Who Killed The Electric Car?

husky14620

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Posts
179
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
163
Age
67
Location
Rochester, Western NY
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Expando1 said:
Yah the death of the electric car really pissed me off and I was so disappointed at the same time. The only reason GM made it was because California passed a statute requiring them to do so, then they lobbied hard and got it revoked. As soon as it was revoked all the cars were recalled and destroyed at a scrapyard in Arizona. The thing that upset me was that they didn't make any attempt to advertise the car...i mean, come on, when was the last time you watched TV or opened a newpaper without being overwhelmed by car adverts.

For the time the cars were on the streets they had an amazing reliability record with one owner reporting only a failed blinker. Electric cars simply do not have that many moving parts and are not subject to the stress, impact, and torque forces as are combustion engines. The fall out from the success of the electric car was potentially huge including collapse of big oil and collapse of the autoparts industry. I understand why GM killed the electric car, I'm just disappointed anyway.


Actually, dispite the leasees suing GM in an attempt to keep the cars, GM took them all back and shipped most of them to Honeoye Falls, NY, their fuel cell research center. As recently as last fall, there were still dozens of them being driven regularly on the highways around Rochester, NY.

I myself drive a Part Zero Emission Ultra Low Emission Vehicle certified Honda Civic Hybrid. Most of the time I get 90% of EPA city, and 110-120% of EPA highway. With the incredible hot spell recently, I have turned off all the economy modes to keep the A/C running full blast, and still got 36 mpg. I was forced to by my hybrid from Honda, not because GM doesn't have the technology, but because GM has chosen to ignore the technology for 30 years. One of their suppliers built a demonstration hybrid in 1980, using off the shelf parts. Its function and operation were almost identical to the system used in my Civic. True, the 1980 version used lead-acid batteries, and weighed twice what a comparable car would have. But it worked and worked reliably. Furthermore, GM had been building diesel-electric hybrids since the 1940's, without the batteries, but with regenerative braking and all electric drive. These hybrids weren't built into cars, or trucks, but into every ElectroMotive Division of GM locomotive delivered to American railroads since the diesel locomotive was introduced. And Alco, GE, Fairbanks-Morse, and all the other locomotive manufacturers use similar technology to E.M.D./GM.

Yet even now, GM isn't building true hybrids. The Chevy Silverado pick-up hybrid doesn't use the electric motor(s) to provide any propulsion, only to allow the gasoline engine to shut off at stop lights and restart "instantly" upon releasing the brake. Oh, and to provide a 120 Volt A.C. outlet in the back of the truck. The new Saturn Vue will be a similar system. Only the Tahoe sport ute will be a true hybrid, if it ever ships.

And Ford bought its hybrid system from Toyota, and pays royalties to them on every Escape hybrid built. Once upon a time America was the leader in engineering, education, production, innovation: Now we even have to license Japanese patents to have our products built in Korea or China.

Husky
 

systemshock3

Sexy Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2005
Posts
117
Media
10
Likes
61
Points
248
Location
Dallas, TX
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Hmm, being a car nut, but also a tech geek (and investor :) ), the subject of this thread interests me.

Let me first of start by saying that I drive a car that, while not a gas guzzler, isnt exactly a fuel sipper either. 3600 lb, all-wheel drive, twin-turbocharged sports sedan.

The irony of many of the arguments about how stupid (rightly so) the buying public is, is that the buying public has been the true driver of innovation. While the CURRENTY Gm hybird system isnt all that spectacular, the system used in the new Tahoe Hybrid was co-developed with BMW. It will work very similarly to toyota's Synergy drive, but be adaptable for front, rear and all wheel drive applications, plus be cheaper to build. Gotta love those Germans (oh, and I do :biggrin1:)

As an enthusiast, I am VERY VERY VERY envious of the Europeans and all their options for disel power. Very clean burning, powerful, HIGHLY fuel efficient cars that can be run on Bio Diesel (referencing the cooking oil mention from above). Here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, one can drive about 40 miles north of Dallas and fill up with Bio Diesel for somewhere around 1.50 per gallon!! Every test of a Diesel powered car shows that it gets better overall mileage than a comparable hybrid, while being more fun to drive. No, the emissions arent yet as clean as a hybrid, but there are technologies in development by (big suprised :) the german and french car companies to make them comparable to a current ULEV gasoline engine.

What all of this means, is that while an eco-warrior, I think I speak for many enthusiasts and normal car buyers when I say that I really dont want to give up the driving experience (power, comfort, flexibility) for increased mileage. But, with emerging technologies (clean biodiesel, Ethanol, Hydrogen fuel cell and Hydrogen Combuston), many already dont have to.

Just this week, I got to help out a little bit. The CIO of the firm I work at, at my suggestion, traded in his Mercedes E500 (big V-8) in for a brand new E320 CDI (Diesel V-6). He is quite pleased with it, and its just as fast and luxurious as his old car, while getting much better mileage.

For myself, since I cannot yet replace my car with a Diesel (Audi wont be bringing their Diesel models over until 2008), I am doing my own part. I am moving downtown. This way, I wont have to drive much at all other than to see family and to work.

As A side note...combined with the fact that it was zero emmisions, what impressed me most was the fact that the automotive press said that it was quite quick and handled well. Now, if they just could increase the range :)
 

husky14620

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2005
Posts
179
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
163
Age
67
Location
Rochester, Western NY
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
systemshock3 said:
Hmm, being a car nut, but also a tech geek (and investor :) ), the subject of this thread interests me.

SNIPPED

The irony of many of the arguments about how stupid (rightly so) the buying public is, is that the buying public has been the true driver of innovation. While the CURRENTY Gm hybird system isnt all that spectacular, the system used in the new Tahoe Hybrid was co-developed with BMW. It will work very similarly to toyota's Synergy drive, but be adaptable for front, rear and all wheel drive applications, plus be cheaper to build. Gotta love those Germans (oh, and I do :biggrin1:)

As an enthusiast, I am VERY VERY VERY envious of the Europeans and all their options for disel power. Very clean burning, powerful, HIGHLY fuel efficient cars that can be run on Bio Diesel (referencing the cooking oil mention from above). Here in the Dallas/Fort Worth area, one can drive about 40 miles north of Dallas and fill up with Bio Diesel for somewhere around 1.50 per gallon!! Every test of a Diesel powered car shows that it gets better overall mileage than a comparable hybrid, while being more fun to drive. No, the emissions arent yet as clean as a hybrid, but there are technologies in development by (big suprised :) the german and french car companies to make them comparable to a current ULEV gasoline engine.

What all of this means, is that while an eco-warrior, I think I speak for many enthusiasts and normal car buyers when I say that I really dont want to give up the driving experience (power, comfort, flexibility) for increased mileage. But, with emerging technologies (clean biodiesel, Ethanol, Hydrogen fuel cell and Hydrogen Combuston), many already dont have to.

SNIPPED

For myself, since I cannot yet replace my car with a Diesel (Audi wont be bringing their Diesel models over until 2008), I am doing my own part. I am moving downtown. This way, I wont have to drive much at all other than to see family and to work.

As A side note...combined with the fact that it was zero emmisions, what impressed me most was the fact that the automotive press said that it was quite quick and handled well. Now, if they just could increase the range :)

True, the Tahoe system (built into the "TurboHydraMatic" transmission) is very adaptable. I'm not sure it is any cheaper to build than Honda's Intregrated Motor Assist (IMA). After all, IMA is basically replace the flywheel with a big flat electric Motor-Generator and have at it. IMA can be used with manual transmissions as well as automatic (GM's Tahoe and Toyota's Synergy cannot), and IMA can be used with DIESEL engines as well as with gasoline. And, unlike the Toyota (and probably the Tahoe), I can drive my car without the batteries or the electric motor. It drives like an underpowered dog if I do, but if the IMA fails, it is still driveable. The Toyota (and probably the Tahoe) isn't, it needs a tow. And the Tahoe system is NOT yet available to the public, only the engine shut down (IMA without the driving assist) versions of the Silverado and (soon) the Vue.

Here in New York State, as well as California, Massachusetts, and any other high-pollution California standards opt-in, diesels are currently outlawed in passenger cars. Trucks must be over 8500 lbs. gross to allow diesels. This is, in large part, due to the high sulfer content of North American diesel fuel. Biodiesel would cure this problem, but the government mandated elimination of sulfer from diesel isn't for another couple of years. I can't wait to get a diesel electric hybrid Civic 5 door from Europe once they become legal here. (5 doors are only available in europe, think Si hatchback rear meets sedan body)

I'll leave ethanol until after I finish off Hydrogen. Hydrogen is never likely to become largely commercial, as the energy needed to separate hydrogen from water is greater than the energy released when you burn it or catalyze it, and the only other source of hydrogen is to strip it from petroleum based products, like LPG, Natural Gas, etc, meaning as the cost of oil goes up and the availability goes down, so will hydrogen produced from it. And the energy used to produce it must come from polluting power plants, at least for some time to come, so it isn't emissions free either. But then, neither were the EV1's. They just moved the polllution from the roads to the power plants.

Ethanol does have limited promise. It can be made from all sorts of plant materials, especially waste materials. Unfortunately, most of it is made from corn. Hemp would be far more efficient. Also, the distillation process requires heat, which is usually provided by petroleum product. When petroleum product is used to produce the distillation heat, the amount of energy produced is equal to or less than that used in production, a net zero or loss. Only when waste fuels (again hemp, or other plant material) provide the heat can we hope to have a positive effect on petroleum consumption and the geopolitics and pollution it causes. Hemp seed also provides a fine light oil that can be used for biodiesel, and diesel engines can be built to run on pure vegetable oils instead of biodiesel.

I, too, live in the city to be closer to friends and work. But my job takes me out into the field, and my 2004 Civic Hybrid already has 75,000 miles on the odometer in only 28 months. I've saved several thousand gallons of gasoline compared to the van I was driving, and have burned 1600 plus gallons in my Civic. (I keep a spreadsheet, I was running about 44 average mpg before the heatwave, less in the winter, usually more in the summer.) If city dwellers could stop paying county taxes to subsidize suburban infrastructure, maybe more people would stay in the cities.

Finally, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with large penises, other than we are all getting fucked big time by the auto and energy companies.

Husky
 

Jeffin90620

Sexy Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Posts
234
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
248
Location
Southern California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
BuddyBoy said:
I think electric is a good way to go in part because of the technical adaptability to hydrogen fuel cells when they become available. Not to mention possible solar trickle charging, and perhaps even solar chargers at parking spots.
I am an electronic engineer. I would love an electric car like the Tesla, but the problem is energy storage capacities & recharge ability, both of which are marginal for automotive applications.

The biggest problem with hydrogen fuel is energy. Current technology requires more energy to produce hydrogen fuel than you get from using hydrogen (gasoline, on the other hand, produces about 50 times as much energy as it takes to get the oil out of the ground and refine it to gasoline).

Where is this energy to come from?

Solar power cells are about 22% efficient. The average equivalent solar power rating for Southern California is 7 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day (KWh/m^2/day) - less than half that for New York, Pennsylvania and neighboring states, a little more than half that for most of the rest of the country - so a solar power conversion array will be able to produce as much as 1.5, down to 0.6 KWh per day per sq. meter of solar panels on a sunny day here in the USA. A car at a fixed freeway speed uses around 10 horsepower (hp), which is 7.55 KW, so a driving time of 1 hour per day is 7.55 KWh of energy (not counting acceleration). That works out to 5 to as much as 12.6 hours per day to recharge an electric car after driving it for one hour, with shorter times possible if you have more solar panels (which costs more), but only if you have a sunny day.

If the math caused your eyes to glaze over, I will summarize: Solar power is not a reliable, cheap or quick means of recharging electric cars.

Burning coal or oil to generate the energy to produce hydrogen is counter-productive.

Building enough hydroelectric plants to provide the power to extract hydrogen would freak the environmentalists, in addition to being very expensive.

The most productive source (i.e. cheapest for large scale production) would be nuclear. Countries like France and Japan produce most of their electrical energy from nuclear power, but the United States produces very little (and less every decade as plants are closed down for being politically inexpedient).
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
jeffin,
Thanks for the math. Thats part of the reason we don't see much innovation. The other part is complacency, risk aversion, and lack of vision in the makers and the buyers.

Tell me this. If you considered end-to-end efficiency from fuel production all the way to in-car storage, is an all electric car more efficient, and does it pollute less than a high mileage gasoline powered vehicle?

In other words, is it better that the nearby powerplant burn some oil, coal, or natural gas for me to drive a mile, or is it better for me to burn it in my vehicle?
 

dongalong

Mythical Member
Joined
Jul 2, 2004
Posts
16,288
Media
0
Likes
62,496
Points
418
Location
France
Gender
Male
JustAsking said:
Tell me this. If you considered end-to-end efficiency from fuel production all the way to in-car storage, is an all electric car more efficient, and does it pollute less than a high mileage gasoline powered vehicle?

In other words, is it better that the nearby powerplant burn some oil, coal, or natural gas for me to drive a mile, or is it better for me to burn it in my vehicle?
I believe that this argument is being used by Jeep to counter the ecological benefits of Lexus hybrids.
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
dongalong said:
I believe that this argument is being used by Jeep to counter the ecological benefits of Lexus hybrids.
dong,
Actually, I didnt mean that as an argument. It was a question. I am not sure the answer is obvious until you do the math.

In the all electric case, you have to pump, ship, refine, ship, then burn oil in a very big generator at a centralized power plant, which I imagine is more efficient than my car. But then you have the losses involved in generation (probably not much), then a big loss in transmisison of the electricity, and then finally the big loss of storing it in the batteries of my car. It's not obvious that this is more efficient than me just burning the oil in my car, but I really don't know the answer.

Hybrids are really just a more efficient way to burn gas in my car, unless you have a plug-in hybrid.

What was Jeep's argument?
 

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male

JustAsking

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2004
Posts
3,217
Media
0
Likes
33
Points
268
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
The report is here. This is great. Thanks for bringing this up.

This is closest to the optimum way to measure social and environmental impact if that is your biggest concern (it is my concern). But a better figure of merit would be the "Dust to Dust" Total Carbon Output Per Mile. Energy costs gets you close to that, but consider that burning natural gas is much better than burning oil or coal when it comes to carbon output.

So I wonder how the cars would rank in that regard.

Also, I wonder how an all electric vehicle would rank in the original study.
 

Expando1

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Posts
82
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
153
Age
44
Location
Texas
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Heather LouAnna said:
*sits by you* I love a man that's articulated. *bats lashes* :biggrin1:

Gratsi, Heather. I reckon I have an Austin education to credit for my quirky views.
 

Jeffin90620

Sexy Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Posts
234
Media
0
Likes
41
Points
248
Location
Southern California
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
JustAsking said:
jeffin,
Thanks for the math. Thats part of the reason we don't see much innovation. The other part is complacency, risk aversion, and lack of vision in the makers and the buyers.
That's not all of it. There is also an inertia that makes change difficult because of the cost of changing an installed system. Our current transportation system developed over decades, with little planning (try driving in the Northeast if you want to see how godawfully confusing it can be). It takes years and billions of dollars to change existing freeways here in Southern California to add more lanes or mass transit systems (as they are trying to do in Orange County).

JustAsking said:
Tell me this. If you considered end-to-end efficiency from fuel production all the way to in-car storage, is an all electric car more efficient, and does it pollute less than a high mileage gasoline powered vehicle?
Depends on how the electricity is generated. As I mentioned in my earlier post, very little electricity in the US is produced by the most efficient manner (e.g. nuclear). A fair amount is produced by hydroelectric plants, but there are practical limits to expanding that source. A great deal of energy in the US comes from burning coal. While (expensive) scrubbers can keep the process fairly clean, I don't know the conversion factors to calculate the efficiency.

JustAsking said:
In other words, is it better that the nearby powerplant burn some oil, coal, or natural gas for me to drive a mile, or is it better for me to burn it in my vehicle?
Well, if natural gas is in the mix, I would think that fuel cells would be more efficient than using it to generate electricity and deliver it to charging sites.
 

BuddyBoy

Just Browsing
Joined
Feb 3, 2006
Posts
243
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
236
Location
Canada
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Jeffin90620 said:
Solar power is not a reliable, cheap or quick means of recharging electric cars.

Burning coal or oil to generate the energy to produce hydrogen is counter-productive.

Building enough hydroelectric plants to provide the power to extract hydrogen would freak the environmentalists, in addition to being very expensive.

The most productive source (i.e. cheapest for large scale production) would be nuclear. Countries like France and Japan produce most of their electrical energy from nuclear power, but the United States produces very little (and less every decade as plants are closed down for being politically inexpedient).
You are spot on, sir!

I suggested solar primarily as a trickle charger, something to top up some of the charge you expended driving into the office, for example. Granted, at the cost of solar array deployment, it would be far from "Free Power" but at the moment there is a novel source of funds for developing projects like this - carbon offset trading companies. At $12 to $40 per tonne, you could fund a number of such stations as an experiment.

As for hydrogen production, I think it could only be sustainable in concert with nuclear power for the very reasons you outlined - everything else is far too inefficient and when you add in inefficiencies of Hydrogen together with the inefficiencies of traditional power, it become too big of a inefficency hurdle to jump over. At least on anything approaching a large scale.

As much as I like the concept of some of the other alternate power souces, I don't think they have a chance of meeting the world's true energy needs, and furthermore, their own detrimental impact on the environment has been too often overlooked.