to idle for a few minutes. The Prius just turns off.
  • jobney76, on 01/27/2008, -0/+4http://nedra.com/
    National Electric Drag Racing Association
  • TyrannousDotNet, on 01/27/2008, -9/+3can i digg this twice?
  • RamezaniK, on 01/27/2008, -8/+4This is cool that he did this and all that, but honestly, at 16 you have to be ***** passionate about "saving the environment" to spend $6000 of your own money to convert your car to an electric car. It's really not worth it if you ask me.
    • pharmermike, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Or...you could really want to spend the money like tuition in a college and learn how to do that from a book. Oh wait! Now he's learned and gained experience! Meh...what good is that?
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1I own an electric vehicle and could care less about 'saving the environment'. I drive my EV because its costs me just a penny per mile for the electricity. I smile and wave while I drive past gas stations.
      • Nerys, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Damned right. EV is just CHEAPER saving the environment is a nice bonus NOT the primary purpose.
  • alleks, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Smart kid
  • NyQuilPillz, on 01/27/2008, -5/+5ha... i came on hwere to say ... why does this matter to anyone.. but reading the comments..thats been stated pretty well allready ha...

    do something new (for under 6 ***** grand) then ill care...
  • daxsymbiont, on 01/27/2008, -2/+2Is it like the other kid that "made" a nuclear reactor (deep in the article you could find "with some help from his dad"(who happened to be an expert, a slight detail))?
  • TheZorch, on 01/27/2008, -3/+2Maybe for that second project he's doing he should try to build his own fuel cell instead of using batteries and maybe get a range/power boost in the process. I can see this kid going places when he gets to college. Lets see, Engineering Major ... Engineering Scholarship? Maybe MIT is in his future.
    • Nerys, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Except adding a fuel cell eliminates the point of having an EV. using your own cheap power in your house instead of paying someone else inflated fuel costs.
  • dbug, on 01/27/2008, -8/+5Oh yeah, because lead acid is so very eco-friendly...
    • Numbski, on 01/27/2008, -1/+4Because, Oh yeah, the kid MADE AN EFFORT. More than most people, ne?
    • carpespasm, on 01/27/2008, -0/+5as long as you don't just toss it in a dumpster or in the woods, they're actually pretty neutral since they can be remanufactured.
    • lucutus, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2Considering dollar per watt lead acid is the most efficient way to go. At this kids budget it would be the only thing he could afford. Besides it seems people overlook or ignore the fact that Lithium ion batteries are not safe. They catch fire easily from overloading and/or exposure to water. Sulfuric acid is not to difficult to neutralize in the even of a spill and lead is easily contained and relatively inert. With proper maintenance a lead acid battery can last well beyond 7 years. I've been running the same two in my truck for 9 years now.
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Recyclable lead-acid batteries are much better for the environment than gasoline.
    • schnikies79, on 01/27/2008, -0/+497.1% of lead-acid batteries are fully recycled. That includes the lead, the plastic and the H2SO4.

      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3864/is_20 ...
  • Zoltair, on 01/27/2008, -4/+5Till a year or two from now and he dumps all those Flooded Lead acid batteries in the dump, and creates his own little toxic waste site. This contraption is far from viably efficient for energy or the environment. For a first model, its a great start, but its been done..

    I give the kid a thumbs up for the balls to try (few teens his age would get of the couch to even try this), but I doubt he really thought it out completely, there is nothing here that isn't out of reach of any typical teen with some shop time. Alternate source vehicles have a long way to go still, not just in the engineering, but the social impacts must be considered. Who's gonna pay for the roads, cost of food stuffs, etc... These all have to be considered for such a vehicle to be viable.
    • Numbski, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Why not take the batteries to a recycler? Heck, here in St. Louis Batteries Plus will take them from you, free of charge.
    • pcnetworx1, on 01/27/2008, -1/+2Exactly - I happen to work at the Battery store that Numbski mentioned (albeit in a different state), and we recycle all of the batteries we receive - SLA, Flooded, NiCD, NiMH, LiON, SoX, etc.

      You are just spreading FUD and have no working experience in the Battery industry when you spew such BS that they are not recycled - and frequently, the recycled materials can turn a profit enough to sustain the recycling program.
    • carpespasm, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2if the batteries are recycled like they should be, those batteries could be remanufactured and reused again.
    • lucutus, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2As I said above Considering dollar per watt lead acid is the most efficient way to go. At this kids budget it would be the only thing he could afford. Besides it seems people overlook or ignore the fact that Lithium ion batteries are not safe. They catch fire easily from overloading and/or exposure to water. Sulfuric acid is not to difficult to neutralize in the even of a spill and lead is easily contained and relatively inert. With proper maintenance a lead acid battery can last well beyond 7 years. I've been running the same two in my truck for 9 years now. Also lead acid batteries are easily recyclable.
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Fud, fud, fud. I drive an EV and my battery pack has a couple hundred dollars worth of deposits on the batteries. Would you toss a couple hundred dollars in the dumpster? Especially when battery sellers make it so easy to recycle them and get your deposit back?
    • Nerys, on 01/29/2008, -0/+1Recycle rate for leads is 98% the most successful and completely recycle project in the world.
  • uncltim, on 01/27/2008, -3/+5the tech for a 3-400 mile range exists. heres the problem, it would devastate the economy,it would devastate the government.how do you collect 5-10 dollars tax for a 3 dollar recharge? there are trillions of dollars to be made on I/C engine cars. you cant have one untill they figure out how to keep you poor with it. whokilledtheelectriccarmovie.com your eyes will be opened.
    • Evildudetx, on 01/27/2008, -1/+1It does, but what consumer is going to want to pay for those batteries? No one will warrenty them for more than a year and they cost 5K or more to replace. I can drive my non-hybrid/non-electric truck for a damn long time on that kind of money.
      • uncltim, on 01/27/2008, -0/+2ovianics makes the batteries 10 miles from my house. if i remember correctly texaco owns ovianics. besides the engine in your car is 5-10k of its value. nobody cares how many miles are on the body
    • carpespasm, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1links to more than a speculative claim please? I want to build a car that'll do 400 miles on one electric charge.
    • schnikies79, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Here is the problem. You are pulling ***** out of your ass which you have no backing for. Without sources, your claims are worthless.
  • Evildudetx, on 01/27/2008, -3/+4Rather pointless unless he set up a solar array to charge it as well. He is still pulling electricity from the grid, so he is still relying on fossil fuel to power the vehicle.
    • apeweek, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1Still more energy efficient. Electricity for EVs only costs a penny or two per mile. Greater efficiency equals less pollution.
  • loquax, on 01/27/2008, -1/+9Kids today... At 16 with $6,000 and a pickup truck, I'd probably gone to Mexico and been drunk for a summer. I'm glad to see that Generation Z (or whatever they are called now) is doing a lot more than sitting around bitching about the world.
  • KidDeath, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1+1 for electronic vehicles!

    I've done some dabbling myself, but only go-karts / bikes / atvs.. cars are too big for me :)
    • uncltim, on 01/27/2008, -0/+1keep pluggin kid the world needs help
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.