What is Digg?73 Comments
- abyss478, on 10/12/2007, -13/+89I can't believe we can't move ahead as a society until the oil company's have made their billions upon billions of dollars... there are patents for kick ass batteries out there, far superior to hybrid efficiency, all of which have been bought and buried by the oil industry to be classed as "trade secrets." Bastards.
- fightingirish, on 10/12/2007, -10/+50It's actually a matter of public record - no tin-foil hat required. The company that was contracted by GM to build the batteries for the EV-1 (now discontinued) was bought out by Texaco.
But all the electric cars in the world won't help the environment if they get their power from coal burning power stations (which is what the majority of US power stations run on). That simply changes where the pollution is emitted from - not the amount of pollution emitted. - diggless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+28GM was prosecuted and convicted for conspiracy in a case related to the destruction of electric mass transit. This isnt a conspiracy THEORY, they were convicted. I have no tin foil hat on, I have a sliver of knowledge about history. Go open a book
- airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Electric cars are bad for oil companies--it allows all of these vehicles the chance to choose different types of energy. Electric cars are also bad for car companies and maintenance industry--the cars are more reliable, less prone to needing replacing or breaking.
A conspiracy is plausible. There is every reason for the two industries to be scared. It's unfortunate that they aren't embracing new solutions. - fightingirish, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23@nyheat
I hate to say it - but oil companies aren't stupid. If you look at their investments (such as the rechargeable battery company Texaco bought out during the EV-1 production), oil companies are investing in alternative fuel and energy technologies. It's just that they won't sell them to you.... at least not yet.
If they sell you a battery for your car - they make a sale. But everytime you need to recharge your money would go to the electric company (edit: as tsaylor just pointed out above). It's more profitable for them to be able to sell you something that needs to be refueled by something you can only get from them. That's why they are working on Hydrogen fuel cells - and buying up alternatives until such time the hydrogen technology is ready for market. - Mafia_Ace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Actually, regarding the pollution emitted from power plants replacing that of traditional combustion engines, it would in reality be much better for the environment. Even if every single electric car was powered by the most dirty coal burning plant, the net emissions would still be 50% less than having millions of individual gasoline engines running independently--- having one huge, super-efficient source of power is always going to be more efficient and environmentally-friendly than all those gas engines running independently. The article posted was here was in the latest issue of Popular Science, and the fact I just stated was also in that same issue.
- markajanssen, on 10/12/2007, -8/+23The real question is how long can they run before recharging?
@fightingirish
I've often wondered about the irony in getting our electricity for a "green car" from a coal plant...
In the long run I'm sure 1 plant is a lot better than thousands of cars. - Azur3us, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@jdoc2050
Jay Leno writes an article for Popular Mechanics for every issue. He's smarter than he looks. - airwalkery2k, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16Tesla? I'd buy one if I had the money, and I better come up with the money fast. I'll give you two years before an auto company buys Tesla to great made-up fanfare of how the company plans to make great electric cars like Tesla in a mass-produced fashion. Then they mysteriously scrap the division a year after destroying their product.
That's just the cynical side of me talking. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12One point I'd like to make is that people seem to be amazed by the fact that there is such a thing as a 100-year-old electric car, as evidenced by the title, but the fact is a very significant portion of the automobiles produced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were electric.
- vanbacon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13You guys do realize coal isn't the only way to goddamm make electricity. What about Wind, Solar, Nuclear, Hydroelectric, Natural gas, And Geothermal(If you live in Iceland)
- insomniasystems, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12http://www.teslamotors.com
- diggless, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12we dont yet have the battery technology to power an electric car (nudge nudge wink wink)
if you want to know why we dont have electric cars read the book "internal combustion"
http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Corporations-Governments-Alternatives/dp/0312359071/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-3821940-5909420?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177904595&sr=8-1 - bellisland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11For all the people who doubt that emission are better on Electric Vehicles even when charging from Coal Fired Plants
Read this,
"Studies by Energy Commission staff of electric vehicles' impact on the South Coast Air Basin in Los Angeles find that EVs significantly reduce criteria pollutants, those pollutants for which there are ambient concentration standards. Some pollutants are reduced by more than 90 percent and as much as 98 percent, compared to gasoline-powered vehicles, even when power plant emissions are included. We are confident that carbon monoxide and reactive organic gases (a precursor of ozone) will be greatly reduced. We believe oxides of nitrogen (also a precursor to ozone) will be substantially reduced."
Don't doubt the advantages of the technology of past and present (electric car)!!
Sources:
Quote From, http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/95-07-12_imbrecht_EV_essay.txt
http://www.energy.ca.gov/afvs/index.html
http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/96-EV+EMISSIONS.PDF
(do your research next time) - davidrools, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Modern coal burning power plants are a lot cleaner than gasoline engines. Their emissions equipment is much more sophisticated than what can be priced and fit into an automobile. Also, renewable energy sources (most notably solar, which is now as cheap as fossil fuel burning plants per gigawatt) can easily replace all fossil fuel plants without changing any of the existing infrastructure. Electric cars are the future.
Hydrogen won't happen. Hydrogen is produced either using electricity or, more commonly, by burning natural gas. Then, hydrogen must be transported through a not-yet-existent infrastructure and delivered to automobiles, which don't have a good means of storing hydrogen. In fact, current hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can only store enough hydrogen to take them about 100 miles-less than half the range of modern all-electric cars. Storing energy in batteries makes delivery and storage infinitely easier than storing energy as hydrogen. Also, fuel cell life is currently much shorter than the useful life of high capacity electric car batteries. - dh8r, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I say we build a controlled fusion reactor or a dark energy harvester...
- sahaskatta, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7he's a car fanatic.
he collects a ton of cars.
i probably would do something similar if i had that much money - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@abyss478
" there are patents for kick ass batteries out there,"
and the patent numbers are???? - Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Yes, he hopped into his time machine and purchased one straight from the auto-mobile merchant.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The patents being spoken of here are to NIMH batteries. Here's some info:
from http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8972.html
"After the Ovonic NiMH battery was shown to be capable of allowing battery electric vehicles ranges comparable to gasoline cars with its repeated demonstration of allowing a converted Geo Metro to obtain a highway range in excess of 200 miles per charge in less than ideal conditions [60], and at a total pack cost competitive with an internal combustion engine in high volume [61], its patent was bought out by Chevron-Texaco, who refuses to mass market the battery at a price affordable to hobbyists and small manufacturers to this day. They are so protective of the patent, that they have sued Toyota for using an allegedly copied version of the battery in its Prius hybrid [62]. There is no reason pertaining to technological limitations why these batteries cannot be placed into conversions by hobbyists and into commercially-manufactured EVs by small businesses for an affordable price. I personally suggest that those reasons are political in nature. To quote Victor Tikhonov of Metric Mind Engineering on the NiMH battery, “Not available for non-technical reasons and may never be to you and to me [63].” The Oilies can be thanked for that. "
The NIMH patent story:
http://www.evworld.com/blogs/index.cfm?page=blogentry&authorid=51&blogid=104
and
http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=1387
News article about the Panasonic lawsuit:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040710180354/http://www.freep.com/money/autonews/energy8e_20040708.htm
And a RAV4 EV user speaks about NIMHs:
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive/message/78631
What Cobasys themselves say about NIMHs and electric vehicles:
http://www.cobasys.com/pdf/faq/faq.html
Note they do not come out and say that you can't get them - but they tell you there's no distribution network for those batteries. In fact, no amateur electric car maker that I am aware of has been able to get any.
Why make them so hard to get? If you're in the business of selling batteries, why not sell them? There are a lot of other markets for large batteries that they are passing up, too! (Wheelchairs, boats, power leveling, forklifts, etc.) - vanbacon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Actually there is atleast 150 years worth of oil in the Tar sand of Alberta. But it costs more to actually refine that oil than it does to just get it crude.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Some replies to the issues brought up here..
Electric cars are much cleaner, even if dirty fuel is burned by powerplants. This is the case because EVs are many times more efficient. Greater efficiency = more miles on less fuel = less pollution per mile. The easiest way to prove this is to look at fuel prices. I drive an old EV that gets about 4 miles to the KWH (a pretty common mileage for an EV, this can be googled.) Off-peak electricity (special overnight rates available from most utilities) costs 3 to 10 cents per KWH. This is only a penny or two per mile, FAR cheaper than gasoline. Efficiency is the reason. Here's a collection of well-to-wheel studies showing EVs make lots less pollution over their lifetimes (PDF) : http://sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions%5B9%5D.pdf
Newest batteries on the market are from Altairnano, they can be charged in just 10 minutes, and are durable enough to last the lifetime of the car without needing replacement. They are in the Phoenix electric truck: http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com
Electric cars can be found cheaply, as little as $5000. Link: http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/ - carl0ski, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@fightingirish
@markjennson
Coal burning in one location is more efficient than millions of gasoline burning vehicles.
example
While a car is idling that potential energy is wasted into heat and nothing more.
Whereas a coal centralised system never wastes potential energy at Idle. - jun2san, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I think if you check some of the links, you'll see that Leno has written a few articles for Popular Mechanics. The man knows his stuff.
- tsaylor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I understood that if a patent was not being actively used it could be contested in court and nullified. Is this not the case? If it is, why isn't Big Electricity challenging these alleged patents? I'm sure the electric company would love to be the gatekeeper for Americans' transportation needs.
- nightsweat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The very near future could be - should be - plug-in hybrids. That is, hybrids that use pure electricity until the batteries drop too low, and then they kick into a gas-engine and act like a normal hybrid, recharging batteries with braking power.
Why? Most people drive their cars less that 50 miles on most days. Go to work, Come back from work, maybe stop at the store. If you have a vehicle that run 100 miles on an electric charge 90% of the time, you'll be able to run only on plug electricity, which has been proven to be less harmful to the environment than gasoline, even when generated by coal plants. Make it with new-gen nukes and it's much, much cleaner.
When you need to go 300 miles, you drive until the battery drains down, then run on a gas engine until you get to your destination. You can still use the gas stations to fill up if you're going 500 miles in a single day, and if you're on vacation, for example, you need never plug in. - obrysii, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I wonder why the steam-powered car hasn't come back. If this (to quote the article): "It's dead reliable. Thanks to the Doble's astronomical torque, something like 1000 lb.-ft., there's no need for a clutch or transmission, and the car can go nearly 100 mph. And — get this — my Doble even meets today's emissions standards. Because it's a closed system, with 2 million BTU, combustion is complete: It burns everything. " ...was possible a hundred years ago, imagine what we could do with today's technology and today's fuels.
The Doble, according to Wikipedia, got 15mpg burning kerosene, and weighed 2.25 tons. - StiGUP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It's sad that it seemed our country was heading towards a good direction. Nikola tesla had some very promising ideas about free energy and electricity for all. I guess this is what happens when greedy corps get a hold of technology that will make them broke and covering it up.... zero point energy FTW!
http://slipgrid.com/on-free-energy-with-video-evidence/
check out the first few videos and then tell me there isn't free energy... :) - mattnyc99, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2THE REAL FUTURE OF ELECTRIC CARS: http://www.popularmechanics.com/plugincars
- scythefwd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@fightingirish
It is easier to control output from a single source. The coal burning plant can regulate its emissions more effectivly than 100,000 cars can regulate their exhaust. I dont know how many neglected cars I see spewing out black clouds on I95. It is still spewing out pollution, Ill give you that. It is just going to be cleaner when you can scrub the air at the source than at multiple sources down the line. Where does the oil refineries get their electricity to run the fractional distillers and the combiners? If, and I say if because I dont know, the refineries are using power from coal instead of gas/diesel powered generators.. it will be cleaner because you are cutting out the middle energy expenditure. You wouldn't be using the energy to power the refineries (if all cars were electric) or refinery (less of them because less is needed do to increased electric car use) so that energy could be used directly to power the cars. That would be better for the planet, and more effecient. - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The whole 'strained power grid' point is a red herring. EVs charge mostly in the evening and overnight. That's off-peak, and right now there's even electricity that goes to waste overnight because large power plants are too difficult to shut off when demand eases. Even by conservative estimates, millions of EVs can charge before anybody has to lift a finger to increase capacity.
Also, EV adoption will be very slow. I predict a lot of resistance to the idea. Petroleum companies will also manipulate the price of gas to protect market share. So there will be plenty of time to adapt.
Lots of electricity is also used to refine gasoline. Let's use some of that, when demand for gas eventually goes down. - SillyRabbits, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, one other thing. Auto accidents are bad enough when you have flammable liquid spilled all around. When you start throwing in exploding boilers that get ruptured in an accident, it's something entirely different. Few people appreciate the amount of damage even a small boiler can do. I doubt you could get current government regulators to allow them on the street, in any significant quantity, these days.
edit-looks like bigslacker beat me to it... - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wrong on all counts. It doesn't matter where electricity comes from. Electric cars are indeed many times more efficient than gas vehicles, and therefore make less pollution per mile, regardless of what gets burned. Electric motors are 90+ % efficient, versus less than 25% efficient for gas engines. Battery storage is also about 90% efficient. And distributing power via the electric grid (95% efficient) also beats the wasted energy of trucking gasoline to thousands of gas stations. Plus, fuel burns far more efficiently in large plants than it does in your little automobile.
Gas is horrendously inefficient. Did you know large amounts of electricity are used to refine it? So we are driving electric cars already.
These links have been posted already, above, but I'll summarize them here:
Why driving an EV is cheap (high efficiency means low fuel cost): http://www.squidoo.com/cheap-electric-car/
A collection of numerous well-to-wheels studies showing EVs are far, far better for the air (PDF):
http://sherryboschert.com/Downloads/Emissions%5B9%5D.pdf
Excessive electric demand is also nonsense, since EVs charge overnight, off-peak. See my comment on this a little higher up on the page. - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you think we don't have the technology to produce practical electric cars, explain this vehicle:
http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/models/fleet.html
It can travel up to 250 miles per charge, 10-minute recharge, 250,000 mile battery life (never replace batteries), 95mph with full cargo load. It's not a concept, it's being built right now for fleet use. $45,000 for hand built cars. This price would fall significantly for factory built cars. - diggometer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I guess the oil industry is not interested in the evolution of this technology. This evolution if i can put it that way would kill them.
- DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd like to know how anyone can go above 25mph in NYC. And really, what percentage of your driving takes you farther than 20 miles from anywhere?
- ajamison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I've seen the car in person, it's very very cool. >.>
- jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@diggless
"case related to"
Related to?? Let's see now, that case involved selling buses, your myth involves destroying trolley systems. Yeah, they're related, second cousins twice removed. This myth has been thoroughly debunked. Try starting here:
http://www.1134.org/stan/ul/GM-et-al.html - apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"...Patent infringement lawsuits are nothing, they happen all the time."
In the NIMH case, the patent infringement suit cost Toyota over $30 million.
"...NiMh batteries are not cheap. That tends to discourage... "
Yes, well, if you read the info, you'll see that the early promise was that the batteries could be cost-competitive with gasoline engines. Now that Cobasys (controlled by the oil companies) has the patents, it's the most expensive battery technology out there. It doesn't have to be. There's nothing exotically expensive in the batteries. That's their decision, and part of their strategy (whatever it is.)
"...At any rate, the only way your "conspiracy theory" can hold water is if the seller of the patent sold out too cheaply. In other words - a STUPID business decision."
Stanley Ovshinsky, the owner of the company that developed the battery, wanted to see his battery used in a successful EV. He sold controlling interest to GM (I think they helped finance its development), who wanted to put it into the EV1 electric car. GM then turned around and sold the patents to Texaco.
And I don't think we have to call it a conspiracy theory. Just a couple of corporations acting in their own self-interest. If you ran an oil company, and owned the patents for a great EV battery, what would you do with it?
And why, exactly, does Cobasys make large NIMH batteries impossible to buy? Why aren't they interested in other large-battery markets like forklifts, boating, golf carts, power leveling, etc?
"...lithium-ion (or something else) will make NiMh obsolete."
I agree. - trev0006, on 06/23/2008, -0/+1This electric car business has been swept under the rug for so long due to oil companies, its getting old already. Let the inventors do their job. http://www.dpccars.com/ http://www.discountpartcenter.com/
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Your suppositions about battery technology are about 30 years out of date. Battery tech has hardly been stagnant.
Here's an EV in production right now with advanced batteries: http://www.phoenixmotorcars.com/models/fleet.html
The Phoenix's Altairnano batteries can recharge in only 10 minutes, and never need to be replaced.
Some other new battery tech to google:
EESTOR
Firefly energy systems
A123 - jeffiek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@abyss478
"Why make them so hard to get? If you're in the business of selling batteries, why not sell them? "
I did some reading. Found these:
http://www.sanyo.co.jp/koho/hypertext4-eng/0601/0131-2e.html
http://www.cobasys.com/pdf/spec_sheet/cobs_battery_spec_sheet.pdf
http://www.cobasys.com/products/transportation.shtml
Patent infringement lawsuits are nothing, they happen all the time. Look at what Rambus did with memory, or Ericson(?Nokia -one of 'em) did with cell phones. Business copes with them (although I personally think the concept of patents has been perverted).
NiMh batteries are not cheap. That tends to discourage small (home based / experimenter) markets, the overhead would just skyrocket the cost.
At any rate, the only way your "conspiracy theory" can hold water is if the seller of the patent sold out too cheaply. In other words - a STUPID business decision. Unlikely, but possible. ***** happens, the world moves on. The lithium-ion (or something else) will make NiMh obsolete. - nightsweat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Comment dug down because of inaccuracies.
- apeweek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I should have commented on the NIMH links you provided. As I said, Cobasys doesn't actually say you can't get them, just that there's no distribution network for them. Of course they make some large NIMHs, these are used in hybrids. They are very particular who they sell batteries to, and in fact it's known that the contracts they have with companies like Toyota have clauses which specify that the NIMHs can only be used for explicity specified applications.
Recent competition with Li-Ions has also caused Cobasys to relent somewhat, and more NIMHs are now showing up in vehicles.
If you want to impress me, show me a link where you can actually buy large NIMH batteries. - Salgat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I personally want to see these patents that you talk about, since patent rights only last for a certain number of years I want to see what the future has in store for us.
- SillyRabbits, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What it doesn't mention in the article about steam power is that, although it's reliable, you just don't jump in the car and go. There's a fairly involved start-up procedure and it takes a significant amount of time to bring the boiler up to operating temperature. Then, once you reach your destination, the shut down procedure is also a pain. With modern electronics and controls these things could be automated, but in the early years of automotive development it wouldn't have been easy. Also, it's likely that with modern engine controls it won't be able to compete in terms of efficiency. Railroads didn't switch from steam to diesel just for the fun of it.
- Jazzillion, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Henry Ford's original idea was a car made of hemp that would run on, what is similar to, hemp biodiesel. Electric is one thing, but a car made out of a reusable material that runs on power from that same reusable material is ingenious. Trends limited this idea's capacity, but lets hope history repeats itself. That is, if Carlos Mencia doesn't steal the idea, sell it to oil companies, and use the money to buy somebody else's jokes
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That chin's not aerodynamic either
- BigSlacker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yea...all science and engineering facts are really a conspiracy by oil companies. I guess the personal attack and conspiracy theory is just a lot easier than learning how this stuff works so appeals to the lazy.
- saggygrandma, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I noticed Jay decided to EFI and Turbo charge his tank car in another article there! niiiiice!
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is