One for the EV fans

[idleprocess]

In the idealized Natural Capitalism never-neverland future, fuel cell cars are made from carbon fiber, look kind of like ground-dwelling aircraft, weigh something like 800-1000 lbs, and don't require much if any external hydrogen storage since the vehicle doesn't need to expend as much energy to move itself. You'd never "fuel" these vehicles except to add some distilled water on occasion to crack into H2 & O2. To recharge them, you'd plug them into the grid like a BEV to reverse the process in the fuel cell. They'd be a semi closed-loop system like a chemical battery.

Of course, that world is a ways off since fuel cells aren't that efficient and it's tough to sell smaller and lighter cars in this market of needlessly massive SUVs plodding the roads (neverminding 18-wheelers etc that kind of have to be as large as they are).

 

[gadget_lover]

[ QUOTE ]
IlluminatingBikr said:
I'm not sure if any of you are familar with this technology, but I heard somebody invented some sort of a "hydrogen spounge." It would suck up the hydrogen just like a normal spounge does with water, and would allow you to store more hydrogen gas than normal, at air pressure.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are many designs that store the hydrogen as metal hydrides and use something to trigger the release of hydrogen. I think some call for heating the hydride.

Daniel

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:
They'd be a semi closed-loop system like a chemical battery.

[/ QUOTE ]
Heck, not just *similar* to a battery, you've pretty much defined a battery. Batteries are more efficient, cheaper, closed-loop H2 fuel cells!

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
IlluminatingBikr said:
Darell do you have any details on this ACP Tzero that you speak of? Are they available for purchase in the US?

[/ QUOTE ]
Oops, forgot the last part of the question. They HAVE been available for purchase for several years - but few want to spend that kind of money on ANY kind of car. And they're advertising, to say the least, has been lacking. ACP is now concentrating on a consumer-level EV that will still smoke 90% of the vehicles on the street, but will be more affordable and practical.

 

[idleprocess]

No argument there - just trying to articulate the vision presented in Natural Capitalism, regretably based on some bad back-of-the-napkin calculations.

 

[gadget_lover]

Not to be a spoil sport, but I've read alot about those small AA sized LiIon cells in a flashlight forum somewhere. It seems that they are well behaved if properly handled, but don't like being violently abused or mis-charged.

While not a problem in my cell phone, I am not sure I'd want 6800 of them in my car after an accident. The electrolyte is nasty stuff, and explosions are a possibility.

The NiMh is a whole other kettle of fish. It doesn't like being abused either, but if it ruptures the electrolyte is just messy. Or so I've been told. I've also heard that they can over heat if dead shorted, but don't blow up.

This is also unkind, but I have to wonder if the energy cost (well to wheel) of the Tzero or Venturi is any better than a conventional muscle car? After all, it takes power to accelerate mass.

OK, enough of being a part pooper. I'd love to try either of those cars for a few days. They look like a blast, and good proof of concept machines.

Daniel

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
Not to be a spoil sport

[/ QUOTE ]
No worry of that happening... unless you come up with something :gasp: negative about BEVs!

[ QUOTE ]
While not a problem in my cell phone, I am not sure I'd want 6800 of them in my car after an accident. The electrolyte is nasty stuff, and explosions are a possibility.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just so we're clear - are we comparing abuse batteries with a utopean *perfect* power source, or are we comparing it to a tank of gasoline? If the latter, please know that after an accident, I would rather be surrounded by thousands of crushed batteries than by one pint of gasoline. No comparison... and no spoiling of my sport yet...

[ QUOTE ]
The NiMh is a whole other kettle of fish. It doesn't like being abused either, but if it ruptures the electrolyte is just messy. Or so I've been told. I've also heard that they can over heat if dead shorted, but don't blow up.

[/ QUOTE ]
NiMH (what I have in my Rav4EV) is the "mature" chemistry. We know lots about it, and we like what we see. Li-Ion will soon catch up. We already have Safion packs that can take complete punctures (by bullets) with no problems.

[ QUOTE ]
This is also unkind, but I have to wonder if the energy cost (well to wheel) of the Tzero or Venturi is any better than a conventional muscle car? After all, it takes power to accelerate mass.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is much better to wonder than to assume, certainly. The answer, most emphatically, is yes. The energy "cost" of the Tzero is likely less than 1/10th that of a muscle car that can't even keep up. Are you assuming that the Li-ion batteries have a huge mass? I assume you've picked up a 123 cell and compared it to an alkaline AA cell, for example? Compare the capacity to the weight. To put your mind at ease, please know that the Tzero weighs less than all the muscle cars that it has beaten in the standing quarter mile. Electric cars put better than 90% of their stored energy to the drive wheels. A muscle car is looking at 15% on a good day. And please don't dismiss the weight of a huge engine block, giant radiators, transmission, exhaust, tank full of gasoline... while an EV has batteries, it doesn't have any of that other heavy crap to haul around. With Li-ion batteries, an EV can be made lighter than a "conventional" car, so wonder no more...

[ QUOTE ]
I'd love to try either of those cars for a few days. They look like a blast, and good proof of concept machines.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can't speak for the other, but the Tzero WILL knock your socks off! Have you seen the picture of my EV1 parked next to one of them at a meet in SF a couple of years back? Ya gotta love the trailer hitch (for pulling a generator trailer for unlimited range).

 

[gadget_lover]

Hmmmm. I like the one on the left just as much! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Actually, I was not think about excessive weight as much as I was thinking about the inefficiencies in creating, transporting, storing and converting the electricity. In California, a lot of the electricity is created from oil and natural gas. I read (in one of the hybrid advocasy groups, so probably biased) that in an area like ours, a "typical" BEV will create just a touch less polution than a Prius, if you take into account the power generation and transmisison etc. Back east where coal fired plants are the norm, the Prius is cleaner. In the northwest, where Hydro is used to generate electricity, the BEV wins hands down in the polution department.


This seems logical, so from that I can infer that a muscle BEV will use more energy and thus more resources than a EV1. If it accellerates 4 times faster it should use (about) 4 times the energy. Or is that 16 times the energy? Either way, I'd wonder if the same amount of oil has to be burned at a power plant to provide the power needed to push the Tzero as the amount of gas burned by a ICE that matches the performance.

Off track, but I remember when the push for BEV tech was in making them more efficient so that resources would last longer. Now we see the 2004 Prius is quicker but the real life milage is the same as the 2003. The EV1 and RAV4 have been recalled, even though new battery technology would increase their range and (being lighter) decrease their energy requirements.

Maybe one day there will be a supply of electricity that will make the point moot. Till then.... well, enjoy your BEV.

Daniel

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
Hmmmm. I like the one on the left just as much! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, me too! Wish I had that fantastic car back, believe me!

[ QUOTE ]
I read (in one of the hybrid advocasy groups, so probably biased) that in an area like ours, a "typical" BEV will create just a touch less polution than a Prius, if you take into account the power generation and transmisison etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah... well - ya wanna know what they're missing? They're ignoring most, if not all of the upstream pollution of extracting and transporting oil, refining it into gasoline, transporting the gasoline again, spilling it, etc. These "studies" usually like to compare ONLY the tailpipe emissions of hybrids to ALL the upstream pollution generated by BEVs. Not a fair comparison, eh? So yes, if you take into account all the upstream problems of BEVs, they may only be a *little* cleaner than just the tailpipe emissions of a hybrid. That doesn't tell the whole story though. And then, of course, you need to always consider the fact that a BEV *can* be completely clean - like I do with my solar. That can never happen with a gasoline-burning hybrid.

[ QUOTE ]
This seems logical, so from that I can infer that a muscle BEV will use more energy and thus more resources than a EV1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Obviously, if you accelerate ANYTHING faster than anything else of equal mass, the faster one will be using more energy. But here's the deal. If you take a super-powerful BEV and drive it the same way you'd drive an underpowered one, they would use the same energy. No loss of having a huge ICE not performing to its potential. I easily demonstrated this idea for myself. My EV1 had twice the power of my Rav4, and yet was about 50% more efficient with its energy use because of aerodynamics. Being more powerful was not a penalty - unles I stuck my foot in it constantly to USE that extra power. Any of that make sense? A muscle BEV won't use more energy just because it has the potential to be driven harder - it will only use more energy if it IS driven harder.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd wonder if the same amount of oil has to be burned at a power plant to provide the power needed to push the Tzero as the amount of gas burned by a ICE that matches the performance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Again, I appreciate the wondering. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif The answer, again, is no. The reason is the tank-to-wheel efficiency. Even though there are loses in turning an energy source into electricity, they pale in comparison to the losses associated with turning gasoline into motive power in a car. Especially a muscle car. 90% of a BEV's energy goes into pushing it foward. 15% of a muscle car's energy is doing the pushing. So, even if we waste half of the energy to make and transport electricity, we're still WAY head using that left-over electricity to motivate the car.

[ QUOTE ]
The EV1 and RAV4 have been recalled, even though new battery technology would increase their range and (being lighter) decrease their energy requirements.

[/ QUOTE ]
No EV has ever actually been permanently "recalled." The EV1 was lease only and the leases were not extended after this past August. GM took 'em back and crushed them. But they were not recalled. The Rav4 was the only one sold, and those will never have to go back. The leased ones however are being returned at the end of lease, and also are being crushed. But back to your point - YES! It is insane that we have these "yesterday" battery technology cars, and that there was never a second-generation produced of any of these. The improvements over these - for all intents and purposes are simply prototypes - would be dramatic. And then think of a third generation EV. Boggles the mind. Back in 1995 when I first drive the EV1 prototype, I remember thinking to myself that I had not purchased my last ICE vehicle. I couldn't have been more excited. Well, surprise...there is not a single BEV option to buy or lease today, and I have since had to purchase more ICE vehicles. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe one day there will be a supply of electricity that will make the point moot.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good news! My solar panels already provide me with the moot point!

 

[gadget_lover]

Did you hear that some folks simply told GM that their EV1 was "missing" and triggered some penalty clause, effectively letting them buy their EV1? I don't know if the contract had some "you broke it you bought it" clause or if there was some other loophole.

People have been doing that with their Think citicars too. The Thinks were being crushed also.

Can you imagine having one of the last 4 or 5 EV1s? It would be worth a fortune soem day.


Daniel

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
Did you hear that some folks simply told GM that their EV1 was "missing" and triggered some penalty clause, effectively letting them buy their EV1?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've heard all kinds of stories. Few of them are true. I am "familiar" with the truth, and this ain't it. I don't want to share more, but I also don't want this myth perpetuated. If it were this easy, I'd have two of them parked in my garage.

 

[cobb]

Sorry to hear they crushed them. Then again lots of cars met that fate. I believe smeone had a radar guided car called the cyclone, may be of use to disabled people like me.

Where i work we use to build electric mail trucks, then after 911 they axed the project. THe guys in the shop were impressed with them. Said the motor was the size of a pumpkin, they could not believe the performance.

I read over the data on your site. Strange that the car would have higehr gear reduction than the suv like car. YOu think they would be reversed.

Are the chargers transistor or big honking transformers.

As for hydrogen, the grand idea it to make it onthe fly, so a large suv would be needed. It sounds neat to me to run a car off of water, but not turn CNG into dydrogen then that hydrogen to power then an electric motor.

I think the hybird idea is better and with a sterlin engine it should get great millage and could use fuel oil or something heavier.

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
cobb said:
Sorry to hear they crushed them. Then again lots of cars met that fate.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't believe there has ever been another perfectly-functioning vehicle where the maker refused to extend the lease, or allow purchase, and instead crushed the vehicles. Hadn't heard about the laser-guided one, so I assume they weren't actually produced and put into consumers' hands.

[ QUOTE ]
Said the motor was the size of a pumpkin, they could not believe the performance.

[/ QUOTE ]The motor on the Rav4 is about the size of a loaf of bread - plus some cooling fins.

[ QUOTE ]
I read over the data on your site. Strange that the car would have higehr gear reduction than the suv like car. YOu think they would be reversed.

[/ QUOTE ]The only reason for this is that the EV1 motor spins faster than the Rav motor. Just a design decision - nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]
Are the chargers transistor or big honking transformers.

[/ QUOTE ]
You can see them on my site. click.

[ QUOTE ]
As for hydrogen, the grand idea it to make it onthe fly, so a large suv would be needed. It sounds neat to me to run a car off of water.

[/ QUOTE ] Doesn't matter how big the vehicle is... there's still no free lunch. The only way to make H2 out of water, is to add LOTS of energy. That energy has to come from somewhere outside the FC system. You can make H2 on the fly, but the only practical way is from another fossil fuel. And so the downward spiral continues...