Electric cars.

cnocbui

taconnol wrote: »

CptMackey, do you have sources for these claims?

Also, what about other forms of pollution, not just CO2?

Perhaps he got it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/5176216/Environmental-benefits-of-electric-cars-dismissed-as-fiction.html

The research the article is based on is linked to at the bottom of the article.

probe

Heroditas wrote: »

Here's one of the big problems that needs to be tackled though:

California’s Push for Electric Cars May Raise Costs for Power

In Europe, where fuel is expensive by US standards, €5 of diesel will take you for 100 km - even in a fairly large car, (assuming its engine is made in Germany by a German car company).

A sporty (electric) Tesla Roadster (0-100 km/h in 4 sec), uses 18 kW of electricity per 100 km. That is about €1.80 at typical European electricity prices, or about EUR 3.00 at rip off ireland esb monopoly pricing. Using wasteful battery as opposed to ultra-capacitor technology. The Tesla is a product of American design and a British manufactured car body. Neither country has any credibility in manufacturing - especially in the automotive industry.

The US and British education system focuses on sending their brightest people into the credit default swap and derivative manufacturing and sales business. And property development*. Hence their bankrupt economies.

The fastest diesel cars have 0-100 km/h performance of about 6 seconds, and consume around €8 of diesel per 100 km.

The bottom line is that the additional cost of re-engineering part of the electricity system to cater for electric cars will be buttons in terms of "fuel cost" for the motorist. And if the ultracapacitor performs per EEstor's indications, one will only need to supply filling stations with high capacity electricity connections - because the fill-up will be as fast as tanking a car up with gasoline or diesel. While many home owners will probably want to charge their car from home over time, the evolution will take decades and can easily be engineered into the normal network renewal process.


*Harvard Business School "real estate programs": http://www.exed.hbs.edu/category/rep.html/?mp=BM:_RealEstatePrograms_%28REP%29_FY10_Q2|ECON_REP_10_1_12_31_ROS_300x250

probe

cnocbui wrote: »

Perhaps he got it here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/greenertransport/5176216/Environmental-benefits-of-electric-cars-dismissed-as-fiction.html

The research the article is based on is linked to at the bottom of the article.

A brain dead journo copying a story from a brain dead blogger.

The assumption here is that a country will continue to use dirty energy - and therefore one might as well have dirty cars.

Planning is about the future. Not the present or the past.

I will restrain myself for further comment about planning in the context of Ireland, and will assume that most people concerned with green issues will be acutely aware of the issues.

zod

When tackling the original transportation problem, people thought we just needed slightly faster horses.. in fact horses were cheaper, easier to maintain and fuel (oats) was already plentiful.

electric cars may not be much better than ice propelled vehicles right now, but we can clean up the grid in the future and take every electric car with it, even the ten year old ones ..

cnocbui

probe wrote: »

A brain dead journo copying a story from a brain dead blogger.

The assumption here is that a country will continue to use dirty energy - and therefore one might as well have dirty cars.

When Ireland actually has an up and running nuclear power station, I will give credence to the idea of electric vehicles having a meaningfully lower impact on CO2 emmisions.

Debating the pros and cons of electric vehicles without a nuclear power station to power them is well and truly putting the cart before the horse.

probe wrote: »

And if the ultracapacitor performs per EEstor's indications,

It won't, EEstor is cold fusion all over again

Grudaire

cnocbui wrote: »

Debating the pros and cons of electric vehicles without a nuclear power station to power them is well and truly putting the cart before the horse.

Nuclear isn't as green as people make it out to be.

To be fair it has been shown that even the dirtier electricity production is cleaner than petrol cars.

mink_man

electric is the way forward!!

mink_man

mink_man wrote: »

electric is the way forward!!

My science teacher told me the same thing in 1970.

We are still waiting for the right batteries (and cleaner power generation) before they will ever become a realistic proposition to replace petrol/diesel motors.

The current developments in ultracapacitors looks promising.

probe

cnocbui wrote: »

When Ireland actually has an up and running nuclear power station, I will give credence to the idea of electric vehicles having a meaningfully lower impact on CO2 emmisions.

Debating the pros and cons of electric vehicles without a nuclear power station to power them is well and truly putting the cart before the horse.

If you invest in an electric car today, (and have not already done so) you can change your electricity supplier to one that generates using renewable sources. Supplies from www.airtricity.ie for example are 89% renewable in terms of sourcing*.

Even someone who remains a customer of ESB, and buys a Tesla, it would consume 16 kW of electricity per 100 km, which equates to about 10 kg of CO2 emissions**. This compares with an internal combustion engine vehicle of similar performance (ie 0-100 km/h in around 4 seconds) that would typically spew out 28kg of CO2 emissions per 100 km driven. A more modest electric car will consume less electricity.

It seems to me that you are just spamming this thread with silly nuclear propaganda. Anyone waiting for a nuclear power station in Ireland will be waiting for an infinite number of years. There are appropriate energy technologies for each market and each generation. Nuclear is not one of them in the Irish context. It is not renewable and leaves a trail of toxic waste material which lasts for centuries. An appalling legacy to dump on the present and future generations. Nuclear is not carbon free either - typically about 70 g CO2 per kWh.

*http://www.cer.ie/en/consumer-information-electricity-how-to-change-supplier.aspx?article=eed3f1e7-efda-4547-bfa3-2ff79ffa63d6

**http://www.esb.ie/esbcustomersupply/residential/your_account/fuel_mix.jsp

cnocbui

probe wrote: »

If you invest in an electric car today, (and have not already done so) you can change your electricity supplier to one that generates using renewable sources. Supplies from www.airtricity.ie for example are 89% renewable in terms of sourcing*.

'Invest'... Rapidly evolving technologies have a significant downside for early adopters. The depreciation on the assets are spectacular, and I am thinking resale value.

I wouldn't spend a significant sum on an electric vehicle unless I had a good idea of what I might be able to get for it at resale.

It seems to me that you are just spamming this thread

I deplore your manners whereby you label my post as spam, simply because you do not agree with the views I hold.

with silly nuclear propaganda.

Silly?

Most European politicians look at France with ill concealed envy when they consider energy issues.

Ireland's emissions of CO2 in 2006, per capita, were 10.4 tonnes , while in France they were 6.2

Anyone waiting for a nuclear power station in Ireland will be waiting for an infinite number of years. There are appropriate energy technologies for each market and each generation. Nuclear is not one of them in the Irish context.

That is because Ireland has a very well honed reflex for dodging unpalatable issues. Suggesting that people sign up to Airtricity and buy an electric car is a perfect example of this type of reality avoidance behaviour. Your other link discloses that 11% of Ireland's electricity generation is from renewables, it therfore follows that Airtricity clearly do not have the capacity to supply but a fraction of the countries energy needs as things stand, let alone the situation that would pertain if significant numbers of people in the country suddenly switched to electric cars, necessitating a rapid increase in generating capacity.

It is not renewable

With fast breeder reactors it can be.

and leaves a trail of toxic waste material which lasts for centuries. An appalling legacy to dump on the present and future generations.

This is just emotive hype. If the CO2 catastrophists were to be believed, the consequences of unchecked global warming would be far worse. Nuclear power has a greater potential to reduce global CO2 emissions radically than any other technology that I am aware of.

Nuclear is not carbon free either - typically about 70 g CO2 per kWh.

What is your source for that.?

... and nuclear or renewable energy sources release almost no carbon at all.

Hoffert, M.I., K. Caldeira, A.K. Jain, and E.F. Haites, Energy implications of future stabilization of atmospheric CO2 content, Nature, 395, 881-884, 1998.

From the Realclimate website, no less:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/make-your-own-forecasts-of-future-energy-carbon-emissions-and-climate/

All forms of energy generation emit some carbon dioxide. Coal and gas power stations emit considerable amounts, but nuclear power plants emit virtually zero. However, a true comparison should look at the whole life cycle from mining of the material through manufacture of the fuel and burning in a power station. The table below shows a comparison of the various fuel types for the whole cycle using grams of carbon dioxide emitted per kilowatt hour. Nuclear, for the whole lifecycle, is about 1% of the emissions from coal, 2% of emissions from gas and 10% of those from solar (due to the process for making solar cells).
Grams of CO2/kWh
Coal
970-1245 grams
Gas
450-660 grams
Solar
100-280 grams
Wind
6-29 grams
Nuclear
9-21 grams
Hydro
3-11 grams

- Ron Cameron, Chief of Operations, ANSTO

http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/nuclearpower/03.htm

probe

The German electric utility, RWE, is in the process of developing a standard electric car charging connector which is intended for use all over Europe at charging points. Standardized connections are vital to vital to Europe-wide car mobility.

Ireland used to use the same standard domestic power sockets as are used in Germany, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, etc etc. and a few decades ago some incompetent government idiot decided to adopt the 3 Pin flat non-standard British socket in Ireland. Another version of “fog on the channel, the continent is cut-off” mentality, along with driving on the wrong side of the road, forcing one to use one’s left hand to change gears and operate most other controls in a car, which is totally un-natural to most human beings. Irish mobile phone charges are massive compared with the continental equivalent for the same brand of phone to accommodate the clumpy British power plug. Not to mention the needless requirement to have a fuse in each plug – which is totally obsolete because modern wiring uses circuit breakers and RCD devices which activate much faster than a fuse and provide greater protection.

Europe shouldn’t and hopefully won’t copy Ireland when it comes to charging electric vehicles. Unfortunately while adequate for at home / parking space charging, the proposed European connector is under powered when it comes to “filling up” a car during a long journey. Almost like filling an articulated truck’s tank with diesel through a drinking straw.




The proposed 7 pin plug would provide a 63 amp connection at 400 v (in addition to catering for household supply at 230 v). Using a 400 v power point, you would get 20 kW of power in just under an hour of charging. A * V = W 63 * 400 = 25.200. It might get you 150 km down the road in a small electric car.

If you have a Tesla Roadster, you’ll only get about 125 km range from a motorway stop hour’s charging using this connector.

This connector is ideal for charging electric Smart cars in shopping malls, parking bays and at home where the power requirement is low.

This issue is of particular relevance to the capacitor energy storage system, which are capable of sucking in large amounts of electric current over a short period of time.

While there is a lot of “blogger doubt” about the EEstor capacitor on the net, Underwriters Laboratories* has confirmed to allelectriccars.com ** that they have received a request to certify EEstor’s product. (EEstor have also confirmed that they have applied for UL certification). As Casey points out in the article linked to below, it seems highly unlikely that UL is testing a fantasy. You don’t apply for a product liability/safety insurance certification until you have a working product ready to put on the market.

When the EEstor capacitor emerges in the automotive market, you will need a connector capable of carrying 50 kW of electricity into the device in around 5 minutes to make maximum use of the technology. You would need a 125 amp connector to supply 50 kW to a car in an hour. So to supply the same power in 5 minutes, you would presumably need a 1,500 amp connection. Even a 750 amp connection and a ten minute coffee stop might be acceptable. [Aside from the fact that it is impossible to get decent coffee at filling stations in Ireland. Without exception – despite the exorbitant charge for the junk they throw at customers – typically about 2x the price of auto pista/strada/route coffee in Spain, Italy or France].

Europe needs a type B connector standard for fast charging on the go.

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/mediablob/en/330046/data/114406/52908/rwe/investor-relations/events-presentations/blob.pdf

* www.ul.com

** http://www.tonic.com/article/eestor-plot-thickens

cnocbui

You mention the holy EEstore in almost every post as if they are the avowed savious of mankind - All hail the mighty EEstore!

Give it a rest. Any argument touting the imminent practicality of 'green' ideals that relies on some 'around the corner' breakthrough technology, fails utterly one nano second after it is stated.

Anatoly Moskalev wrote on January 20th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
About EEStore supercapacitor hype : ...But good physicist like me knows very well that capacitors physics under extreme conditions is not textbook straightforward....My estimations demonstrates that actual energy density would be 25 - 50 times less than a claim.
Resulted EEStore capacitor would approximately match currently available ultracapacitors by energy density per unit of mass making ~5 times better energy density per unit of volume. As such it would be marginal improvement over existing ultracapacitors technology. It surely would be a order of magnitude improvement for ceramic capacitors so it would have some use. But it would be nothing as bold as EEStore claims.

I’ve been watching work at the Georgia Tech Research Institute of a very similar nature —employing nanotechnology to maximize the capacitance & voltage breakdown of barium titanate. When I last checked, that work had resulted in improving the energy density by less than a factor of 4 — which I believe represents the current state-of-the-art for ultra capacitors.
By contrast, EEstor’s patent says they can increase the energy density of barium titanate capacitors by 1,000:1! The problem with this is that the dielectric strength of barium titanate in its purest form is at best a few hundred volts (say 350V) —not 3,500V as they claim— so the resulting capacitance is reduced by the square of the ratio…..
Therefore the capacitance is 350V/3500V^2 = (1/10)^2 = 1/100th of that claimed by EEstor, so their 52kWh claim becomes only 0.52kWh!

So the following comments are simply MY OWN conclusions based on my own study of the EEstor patent(s) as a physicist and the contemporary work by extremely-competent researchers at this major university…..
1) As many here have expressed, it would be GREAT if if it were true!
2) It defies fundamental physical principals for BOTH the dielectric breakdown to reach 3,500 volts AND the permittivity to remain high
3) The EEstor claim that their BaTiO3 “pore spacing” is reduced or eliminated at low temperatures (~150 C) is not credible
4) Since the energy density (E) of any capacitor is….
E = 1/2 (CV)^2, where C = Farads & V = Volts, a reduction in break-down voltage from 3500V to 350V (much more likely) results in a reduction in E of 100:1, which is credible, but rebutts EEstor’s claims
5) BaTiO3 nanocomposites produced by virtually ANY means are extremely brittle, therefore subject to catastrophic failures due to microcracking; hence the enormous number of plates (substrates) required for capacitors as large as even 1 kWh would be highly prone to shorts (all sections are in parallel, so 1 short kills them all)
6) MY OPINION ONLY: There’s NO con like that when the promoters, scientists or not, are themselves conned —cold fusion is perhaps the most notorious example that comes to mind
Therefore, we can dismiss EEstor and ZENN’s claims out of hand!

and so on...

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2008/06/ian-clifford-on-zenn-motors-and-eestor.html

sdanseo

What about a live wire embedded in motorways? OK you couldn't mix them with pedestrians but for HQDCs or M-ways they'd be fairly safe and could charge the car, then when you run out of electric road you eat into your 125kms. I'm sure some sort of safety system could be incorporated to protect's humanity's idiots, too.

probe

cnocbui wrote: »

You mention the holy EEstore in almost every post as if they are the avowed savious of mankind - All hail the mighty EEstore!

They have had independent laboratory certification at every critical stage of the development. And now they are in the process of getting UL certification to sell the product. No doubt you will be skeptical until you see an S-Class Merc Blu-electric speed past you powered by a capacitor.

Perhaps we could arrange a camera shoot on a wet day? A potholed road. The e-Merc flashes by and you and dumps mud all over your face/shirt/suit..... I could be on hand with a 60 MegPix camera to capture the moment. We might even manage to turn you into an EEstar with posters on every billboard and a dedicated electric car website.

You'd be left with some mud on your face, but you might make a few €€€ in the dying moments of your skepticism :-)

cnocbui

probe wrote: »

Perhaps we could arrange a camera shoot on a wet day? A potholed road. The e-Merc flashes by and you and dumps mud all over your face/shirt/suit..... I could be on hand with a 60 MegPix camera to capture the moment. We might even manage to turn you into an EEstar with posters on every billboard and a dedicated electric car website.

You'd be left with some mud on your face, but you might make a few €€€ in the dying moments of your skepticism :-)

I drive a Honda Civic Type R. If there is any flashing past to be done it will more likely be me the one doing it.:D

Keep on dreaming

probe

cnocbui wrote: »

I drive a Honda Civic Type R. If there is any flashing past to be done it will more likely be me the one doing it.:D

Keep on dreaming

0-100 km/h in 3 secs in an electric car is no dream - just a matter of time.

It will leave your guzzling Honda dynasaurus frozen in time and space.

Piston head.

cnocbui

probe wrote: »

0-100 km/h in 3 secs in an electric car is no dream - just a matter of time.

It will leave your guzzling Honda dynasaurus frozen in time and space.

Piston head.

Guilty as charged, but I can do 0-100 km/h in 6.6 seconds NOW!

Well not right this minute as I have had a glass of wine, but tomorrow morning...

I am well aware of how fantastic electric motors could be in cars. Constant torque over the whole operating range - yes please.

But sadly, there are no practical power sources. I wish there were.

zod

reviewed here:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/244405/renault_fluence.html

When it goes on sale in 2011, it will be the first electric Renault to make use of the Quickdrop system, which will allow drivers to pop into a special centre and have the battery swapped for a fully charged unit while they wait. The process takes mere minutes. Piloting the Fluence is remarkably simple: just twist the circular gear selector on the centre console to Drive, and off you go. Response is instant and peppy, while refinement is surprisingly good. The motor whirs away quietly, and with light, accurate steering it’s a relaxing place to be.

Other than the effect of the regenerative brakes, which results in strong deceleration if you lift off the throttle, the Fluence is very easy to get used to. And that’s the point. “It is simply a traditional car with an electric engine,” says head of concepts Stephane Janin. The production version should do 0-60mph in nine seconds with a top speed of around 90mph.

djpbarry

Mod note:

I've merged the 'Proposed new European standard electric car charging plug is half-baked' thread with this one.

probe

cnocbui wrote: »

Guilty as charged, but I can do 0-100 km/h in 6.6 seconds NOW!

Well not right this minute as I have had a glass of wine, but tomorrow morning...

I am well aware of how fantastic electric motors could be in cars. Constant torque over the whole operating range - yes please.

But sadly, there are no practical power sources. I wish there were.

So in addition to wanting to burden Ireland with a legacy of centuries of nuclear toxic waste, and admitting to driving a Honda that can do 0-100 km/h in 6.6 secs (probably throwing a kilo of CO2, NOx, SO2, PM10s into the jet stream in the process as you take off at the traffic lights) – not to mention the 90 odd decibels of noise that one frequently hears from such contraptions, does the piston head have anything else to admit to the judges before they pass sentence on you?

(We don’t have juries here – modern civil law applies in this green jurisdiction).

probe

zod wrote: »

When it goes on sale in 2011, it will be the first electric Renault to make use of the Quickdrop system, which will allow drivers to pop into a special centre and have the battery swapped for a fully charged unit while they wait. The process takes mere minutes. Piloting the Fluence is remarkably simple: just twist the circular gear selector on the centre console to Drive, and off you go. Response is instant and peppy, while refinement is surprisingly good. The motor whirs away quietly, and with light, accurate steering it’s a relaxing place to be.

Other than the effect of the regenerative brakes, which results in strong deceleration if you lift off the throttle, the Fluence is very easy to get used to. And that’s the point. “It is simply a traditional car with an electric engine,” says head of concepts Stephane Janin. The production version should do 0-60mph in nine seconds with a top speed of around 90mph.

This Quickstop system seems to me like a little cartel worked out between שי אגסי (Shai Agassi of Better Place) and كارلوس غصن (Carlos Ghosn CEO of Renault)....

djpbarry

probe wrote: »

So in addition to wanting to burden Ireland with a legacy of centuries of nuclear toxic waste, and admitting to driving a Honda that can do 0-100 km/h in 6.6 secs (probably throwing a kilo of CO2, NOx, SO2, PM10s into the jet stream in the process as you take off at the traffic lights) – not to mention the 90 odd decibels of noise that one frequently hears from such contraptions, does the piston head have anything else to admit to the judges before they pass sentence on you?

Last time I checked, this was a discussion on electric vehicles, not an evaluation of individual posters' lifestyle choices.

ConsiderThis

I went to enquire about an electric car from a retailer in Terenure recently. They have tiny French cars called Mega City Electric Car. I had always wanted to know how you heat ( or cool) an electric car, and in a conventional car the heat is essentially free and to cool is a simple motor turned by the engine.

Evidently, you heat and cool an electric car by using additional batteries dedicated for the purpose.

I wondered how that works in practice. The car has a range of 80kms, and in a city like dublin it's possible that, for some journeys, one could be sitting in the car for 3 or 4 hours to cross the city and get home again.

On a cold day how long would the heat batteries last, as its hard to believe that a battery, or batteries, can provide enough heat to heat a car compartment for 4 hours or so?

Would that then lead to problems of freezing passengers and keeping the windscreen defogged too?

cianof

Older PSA electric vehicles have a small petrol tank that powers the petrol webasto thermo top C cabin heater.

These heaters are also common in some petrol and diesel driven vehicles too.

Here some pic of a berlingo E500 being reconditioned. There's pic of the petrol heater too.
http://www.pluginev.nl/photo.htm


I'd think twice before buying an EV that has lead acid batteries.

There's a chart on the wiki comparing the cycle count and lifespan of the different battery types.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechargeable_battery

Lead acid batteries are good for 500-800 cycles. So with an EV with a 70km range you might have to change your batteries at 35,000-56,000km.

If you're considering buying an EV I'd advise that you wait till the major car companies release their EVs.