When oh when oh when??

[Allison]

I just read an article about new hybrid plug-in (http://www.afstrinity.com/) technology that might be available in the the next few years. Looks pretty nifty. But what's the freakin holdup? I've been wanting a plug-in car for 20 years! And I've been putting off replacing my old old car for years, hoping the market would open up. But I don't think I can wait much longer! Gimme my plug-in, you bastards!

[Post]

I've been following a bunch of people rigging their Toyota hybrids with kits that do this same thing. So far, the bigger holdups are weight (you have to have all sorts of specifications for weight on a passenger car and you need a lot of batteries to do this), not to mention all of the environmental issues of how to get rid of dead batteries.

ie, the basic issue has been they've been waiting for better batteries.

[MickeyFinn]

If they set up electric cars they same way they set up those electric buses years ago, this wouldn't be an issue. So what if you have an ugly cord reaching up to the grid?

Srsly though, I like this idea. Would be great for the Phoenix area, probably not enough power for a place with hills

[Golmacmourna]

Check out 'The Death of the Electric Car'. It is so infuriating it's beyond belief.

Basically GM produced a bunch of electric cars in the 90's which worked great and plenty of the users wanted to keep them, but then arbitrarily took back the lease and destroyed them so no one could have them.

[Allison]

I nose! It kills me that there's not something available!

We were in the market for a new car about ... oh ... 5 or 6 years ago. I don't usually drive that many miles per day, so I thought a little electric car would be perfect for a second car. I was soooo surprised that there was nothing available. I knew there were electric cars that people loved that had been tested 10 years earlier, so I thought for sure that there would be something I could get. But nooo. At the time, I couldn't even find a Toyota dealer with a Prius to look at.

So, we got something else as our primary car, and I kept my old 1992 Camry, which is rarely used. But, the old girl is going to need to be replaced soon. Even though she's not used that often, it's getting a little scary to drive her more than to the store and back. But I'm sooo torn about what to get! Prius has the best technology atm, but I really really hated it when I drove it. And I don't want to spend 20 or 30 thousand dollars on a car when I know, or hope, that there will be better options in a few years.

It's so frustrating. I may end up just buying a cheap but reliable used car to use until something better is available.

[Sparky]

Did anyone ever figure out WHY GM took the cars back? I read an article on it... people would take them in for service and never get them back. I don't remember it saying why they took them back...

[Muadi]

It was not arbitary on why they took them back, and why the only leased them (no sales). The cost of the battery pack was huge... $20k+. In addition: any OEM that has a model out, has to make replacement parts for that car for 10 or so years.
Producing parts for the Impact (EV-1) for 10 years would have been a huge loss in proffits. It made more sense to remove them from the road.
The biggest issue with the plug in vehicle is the battery. Current use of Lithium-ion batteries is cutting edge. There are other metals being used, but they are much more unstable (car fires). The chevy Volt will be a nice vehicle if they can get it right.
I still see the EV-1 around here once in a while. But, they are most likely test vehicles of sorts. The development center is about 2 miles from my house, so I see them once in a while... 1-2 sightings a year. GM owns them all again.
Once some smart guy comes up with a good battery system, things will get much better.
I'm actually looking forward to the Volt. It has a 40 mile range on battery, then, the internal cumbustion engine will fire up and turn a generator, giving you power to drive, and re-energize the batteries.
Also, check out this one... expensive but cool looking. http://www.teslamotors.com/

[gepper]

I was watching Boston Legal and they were picking on electric cars. According to the show, who knows if it correct, the waste, biproducts, and pollution from making the metal in the batteries is really, really bad, then the ship it off around the globe to different locations as part of the assembly. When it is all done, it was something like the amount of waste and pollution as a hummer would have for ten years, Not sure if I put it right as the show had it, but, I think I did a good job representing it. I believe that electric cars are a great idea, just remember to setup your solar panels to get your own electricity. If everyone plugged there car in at about 5pm-7pm every day, I think we would have a lot of energy problems. Don't forget that nice nuclear power waste from the plants.

[Grundy]

Problem solved: This is our next car...all electricTesla roadster.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/20/tesla-s-electric-roadster-is-lean-mean-and-very-green/

[Sparky]

Crazy cars.

[Allison]

On a related topic, we just did something good today!

Thinking about electric cars, and plugging a car into an outlet that provides electricity generated mostly from fossil fuels, got me wondering exactly what sources my power company uses, and if any alternatives are available in my area. I'd heard about offsets, but I honestly didn't think anything was available in my area, apart from paying a company to plant trees or something like that.

But as it turns out, there's a statewide program in which all the power companies in NC participate, NC GreenPower. You just sign up for as many units as you want ($4 per 100 kWh per month); it's included in your electric bill; the electric company then transfers the money to a non-profit who then purchases renewable energy at a premium, which then gets added to the grid. Fantastic!

I can't believe I didn't know about this before.

[spyder913]

Ahh hydroelectric -- all it costs us is our anadromous fish species.

[Allison]

Oh! And I just discovered that our electric company has online charts and graphs of our electric usage, which includes analysis, comparisons, average daily temperatures .. all that stuff! It makes it so easy to track energy usage!

For example, early last year we had to replace our heating and A/C units, and they were supposed to be more energy efficient and stuff, but I didn't expect to see much of a change. And our electric bills were lower this last summer, but it was a faily mild summer, I thought, so I didn't think much of it. And though it crossed my mind to go through all of our old electric bills and make a chart of monthly usage, and to look up all the average temperatures and then compare them to the chart, I'm just too lazy.

So imagine how happy I was to discover the work was all done for me! And as it turns out, the average daily temps were about the same in 2007 as they were in 2006, but our energy usage for the summer was down 24%! Isn't that great??

Sorry, I'm just in an environmentally friendly mood today. So, I'm really excited that my electric company is making it easier for me to see and do! Yay!!

[Allison]

Ahh hydroelectric -- all it costs us is our anadromous fish species.

If it makes you feel any better, the vast majority of the power producers in this particular program are solar. :)

And don't say anything bad about solar! I want to feel good about my contribution. :)

[Muadi]

I wish I could afford to put up a solar grid :(

[Muadi]

And ya... there is no free ride. New batteries = new/more waste. New anything usually = more waste. The production of solar pannels = waste (but atleast they return power for years)
Atleast the Government has stepped in, and mandated that the CAFE be increased by what ever percent.... Its funny how people think they get their cake, and eat it too. The only way to encrease gasoline efficiency is to lighten our vehicles. But everybody wants the Minivan/Crossover/SUV/Hummer/large car. We can not have both. Oh, by the way, lighter more efficient cars means less safe cars. Smaller and lighter unibody frames means weaker structures. When the mortality rates on the highway increase, everybody will demand safer, heaver cars. Freeken treadmill....

[Golmacmourna]

Did anyone ever figure out WHY GM took the cars back? I read an article on it... people would take them in for service and never get them back. I don't remember it saying why they took them back...

Because there's less moving parts to repair, so they don't get the resale and parts aspect of the business. Because they don't run directly on gas, which upsets anybody having to do with oil (since the biggest source of grid power is coal, not oil). And because they're pushing the SUV which is not practically available as an electric car.

But probably the biggest reason was that california tried to legislate the creation of electric (And other non fossil fuel burning), and, in order to avoid the precident of being legislated, GM bent over backwards to pretend that it was impossible to meet the legislated goals--part of this was destroying the cars so nobody could point to them and say 'oh look, there's some electric cars and they work great'.

Basically, to preserve their independence, and their business model.

[Aarimus]

Problem solved: This is our next car...all electricTesla roadster.

http://www.teslamotors.com/

http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/20/tesla-s-electric-roadster-is-lean-mean-and-very-green/



(javascript:faq_ans('45', 'price');)How much will I pay for the car? (javascript:faq_ans('45', 'price');)
Pricing has not been set for the 2009 model year cars. Our 2008 Tesla Roadster has a base price of $98,000.
(javascript:faq_ans('45', 'price');)

cheap.......

[Aarimus]

or here's another option http://www.venturifetish.fr/# only 297,000 euros.....

[Noleader]

But everybody wants the Minivan/Crossover/SUV/Hummer/large car. We can not have both. Oh, by the way, lighter more efficient cars means less safe cars. Smaller and lighter unibody frames means weaker structures. When the mortality rates on the highway increase, everybody will demand safer, heaver cars. Freeken treadmill....

The only time Americans care about gas useage is when gas costs a lot. The late 70's and we demanded more efficient cars but as soon as gas prices went down we wanted our V8 monsters again. If gas prices come back down to Earth you will see the same thing happen again.

Muadi has it completely right.

[Figtoria]

Sorry, I'm just in an environmentally friendly mood today. So, I'm really excited that my electric company is making it easier for me to see and do! Yay!!


Commie!

You're depriving the Bush monarchy and it's dukes and earls the ability to continue to make obscene profit from oil!!!!!!!!

[Muadi]

[QUOTE=Golmacmourna;155319]Because there's less moving parts to repair, so they don't get the resale and parts aspect of the business. Because they don't run directly on gas, which upsets anybody having to do with oil (since the biggest source of grid power is coal, not oil). And because they're pushing the SUV which is not practically available as an electric car.
QUOTE]

Actually, the car was pretty high tech. Agreed, no moving engine parts, but the motor and transmission was pretty advanced. If anything, if the car were to be put in to mass production, the benifits would have been substantial for GM for replacement parts. However, with only 1160 in production, it would have been too expensive to maintain. Mass production implies a very simple rule: The more you can make, the cheaper each one is. With only 1160 made, the costs at the supplier level were huge. GM would be charged huge setup fees just to run off a few parts. Normal setup fees run anywhere between $10k to $100k pluss, depending on the complexity, and then, they charge for the component and labor involved in creating and shipping. It is simply too expensive to maintain.

Also, the idea that a car complany only makes cars to make sure they have a good business in replacement parts is silly. Just compare cars created at the different decades. In the '60's and '70's, you usually had to throw away your car at 70k miles (due to rust and mechanical failures, which equaled a massive parts replacement program for the OEMs). Now, look at todays models. The genearal warrenty on them is 36k miles or 3 years. However, there are several offering 100k miles or 10 years. Even Chrysler is offering limited life time coverage of the vehicle. Cars simply last longer today, therefore, the used parts idea falls away.

[Golmacmourna]

... no moving engine parts = no spare parts business. Cars wear because there's alot of moving parts. A car without them does not wear nearly as quickly. Oil changes. j00 no?

The mass production argument is besides the point. If you mass produce it, you can sell it. You can't sell it if you take it back on purpose and destroy it despite the fact that the leasing test market wanted to purchase and keep the cars.

The current warranties are limited, even in their most general applications--they avoid common service related crap.

I can't believe this is even happening. It's like arguing the sky is blue with someone who's talking about sunsets. The parts market for cars is huge. It's where alot of the business comes from.

[Muadi]

Golm.. I think your under the perception that the OEM makes money on replacement parts. I'd bet that for 90% or more of all replacement parts are not manufactured by the OEM. They are made by suppliers, under contract, but fiscaly seperate from the OEM. The parts are then sold to the dealer networks, wich are independatly owned (most dealerships are owned by individuals or small conglomerates. Dealers buy the cars from the OEM, then resell them to the public) Its the dealers that make the insane amount of money, huge markups. Just look at the packaging... Fram, Moog, ATE, AC,Delphi, etc. None of these are owned by the OEMs. Visteon now is, but that is one of the few. But even Visteon is getting away from the individual parts, and only selling assemblies. In fact, the OEM in the US have been going through great efforts to distance themselves from the parts business, so that the can focus on manufactuing (they call it their core business).

I know that the sky is blue :), there is simiply a lot going on behind designing/building/and selling cars.

I never have watched that video "who killed the electric car".. I should find it and do just that... however, I have found that 'slam' style documentaries (Michael Moore) skew the facts a little. They sound convincing, but, there is usually more too it than the simple examples given.
With the Volt coming out in a year or so, I'm hoping the whole massproduction issue is put to rest. I'll be looking at one.. very seriously.

(Just to be an ass... the sky is colorless... light from the sun is reflected off of the small particulates. The size of the particulates create the color. Small Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon atoms, reflect the smaller blue wave length)

[spyder913]

(Just to be an ass... the sky is colorless... light from the sun is reflected off of the small particulates. The size of the particulates create the color. Small Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon atoms, reflect the smaller blue wave length)Paint works the same way, but we say it has a color. Why do you say air has no color?

[Golmacmourna]

He legitimately caveated. His joke was he was saying something wrong framed in an insanely specific way.

I don't know what GM's byline is like. I assume they get sponsorship and investment capital from partners. There is alot of money in oil changes. So whoever has that money is involved somewhere somehow. Do not look behind the curtain.

[Muadi]

I also assume that the oil companies have a strangle hold of the OEMs. I hope the electric car does come into production, and they don't crush it.

Spyder.

I thought paint does have color, pigments. It does not emit light, it reflects light... need to look into this one :).

Air has no color because it is made up of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon atoms (gas). All of these chemicals are described as oderless and colorless. After all, we don't see the sky having a color a night. What color is the sky on the Moon? Clear, no atmosphere to reflect light.

[spyder913]

I thought paint does have color, pigments. It does not emit light, it reflects light... need to look into this one :).Not to be pedantic here but you said that "light from the sun is reflected off of the small particulates". If the air was emitting light it would be fluorescing, which is not what I'm claiming.

Air has no color because it is made up of Nitrogen, Oxygen and Argon atoms (gas). All of these chemicals are described as oderless and colorless. After all, we don't see the sky having a color a night. What color is the sky on the Moon? Clear, no atmosphere to reflect light.Just because a gas appears transparent at everyday scales does not mean it has no actual color. Liquid water is very similar to air in the way it appears fully translucent but is actually faintly blue.

[Muadi]

Would it be blue with no light source?

And, does not fluorescence imply luminescence? Which is implying that the atoms in the air are self generating light? Not sure I understand that theory.

[Noleader]

Would it be blue with no light source?

No it would be black... Black is the absence of light. All color viewed is based off the light that is reflected from it and not absorbed by it.

The point made by Muadi is correct about the car stuff though. GM is not banking in the parts business... if it was the core, or even provided large income, they would have never spun off Delphi. They spun off Delphi so they could get their parts from Delphi at reduced cost because Delphi could sell the parts to other automakers thus produce parts for cheaper.

The markup in the aftermarket normally is at the dealership. If you know were to look and have the right contacts you can get parts for 50% or less the retail costs. I have a few of those contacts thanks to my dad owning a auto repair shop about 15 years back (still maintain contacts).

[Solomente]

Oh, by the way, lighter more efficient cars means less safe cars. Smaller and lighter unibody frames means weaker structures. When the mortality rates on the highway increase, everybody will demand safer, heaver cars. Freeken treadmill....

Not true. Smaller cars are not inherently less safe than larger ones. When a Hummer and a Prius collide, yes the Prius loses. But, if everyone drove around in a Prius, the roads would be far safer. Keep in mind that a giant land yacht moving at 70mph carries FAR more kinetic energy than a small car. It takes much longer to slow down/stop, is less maneuverable, and impacts with far greater force. It also has more tendency to roll over due to its height. It never fails to amaze me how people with 4x4s think they are invincible in the snow. All that helps with is moving you from a stop. Once that large vehicle is moving, it's far more likely because of its size to skid/slide/collide than a small car.

So if you're saying you're safer in the Hummer than the Prius when the two collide, you're right. But the Prius is far less likely to get in an accident in the first place since it can swerve without flipping over and stop in half the distance.

[Post]

"Keep in mind that a giant land yacht moving at 70mph carries FAR more kinetic energy than a small car."

In general, it's easier to make a heavier car safer when it does stuff like run into a light pole because it allows you to "hide" the extra weight of stuff like more rigid skeletons. Also note that electric-powered cars are (a lot) heavier than their gas-powered counterparts.

"Once that large vehicle is moving, it's far more likely because of its size to skid/slide/collide than a small car."

Have you driven an AWD vehicle? They're insanely difficult to powerslide in. Don't get me wrong, the weight of a 4x4 usually overtakes the advantage you get in having power to all four wheels, but it's an advantage nonetheless.

[Solomente]

Powerslide? I'm talking about skidding, hydroplaning, slipping on snow/ice, losing control. The momentum of a heavy vehicle makes that far more likely. Where I come from, "powersliding" is something done on purpose by flooring the car under light breaking... kind of like drifting.

[spyder913]

Would it be blue with no light source?

And, does not fluorescence imply luminescence? Which is implying that the atoms in the air are self generating light? Not sure I understand that theory.Nothing would appear to have any color without a light source. The only way your eyes, or any other kind of measuring device, can tell the color of something is by what light it emits or reflects.

Fluoresence is when the atoms/molecules are excited by absorbed photons and they emits new photons of a different wavelength (longer, less energy). The classic example of this is the fluorescent light, which uses a current to excite gaseous mercury within the tube. The light emitted by the mercury is bright but of the wrong wavelengths to be usable as a real light so the tube is coated with a phosphor material that absorbs those photons and fluoresces with a much wider spectra.

[Golmacmourna]

If I didn't exist, I'd still be pink like a newborn shrimp.

[Muadi]

I'm just confused.... you seem to think I said that the atoms were flouresing, I simply said reflecting.

[Post]

"Where I come from, "powersliding" is something done on purpose by flooring the car under light breaking... kind of like drifting."

It is. I'm stating having 4WD is a positive in stopping from losing control of your vehicle. Heavy weight is a negative. On many (most) 4x4's, the net sum of heavy weight + 4WD = negative, but having 4WD within itself is a good thing.

ie, if those same people with 4x4's had the same vehicle stuck in 2WD mode, their control would be worse, not better.

[]LoL[Harm]

Just saw a Lexus commercial advertising their new line of Hydrogen fuel cell based cars.

I kinda want an H car, over an electric car.

[kitty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M88k6Ipp3c&eurl=http://widget-3e.slide.com/widgets/sf.swf

I love canooks..and my electic power comes from damns (been there forever) and wind farms..which we also sell to california >< *shakes fist* damn you californians..my electricity cost more because of you.. :P

[gepper]

And ya... there is no free ride. New batteries = new/more waste. New anything usually = more waste. The production of solar pannels = waste (but atleast they return power for years)
Atleast the Government has stepped in, and mandated that the CAFE be increased by what ever percent.... Its funny how people think they get their cake, and eat it too. The only way to encrease gasoline efficiency is to lighten our vehicles. But everybody wants the Minivan/Crossover/SUV/Hummer/large car. We can not have both. Oh, by the way, lighter more efficient cars means less safe cars. Smaller and lighter unibody frames means weaker structures. When the mortality rates on the highway increase, everybody will demand safer, heaver cars. Freeken treadmill....

Kind of reminds me about the Ford Explorer. People wanted to have a vehicle with a stronger roof so that if the vehicle flipped over, the roof wouldn't cave in. K, Ford makes roof stronger, result, vehicles center of gravity rises, result, vehicles flip more, result, good thing you put that stronger roof on to protect against flipping.

[Muadi]

LoL[Harm;155419']Just saw a Lexus commercial advertising their new line of Hydrogen fuel cell based cars.

I kinda want an H car, over an electric car.

I like H has a fuel... kind of unlimited, good solution. As of today though, it takes more energy to extract and use, than what it can put out... kind of like, it takes 2 units of energy so it can release 1 unit of energy. I hope the smart guys can fix that problem.

Then, its the infrastructure. No H refueling stations. Not sure we will be able to overcome that.

One of my previous jobs was with QUANTUM Technologies. We designed alternative-fuel systems. We were the first to market 10,000 psi tanks for H.

Unfortunately, our govenment subsidies ran out when Bush was elected, and it all fell apart. I was a huge proponent of H back then... but, looking at the implemtation problems, I'm not as big a fan as I once was :(.

We were able to sell mostly to fleet operations... a setup where the vehicles could come back to the central parking garage each day and get fueled up. Something like: UPS, FedEx, USPS, Utility companies, etc.

[]LoL[Harm]

But I thought the main gains though is that it would require less energy in the long run in comparison to petroleum due to its almost double mileage over gas. As in a "tank" of hydrogen can take a car 400-500 miles.

I guess what we would want to compare is how much energy goes into creating gas and how much goes into creating hydrogen fuel, and then compare how much of each is used on average.

If, for theoretical discussion, it takes twice as much energy to create hydrogen as it does petroleum, but hydrogen is used at half the rate of gas for motor vehicle propulsion, then you still have the massive gain of eliminating tailpipe emissions.

[Noleader]

I have seen a lot of advances in extracting Hydrogen from water... wonder if that will pan out in the future or if it will be a dead end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32ERu9h9vIU

[Muadi]

I don't know... In Saudi-Arabia, and some surrounding areas, I know they do the de-salization thing. I wonder if H is a byproduct at all. If so, there may be some viable sources now, just under utilized.

I forgot to mention. On of the projects that was just staring off when I left QUANTUM, was using H in a IC situation (internal combustion) instead of the fuel-stack for electric cars. Interesting alternative, if they got it working. They were going to try and develop it for the Prius. Not sure how far they got.

But, for the extraction of H, it still uses more power than it yields. For the emission issue, yes, the car's emissions would be greatly reduced. But what of the emmissions being created during the H extraction process. Hope 'they' figure it out soon. BTW, the byproduct of H in a fuel-cell vehicle is H2O. It just falls to the ground :), we could always use more water.

[Post]

What kind of gain do you get simply because the extraction processes is done all at once? ie, instead of every car having to do all the work, you have one station doing most of it and then it divvies out the hydrogen?

[Muadi]

No gain for the actual process. You only get the gain with the fact the you don't have to build a Hydrogen refueling station on every corner, like we do with gasoline stations. With having a central refueling stop for your fleet, you only have to build 1 station.

[Post]

What I mean is, turning hydrogen into power is more efficient than turning gas into power, but turning (whatever) into hydrogen is less efficient than turning oil pumped from the ground into gas. But, because the less efficient process is done before it's done at each individual vehicle, isn't there any gain because of that?

[Muadi]

Oh... I have no idea on the amount of energy that is used to do H extraction or refine gasoline from crude. I only think of it as this: crude will run out long before we run out of H sources. I don't know how much electricty or other energy sources is used for either process. Something else to think about. Many (all?) of the refineries are kind of old, and I would guess pretty in-effecient in the use of engergy. Maybe a new H extraction plant would be leaps and bounds better, and more efficient in the use of energy because of todays advances?
Like I said before.. no free lunch. The use of ethonol needs to be look at here too. Yes, E85 is better for the environ ment, but you get less milage when compared to gasoline. But, the price of corn is now going up like mad. Good for the farmer, bad for everybody else that likes to eat corn.
We need the telporters from Star Trek imo :), but I'm sure there would be a negative to that too :(

[]LoL[Harm]

One of the biggest things to gain for the US though is removing the clenched Middle East Oil Barons fist that is tightly wrapped around our balls.

[spyder913]

I'm just confused.... you seem to think I said that the atoms were flouresing, I simply said reflecting.Exactly! Things reflect light because that's what color they are. =)

What I mean is, turning hydrogen into power is more efficient than turning gas into power, but turning (whatever) into hydrogen is less efficient than turning oil pumped from the ground into gas. But, because the less efficient process is done before it's done at each individual vehicle, isn't there any gain because of that?Electrolysis of water has a theoretical efficiency of 80-94%. I don't know how efficient crude refinement is, but you do get a lot of useful by-products from crude that aren't used directly in our fuel tanks.

[Muadi]

True, a lot does come from crude.

I think the 'ball grip' will be around for long long time.

Spyder, I know your thoughts, but... the sky is blue during most of the day because the higher wave lenghts of light are bouncing off of the small particles that make our our atmosphere. However, during sun rise/sun set, we see oranges, yellows and reds. Why? Becuase the heavier particles are down lower to the surface of the earth, and they are thicker, therefor they reflect the lower wave lengths, and the light has to travel through more of our atmosphere, based on our location on earth while we observe the suns location. We have to assume this is the reason we no longer see the same blue, becase we know the particles did not 'change' their physical properites.
(I wish I was this argumentative with politics :) )

[Muadi]

Just ran across this article. I'm not sure I even want to see the Chevy Volt go into production now.

The cost to the environment in making batteries is huge.
http://www.cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/Hidden%20Cost%20of%20Driving%20a%20Prius%20Comment ary.pdf