http://www.physorg.com/news94479761.html
Fantastic achievement!
QUOTE (AgentG+Mar 31 2007, 12:53 AM)
Fantastic achievement!
While the total energetic effectiveness of the conversion of fuel energy into electricity remains bellow twenty percent...
While the total energetic effectiveness of the conversion of fuel energy into electricity remains bellow twenty percent...
The Tesla represents no noticeable improvement of the electric car. The same characterisitics that have doomed the technology since it lost its sole advantage of
not needing to crank the engine in 1912. The range is insufficient - the owner is tethered to a 100 mile radius if operation and has to keep track of every destination's distance and his tesla's exact state of charge. This is a pure niche vehicle for the well heeled. The recharge rate is totally ridiculous - it requires, even with a 220 volt outlet almost 4 hours to recharge and those 6871 batteries cost almost $30,000 and last barely five years, regardless of whether you use the car or not. The vehicle makes no practical sense. When will the amateurs learn what any 7 year old knows : you can't build a viable electric car without a practical battery. It isn't any more complicated than that - you don't need any fictitious
"documentary" films proposing illogical and silly conspiracies to explain why
electric cars have failed so miserably for the past 100 years.
not needing to crank the engine in 1912. The range is insufficient - the owner is tethered to a 100 mile radius if operation and has to keep track of every destination's distance and his tesla's exact state of charge. This is a pure niche vehicle for the well heeled. The recharge rate is totally ridiculous - it requires, even with a 220 volt outlet almost 4 hours to recharge and those 6871 batteries cost almost $30,000 and last barely five years, regardless of whether you use the car or not. The vehicle makes no practical sense. When will the amateurs learn what any 7 year old knows : you can't build a viable electric car without a practical battery. It isn't any more complicated than that - you don't need any fictitious
"documentary" films proposing illogical and silly conspiracies to explain why
electric cars have failed so miserably for the past 100 years.
QUOTE (theBike+Mar 31 2007, 08:55 AM)
The Tesla represents no noticeable improvement of the electric car. ... The range is insufficient - ...The recharge rate is totally ridiculous -... those 6871 batteries cost almost $30,000 ... you can't build a viable electric car without a practical battery, It isn't any more complicated than that -
The idea that it is non polluting is also false as most of the world's electricity comes from the currently dirtyest fuel source, COAL.
Arthur
The idea that it is non polluting is also false as most of the world's electricity comes from the currently dirtyest fuel source, COAL.
Arthur
I agree.
And what are you going to do with with 6871 batteries once they expire..
Since they are like laptop batteries, which after a year or 2 hold hardly any charge, this is going to be very inpracticle.
And what are you going to do with with 6871 batteries once they expire..
Since they are like laptop batteries, which after a year or 2 hold hardly any charge, this is going to be very inpracticle.
But it looks cool!!! This is something that no battery powered car has ever achieved in my opinion.
Sorry guys but you are missing the point. This is a car for the well heeled. Who else can afford it. Tesla will next be coming out with a 4-dorr sedan that isn't a Ferrari equiv. but more like a Camry. Even with the same max distance specs this car is PERFECT for the vast majority of drivers. In fact, the limited distance argument is a total red herring. Since most households have at least 2 cars, worst cse is you get one all-electric and one hybrid with boosted batteries and you are golden. These guys are totally on the right track and we all need to be thinking not about why its not going to work but instead how we are going to make it work. With climate change as bad as it is, we have no choice. Its not like we have the luxury of waiting for something even better - which is clearly not yet needed.
Jack
Jack
I agree with Jack Oswald, the rest of you can go !@$* yourself by buring in a firely pit of oil. The reason electric cars aren't mainstream is one reason only and that is money. more money can be made off of internal combustion engines and since money is more important then the well being of the human species it will continue to be that way. Theres not many moving parts in an electric vehilce which means there should be less costly problems. Electric cars are obviously expensive to purchase because there aren't many made. And as for electric cars being non pollutant its true that they aren't 100% non pollutant but they use the energy from power plants alot more efficiently then if you burn gas in an internal combustion engine. AND when new technology comes around that allows us to create electricity with little or no pollution what do you think is easier? replacing a few power plants or replace 300 million cars??? dumb ***. And as for those lithium batteries when they do die they are recyclable and can be used again to make new lithium batteris. And for those of you who would just rather throw things away when they die the FDA has reported that they are non toxic to do so. Charging your batteries isn't a big deal either, what do you do with your cell phone before you go to sleep??? you plug it in and let it charge!!! whoa that was really hard and painfull, almost suffered a heart attack there. Its more of an inconvenience to wait online at the gas pump or even if theres no line, you never need to stop at a gas station. bah its usless to go on for people who don't care about the well being of others....
the dirtiest power source you say? im sorry but if i had this car i would have a carbon foot print of what? 0 ZERO you motherf*&^ers. solar and wind energy. gotta take that into account. get your facts straight before you post you sorry assholes
yeh batteries need to get their power from places...
QUOTE (expert+May 8 2007, 09:24 PM)
the dirtiest power source you say? im sorry but if i had this car i would have a carbon foot print of what? 0 ZERO you motherf*&^ers. solar and wind energy. gotta take that into account. get your facts straight before you post you sorry assholes
Sorry "expert", but the MAJORITY of the world's electricity comes from the current dirtyest source, COAL.
There are a FEW exceptions to this, but not many.
In the US, electricity (12 months ending Dec 06) was produced by:
Coal 50%
Nat Gas 19%
Nuclear 19%
Hydro 7%
Oil 3%
OTHER - 2%
This 2% is made up of (in order):
[4] Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
So Solar and Wind are pretty much at the BOTTOM of the barrel.
So, if you have an PE electric car, you don't have a Zero carbon footprint because, because ~72% of the electricity is based on Fossil fuels and the generation, transmission and storage of electricity is pretty inefficient.
What you do know is that almost NONE of the power likely came from Wind or Solar.
Arthur
Sorry "expert", but the MAJORITY of the world's electricity comes from the current dirtyest source, COAL.
There are a FEW exceptions to this, but not many.
In the US, electricity (12 months ending Dec 06) was produced by:
Coal 50%
Nat Gas 19%
Nuclear 19%
Hydro 7%
Oil 3%
OTHER - 2%
This 2% is made up of (in order):
[4] Wood, black liquor, other wood waste, biogenic municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, agriculture byproducts, other biomass, geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_1.html
So Solar and Wind are pretty much at the BOTTOM of the barrel.
So, if you have an PE electric car, you don't have a Zero carbon footprint because, because ~72% of the electricity is based on Fossil fuels and the generation, transmission and storage of electricity is pretty inefficient.
What you do know is that almost NONE of the power likely came from Wind or Solar.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 10 2007, 12:07 PM)
So, if you have an PE electric car, you don't have a Zero carbon footprint because, because ~72% of the electricity is based on Fossil fuels and the generation, transmission and storage of electricity is pretty inefficient.
What you do know is that almost NONE of the power likely came from Wind or Solar.
Arthur
Dear Arthur,
Is it hard to not seem like a "know it all" when you really do actually know it all ?
Guys (with your dirty mouths) Arthur is talking about production of the vehicle, and I think you are talking about a footprint post production, which...is not taking everything into consideration now is it?
The footprint must include production methods, and how the car would be made would not use a whole lot of wind or solar energy.
You could, I am sure, possibly charge your electric car off the grid, but you couldnt have it produced off the grid, get it?
(now go warsh yer dang mouths out wit soap, and apologise to uncle arty!)
Peace!
Actually Tikay, I think we were both talking about post production energy consumption. You might be thinking of that last long series of posts between Robin and I that WAS about the cost of production of Electrical bicycles and how much you had to ride them each day to justify the energy cost of making them. But, in this case, I assume that if one gets an electric car, it replaces their existing gasoline powered car, and for all practical purposes the energy to create either is a wash (the good news is we do a pretty good at recovering the energy through recycling automobiles).
So the claim that mr foul mouth "expert" made was that he would have a Zero carbon footprint because we didn't consider Solar or Wind power.
But the fact is, on a percentage basis, very little electrical power is produced by those means in the US (or in most of the world. The World on average gets 66% from fossil fuels, 16% from Nuclear, 16% from Hydro and 2% from OTHER (which the bottom of the list of other is Wind and Solar)
The fact is the WORLD on average gets ~ 50% of its electricity from COAL and a large percent of that is from fairly DIRTY power plants which spew gigatons of Soot, NOx and SOx along with thousands of TONS of Mercury and Radioactive Uranium, polluting the planet.
So the point, is if you buy an electric car and recharge it off the grid, then the pollution might not come out of your tailpipe, but it IS coming out of a Power plant somewhere near you and a lot of that pollution is WORSE than what an IC car would put out.
I've yet to see a decent detailed analysis of the CO2 per mile produced by an electric car that is charged off the grid, but rough calculations indicate that the net efficiencies, while slightly favoring the gas engine, are fairly similar, so since ~ 30% of the electrical energy is nuclear or renewable there might be a small CO2 savings by going all electric but at an increase in Soot, SOx, NOx, and heavy metals. That trade off to me is certainly not worth it, as I drive so little. If you need to have TWO cars, one gas and one electric, because of range/capacity limitations of the electric car, it would probably never pay off.
Arthur
So the claim that mr foul mouth "expert" made was that he would have a Zero carbon footprint because we didn't consider Solar or Wind power.
But the fact is, on a percentage basis, very little electrical power is produced by those means in the US (or in most of the world. The World on average gets 66% from fossil fuels, 16% from Nuclear, 16% from Hydro and 2% from OTHER (which the bottom of the list of other is Wind and Solar)
The fact is the WORLD on average gets ~ 50% of its electricity from COAL and a large percent of that is from fairly DIRTY power plants which spew gigatons of Soot, NOx and SOx along with thousands of TONS of Mercury and Radioactive Uranium, polluting the planet.
So the point, is if you buy an electric car and recharge it off the grid, then the pollution might not come out of your tailpipe, but it IS coming out of a Power plant somewhere near you and a lot of that pollution is WORSE than what an IC car would put out.
I've yet to see a decent detailed analysis of the CO2 per mile produced by an electric car that is charged off the grid, but rough calculations indicate that the net efficiencies, while slightly favoring the gas engine, are fairly similar, so since ~ 30% of the electrical energy is nuclear or renewable there might be a small CO2 savings by going all electric but at an increase in Soot, SOx, NOx, and heavy metals. That trade off to me is certainly not worth it, as I drive so little. If you need to have TWO cars, one gas and one electric, because of range/capacity limitations of the electric car, it would probably never pay off.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+May 10 2007, 03:52 PM)
So the point, is if you buy an electric car and recharge it off the grid, then the pollution might not come out of your tailpipe, but it IS coming out of a Power plant somewhere near you and a lot of that pollution is WORSE than what an IC car would put out.
Okay...what am I missing? If I say "off the grid", I mean to imply, that for instance a home is built (let's say in a desert or "middle of no-where" situation) and the sole source of energy is either solar, or wind-turbine powered. There should be no entanglement to electricity whatsoever in this case.
I just thought that, that is what off the grid meant. No need of electricity...no need of power lines.
Tell me if this is somehow considered impossible to accomplish? Because I have lived close to the earth on the island many times and we hauled water in from the outside, made fires to cook, & bathe...and did without any form of electricity.
Is electricity required or a generator needed to set up a solar enterprize? A wind turbine?
(I just know you will have the answer Arthur
)Thanks!
~ found this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6jIBZrPDuA
Just a simple misunderstanding Tikay.
You wrote "OFF the grid", meaning being DISCONNECTED from the grid but I thought you meant getting your power OFF OF THE GRID.
Yes, one can live OFF the grid.
The two extremes:
One is to use VERY LITTLE to NO electricity (think Amish)
and the other
Use all you want, but generate it yourself via solar, wind, hydro etc.
In between is where you will find most people who are trying to generate their own power: they first figure out how to CONSERVE and then generate as much power as they can ECONOMICALLY and then get any excess power they need from the grid.
One important cost factor is for the power company to allow NET metering, meaning, if you have a Wind turbine (or Solar panels) and its generating 10 kilowatts, but you are only using 5 KW then your excess electricity flows onto the grid and "spins the meter backward". In essence giving you an electrical credit so that when your turbine isn't spinning (or its not sunny), you draw the power you need from the grid and spin the meter forward.
This can work out nicely. Say if your Wind Turbine generates an average of 100 KWhrs per day and you use an average of 110 KWhrs per day, then at the end of the month you owe the power company only for 300 Kilowatts + a connect/reading fee, instead of for 3,300 KWhrs, and it didn't matter if the wind was blowing while you were at work or sleeping.
The reason this is so good for the consumer is that without the ability to "spin the meter backward" you would have to invest in an EXPENSIVE storage system (think LOTS of batteries) along with Transformers/Inverters etc to go from Line DC to Storage DC and from Storage DC to 120/240 Volt AC for normal house use. The need for an electrical storage system is what makes almost all 'home generation' not cost effective, so if you can avoid this cost and, in essence, use the grid as your storage system, then your cost per KWh can get to the level of being competitive (or in some cases cheaper) with the grid itself.
Not all states allow net metering however, and if they do, there are still sometimes hoops and gotchas to look out for.
As for the Video couple, they had a fairly expensive system as it used both a fairly expensive turbine (not height of tower, this won't go over everywhere) and a large solar array (one on roof of house one off of roof). I'm guessing, but I think they have battery backup and not net metering. (hence her concern about windy day for washing). Being a Vermont couple, they have no concerns about Air Conditioning and as you saw they use Wood for heat, so two of the largest typical uses of electricity are eliminated. Burning a wood stove for heat is something that most people don't have available and is actually fairly high in pollution output. (not CO2 as a wood stove is CO2 neutral, but a LOT of soot, smoke and VOCs.)
Arthur
You wrote "OFF the grid", meaning being DISCONNECTED from the grid but I thought you meant getting your power OFF OF THE GRID.
Yes, one can live OFF the grid.
The two extremes:
One is to use VERY LITTLE to NO electricity (think Amish)
and the other
Use all you want, but generate it yourself via solar, wind, hydro etc.
In between is where you will find most people who are trying to generate their own power: they first figure out how to CONSERVE and then generate as much power as they can ECONOMICALLY and then get any excess power they need from the grid.
One important cost factor is for the power company to allow NET metering, meaning, if you have a Wind turbine (or Solar panels) and its generating 10 kilowatts, but you are only using 5 KW then your excess electricity flows onto the grid and "spins the meter backward". In essence giving you an electrical credit so that when your turbine isn't spinning (or its not sunny), you draw the power you need from the grid and spin the meter forward.
This can work out nicely. Say if your Wind Turbine generates an average of 100 KWhrs per day and you use an average of 110 KWhrs per day, then at the end of the month you owe the power company only for 300 Kilowatts + a connect/reading fee, instead of for 3,300 KWhrs, and it didn't matter if the wind was blowing while you were at work or sleeping.
The reason this is so good for the consumer is that without the ability to "spin the meter backward" you would have to invest in an EXPENSIVE storage system (think LOTS of batteries) along with Transformers/Inverters etc to go from Line DC to Storage DC and from Storage DC to 120/240 Volt AC for normal house use. The need for an electrical storage system is what makes almost all 'home generation' not cost effective, so if you can avoid this cost and, in essence, use the grid as your storage system, then your cost per KWh can get to the level of being competitive (or in some cases cheaper) with the grid itself.
Not all states allow net metering however, and if they do, there are still sometimes hoops and gotchas to look out for.
As for the Video couple, they had a fairly expensive system as it used both a fairly expensive turbine (not height of tower, this won't go over everywhere) and a large solar array (one on roof of house one off of roof). I'm guessing, but I think they have battery backup and not net metering. (hence her concern about windy day for washing). Being a Vermont couple, they have no concerns about Air Conditioning and as you saw they use Wood for heat, so two of the largest typical uses of electricity are eliminated. Burning a wood stove for heat is something that most people don't have available and is actually fairly high in pollution output. (not CO2 as a wood stove is CO2 neutral, but a LOT of soot, smoke and VOCs.)
Arthur
I tracked down the Wind turbine/PV system they were using and its the Bergey 1500
http://www.bergey.com/
Though they have discontinued that model, a hybrid turbine/PV with battery backup and water pump set up like they were using would have cost ~ $30,000 with installation charges.
It would produce ~ 8 kWh per day or ~ 250 kWh per month.
That's not a lot of power and it would cost you only approx $3,000 a year from the electric company so the system would never actually save you any money.
Using the "net metering" approach however you could ditch the batteries and inverter and and get the cost down to ~ $15,000, at which point, given the 5 year warrenty, the system starts to at least break even in the 6th year.
Arthur
http://www.bergey.com/
Though they have discontinued that model, a hybrid turbine/PV with battery backup and water pump set up like they were using would have cost ~ $30,000 with installation charges.
It would produce ~ 8 kWh per day or ~ 250 kWh per month.
That's not a lot of power and it would cost you only approx $3,000 a year from the electric company so the system would never actually save you any money.
Using the "net metering" approach however you could ditch the batteries and inverter and and get the cost down to ~ $15,000, at which point, given the 5 year warrenty, the system starts to at least break even in the 6th year.
Arthur
Thanks for the info Arthur. Sorry we got off topic a bit folks.
Have you heard of a t.v. show about Cool Fuel, (Science Channel) I saw a couple of shows... found them quite interesting.\
Here is a link about it to get back on the topic of alternative vehicles:
http://science.discovery.com/fansites/cool...hoto/photo.html
Have you heard of a t.v. show about Cool Fuel, (Science Channel) I saw a couple of shows... found them quite interesting.\
Here is a link about it to get back on the topic of alternative vehicles:
http://science.discovery.com/fansites/cool...hoto/photo.html
The point about the efficiency of the Tesla Roadster is that it:-
- uses half the energy of a Toyota Prius hybrid (close to being the most efficient gas car) for a given mileage measured on a "well to wheels" basis.
- would produce around half the CO2 of a Prius if ALL electricity came from coal, again measured on a "well to wheel" basis.
- produces one quarter the CO2 of a Prius measured on a "well to wheels" basis, based on average mix of USA electricity efficiency and fuel use.
- comparable figures for Tesla Roadster vs similar performance gas sports cars would be ONE QUARTER the energy in the input fuel and ONE EIGHTH the CO2 both measured on a "well to wheels basis".
See the Tesla Motors web site "White Papers" for the details of the Tesla stats quoted above.
The range is a bit limited right now, but how often do most of us actually drive more than 200 miles in one day? Not very often. Most daily computes are less than 100 miles round trip. Within 5 years new battery technology (or end of this year if the Eestor ultra-capacitor gets into volume production with the specs promised to Feel Good Cars).
Of course the price is far too high right now, but this will come down to the same level as gas cars in a few years.
And what a car!!! I want one.
Time to start building the charging infrastructure I think....
- uses half the energy of a Toyota Prius hybrid (close to being the most efficient gas car) for a given mileage measured on a "well to wheels" basis.
- would produce around half the CO2 of a Prius if ALL electricity came from coal, again measured on a "well to wheel" basis.
- produces one quarter the CO2 of a Prius measured on a "well to wheels" basis, based on average mix of USA electricity efficiency and fuel use.
- comparable figures for Tesla Roadster vs similar performance gas sports cars would be ONE QUARTER the energy in the input fuel and ONE EIGHTH the CO2 both measured on a "well to wheels basis".
See the Tesla Motors web site "White Papers" for the details of the Tesla stats quoted above.
The range is a bit limited right now, but how often do most of us actually drive more than 200 miles in one day? Not very often. Most daily computes are less than 100 miles round trip. Within 5 years new battery technology (or end of this year if the Eestor ultra-capacitor gets into volume production with the specs promised to Feel Good Cars).
Of course the price is far too high right now, but this will come down to the same level as gas cars in a few years.
And what a car!!! I want one.
Time to start building the charging infrastructure I think....
Most electricity in the U.S. is generated fromfossil fuels, true, but the
point of a switch to electric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles is that
you COULD then operate your transportation infrastructure without
fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, IF YOU WANTED TO.
You could generate all your electricity with a smart-grid combination
of wind, ocean wave, geothermal, and fusion power.
All it would take is a little gas tax increase directed toward appropriate
R&D.
If you wanted to. The real technical challenge, of course, is figuring
out how to make most people "want to" support sensible and
necessary transitions like this.
point of a switch to electric vehicles or hydrogen vehicles is that
you COULD then operate your transportation infrastructure without
fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions, IF YOU WANTED TO.
You could generate all your electricity with a smart-grid combination
of wind, ocean wave, geothermal, and fusion power.
All it would take is a little gas tax increase directed toward appropriate
R&D.
If you wanted to. The real technical challenge, of course, is figuring
out how to make most people "want to" support sensible and
necessary transitions like this.
This is what I was talking about in the other thread. A alternative energy source car that someone would actually WANT to drive.
And yes Adoucette, grid electric is not much better or possibly worse than IC engines, BUT, it shows to me a promising trend. At the very least, it gives us an alternative to oil, although obviously infrastructure needs would be extravagant. I do hope that they sell well, and hopefully spur continued research in this vein. I would rather see a comparable Hybrid or hydrogen/electric.
I recall reading a study that all-electric cars would be impractical as a large-scale replacement for IC engines mostly because our Electricity infrastructure is just plain not capable of generating the massive additional power that would be required for all those recharging autos.
I am hopeful for a Hybrid or hydrogen/electric vehicle that is super cool. I mean one you could pull up to a young blonde and she'd go OOOH baby, heheh and not just chicks in greepeace shirts either.
And yes Adoucette, grid electric is not much better or possibly worse than IC engines, BUT, it shows to me a promising trend. At the very least, it gives us an alternative to oil, although obviously infrastructure needs would be extravagant. I do hope that they sell well, and hopefully spur continued research in this vein. I would rather see a comparable Hybrid or hydrogen/electric.
I recall reading a study that all-electric cars would be impractical as a large-scale replacement for IC engines mostly because our Electricity infrastructure is just plain not capable of generating the massive additional power that would be required for all those recharging autos.
I am hopeful for a Hybrid or hydrogen/electric vehicle that is super cool. I mean one you could pull up to a young blonde and she'd go OOOH baby, heheh and not just chicks in greepeace shirts either.
I strongly disagree with the general "trend of thought" of Arthur and Tikay. This car (company) IS technically revolutionary, and the TZero is (and the new European sports cars based on it are) brilliantly designed. Just a few points you "experts" haven't yet considered, apparently.
i) This vehicle has the added advantage over gasoline engines of regenerative braking energy recovery.
ii) The developers, ACPropulsion / TZero, have long shown their earlier prototypes "C/W" little integrated IC engine-generator trailers. The trailers are tiny packages like the ones you see towed by bikers, and contain generator and fuel tank and cabling sufficient to extend range to unlimited.
iii) Efficiency / pollution. TZero Efficiency Brochure shows the TZero getting better fuel miles-per-unit-fuel [eg. btu's of gasoline potential into auto tank vs. btu's of fuel energy into central generating station] than a Honda Insight Hybrid (which gets 56 mpg) even when ALL the electricity is generated with natural gas. Switch a logical proportion of it to renewables or coal-with-CO2-capture or nuclear, and this car concept essentially resolves global warming concerns, foreign imported fuel economic and security issues, and "Hubberts Peak" concerns, all in one SWEET package.
iv) Charge time. I do know that ACPropulsion has made serious breakthroughs in the design of electric auto charger systems, using the drive motor as the current-limiting inductor / xformer and the drive electronics package as the charger voltage control. It is a very mass-cost efficient system which exploits microprocessor intelligence to replace equipment and 1) eliminates the cost of the external charger 2) makes the car battery system a full-rate backup UPS system for whatever electric system it is plugged into (PHEV+) 3) enables very rapid charging, eg at the maximum pace the batteries will accept 4) means the car can plug into ANY 120-240V circuit at any location with no external charger required. It does require a double insulated motor, and no doubt endless yet-to-be-granted approvals from all sorts of regulators and utility companies (likely why they're still limited to the slow-charge external package they're offering) but once available will be revolutionary.
v) They're currently having to hand-build-package the battery packs themselves from little AA-ish units hand-soldered into high-voltage units. Very costly. Get them some volume and the cost of that part will plummet.
vi) The drive motor they've developed is an absolute marvel of high-tech engineering, providing huge power / torque figures from a very lightweight package as a rugged low-cost induction unit. (excellent perfornance across a very broad range of rpm and very economical vs. PM synchronous types usually used.)
vii) The PHEV+ concept, given even a minor bit of intelligent grid communication and some plugs in company parking lots, also allows the electric utility to use the auto chargers to "fill in" the valleys in their daily load profile, allowing a far higher proportion of electricity to be generated by high-efficiency baseload units rather than the wasteful simple-cycle gas peakers they now use. The potential of this alone to improve overall energy efficiency should justify a larger tax break for these sorts of autos than for anything dumb like "85% ethanol ready" etc.
In general, these guys are doing in their garage what, if eg. GM or Ford had done when California demanded it, would have completely changed the auto market. One can't help concluding that the auto companies already knew that, or else they're just so slerotic they deserve to go the way of Chrysler.
I really did expect better from you "ex"perts though.
i) This vehicle has the added advantage over gasoline engines of regenerative braking energy recovery.
ii) The developers, ACPropulsion / TZero, have long shown their earlier prototypes "C/W" little integrated IC engine-generator trailers. The trailers are tiny packages like the ones you see towed by bikers, and contain generator and fuel tank and cabling sufficient to extend range to unlimited.
iii) Efficiency / pollution. TZero Efficiency Brochure shows the TZero getting better fuel miles-per-unit-fuel [eg. btu's of gasoline potential into auto tank vs. btu's of fuel energy into central generating station] than a Honda Insight Hybrid (which gets 56 mpg) even when ALL the electricity is generated with natural gas. Switch a logical proportion of it to renewables or coal-with-CO2-capture or nuclear, and this car concept essentially resolves global warming concerns, foreign imported fuel economic and security issues, and "Hubberts Peak" concerns, all in one SWEET package.
iv) Charge time. I do know that ACPropulsion has made serious breakthroughs in the design of electric auto charger systems, using the drive motor as the current-limiting inductor / xformer and the drive electronics package as the charger voltage control. It is a very mass-cost efficient system which exploits microprocessor intelligence to replace equipment and 1) eliminates the cost of the external charger 2) makes the car battery system a full-rate backup UPS system for whatever electric system it is plugged into (PHEV+) 3) enables very rapid charging, eg at the maximum pace the batteries will accept 4) means the car can plug into ANY 120-240V circuit at any location with no external charger required. It does require a double insulated motor, and no doubt endless yet-to-be-granted approvals from all sorts of regulators and utility companies (likely why they're still limited to the slow-charge external package they're offering) but once available will be revolutionary.
v) They're currently having to hand-build-package the battery packs themselves from little AA-ish units hand-soldered into high-voltage units. Very costly. Get them some volume and the cost of that part will plummet.
vi) The drive motor they've developed is an absolute marvel of high-tech engineering, providing huge power / torque figures from a very lightweight package as a rugged low-cost induction unit. (excellent perfornance across a very broad range of rpm and very economical vs. PM synchronous types usually used.)
vii) The PHEV+ concept, given even a minor bit of intelligent grid communication and some plugs in company parking lots, also allows the electric utility to use the auto chargers to "fill in" the valleys in their daily load profile, allowing a far higher proportion of electricity to be generated by high-efficiency baseload units rather than the wasteful simple-cycle gas peakers they now use. The potential of this alone to improve overall energy efficiency should justify a larger tax break for these sorts of autos than for anything dumb like "85% ethanol ready" etc.
In general, these guys are doing in their garage what, if eg. GM or Ford had done when California demanded it, would have completely changed the auto market. One can't help concluding that the auto companies already knew that, or else they're just so slerotic they deserve to go the way of Chrysler.
I really did expect better from you "ex"perts though.
QUOTE (lengould+May 30 2007, 08:29 AM)
I strongly disagree with the general "trend of thought" of Arthur and Tikay. This car (company) IS technically revolutionary, and the TZero is (and the new European sports cars based on it are) brilliantly designed. Just a few points you "experts" haven't yet considered, apparently.
i) This vehicle has the added advantage over gasoline engines of regenerative braking energy recovery.
ii) The developers, ACPropulsion / TZero, have long shown their earlier prototypes "C/W" little integrated IC engine-generator trailers. The trailers are tiny packages like the ones you see towed by bikers, and contain generator and fuel tank and cabling sufficient to extend range to unlimited.
iii) Efficiency / pollution. TZero Efficiency Brochure shows the TZero getting better fuel miles-per-unit-fuel [eg. btu's of gasoline potential into auto tank vs. btu's of fuel energy into central generating station] than a Honda Insight Hybrid (which gets 56 mpg) even when ALL the electricity is generated with natural gas. Switch a logical proportion of it to renewables or coal-with-CO2-capture or nuclear, and this car concept essentially resolves global warming concerns, foreign imported fuel economic and security issues, and "Hubberts Peak" concerns, all in one SWEET package.
I've stated on this forum MANY times that I think the smart choice for our next generation car will be a PEHV.
Which, with its trailer, is exactly what this car is. (Though I don't think the trailer concept will be commonly deployed)
My issue in this thread was two pronged:
One, that an electric car is not INHERENTLY either a low pollution of zero carbon footprint solution.
IT COULD BE, but only if the electricity that charges it is zero pollution/zero carbon, and as I've pointed out that is certainly not the case now.
Aside: Len I find MANY people who think just switching to electricity solves the pollution/co2 issue.
Then I stated:
Looking at that brochure, that quote still stand.
I want to see a DECENT DETAILED analysis.
In this case, while it compares the efficiency of the car to a Prius it FAILS because it only deals with the ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION from the battery, NOT from the point of generation (gotta start there).
Then it assumes NAT GAS as the source for the electrical power, but Natural gas (through used of combined cycle generation) is much more efficient than Coal, which is our chief source for electricity (and growing).
Arthur
i) This vehicle has the added advantage over gasoline engines of regenerative braking energy recovery.
ii) The developers, ACPropulsion / TZero, have long shown their earlier prototypes "C/W" little integrated IC engine-generator trailers. The trailers are tiny packages like the ones you see towed by bikers, and contain generator and fuel tank and cabling sufficient to extend range to unlimited.
iii) Efficiency / pollution. TZero Efficiency Brochure shows the TZero getting better fuel miles-per-unit-fuel [eg. btu's of gasoline potential into auto tank vs. btu's of fuel energy into central generating station] than a Honda Insight Hybrid (which gets 56 mpg) even when ALL the electricity is generated with natural gas. Switch a logical proportion of it to renewables or coal-with-CO2-capture or nuclear, and this car concept essentially resolves global warming concerns, foreign imported fuel economic and security issues, and "Hubberts Peak" concerns, all in one SWEET package.
I've stated on this forum MANY times that I think the smart choice for our next generation car will be a PEHV.
Which, with its trailer, is exactly what this car is. (Though I don't think the trailer concept will be commonly deployed)
My issue in this thread was two pronged:
One, that an electric car is not INHERENTLY either a low pollution of zero carbon footprint solution.
IT COULD BE, but only if the electricity that charges it is zero pollution/zero carbon, and as I've pointed out that is certainly not the case now.
Aside: Len I find MANY people who think just switching to electricity solves the pollution/co2 issue.
Then I stated:
QUOTE
I've yet to see a decent detailed analysis of the CO2 per mile produced by an electric car that is charged off the grid, but rough calculations indicate that the net efficiencies, while slightly favoring the gas engine, are fairly similar, so since ~ 30% of the electrical energy is nuclear or renewable there might be a small CO2 savings by going all electric but at an increase in Soot, SOx, NOx, and heavy metals.
Looking at that brochure, that quote still stand.
I want to see a DECENT DETAILED analysis.
In this case, while it compares the efficiency of the car to a Prius it FAILS because it only deals with the ELECTRIC CONSUMPTION from the battery, NOT from the point of generation (gotta start there).
Then it assumes NAT GAS as the source for the electrical power, but Natural gas (through used of combined cycle generation) is much more efficient than Coal, which is our chief source for electricity (and growing).
Arthur
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 20 2007, 02:10 AM)
I am hopeful for a Hybrid or hydrogen/electric vehicle that is super cool. I mean one you could pull up to a young blonde and she'd go OOOH baby, heheh and not just chicks in greepeace shirts either.
hey now
~well I get yer drift....no hairy armpits for you ? 
Hey arthur...I just saw the video for Breathe, you once mentioned, by Anna Nalick?
here:
http://video.music.yahoo.com/up/music/musi...97&vid=43934587
If you enjoy music you'll find this place cool everyone.
I suggest Tori Amos too...whether she shaves or not!
A few thoughts to add into the mix.
- Any analysis about comparing the cost of electricity to the cost of gasoline, needs to take into account the cost of gas includes a hefty tax "intended" to build roads. If we all switch to electric grid charged cars, that tax to "maintain and build" roads will have to shift to the cost added to the electric bill.
- Semi trucks need long ranges and I have not seen what we do about them in the US with battery technology.
- Why are trains driven by electric motors not taking advantage of the new Tesla motor technology?
- Why hasn't Europe solved this problem already, with twice or more the price of gas, the common use of much smaller cars going much shorter distances, and a conviction that global warming is real for many more years than in the US?
Looking forward to the new dawn of transport, but want to see it in action / real before I given up my gas ride just yet. And waiting for Tesla to go public so I can buy a few shares in the next Apple / MS / Google. ;-)
- Any analysis about comparing the cost of electricity to the cost of gasoline, needs to take into account the cost of gas includes a hefty tax "intended" to build roads. If we all switch to electric grid charged cars, that tax to "maintain and build" roads will have to shift to the cost added to the electric bill.
- Semi trucks need long ranges and I have not seen what we do about them in the US with battery technology.
- Why are trains driven by electric motors not taking advantage of the new Tesla motor technology?
- Why hasn't Europe solved this problem already, with twice or more the price of gas, the common use of much smaller cars going much shorter distances, and a conviction that global warming is real for many more years than in the US?
Looking forward to the new dawn of transport, but want to see it in action / real before I given up my gas ride just yet. And waiting for Tesla to go public so I can buy a few shares in the next Apple / MS / Google. ;-)
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.