(Page 2 of 2)
A123 Systems, a company based in Watertown, MA, that will supply battery cells to Continental, has taken a different tack, turning to an iron-based cathode that is even more thermally stable than manganese oxide. Better still, iron is cheap and abundant. (See "More Powerful Hybrid Batteries.") The electrodes are not oxide materials but phosphates, a chemistry that more closely binds oxygen, preventing it from being freed from the material, which would allow the battery's flammable electrolyte to catch fire. Such materials do not allow for fast charging or delivery of big bursts of power, so researchers modified them, in part by doping the material and by forming the material as nanoparticles. The A123 batteries were developed for use in power tools but have since been modified to store more energy, making them better suited for use in electric vehicles such as the Volt.
The battery packs for the Volt must include complex electronics for ensuring that each cell is charged and discharged properly. If individual cells are overcharged, for example, the pack can fail. Unlike measuring the gas in a tank, it can be tricky to monitor the exact amount of charge in a cell. So battery makers often include more cells to provide a margin of safety, as a hedge against both running out of power and overcharging the batteries. The pack makers are developing better electronic equipment and algorithms for measuring charge, which could allow them to use closer to the bare-minimum number of cells.
Even as the new battery packs are being tested, GM is developing the rest of the vehicle, especially making sure that it meets targets for weight. Ultimately, Gray says, there could be tradeoffs between vehicle weight and battery size, depending on how the tests go. There's even a chance that expectations for the battery pack's lifetime could be lowered if necessary, although she emphasizes that the goal now is to have battery packs with 10-year lifetimes.
In June 2008, after analyzing the data from a year of testing, GM will evaluate if the technology is where it needs to be and pick a production supplier, Gray says.
A new wave of plug-in hybrids and all-electric vehicles will have to overcome a familiar nemesis: battery costs.
In November, Fisker Automotive will begin sales of a car with 50 miles of battery-powered range.
Electric cars can help check global warming if the electricity comes from nuclear power plants rather than coal plants.
Guest (tina juarez)
Re: Power source for electricity
Electric cars can help check global warming if the electricity comes from solar photaic or wind generation rather than coal plants or nuclear power plants.
Charging at night, my electricity come from Hydro electric & thermal sources already. If rebates were available to owner-installers in my state I would have a solar powered car - right now
Re: Power source for electricity
We ought to check carefully whether greenhouse gas emissions really would be reduced by going nuclear. Here is a brief excerpt of a recent interview with Helen Caldicott (M.D., and 25-year anti-nuke campaigner) on CNet News. She's biased, but that doesn't necessarily mean her facts are wrong!
...At the moment, uranium is enriched at Paducah, Ky., where they have two 1,500-megawatt filthy, old, coal-fired plants to produce the electricity to enrich the uranium. Also, 93 percent of the CFC 114 gas released in the United States is through leaking pipes at that plant in Paducah. CFC not only destroys the ozone (layer) and is banned under the Montreal Protocol--and the nuclear industry is being grandfathered from that--but it also is a potent global warmer 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. There are other such gases released during the production of uranium fuel.
When uranium is mined, millions of tons of uranium tailings, emitting radioactive gas, radon and other such elements, are left lying on the ground.
Re: Power source for electricity
I agree completly. Nuclear power plants are the way to go. I wonder would it be possible to send waste to moon or sun?
Re: Power source for electricity
Nuclear waste won't be such a problem anymore:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
EEStor's "secret" ultracapacitor "battery"
Just hoping EEStor's ultracapacitor will be a true "Battery Breakthrough", as recognized here at TR (Jan. 22, 2007 http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18086/), for its fantastic energy storage and power parameters.
That said, the continuing "secretiveness" / lack of independent confirmation / sample availability obviously leads to speculation of "vaporware" (or worse).
If those ultracapacitors are "real", they might eliminate the need for cars to have engines. A tremendous savings in complexity, cost, weight and maintainability (no engine, cooling, fuel or exhaust systems) - in exchange for "plugin" *only* "refueling".
I agree that the secertive nature at EEstor brings into question the validity of their claims. TR should send an investigative reporter down there to get the scope.
The other possibility is that the miltary has stepped in and shrouded the company in the veil of "national defense" , thereby restricting any news on the company.
There claims are truly revolutionary, and personally one of the most interesting and important development in the field of energy.
Guest (rhapsodyinglue)
I think this may go beyond the military. I suspect this is alien technology from Area 51.
It's undeniable that their claim is one of the most important developments. I only hope they claim global warming over soon... then we could all breath a sigh of relief.
I personally never get tired of reading yet another post about EEStor.
Just take a visit to Zenn Electric cars - they have or shortly will receive 15kWhr EEStor
devices to install in their electrics and test.
They own a piece of EEStor. I would hazzard a guess that an electric car company can evaluate a battery without the need for a panel of Nobel prize winners.
ZENN don't have a CAR. They have some little toy cars, unsuitable for anything but a neighbourthood vehicle.
Are we to be excited because GM 'awarded' battery development to a few outside companies? As usual, the end product, if any, is still years off. Sounds like a PR move to me.
GM's going to miss the boat if they push it back too far in their typical glacial transition speeds. The demand's out there right now and the battery technology is already there if they didn't have to please a bunch of committees in the process. Home brewers are doing this level of technology with their Priuses already and Tesla Motors seems happy with the batteries they can put together and get 200+ miles on a charge with. By the time the Volt goes into production Tesla's 2nd series all-electric vehicle will be out and the 3rd series will be on its way.
As far as battery recharge costs, Tesla claims 2 cents per mile and I can't imagine the Volt being much different than that.
Would be easier to compare kilowatt hours. 2 cents based upon what rate per Kilowatt hour? Hard to know what is the actual cost relative to what my local utility charges.
Speaking of Miles per KWhr in reference to efficiency would be much more informative. I understand that 5 MPKWh would be good while an SUV like the Rav4 EV gets closer to 3 MPKWh. (We need to shorten that to MPK or KPK for Kilometers per KWhr or something) From everything I have read GM is pushing all out the get the Volt to the market. They made a misstep in killing the EV 1 and would do well to get the Volt to market quickly.
AS I commented earlier,
A typical EV uses 150-200 W-Hr/mile. 60 Miles would be 12 kW-hrs assuming 200 W-Hr/mile, about $1.20 here in MI at peak rates ($0.10/kW-hr). The Bulk usage night rate here is $0.02/kW-hr making that same 60 miles $0.24
Tesla's Roadster is at the lower end of that range, probably 160 W-Hr/mile since the redesign.
Thanks; I was just trying to relate it to a standard like we use when comparing gas milage. I am used to so many miles per gallon so I was trying to equate energy usage to so many miles per KWhr. 5 Miles per KWHr equals 200 w-hr/mile. Here in Minnesota we pay $.09/WKhr with tax for electricity. That makes any of the EV's cheap to run.
Altairnano has a battery chemistry made from Lithium Titanate oxide, has been charged/discharged over 25,000 times (thats a life of 15-25 years!), still charges near full capacity after all that time, can be quick charged in less than 10 minutes, no thermal runaway problems, and is available today.
A 35 Kwh battery system is being showcase on an all electric vehcile (a 5 passenger truck) which has a top speed of 95 mph, 0-60 in 10 secs, range of 135 miles, and again, can be recharged in under 10 seconds.
This isn't vaporware. This is here working today!
Why isn't GM using this battery on their Volt?
www.altairnano.com (stock symbol ALTI)
GM is not using Altairnano batteries simply because ALTI batteries are inferior to A123 batteries.
ALTI batteries = 80 Wh/kg
A123 batteries = 120 Wh/kg (the new huge 32157 cell).
50% more energy density.
Also, A123 has published specs and is selling these batteries on its website and also to Black & Decker line of tools.
ALTI is yet to publish specs and sell them to independent parties.
And in other respects, there are no advantages by Altairnano, AFAIK.
I would say inferior is jumping a bit.
Altairs battery does have less energy density, but the life cycle is so long. The recharge time is better for Altair as well, although we don't know what A123's final product will look like for GM.
I think their advantage is more about price and production capacity right now. They can't produce the battery GM wants in the numbers or for the price that they want it.
I have to agree. A123's pack may have more energy density, however, A123's pack has only been tested around 1000-2000 charge/recharge cycles according to their A123's web site.
"Even when cycled at 10C discharge rates, our cells deliver in excess of 1,000 full depth-of-discharge cycles."
Somehow A123 takes that performance and "projects" a life of 10 years? Maybe, maybe not. My guess is thats why there will be testing until June 2008. Projecting, and seeing the actual results are two different things.
Altairnano's pack has been tested to 25,000 cycles.
On top of that, I haven't seen any claims from A123 for quick charging as Altair claims of less than 10 minutes to charge with no degradation to charge capacity.
As for third party, Altairnano's battery is being tested by AeroEnvironment. So far the claims of Altairnano have been true, though it is still early in the testing. To read more about this independent third party testing:
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/070530/20070530005396.html?.v=1
"Why isn't GM using this battery on their Volt?"
Because Altairnano has a three-year (I believe) exclusive agreement with Phoenix Motorcars. GM would have to go through Phoenix to get their hands on some batteries, and might have to pay a lot more money for the batteries than Phoenix does.
But GM has a possible battery supplier. All they need now are the cars, hah. GM's first hybrid, the world's first (soon to be) mass-produced PHEV; let's hope they don't screw this up. If Ford does something like this, I think they could give Toyota a run for its money.
But I heard 9,000 - 10,000 life cycles for Altair's batteries - significantly lower than the 25,000 figure you guys are throwing around. I mean, that's still amazing for battery technology, but what's with the big difference in numbers?
Altair said 10,000 or more before they were tested as much as they are. Further testing keeps showing longer lifetimes.
They're up to 20,000 now.
Just the same, A123, is probably smarter. I just wouldn't say Altair is inferior.
Holy cow! How many recharge cycles do we need?
With "only" 10,000 cycles I can recharge my vehicle every day for over 27 years. There's not much chance the rest of the car (or maybe even myself) will last that long.
If the claimed recharging time of ten minutes is accurate, it would seem the most important development priorities should now be range (a.k.a. energy density) and cost.
Altair's nano batteries are garbage. They lose their charge after two days. And the 123 batteries have higher power density. They are promoting a product that is really competing with
ultracapacitors as a short term energy storage solution. They have no advantage over ultracapacitors themselves.
Right now it does not matter if the electricty is coming from a dirty cole fired plant or not, if prices remain as they are and the cost of the vehicle is reasonable (that is, it will cost about what a car would cost that had a gasoling engine only) people will by they car like hotcakes. It makes sense. Round trip travel back and fourth to work without having to use any gas for most people, using very little for the rest. And it looks good. GM, if they see this vehicle sell, will do what any good company would do, make more of them and more like them. GM, make sure you get it right the first time. Because the first time we turn on the news and hear about quality problems and hearing owners complain, that will be the end of it and Japan will once again get the perceived upper hand!
I thought "dirty" coal plants still have less effect on the environment that millions of inefficient cars spewing pollution into the environment.
Plus coal, which gets us off crude oil from the middle east, we happen to have plenty of.
Personally I think we need hundreds of smaller pebble bed nuclear reactors which do not, by design, have the capability of nuclear meltdown. If you're not scared of the reactor in your backyard blowing up and spewing radioactive material, then not too many people should object. But only if cost and regulation steps out of the way to make it a reality. If FRANCE can go almost all nuclear, why can't we?
Um, in case you missed, they already blew their opportunity. They DID have a nice EV car. It DID sell, and instead of making more, they took them all back and destroyed them (because they were afraid it would take business from the Oil companies, and from their own internal combustion-based cars, etc.?)
No, unfortunately, GM can not be trusted to do the right thing any longer since their EV blunder in the late 1990's.
My money is on the newer independent companies like Tesla Motors who already have a cool looking electric sports car (designed and built for them by Lotus) with a 250 mile range per charge, 0 to 60 in 4 seconds and top speed of 150 mph. Unfortunately, because they are a small company and can't mass produce like GM can, it is expensive (double the price of a Lotus Elise.) oh well...
I'm not a fan of GM by any means, but the EV-1 did not sell well, it did not work well, it wasn't ready to go mainstream.
The car was a huge money loser for GM, the battery started at too short a range and quickly degraded to way too short a range.
The battery in the EV-1 cost too much, had a lot of performance problems and wouldn't last.
GM made a good business decision, that made sense. If you want to help the environment, then you shouldn't hold hollywood designed grudges.
The Tesla you're hoping for is using technology developed at GM for both the motor and the battery management system. They upgraded both to new systems, but GM did the groundwork.
Actually, you are quite wrong. GM used inferior batteries even though better ones were available at the time. GM bought controlling share of a battery company that had superior battery technology only to not use them, sell their share to Texeco in an effort to shut them down... in other words, GM set up their EV-1 to fail from the get go. It DID sell quite well but that didn't matter to them. They had more standing orders than units actually built (this from inside GM sources who have publicly come out regarding all of this.)
As for the Tesla, you are VERY wrong. The motor and battery technology had nothing to do with GM, it was developed by and licensed from AC Propulsion: http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/
They actually went head to head with an EV-1 to show how superiour their technology is (the same tecnology now in the Tesla Motors vehicle.)
http://www.acpropulsion.com/releases/01-03-1997.htm
Not to argue, but I wasn't wrong
I appreciate other people that are into this stuff, and I don't want to argue the small stuff.
"AC Propulsion founder and president, Alan Cocconi, received his engineering degree from California Institute of Technology. As an engineering consultant, he developed the drive and solar tracking systems for the GM SunRaycer which won the 1987 World Solar Challenge, a cross-country race for solar powered vehicles held in Australia. He then designed and built the controller for the original GM Impact that was introduced at the 1990 LA Auto Show and which has since evolved into GM's EV-1."
That's from AC's own site. There's other information on the history, much of it on Tesla's site where they talk about the development on their motor in an older blog.
The battery thing was also true. The range of their best car started at less than 150, and went down very fast. The whole thing was too expensive, the battery didn't last and the range was awful.
If they took the battery that you say the shelved to ruin the car it still wouldn't work today. Nimh batteries still won't work in a serial, or BEV auto.
Don't blame GM for technology limitations. They spent the money that other car companies never did. I agree that GM should have gotten back into the field sooner, that was a big mistake that allowed Toyota to get ahead, but they didn't kill the electric car.
I will buy the first electric car that any car company produces that I can afford and can drive to replace the one I made myself. I'm not a GM fan, or U.S. all the way.
I just want the best, and want all car companies to try and make a serial hybrid or full out BeV.
Re: Not to argue, but partially...
Just because the founder of AC Propulsions once worked at GM doesn't mean GM developed the technology in the Tesla car. Alan Cocconi obviously felt that GM was on the wrong path and broke away to see if he can do better (which he did.)
But I do appreciate your professionalism and insight on this topic. Admittedly, though I try not to believe everything I see or read, watching the documentary "Who Killed The Electric Car" did seem pretty accusatory of GM. And living in Los Angeles myself, I used to see these GM EV-1s all over the place; now, they are non-existant (though the charging stations are still around!)
Even if they were not selling that well, why would they confiscate the ones that were out there (under protest from the owners) and physically destroy them out in the desert!? Just doesn't make sense for a company who claims they are trying to find a solution to the whole oil/environmental problem...
But I too hope that someone comes out with an affordable solution soon (preferably not a hybrid so we don't have to rely on any bit of oil any more) but unfortunately, like NASA, the major companies are far behind where they should be, or where they once were, and it will take the private sector to make the true advancements.
Re: Not to argue, but partially...
The Rav4 EV has proven that the NiMh batteries will last as the ones that survived the crusher are still using the original packs. No one complained about the limited range of a 1967 427 Vette and GM never considered removing them from the showrooms because they have limited sales.
I believe the real reason the EV's were removed is the life of the drive train and cost. Do some research on future car and compare. Industrial AC Induction motors can run 100,000 hours. The electronic controls will last like any electronics and Rav4 EV's have over 100,000 miles on the original batteries. I can buy small NiMh batteries from All-Battery for less than $400/KWhr so the battery cost should be lower than that for mass-produced large batteries. Without fuel injection, starter motor, generator, transmission, or exhaust system and less than $12,000 for the battery pack a mass produced EV would cost close to a conventional car and last a life time. That is the reason you don't see them yet. Do a search for future car and see what some of the EV components will cost if mass produced.
"I'm not a fan of GM by any means, but the EV-1 did not sell well, it did not work well, it wasn't ready to go mainstream."
It didn't sell well because of the horrible commercials GM made for it. They have two of them on YouTube, go take a look. How didn't it work well? All you had to take your EV-1 to the mechanic for was the tires and, after a long time, the brakes. Mainstream meaning to the other 48 states they didn't advertise in? I think it was ready. The "2nd generation" EV-1's, as they call them, used better batteries and had longer range. 30 miles is enough for a large portion of the U.S. population, and the EV-1 could go almost three times that. I like Ed Begley Jr.'s joke in the movie: "It could only meet the needs... of 90% of the population."
"The car was a huge money loser for GM"
Because they spent a billion dollars in R&D but stopped selling it. Also, they didn't take a check for $2 million from a former GM employee - Chelsea Sexton - for the return of the remaining EV-1's to their owners. GM instead spent more money and crushed them.
"the battery started at too short a range and quickly degraded to way too short a range."
I already explained that the battery was good enough.
"The battery in the EV-1 cost too much, had a lot of performance problems and wouldn't last."
GM didn't sell the car, they leased it, so we don't really know how much the battery would've made the car cost. Big mistake, in my opinion. But that makes me think they planned it. If they sold it, they couldn't ask for the car back. And if they couldn't ask for them back, they couldn't have crushed them.
"GM made a good business decision, that made sense."
Though it kind of sucks that they had to be forced by the California Air Resources Board to make that decision. Making useless commercials for the EV-1 was a bad business decision.
"If you want to help the environment, then you shouldn't hold Hollywood-designed grudges."
I didn't understand what you said here, sorry.
"The Tesla you're hoping for is using technology developed at GM for both the motor and the battery management system. They upgraded both to new systems, but GM did the groundwork."
Is that really a problem? Tesla's picking up the slack. GM could be doing this. They could've upgraded their own technology and re-released the EV-1.
I'm not against the Tesla, but the volt is the way to go
I love the Tesla, they deserve so much credit for the recent EV craze. They're going to be the first real EV produced and sold in my opinion.
If you asked me, I'd be ok with getting a Tesla. If you ask Joe, the guy that has no interest in green tech, he's not going to buy a car that has an 8 hr charge time, with a $10,000 dollar bill coming every five years for new batteries.
Nobody knows the quality of the Tesla yet. We don't know if the windows will work after a year, or whether the knobs will fall off. They have no experience manufacturing cars.
The volt has a range a truck driver would envy, it's adaptable to any energy source discoveries, is being made by a manufacturer with experience and established suppliers and answers almost all the concerns and questions the average driver can ask.
If you let 'who killed the Electric Car,' keep you from supporting an industry changing car then you might get even with GM, but you're hurting everyone else.
I hope the Volt drives other car companies to enter the PHEV field full force, then you can buy one of them and get back at GM while still helping the EV field.
And everyone in the business knows it, even if the
Toyota/Tesla/Phoenix fans refuse to admit it.
Tesla made the mistake of repeating GM's mistake with the EV-1, trying to build a viable electric without a viable battery; Phoenix has a viable
battery but they're too expensive for an all-electric, and now is copying GM's strategy and has announced their own serial plug-in, virtually abandoning any hopes of an all-electric, which depended on massive emission credits in the first place.
Why do you say that Tesla's batteries aren't ready? They report on their web site "useful battery life in excess of 100,000 miles"
They have a blog entry on their web site that describes one reason why the Volt requirements are actually tougher on batteries. Basically, since they're only wanting 40 mile electric range vs. 200+ with the Tesla Roadster, you will need to put the batteries through 5 times as many charge + discharge cycles to achieve the same mileage . . . requiring a much more "durable" battery.
My guess is that there are several million people out there who would be more than happy with a car they could drive 200 miles each day, i.e., the Tesla Roadster. Either way, the more electric cars, the better! I'm all about not wasting 75% of the energy I purchase for my vehicle by blowing it out the tail pipe.
I totally agree. Killing the EV1 was a great strategic move for GM...they would have been stuck going down the wrong path for years.
Sometimes big huge gigantic corporations get it right and squirrelly documentary makers get it wrong.
My family drove an EV-1 for over 2 months. (The car was donated by G.M. to the Tech Museum of Innovation in San Jose, CA. The museum used it as the prize for Employee of the Month. We were able to keep the car longer because the next two winners did not want to drive any vehicle.)
Fully charged, the EV-1 never showed a range greater than 30 miles. The City of San Jose provided a few no-cost charging stations; surprisingly, our local Costco warehouse store also had charging stations. The car came with a low capacity charger that can be plugged into a 115 volt AC outlet, but it was bulky and had a very noisy fan, a charge took nearly a whole day. The limited range precluded any trips out of town.
The EV-1 was peppy and fun to drive, it attracted a lot of attention. But it was a toy. We didn't miss it after giving it back. (A year later, GM fitted much more expensive metal hydride(?) batteries in the EV-1 which doubled its range.)
You can file "Who killed the electric car?" with the other conspiracy fantasies. The EV-1 died because its battery did not give it sufficient range. GM should never have marketed this vehicle.
Considering the newer lithium batteries are lighter and smaller than were previously developed what would prevent the use of 3 or 4 in the car with an automatic switching system that would extend the cars range. Also consider solar panels built into the car. The average commuter is parked outside for 8 hours per day. Free sun generation while parked could provide a small amount of recharge without having to plug in to a power source.
The range is 600 miles for the Volt so I'm not sure what range extending is necessary. The Volt is a series hybrid, with the battery providing 40 miles pure, and then a generator or fuel cell provides electricity to the battery which runs the car.
The solar top to a car is a good idea, but the whole surface of the car if it could be flattened out and pointed toward the sun doesn't give enough energy to get back a significant part of that energy.
There's other downsides as well, such as cost, cost of damage in a wreck, free flowing electricity in a parking lot and added weight.
I think many, if not most companies will provide some method of electricity when the need arises. It would be easy, and not that expensive, probably not as expensive as providing free coffee.
This documentary was a real eye-opener and gives various reasons that the electric cars in California (EV's) from the late 90's/early 2000's went by the wayside and were destroyed. Let's hope we have enough concern about the environment and oil prices that this will not happen again. Distance limitation and re-charge time were two reasons the public didn't jump on board then but it sounds like these battery innovations might solve those concerns. If the auto industry will get on board and not let big oil thwart it we'll be good to go.
"The battery maker has also developed a new material for keeping the electrodes separate: the material remains stable at higher temperatures than conventional materials, further guarding against the runaway heating that causes batteries to catch fire."
I'd be interested to know exactly what is being used as the electrolyte in this type of Li-ion battery. The biggest safety concern against using Li-ions aboard submarines is the danger of the battery rupturing and spilling the flammable electrolyte. If Compact Power has developed a safe electrolyte then this could open the door for safe use of Li-ions for Naval electric drive propulsion.
Even after all of the battery and range challenges are addressed, will GM be able to educate its maintenance technicians quickly enough that potential Volt buyers will feel confident that their high-technology vehicles will be serviced in a timely manner? The Volt definitely will "not be your father's Oldsmobile", and will require a very high degree of technical know-how, specialized diagnostic tools and auto parts. And given the current state of General Motors, dealerships may drag their feet at making additional investment in tools and training. Time will tell...
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
Our list of the 50 most innovative companies, including the following:
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
stuppamnon
3 Comments
electricity gas equivalent
What is the charge these batteries require for 60 mile travel in Kw-h?
What is the equivalent savings in fuel?
Reply
larryrose11
6 Comments
Re: electricity gas equivalent
A typical EV uses 150-200 W-Hr/mile. 60 Miles would be 12 kW-hrs assuming 200 W-Hr/mile, about $1.20 here in MI at peak rates ($0.10/kW-hr).
A gal of gasoline has about 120 M Jules of energy which is equal to 33.5 kW hr
Reply
Boyceg
5 Comments
Re: electricity gas equivalent
Lets see… about 12 or so HP to go about 60MPH. So, that is 12 HP-HRs, or about 9 KWH per 60 miles. Being wildly optimistic, I would assume the in-out energy efficiency to be 75% or 12 KWH per 60 miles. This gives 0.2 KWH/mile. That is the good news. Now for the bad.
Lets assume that we do half our driving in plug-in battery powered cars. Lets further assume that we can get half the power from what is now on-peak power at night. It is my estimate that we will need 50 Brown’s Ferry 3000MW nuclear power plants running 24/7 to generate the other half of the power for battery powered cars. If you had rather use coal, then plan for 150 power plants like TVA’s Bull Run power plant. Don’t forget about the low sulpher coal, coal cars, track, locomotives, green house gases, earth moving equipment… Don’t know about you, but Arab oil is looking a bit better especially if we drive less.
GM EV was tested by Popular Science or Popular Mechanics when the EV was in use. As I recall, they tried to get it to run 40 miles between charges and it just would not do it. It used lead batteries. Keep in mind that state of the art lead batteries are said to have enough energy storage to lift themselves about 15 miles. Gasoline has enough energy to lift itself 1000 miles and has the courtesy to not still be hanging around at the end of the trip. Not only did the EV have its dead battery still strapped on, but it was heavy as, well, lead. I don’t think GM sold an EV, but leased it just as Chrysler did their gas turbine powered car of the late 50s, early 60s.
The book, “Bottomless Tank” is an interesting read. One idea it suggested is that more energy efficient cars and light bulbs don’t save energy. Sure we get more miles per gallon and more light per watt-hour. Since it is cheaper to drive, what do we do? Drive more. The 18 MPG Oldsmobile stayed home a lot. The 30 MPG Lumina is racking up miles. The engine never cools off in the 40 MPG Saturn. Those 50 watts of CF lights in the living room have been on all day. At 7 cents per 14 hours, it is not worth the trouble to go turn them off.
Reply
fran
4 Comments
Re: electricity gas equivalent
Boyceg said:
||||
The book, “Bottomless Tank” is an interesting read. One idea it suggested is that more energy efficient cars and light bulbs don’t save energy. Sure we get more miles per gallon and more light per watt-hour. Since it is cheaper to drive, what do we do? Drive more. The 18 MPG Oldsmobile stayed home a lot. The 30 MPG Lumina is racking up miles. The engine never cools off in the 40 MPG Saturn. Those 50 watts of CF lights in the living room have been on all day. At 7 cents per 14 hours, it is not worth the trouble to go turn them off.
||||
You make an excellent point. Make things too cheap and they will be used profligately. That's OK if profligate use isn't a problem, but mostly it is.
What really should happen with motor vehicles, for example, is a change in the way vehicle use is charged. Charges should relate to the total impact of a particualr person's vehicle usage, which would obviously have to take into account the nature of the vehicle, when it was used and where, the competence of the driver and so forth.
As to the pricing of electricity usage, it could be scaled progressively, so that the second watt-hour is just a tad more expensive than the first and so forth, and so that watt-hours off peak were cheaper than during the peak, and so that watthours from renewables were cheaper than from non-renewables.
Similarly, those people returning energy to the grid through the use of renewables could be paid the rate that other customers were being charged for the same supply, which would encourage people to conserve their own energy to get the carrot at the end.
Fran
Reply
protn7
72 Comments
Re: electricity gas equivalent
I saw an article talking about electric cars and hybrids. They stated an electric car could go coast to coast on $86 worth of electricity and a gasoline power car would take $380. The article was written before the price of gas went up past $4 dollars. Vulvox Inc is doing some interesting research on ultra high capacity lithium ion batteries.
http://vulvox.tripod.com
Reply