# EV and Alt Fuel Vehicles, part 10



## Darell (Sep 17, 2007)

Yes, folks. It is that time again when the "old" thread is too large to make the forum software happy. So here we are with a fresh new look that should scare fewer people away.

Part 9 is found here:
http://candlepowerforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=147807&pp=50


To get it rolling, let's start with a new CBS video I just came across that talks about "who saved the electric car."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/06/sunday/main3239838.shtml


----------



## Darell (Sep 17, 2007)

A real live Chevy Volt commercial.

http://media.freep.com/video/2007/091507_hum.mov


----------



## LukeA (Sep 17, 2007)

I really applaud that Tesla sedan. The market has been there, but no products have been in it for a few years.

I don't really support the Volt concept for one reason: it still directly combusts fuel. I don't think that it's a viable long term alternative to an ICE vehicle.


----------



## Screehopper (Sep 19, 2007)

LukeA said:


> I really applaud that Tesla sedan. The market has been there, but no products have been in it for a few years.



To be more precise, the Tesla is not a sedan, but a roadster since it's a two-door convertible sports car. Instead of the traditional "boring" looking electric or hybrid cars, Tesla took the leap to make a EV sports car which will be more appealing.

I saw the Tesla in person when it was being shown in Los Angeles. Pretty neat car, despite the price. But I like what the CEO said, the majority of the money will be put back into R&D to build the next generation model which they hope will come at a lower price range.


----------



## Qoose (Sep 19, 2007)

Man I want a Tesla Roadster. Or $150K to get one.

However, word is they are developing a sedan version, with more seats and an affordable price tag. Using the Roadster to bring income to pump into their R&D was a good move though.

Actually, I kinda want a sedan, but with Roadster performance. I like to carry some stuff with me, and a golf bag sized trunk doesn't cut it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Oct 1, 2007)

Is it just a coincidence that the 'cpf classifieds' banner for this thread (ev rules) matches the one at about hybrids at http://www.tanj.com/isaac/ ?









Any new news on new EV's or PHEVs using the new A123 batteries?

Daniel


----------



## ikendu (Oct 1, 2007)

Darell said:


> A real live Chevy Volt commercial.
> 
> http://media.freep.com/video/2007/091507_hum.mov



Sheesh! I guess I need to stop by here a little more often.

I've totally missed this commercial. I sure hope it means they are serious about the car this time. I was on a panel to judge a renewable transportation competition with a lady from GM. I asked her what she knew about. According to her, GM IS totally serious about the Volt. I guess we'll see.

It doesn't bother me that the Volt still combusts fuel. I think Americans are not ready to buy a pure electric vehicle. It is too scary to them that the range is "limited". I think after PHEVs have gained market acceptance, you will start to see a viable market for EVs.

Just my theory.


----------



## Screehopper (Oct 5, 2007)

This may be of interest to readers of this thread.

The Alternative Car and Transportation Expo
Oct 19-20, 2007
10am-5:30pm
at Barker Hanger in Santa Monica Air Center

Free Admission

http://www.altcarexpo.com/index.html


----------



## Darell (Oct 16, 2007)

Hey guys -

I just got to play with a Vectrix "maxi-scooter" last weekend. My page on it here. Even includes a short video of relatively low-speed riding.
http://evnut.com/vectrix.htm

And here is where the rumor mill is headed. This Vectrix superbike is expected to debut in Milan next month:


----------



## Brock (Oct 18, 2007)

Dang, thats a nice looking ride, I just wish it weren't so expensive, maybe once they become more common.


----------



## Darell (Oct 18, 2007)

Considering the low-volume, ground-up uniqueness of the bike, I think the price is a bargain. Yes, compared to the cheap little gas scooters, this is expensive... but man - you can't put a price on the liquid performance and zero maintenance. I imagine the sport bike will be a bit more.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 18, 2007)

Are there any licensing/insurance requirements? Besides the purchase price, that might be a show stopper for some potential buyers (i.e. bicyclists seeking an alternative). For me personally, if I needed a vehicle like this (which I currently don't), I might bite if the purchase price were $5000 or less, AND the licensing/insurance requirements were the same as my bike (i.e. none). I just don't want to jump through the twin hoops of getting a license and paying for insurance. I'm sure as an experienced cyclist I could ride this thing just fine after a short adjustment period. It sounds very intuitive. Yes, I would wear a helmet even though I don't wear one when cycling. A lot more potential to get hurt with a top speed of 62 mph.


----------



## Darell (Oct 18, 2007)

It is a motor vehicle like any other, and requires a license and insurance.


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 18, 2007)

Darell said:


> It is a motor vehicle like any other, and requires a license and insurance.


. Oh well. I had been hoping that since it was small, zero emissions, and only had a top speed of 62 mph, it might have slipped in under some alternative vehicle incentive law. I guess I'll just stick to my bike, perhaps buy something like this should I need more speed.


----------



## Orion (Oct 22, 2007)

I haven't followed the other parts, but do have to say that most people will tend to not go for a pure electric vehicle because of range. Also, you kinda have to have a place to plug them in. For me, in an apartment, I have no way TO plug it in to charge it. When I do, . . . .and they come up with a 300 mile range per charge, these things will be very much considered. The only downfall would be if you wanted to take a trip. Unless there were some fast chargers that you could "fill up" at, these would only be commuter/in town units.

As for Hybrids, they are my only choice, at the moment, for a limited fossil fuel car. I really like the Altima Hybrid, but they are very limited as to where you can buy them or have them worked on. The reason why I like the idea of the Altima Hybrid is for it's power, as in, when you step on the throttle. I've thought about the Civic Hybrid, but would really hate not having much horsepower. I hope that Nissan USA will start producing more of the Altima Hybrids, and in the two door coupe as well.


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2007)

Orion said:


> I haven't followed the other parts, but do have to say that most people will tend to not go for a pure electric vehicle because of range. Also, you kinda have to have a place to plug them in. For me, in an apartment, I have no way TO plug it in to charge it. When I do, . . . .and they come up with a 300 mile range per charge, these things will be very much considered. The only downfall would be if you wanted to take a trip. Unless there were some fast chargers that you could "fill up" at, these would only be commuter/in town units.


Ah... Very timely to have come by since I spent some time over the weekend compiling many of the reasons I've heard as to why EVs won't work.

http://evnut.com/evs_bad.htm

Have a look and see if these look familiar:
#8
#32
#12

And there you'll find many, many more reasons to consider why EVs won't work for you or "most people."

Now we should probably take a moment and discuss the challenges we face in driving gasoline cars. Or, on a more positive note - we should discuss how electric transportation CAN work for many people. If you want the responses to your specific concerns, I'm happy to take a stab at those as well. They've all been answered (literally) hundreds of times.



> As for Hybrids, they are my only choice, at the moment, for a limited fossil fuel car.


Unfortunately, they represent the only choice for just about everybody at this time.  And that's the main reason that I do what I do.


----------



## Darell (Oct 22, 2007)

double post during a web melt down.


----------



## Orion (Oct 23, 2007)

Darell said:


> Ah... Very timely to have come by since I spent some time over the weekend compiling many of the reasons I've heard as to why EVs won't work.
> 
> http://evnut.com/evs_bad.htm
> 
> ...




That was a very long list of arguments. Didn't realize there were so many of them. But we can discuss the few that I brought up if you'd like. 

First, I have nothing against BEVs. I would love to own one! 

1. Is there a way for an apartment dwelling person to own a BEV?

2. In most driving situations, people stay around the town they live in. What is the way a BEV would work when you went out of town? Such as, if you wanted to tour the Grand Canyon and/or Yellowstone?

Thanks!


----------



## Darell (Oct 23, 2007)

Orion said:


> That was a very long list of arguments. Didn't realize there were so many of them.


Oh yeah... Lots to hate. 



> But we can discuss the few that I brought up if you'd like.
> 
> 1. Is there a way for an apartment dwelling person to own a BEV?
> 
> ...


Unless somebody beats me to it, I absolutely will get back to these. Gotta get some things done first though!


----------



## Darell (Oct 23, 2007)

OK, I'll give it a quick stab, though I'm sure this was covered back in version four of this thread. 

I'll start with this: Many of these reasons/concerns on my lengthy list are "true." Please also note that "truth" isn't always what it is cracked up to be. For example, it is true that EVs don't fit everybody's needs. But this misses the point that NO vehicle fits everybody's needs... so what is so important about this truth in this context? With that said, let's move right along.

_EVs can't drive across the country easily. _

Quite true. EVs are not the best choice for a cross-country vehicle. It turns out that very few people drive across the country on a regular basis. A few do it every now and again, and an impossibly small percentage of drivers do it with some frequency. While modern EVs can have ranges of 250-300 miles, and fast-charging has been commercialized for many years, driving thousands of miles a day in an EV will not be convenient any time soon. This is a case of "the right tool for the job." For example, I also would not choose to ride a 250cc motorcycle across the country - but I still see the value in having these small bikes available. EVs excel at what most American drivers use their cars for: commuting. And since millions of American households have more than one car, some will choose to keep a liquid-fueled car for the long trips. Others can rent or borrow a vehicle for the task, or fly or take the train, etc. We can no longer afford to scale our transportation for the 1% of drivers. We need to solve this thing for the "low hanging fruit" - the vast majority of drivers who can easily replace a gas car with an EV. (As always, an EV won't work for everybody in all situations. We need to have them available for those who CAN use them, and wish to use them in place of a gas car)

_I live in an apartment/I have no garage, so an EV will never work for me._

You already know what I'm going to say here, right? That there are millions of drivers who live in single homes with garages... and those are the ones to conctrate on! Well, that's part of it, certainly. But there's more: Along side the rollout of EVs, it could be required for apartment owners to offer charging for tenants. Or it coule be a huge incentive for them to do so. Apartment dwellers could and should also have the option of charging at their place of employment. Gasoline cars managed to take over the world - and when they were introduced there were NO gasoline stations. Being a nation of smart people, we figured out how to make it work... because we wanted to. We can have charging along residential roads easy enough. Solving this problem is NOT rocket science! It will just take time, money and effort - like everything that is worth doing.

_EVs don't have the same range as gasoline vehicles._

In many cases this is true. And it other cases, an EV has greater range than some gas cars. And it turns out that EVs don't even need that same range for 90% of our driving tasks. The range of gas cars is not needed for the vast majority of vehicle trips. We can do 300 mile range EVs today. We can and we have. We could do 500 miles. But then the question is "why?" That's a big waste of energy, weight, and expense to haul around that much "range" when it will be so rarely needed. Way better than having a huge battery range, is a quicker, convenient way to refuel. Then, the few times that you DO venture beyond your normal driving radius, you can cheaply extend your range, and not have to pay for that extra range the other 99% of the time when you don't need it. Putting fast chargers every ten miles on the interstates would be cheaper than even the most conservative cost estimates for the "hydrogen highway" that is being pushed so hard.


Summary: In order for EVs to be everything we want them to be, we need to promote their use, and some early adopters need to buy and use them. They can't get to where we want them to be in one giant leap. It will take some generations... all the more reason that we need to start yesterday. There is no "perfect" car of any description. Some people can't use a truck. Some people can't use a sedan. Some people can't use a motorcycle. But they're all available for those who CAN use them. All I'm asking is for the same thing with EVs. They need to be available for the people who CAN use them today. For most of our driving tasks, EVs are simply superior to a gasoline vehicle. Almost zero maintenance. Cheap fuel. Clean. Powerful. Quiet. No visits to the gas station.


----------



## Darell (Oct 23, 2007)

As if I had the time, I'm working on responses to ALL of the list now.


----------



## Orion (Oct 24, 2007)

Thanks for the information, Darell. Yes, I'm sure this has been covered, but since this is "part 10", the thought of reading possibly 1,000 posts hoping to find answers would be the proverbial "needle in a haystack". 

It would be nice if apartment owners or job owners offered a place for tenents/employees to recharge. That would solve my current (and hopefully temporary) situation. If I had a house, I would have no problem owning a purly electric vehicle as I rarely go on trips. And if I did, I would rent a car. 

I hope that more BEVs are offered in the near future.


----------



## Darell (Oct 24, 2007)

Excellent, Orion -

The first step is understanding the benefits and need. the second step is making them available. Making them easy to own for more poeple comes naturally.


----------



## Orion (Oct 24, 2007)

Isn't Chevrolet coming out with a vehicle that is a hybrid, but can travel 40 miles on a charge from home? As of now, that would be a good first step, as most people could recharge each night. Even that small of a step would be great for the environment and you could still take the car on a trip with the hybrid system. Hopefully the other car makers will start offering such a hybrid with a short range all electric drive system soon. I'd be buying one.


----------



## Darell (Oct 24, 2007)

Orion said:


> Isn't Chevrolet coming out with a vehicle that is a hybrid, but can travel 40 miles on a charge from home? As of now, that would be a good first step, as most people could recharge each night. Even that small of a step would be great for the environment and you could still take the car on a trip with the hybrid system. Hopefully the other car makers will start offering such a hybrid with a short range all electric drive system soon. I'd be buying one.


Yes... Chevy is saying that they will produce the Volt. It is a serial hybrid, though GM calls it an EV... with a gasoline range extender. Here is that comment and response from my "EVs won't work" page.

55. GM has finally figured out what the EVs were missing to make them acceptable to the consumer: A gasoline engine. Now, 12 years after the EV1 debut, they just have to figure out how to get 40 miles of battery range.
• Just 15 years after the EV1 prototype was managing 50 miles. Just 11 years after the production EV1s with Panasonic Lead Acid batteries were managing 100 miles. And just nine years after the production EV1s with NiMH batteries were managing 150 miles, GM is about to figure out how to get 40 miles of battery range in their Volt. I wish them luck.​


----------



## Roy (Oct 24, 2007)

I'm doing what I can....got a new car (KIA Optmia) that actually gets the milage advertised...33 mpg highway. Recently one of the gas sppliers (Valero) started putting 10% ethonol in all of their grades of gas, so I'm buying my gas there! Not a hybrid car....but what the hay!:thumbsup:


----------



## Orion (Oct 25, 2007)

So, Darell, I believe I see what you're saying. When they have they capability of 150 miles of range, they "pat themselves on the back" at 40 miles range. Perhaps the battery pack isn't as large as a purely electric vehicle, so only 40 miles of charge is what the pack can deliver?


----------



## jtr1962 (Oct 25, 2007)

Darell said:


> GM has finally figured out what the EVs were missing to make them acceptable to the consumer: A gasoline engine. Now, 12 years after the EV1 debut, they just have to figure out how to get 40 miles of battery range.


More like GM has finally figured out an acceptable (to them) way to produce electric cars. Add a gasoline engine to introduce needless complexity. It should break down just as often as any other car, and keep their spare parts business going. Also funny how the 150 mile range of the NiMH EV1 wasn't acceptable, but all of a sudden 40 miles is.

I can't help but think the company which finally produces a decent electric car which sells like hot cakes won't be one of the big three. It'll probably be a little upstart nobody even notices.


----------



## Darell (Oct 25, 2007)

Orion -

Yeah, what JTR said. My point is that back in the 90's we had batter cars that could do better than 100 miles range on the battery technology of the day. Remember that this is back when cell phones were the size of carry-on bags, and laptops needed a really sturdy lap.

The car makers at the time said that 100 miles of range was not enough to satisfy most drivers. Today GM is saying that since most people drive less than 40 miles/day, that you may never have to put gas in the Volt... a car that only has 40 miles of battery range. But the kicker is that they say that the car also can't yet be built because the batteries that will give them 40 miles of range haven't been invented yet. I've driven several battery cars over the years. I can count 10 of them that had better range than the Volt proposes, and six that went over 100 miles. And every one of them was built in the 1990's.


----------



## Darell (Oct 25, 2007)

October 24, 2007
Washington DC
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Electric Car Answers the “Call of the Grid”

Electric power customers in Washington DC may not have noticed, but they participated in the world’s first public demonstration of real-time vehicle-to-grid (V2G) today. In a demonstration of V2G sponsored by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, an electric vehicle plugged in at FERC headquarters and received power dispatch commands from PJM, the regional grid operator. The commands were linked to the vehicle through a communication package developed by PHI and University of Delaware. The vehicle, an AC Propulsion eBox EV, responded to the commands by charging or discharging its battery in short bursts that helped to balance supply and demand of power on the grid. 
The eBox was receiving the same power commands as major power stations throughout the region, and it responded as they did only with smaller amounts of power. V2G has been demonstrated before, but never with actual real-time commands from the grid. 

The one-car demo today had no material effect on the grid, but it demonstrated how electric vehicles and plug-in hybrids may become an integral part of the electric power distribution system. When thousands of vehicles are plugged in for charging, they can, at the same time, serve as a “battery on the grid” rapidly buffering supply and demand to help improve the reliability and efficiency of grid operation. Their combined buffering effect can also help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by better utilizing solar and wind energy generation that can vary from minute to minute and hour to hour.
The benefits of V2G for the grid are compelling, but drivers get something too. PJM pays millions of dollars to generating stations for their help in balancing the grid. Once vehicles assume that role on a significant scale, their drivers will get paid too. That is why FERC Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff likes to call the cars CashBack Vehicles – plug them in and get cash back.


----------



## BB (Oct 25, 2007)

I don't think I have seen this posted here... A new Lead Acid battery technology using foamed lead/carbon-graphite plates founded by a large company (Caterpillar Tractor). Looks really interesting:

Firefly Energy

From one of their FAQ':



> *What is the most important aspect of Firefly's new technology?*
> 
> The “key” to Firefly’s technology is the substitution of lightweight carbon-graphite foam for much of the lead metal grids found in a conventional lead acid battery. The carbon-graphite foam grids have substantial advantages that directly address conventional battery shortcomings, or, as we prefer to call them, “performance bottlenecks”. The carbon-graphite foam is much lighter than traditional lead grid material, it allows for greater electron flow from the battery’s chemistry, and is highly resistant to sulfation, which is a common lead acid battery failure mode. Another benefit is much lighter weight and proportionately greater energy density.


PDF White Paper (PDF file)

One company (snowmobile mfg?) should be shipping in their product in late 2007... General retail--+2 years???

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Oct 25, 2007)

Firefly is for real, and they're making a go of it for sure. But... as is usual, this great technology still isn't commercialized yet. And as usual, we wait and hope and see...


----------



## rodfran (Oct 27, 2007)

To jtr1962: I agree with you on the Volt gas engine adding unecessary complexity. I think many on this forum are waiting for an AFFORDABLE electric vehicle that is not a glorified golf cart.

To Roy: Do you mind telling me how much you paid for the Kia in round numbers? And did the car have a good warranty? Some day I will have to look for look for another family car. My wife currently drives a 1986 Buick Century with a 4 cylinder(21 mpg). We paid $500 for it used, many years ago. I am still trying to get used to new price sticker shock nowadays!

I don't know if I can wait forever for one of these "maybe" pure electrics in the future.

They will probably be out of my (and most peoples) price range anyway.

I personally ride a bus to and from work for $10 a month. So it is really hard for me to justify spending $20 grand for a car, whether it is pure electric, hybrid, or whatever. 
Whatever I buy, will probably have to be "pre-owned" as they call them now.


----------



## Roy (Oct 27, 2007)

The KIAs have a 100K warrenty! After tradeit and rebatess, it cost be around $16,000! If you're looking for a cheap car for in town use, KIA has a slew of models at less than $16000. My Optmia is the second largest 4 door
sedan in their line up. Mine has the 2.4L 4 cylinder motor which gives me aound 26 mpg in town and 30-33 mpg on the highway.

Go find a KIA dealer and take a look. They are overlooked and give (my opinion) good value.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Oct 28, 2007)

With EV, I have to walk before I can run.  
I ride my daily 13.2 mile round trip on my recumbent bicycle and it works very well. Not a hard thing to do in flat Florida. In 2009, I'll move again but to mountains in the Ozarks as I finally put down roots. (can't wait!) 
Messed around with electric scooters and electric bicycles when I lived in Turkey and learned many things. The main thing I learned was SLA AGM cells are way to heavy, have a short range and go out of balance quickly. I think I'll use the 48V 35A brushless motor and controller for a small lawnmower or something. 
My Charger electric bike will be heavily modified from a pedal assist SLA battery beast to a throttle controlled LiFePO4 powered bike. The brushless motor runs through a Shimano 7-speed internally geared hub and I like the design. It is the battery thing that I am concerned about.
My plan is to use a 24V 30 or 35 amp controller for the motor and a throttle. A company called PHET makes 13.8 and 27.6V batteries that look like car batteries. They have a battery management system inside that keeps the cells balanced. Not sure of the Ah rating but I know they do make 36 Ah cells and they can handle a huge discharge rate without dropping the voltage. 
Using the 35 amp controller option, I calculate a top speed of 30+ MPH in 6th gear with the 27.6V 36 Ah pack. My point is to keep the max discharge on the pack at 1C or less so the pack will last me 10 years. If I blow the Shimano 7-speed internal hub, it will be replaced with a Fallbrook Technologies CVT-P variable rear hub. 
The main thing is the LiFePO4 battery pack. My hope is to pick up the 13.8V 36 Ah "automotive" batteries for about $300 each. Maybe I should pray but really hope they will hit that price in 2008 as capacity continously ramps up. 
For now, I pedal away and look to the future of my electrically assisted bike. 2008 or 2009? It all depends on the battery prices of LiFePO4.


----------



## Orion (Oct 29, 2007)

So, what do you all suppose would happen if a LOT of people started owning pure electric vehicles, recharging them everyday, or every other day, . . . .when it seems like (especially in the summer time) in large cities, power consumption is up so much, they do "rolling blackouts". If people are also placing electric vehicle charging on the electric grid, would that mean that such cities would have even more problems, perhaps even more times per year?


----------



## rodfran (Oct 29, 2007)

Thanks for the feedback, Roy!

Also thanks to you, BentHeadTX for keeping us up to date with the latest in battery electric bikes.
Excellent info!


----------



## Darell (Oct 29, 2007)

Orion said:


> So, what do you all suppose would happen if a LOT of people started owning pure electric vehicles, recharging them everyday, or every other day, . . . .when it seems like (especially in the summer time) in large cities, power consumption is up so much, they do "rolling blackouts". If people are also placing electric vehicle charging on the electric grid, would that mean that such cities would have even more problems, perhaps even more times per year?



Another common question... And it is currently #37 on my "EV's Won't Work Because..." page.

1. The oil industry is the single largest consumer and purchaser of electricity. The gasoline cars running around today are responsible for about as much electricity per mile as my EV consumes... though my EV doesn't then need to go on and burn the gasoline. Let me say that again: Gasoline cars use as much electricity (and infinitely more gasoline) as EVs.
2. New homes/pools/AC units are more of an issue than EVs. Homes use the energy during peak times consistently. This is what CREATES the peaks, of course. EVs will typically (no, not always, but mostly) be charged during off-peak times while it is parked over night. Put some real conservation measures in place for homes and businesses, and we solve many problems while creating jobs and saving money.
3. The grid currently has enough excess off-peak capacity to charge untold millions of cars. Using off-peak capapcity is the single best way to make existing plants more efficient. A more level load helps everybody (except that overall power plant pollution will increase, even though pollution per unit of energy created will go down).
4. Vehicle to Grid demonstrations are on-going. In a perfect world where we're all driving EVs, we plug them in wherever we park... and when the utility needs extra power at some location, it sips a tiny bit from thousands of EVs to cover the peak *locally*. When the peak has passed, the cars are refilled. In this way *EVs can decrease the occurrances of rolling blackouts* by being plugged in. It has been demonstrated (remotely controlled from a power plant) and it works. EVs can be our peak shavers. And if you have an EV plugged in at home and you DO have a rolling blackout... your house will still be lit as you power your home from you car.
5. Solve the problem by installing PV panels, and making your own fuel for your EV. And if you want to make a bigger difference, install enough PV to cover the home usage as well. Berkeley is just about to pass a landmark Solar initiative where homeowners will barely be able to afford NOT to put up solar. There will be no up-front cost, just an extra property tax assessmement that will be equal to or LESS than the power bill that they were be off-setting. After 20 years, the assessment goes away, and the solar system is owned by the homeowner. This isn't difficult! It just needs to be implemented by communities (countries?) that care.


----------



## Orion (Oct 30, 2007)

Very good, then, Darell.  

I'll be on board when they realize that "it's time".


----------



## Darell (Oct 30, 2007)

Orion said:


> Very good, then, Darell.
> 
> I'll be on board when they realize that "it's time".



Best thing to do at this point is to let "them" know that it is TIME. The automakers keep telling us that they only build what we want. They also tell us that we don't want EVs. The trick here, is to catch them with their pants down.

Like with quotes such as these:
http://evnut.com/quotes_ev.htm

Remember in those EV comments by GM, that GM is now calling the Volt an EV. A 40-mile battery range EV that will often never need gas since so few people commute more than 40 miles in a day.

Oh... and they'll never take the cars away from willing customers. :sigh:


----------



## Darell (Nov 12, 2007)

Well, the KillaCycle is now the fastest EV *EVER* in the 1/4 mile. Made a pass in the 7's yesterday at 168mph. 7.8 seconds for a standing 1/4 mile and 168mph. Yeah... them EVs are slow. 

http://www.killacycle.com/2007/11/11/7824-168-mph-at-pomona-ahdra-nov-10th/


----------



## BentHeadTX (Nov 12, 2007)

Thanks for the news Darell... good to see those 99 DeWalt drill batteries still breaking records. Love the A123 but I wish they would make larger cells since 2.3 Ah makes too many connections and too much battery management system board complexity.  

Meanwhile, I am kicking back and watching PHET and hope their LiFePO4 automotive style batteries come on-line quickly. A 25.6V 36AH pack with only eight cells to worry about would make my project much easier.


----------



## Darell (Nov 12, 2007)

BentHeadTX said:


> Thanks for the news Darell... good to see those 99 DeWalt drill batteries still breaking records. Love the A123 but I wish they would make larger cells since 2.3 Ah makes too many connections and too much battery management system board complexity.



Standard chicken and egg issue, of course. The battery makers don't want to gear up to make large-format packs if there are no cars to put them in. The car makers can't make the cars until the batteries exist. :sigh:


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 12, 2007)

Darell said:


> Berkeley is just about to pass a landmark Solar initiative where homeowners will barely be able to afford NOT to put up solar. There will be no up-front cost, just an extra property tax assessmement that will be equal to or LESS than the power bill that they were be off-setting. After 20 years, the assessment goes away, and the solar system is owned by the homeowner. This isn't difficult! It just needs to be implemented by communities (countries?) that care.


 
So who's paying? Those things are bloody expensive from what I know.


----------



## Darell (Nov 12, 2007)

jzmtl said:


> So who's paying?


The city takes out huge, low-interest loans to front the money. The homeowner then pays it back via a property tax assessment. The additional tax will be equal to or less than the cost of the electricity that is then NOT purchased from the utility. Bottom line - you can't afford not to do this if you live in Berkeley. Much the same way that I couldn't afford not to install PV....



> Those things are bloody expensive from what I know.


Five years ago I bought a brand new car and a PV system that will provide fuel for an electric car for the rest of my life... for a grand total of $41,000. That's a new full-featured, highway-capable electric car PLUS fuel for life. Want bloody expensive? Total up your ever-increasing traditional fuel costs for the rest of your life... and add the ever-rising cost of electricity for your home. Maybe toss in a pinch of health care costs and a war or three. Only then can we determine what is "expensive" in this case.

My PV system covers my car "fuel" and the electricity for my home. The only thing I did wrong was to wait so long to install this bloody expensive thing.


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 12, 2007)

How big is your house/yard, just curious. I just can't see putting up enough solar panels to power both car and house in the little bitty roof I have, especially in the winter when sun is weak and electricity demand is highest. Besides climbing onto a 45° incline two story roof to brush snow off would gets old really fast.

Oh yeah, unless the gouverment does the free system thing (HA HA), I and majority of people just don't have money for the $41000 upfront cost.


----------



## Darell (Nov 12, 2007)

I have about the smallest practical PV system you'd want to install. 2.5kW. Takes up about half of the roof of just the garage, or about 250 Sq. Feet.

You can see my installation here: http://evnut.com/images/solar/solar1.jpg

If I had a normal-shaped garage, all panels would have fit on the South side. As it is some of the panels had to move up to the second story. If you look close you see them all. That's it!

Of course it doesn't snow here too much! But they also make snow-melters for these things that work great. PV works in more climates than people give it credit for. Snow can be an issue though as it can hold stuff up there that would normally slide off.


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 12, 2007)

The size looks doable, smaller than I expected. But I'm skeptic on snow melter. It melt snow into water, which runs down roof and gets frozen, but this is exactly what you DON'T want to happen, because it will kill the roof/shingle fast. The system probably work well for people in the south but up here when it snows you really get 6 inches at least dumped on you.


----------



## Darell (Nov 12, 2007)

Well, I know people who live in snowy places are making it work. It isn't something I deal with around here though! Brock is using PV in Greenbay. They get some cold up there, I hear. Maybe he'll chime in and tell us of his experience.


----------



## BentHeadTX (Nov 12, 2007)

Darell said:


> Standard chicken and egg issue, of course. The battery makers don't want to gear up to make large-format packs if there are no cars to put them in. The car makers can't make the cars until the batteries exist. :sigh:



I grabbed some info from PHET and they make cylindrical cells rated at 3.2V at Ah ratings of 10 to 250 amp hours. They have a "12V 36Ah" battery that looks rather automotive that I am interested in. Take two of those and two chargers and run them in series for a 25.6V 36Ah pack. The prismatic cells are available in 23 to 144 amp hours so things are looking up. 

Figure I'll find out how much those 36 amp hour batteries cost pretty soon. My peak discharge will be 1C but normally much less so they should last for many years. If they work OK, then I can get the bigger guns for eventual wind/solar experiments. 

Here is the info:

http://www.phet.com.tw/Products/Products_Intro.aspx


----------



## Brock (Nov 12, 2007)

No problems with snow on panels. The only time the snow actually sit's on it is during a storm and then you have no sun anyway. Basically a panel should be set to your latitude +15 degrees due south for winter or your latitude for summer. If you’re fixed mounting them most people just split the difference and do latitude +7. So up here at 45 degrees my tilt is 53 degrees due south, snow doesn't sit well on glass at a 53 degrees tilt 

Us northerners just see a drastic output drop in winter. I drop to about 1/5 of my summer output. The killer is we have so much less daylight in winter and at such a low angle, hence the 30 degrees. The advantage is in summer I access power and sometimes have to run the AC to use it all up


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 12, 2007)

That really sucks, when you need it the most for heating is when it produce the least.

Doesn't matter now thou, I have a grand in my bank account, so that's about what, 2% of startup fund.


----------



## Darell (Nov 12, 2007)

jzmtl said:


> That really sucks, when you need it the most for heating is when it produce the least.



Just the reverse here. The high electricity load is in the summer for AC. I don't produce much or use much in the winter. I produce gobs of power and use gobs of power in the summer. But then that doesn't really matter as much as it seems since the bill is averaged over an entire year.


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 12, 2007)

Huh, it's just the opposite here. I use AC a week per year at most, doesn't get that hot here. But my winter electricity bill is 3x my summer bill (electrical baseboard heating).


----------



## BB (Nov 13, 2007)

I have a similar PV system as Darell's... Mine is 3.0kW peak Grid Tied, and I have averaged around $300 in electrical utility credits per year with a $5/month minimum connection fee (credit is lost for now--but really watching for a good family electric vehicle and get rid of our little Honda 4 door to use the extra $$$ in the "bank").

So, I am ahead money wise because of the Time of Use metering (during the summer the base rates are, $0.29 per kWhr Peak, and $0.09 per kWhr off-peak). Just don't use much power noon-6pm weekdays during the spring/summer time--and it gives me the equivalent of 3x larger panels (in terms of generating power credits).

Also, my array generates more kWhrs/year than we use at home (natural gas for cooking/heating/hot water/drier, conservation, and turning things off).

Am I saving money yet... Not really at this time. My array generates power around $0.14 to $0.17 per kWhr. And my base rate is just under $0.12 per kWhr (standard residential with no time of use). If I was using a lot of electricity (A/C, electric heat, etc.), rates run upwards of $0.36 per kWhr (standard rate) or $0.52 per kWhr for the most punitive Peak Summer rates.

If you are above base line (tiered pricing where you get charged higher rates for using more power), solar PV Grid Tied can save you lots of money right from the beginning... And you don't have to have large enough panels to zero out your power bill--just large enough to knock you out of the higher pricing tiers.

-Bill


----------



## Brock (Nov 13, 2007)

Yes it's true you produce less in winter, but since we currently heat with wood or gas our electric usage drops in winter. We are also on time of use, so in the summer when the sun is shining we are producing $.24 / kw power to off set our on peak loads, then as the sun sets we switch to off peak rates at $.06 / kw.

Right now we only have 500w of solar, but it carries us through the daytime peak. Our new home has roof mounts for 3kw, but I could add another 3kw if I ever have the $. We have also installed a geothermal heat pump which uses electricity; we plan to run it only off peak, but that’s another story.


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 21, 2007)

I came across a RAV-EV today on the freeway in San Jose. Hybrids have become very common during the commute. I am seldom out of sight of at least one during my 35 mile drive. EV's, on the other hand, are rare as hen's teeth.

The EV was in the middle lane of interstate 880, cruising at a sedate 55 MPH. Normally, that's faster than you'd be able to do on that stretch of freeway, but today the pre-holiday traffic was super light so I could actually do the speed limit.

I bring this up because I (and the other drivers) were treated to a slow moving car embazoned with EV in big letters. It did nothing to disuade the notion that EVs are slow. Why would an EV driver drive so slow when the traffic would allow 65? Any ideas?

Daniel


----------



## Akita (Nov 22, 2007)

:thumbsup: Old Dinosaur Honda's that used low tech...technology.



> The original 1.3 liter car and the later American-market *CRX HF* model could reliably achieve better than 50 mpg, more than a decade before gas-electric hybrids appeared on the market, and at no price premium over the base model; the 1.3 liter was rated at 51 mpg for CITY and 60mpg highway


 
Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_CR-X#_note-0

Friend of mine has the original owners manual for his 1984 1.3L Honda CRX.
It quotes:
CITY 52 MPG
HYW 64MPG 
AVG 58 MPG

He still owns the darn thing and even with 280K on the speedometer it gets a consistent 55 MPG overall average.

So you have to ask yourself what is the problem here.

25 years later they think 35 mpg is front page news ?

Not hardly friends.


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 22, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> I came across a RAV-EV today on the freeway in San Jose. Hybrids have become very common during the commute. I am seldom out of sight of at least one during my 35 mile drive. EV's, on the other hand, are rare as hen's teeth.
> 
> The EV was in the middle lane of interstate 880, cruising at a sedate 55 MPH. Normally, that's faster than you'd be able to do on that stretch of freeway, but today the pre-holiday traffic was super light so I could actually do the speed limit.
> 
> ...



Same as people in gasser drive slow in left lane? :thinking:



Akita said:


> :thumbsup: Old Dinosaur Honda's that used low tech...technology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Those things are LIGHT, an encounter with soccer moms in SUV who's putting on makeup while yelling at kids in backseat would turn you (and CRX) into a metal sandwich.


----------



## Darell (Nov 22, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> I bring this up because I (and the other drivers) were treated to a slow moving car embazoned with EV in big letters. It did nothing to disuade the notion that EVs are slow.


Most people assume that my car can't go fast enough to be on the freeway. Seeing one doing 55mph should at least raise *some* eyebrows. Seriously. Most people think that I'm limited to 25mph..... and about 20 miles of range.



> Why would an EV driver drive so slow when the traffic would allow 65? Any ideas?


I have a pretty good idea, yes. It is likely for the same reason that I drive my EV AND my Prius AND my Civic before that, AND my Volvo before that... at ~55 mph even when the speed limit is posted at 65+. I drive in the right lane where no truck, nor any car pulling a trailer can legally exceed 55 mph. And I do this... wait for it becuase I know it'll be shocking... to save energy. Yes I even try to save CHEAP energy, as well as the more expensive and polluting kind. Driving 55 mph I can go 120 miles. Driving 65 mph I can go about 90 miles. One time when I managed a solid 45 mph (on a highway with max 45 speed) for the whole trip, I went 135 miles on a single charge.

I don't hold people up, and I'll happily waste my own clean energy to speed up to facilitate a merge - so that a lumbering gas-burner doesn't have to change speed suddenly and spew even more exhaust.

The bigger question here is why do people insist on driving at or above the speed limit when driving at or below the limit is proven to be significantly safer, cheaper and less polluting?

Or... how about another: Why do people drive alone in cars that can hold five... seven... even nine people? So many questions. 

I like jzmtl's response as well: I see gas cars going slow all the time. Would more people jump on the EV bandwagon if they were passed by a Tesla at 130 mph? Eventually we're going to have to start thinking of our transportation as.... transportation.


----------



## Darell (Nov 22, 2007)

Akita said:


> Friend of mine has the original owners manual for his 1984 1.3L Honda CRX.
> It quotes:
> CITY 52 MPG
> HYW 64MPG
> ...


Several issues. And the biggest one is emissions. Our goal isn't just to save gas - though that's a biggie - it is also to quit spewing crap into the air. While a high mileage car like the old CRX does a pretty good job on reducing CO2, it does a terrible job on the rest of the emissions. Even big, stupid guzzlers sold today do better on the other emissions than the CRX did. The new CRX will be a significantly different, and significantly cleaner car than the original. Yeah... it'll get worse gas mileage, and that sucks.

I totally agree that 35 mpg shouldn't be front-page news. But I will point out that a modern Prius can do 55 mpg average (I'm at 54 lifetime right now for mine, and I tow and cary some crazy loads with it) - and this car is in such a different class than the old CRX that you can't even see it from here. WAY more comfortable, larger in every dimension, significantly more power, and WAY WAY cleaner to operate. While I'm not a big fan of any gasoline vehicle, today's gasoline hybrids ARE significantly cleaner *and* more desirable than previous cars - even if they only get the same gas mileage. So we really have come at least one baby step better - even if the new CRX doesn't make it seem that way.

If gas mileage is what I want, and comfort/size is not an issue, then I'd get a scooter (well, really, I'd get an electric one... but I COULD get a gasoline scooter and get better GAS mileage is my point). So we really must compare apples to apples for any of this to make sense. With today's regulations in place, we can't make a car like the old CRX. It is always a tradeoff.


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 22, 2007)

Darell said:


> The bigger question here is why do people insist on driving at or above the speed limit when driving at or below the limit is proven to be significantly safer, cheaper and less polluting?
> 
> Or... how about another: Why do people drive alone in cars that can hold five... seven... even nine people? So many questions.



Because everyone have a comfortable speed on highway, drive at below or above that it feels very restricting (even without speed limit, people won't turn into speed demons like politicians would like you to believe, they'd cruise at their own comfortable speed). My comfortable speed in my jeep is 55~65, driving my parent's car it's 70~80.

As for the second question, beats me, my vehicle only sits two comfortably.


----------



## Darell (Nov 22, 2007)

jzmtl said:


> people won't turn into speed demons like politicians would like you to believe, they'd cruise at their own comfortable speed


Sometimes their own comfortable speed is *well* over 100 mph. Have you ever driven where there are no speed limits? I have! You never really know what people will do in a given situation if that situation is never presented.


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 22, 2007)

Those are likely to be the ones who don't follow speed limit to begin with anyway. I've never driven in Germany but my friends who have told me people don't actually cruise at that speed, they burst for a while, then slow down, and repeat.


----------



## Darell (Nov 22, 2007)

Hell, I know people in the US who cruise at 125mph for hours on end. Anyway... different people like to drive different speeds as you say. NO argument here.


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 22, 2007)

Damn, no cops around? Most I'd do is 100, and that's only in a pack on rural highway, I'd like to keep my license. oo:


----------



## Darell (Nov 22, 2007)

jzmtl said:


> Damn, no cops around? Most I'd do is 100, and that's only in a pack on rural highway, I'd like to keep my license. oo:



Been through the Nevada desert? You can drive for quite some time, on arrow-straight highway - without seeing another vehicle... or gas station! Yeah, I'm pretty fond of my license as well. Has a great picture of me from half my life ago.


----------



## LukeA (Nov 22, 2007)

You need to be at or near 100mph to reliably pass tractor trailers on I-65 outside Louisville. Those truckers are cruising at about 80-85, even those with oversize loads. The posted limit is 75, but on that road 75 is too slow to be safe.

On the Autobahn, most drivers go about 120-150 km/h (75-93 mph) in the no-limit sections.


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 22, 2007)

Akita said:


> :thumbsup: Old Dinosaur Honda's that used low tech...technology.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But, as Paul Harvey might say, wiki forgot "the rest of the story".

The first generation CRX that got 50 MPG produced only 58 HP. That's OK for a small two seater on flat streets. It's not in the same league as a Prius that seats 4 adults and can haul groceries while climbing a 6% grade at 65 mph.

I don't have the emissions specs at hand, but it's quite likely that the first gen CRX also produces more pollution per mile than a modern hybrid. The original CRX did not have the sophisticated controls that the modern cars have.

We could build a hybrid today that mimics the capability of a 1980's econobox, and it will deliver outstanding mileage and ultra low pollution. Unfortunately, people slammed the 1st gen hybrids as being too slow ; only 105 MPH top speed with Zero -60 better than most trucks, vans and suvs. As a result recent hybrids are being 'tuned' for higher performance and lower mileage. We have a 450 HP Lexus hybrid, a Camry hybrid that's faster than the stock one and none get stellar mileage.

I'm hoping that the current price hikes provide the incentive necessary to build some killer commuter cars. 

Daniel


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 22, 2007)

Wet snow turned into freezing rain today, everything is covered by two inches of snow/ice/slushie mixture that's frozen solid. I was just thinking, man if I had solar panels, I'm so screwed.


----------



## gadget_lover (Nov 22, 2007)

If you had solar panels you'd have some sort of backup. You'd have power from the grid, a battery bank or a generator. Some folks rely on wood as a backup. I can't do without the internet that long.

Daniel


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Nov 22, 2007)

In the meantime diesel is somewhere well beyond 3 bucks. My 8,000LB +- '03 Ram 2500 CTD has a lifetime average of low 19.

Pretty much the only trips I make that are not work related are 2 times a week about 12 miles each way to a bowling alley and maybe once a month about 80 miles each way to a poker game.

About 70% of the time I am alone in the truck (but it only holds two without major change anyhow).

I'm ALWAYS trying to improve the average, and I RARELY go faster than 67mph, coast down whenever possible, accelerate as if I'll bust an egg and otherwise drive for mpg!


----------



## jzmtl (Nov 23, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> If you had solar panels you'd have some sort of backup. You'd have power from the grid, a battery bank or a generator. Some folks rely on wood as a backup. I can't do without the internet that long.
> 
> Daniel



Yeah but unless you climb up the roof and scrape all that crap off all the solar panels without damaging them, it's down for a loooooong time.

But I suppose you could use a blow torch.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Nov 23, 2007)

Had to switch to B10(10% biodiesel) recently so my fuel wouldn't turn to butter in the tanks. :mecry: Truck is noticeably louder and stinks more, although way less than it did on petrodiesel. I do believe I'll be adding a fuel tank heater and heated fuel lines to one of my tanks, then I'll be able to start on B10 and switch to B100 when things heat up. A bigger Espar heater should help this get started before I even crank up the truck.

:buddies:


----------



## Darell (Dec 10, 2007)

jzmtl said:


> man if I had solar panels, I'm so screwed.



I keep thinking, "man, if everybody keep burning fossil fuels, we're ALL PERMANENTLY screwed."


----------



## Darell (Dec 10, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> I don't have the emissions specs at hand, but it's quite likely that the first gen CRX also produces more pollution per mile than a modern hybrid.



The emissions are insanely higher when they're both driving. Many of the emissions from the old CRX are higher than the Prius even when the CRX is parked and the Prius is driving! (CO2 not withstanding).


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Dec 10, 2007)

But the CRX sure was a FUN little roller skate!!!


----------



## Darell (Dec 10, 2007)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> But the CRX sure was a FUN little roller skate!!!



Oh, I totally agree! For the time, they were super cars and had quite a following. My only exception was with the idea that we've somehow gone backwards with technology. Just isn't the case. We make cleaner, safer cars these days. The gas mileage still sucks.... but hey - we're getting more horsepower!


----------



## Darell (Dec 10, 2007)

Diesel_Bomber said:


> A bigger Espar heater should help this get started before I even crank up the truck.
> 
> :buddies:



Excuse my ignorance... what is an Espar heater? Sure seems like there should be some sort of high-tech (or at least chemical) way of solving the cold weather B100 butter issue!


----------



## Brock (Dec 11, 2007)

An Espar heater is a small diesel fired coolant heater used on commercial or big diesels that can't plug in during cold snaps and don't have a good glow plug setup. Some trucks use them as an aux heater so they don't have to keep the engine idling. Even a couple of crazy TDI'ers have installed them to preheat their cars when they can't plug in.


----------



## Brock (Dec 11, 2007)

I believe they make a gas version as well.


----------



## Darell (Dec 11, 2007)

Ah. I just never knew the name. Some of the electric pickups had them as well.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Dec 11, 2007)

Thanks Brock. 

The Espar is indeed a fuel-fired coolant heater. However, it's more than just a cold start aid(My Cummins starts fine at -20F w/ no preheat.), it's a wonderful convenience too. Mine is controlled by a timer and also turns on the blower motor for the cab's HVAC system, which I've left on defrost w/ full heat. When I go out to start my truck, not only is the engine preheated but the windows are defrosted and the cab is toasty warm, before I even turn the key. I paid roughly $900 for the small version several years ago.

Gas versions are available too, although a gas engine will make heat at idle even when it's -20 outside and remote start kits are cheap. The Espar heater is transferable from vehicle to vehicle.

:buddies:


----------



## Darell (Dec 11, 2007)

Diesel_Bomber said:


> The Espar heater is transferable from vehicle to vehicle.




Will it work on my vehicle on these cold days?


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Dec 11, 2007)

Darell said:


> Will it work on my vehicle on these cold days?



I didn't know it got cold down there. :nana:


----------



## Darell (Dec 11, 2007)

For me... cold on a bike is under 40 F and wind. I'm a sissy, what can I say? I can comfortably ride between 40 and 95 F.


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (Dec 12, 2007)

Nothing sissy about it, we all have our own comfort levels. For me, physical exertion + 95F = hospital.

:buddies:


----------



## Darell (Dec 12, 2007)

I'd rather have it too hot then too cold. But I only say that in the winter. Check with me next July for my other response.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 15, 2007)

Every once in a while it becomes clear that even the folks that are trying to do the right thing are clueless. Or just not thinking.....

I found these signs at the San Diego airport last weekend. Can you see what's wrong with this situation?







I think it's nice that they are providing preferred parking for clean air vehicles. But isn't the yellow sticker just for hybrids? Electric and Natural Gas cars have white ones. As I read this, a BEV, hydrogen or CNG car can't park here. They are (usually) cleaner than hybrids. 


But wait! There's MORE!

What's that hiding behind the sign post? Can it be a public charging station? Yes! It is a rare public charging station for electric cars. * It's too bad that electric cars wont fit in the extra narrow parking spot behind the charger. The space to the side says "Reserved", so they can't park there either. I forgot to get a picture of the sign behind the charger. I don't remember what it says.






I guess I should have called the airport, but then I'd have to find someone who cares, then someone who understands the distinction. I only had 2 hours before my flight, so I probably did not have enough time to do that.

Daniel

* It's rare because the city took out the Solar powered chargers that were in the Grape street parking lot. It looked like there were 4 - 8 chargers under an awning of solar panels. They went away last year.


----------



## BB (Dec 15, 2007)

Isn't that the same sticker used on the tens of thousands of Prius and other hybrid cars? So a gasoline hybrid (if it fit) could park there too?

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2007)

BB said:


> Isn't that the same sticker used on the tens of thousands of Prius and other hybrid cars? So a gasoline hybrid (if it fit) could park there too?
> 
> -Bill



A gasoline hybrid is the ONLY vehicle that gets these stickers. So those tens of thousands of Prius and other hybrids are the only ones that can park there apparently... yes.


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> Every once in a while it becomes clear that even the folks that are trying to do the right thing are clueless. Or just not thinking.....



Daniel. Thanks for posting this! You don't mind if I use it on EVnut.com, do you?

My hope is that "reserved" spot is in fact reserved for the charger. But who knows?


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 15, 2007)

Yep. Only the hybrids get the yellow stickers. I think that's to make it easy to change the rules without recalling the stickers themselves. The carpool lane law has a provision that allows the stickers to be invalidated if the area becomes over-crowded.

The HOV lane I use daily would be almost empty if it were not for hybrids, commercial trucks and scofflaws. Silicon Valley is just too big to effectively match home and work. If I carpool with someone who works just two miles from my office, that can add 1/2 hour to the commute by the time I drop him off and loop back. That's how bad the surface street congestion is. 

Sadly, some of the San Jose congestion is brought about by several conservation efforts. In once case, there's a 4 block long section of street that creeps long. It takes 7 to 10 minutes to go that 4 blocks. There's room for an extra lane, and it is needed, but there's a bike lane instead. In 6 months I've seen 1 (one) bicycle in that lane. The light rail crosses this 4 block long section. When the light rail train runs through it takes priority over the normal traffic lights, disrupting the flow. You can't make a left turn immediately before or after the light rail goes by, so the end result is artificial gridlock.

Sorry.  It is kind of on topic. Clueless people trying to do the right thing can really screw things up. There are ways to make light rail and bike lanes work, but sometimes they just gum up the works.

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 15, 2007)

Please feel free Darell. I was thinking of you when I snapped the picture. 

Dan


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2007)

Just to play with the devil a bit, here's how one *could* read some of this:



gadget_lover said:


> If I carpool with someone who works just two miles from my office, that can add 1/2 hour to the commute by the time I drop him off and loop back. That's how bad the surface street congestion is.


Imagine that everybody carpooled with a guy who worked two blocks away. Then you get half the cars and half the congestion, everything moves 4x faster (congestion and speed are not linked 1:1). But if the choice instead is to INCREASE congestion because (and this is the good part) the congestion is so bad... we'll, we're in trouble. This is a vicious circle just like buying a bigger car to protect you from your neighbor who just bought a bigger car.



> There's room for an extra lane, and it is needed, but there's a bike lane instead. In 6 months I've seen 1 (one) bicycle in that lane.


Ah, this is an easy one. Ride your bike! :duck: If we keep making it easier for cars to drive (add lanes to surface streets and freeways) where dose it end? What do we do when that second car lane is also impacted? And what's the incentive for doing anything else but drive? Yet another vicious circle, of course. Linked to cheap gas. If we keep gas cheap AND add lanes everywhere, we'll just keep on keepin' on, and won't fix anything.



> The light rail crosses this 4 block long section. When the light rail train runs through it takes priority over the normal traffic lights, disrupting the flow. You can't make a left turn immediately before or after the light rail goes by, so the end result is artificial gridlock.


Another easy one. Get light rail to be practical... and use it.



> Clueless people trying to do the right thing can really screw things up. There are ways to make light rail and bike lanes work, but sometimes they just gum up the works.



I hear you, and there's no reason to rake me over the coals for what I just typed here. Am just being the meanie as usual (I'm physically cringing before hitting the post button you'll be happy to know!


----------



## Darell (Dec 15, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> Please feel free Darell. I was thinking of you when I snapped the picture.
> 
> Dan


Thanks!


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 15, 2007)

Yep, I disagree with almost all the points Darell made. 

In a perfect world someone living two blocks from me will work within 2 blocks of where I work and be willing to work the hours I work, and neither of us will be called upon to work overtime. In reality, 511.org shows exacly one person who lives within 2 miles of me who works within 5 minutes of my office and works (supposedly) similar hours. There were two more within 5 miles, with next closest match 4 miles away. To be honest, I was surprised to find that there was that many.

And now to make Darell's day. One guy in my office does ride his bike 35 miles to work during good weather. This includes going over a coastal mountain range. It only takes him 3 hours a day longer to commute than it takes me. 

While it's easy to say that improving roads just encourages bad habits, it's not realistic. I settled for a job 35 miles from home after searching for something closer for6 months. I looked into public transport, and found it would take 6 hours per day by the time I made all the connections.

Just as a "devil's advocate" I'd suggest that the concept of building underused bike lanes is NOT to the public benefit. A lot of polution is created when thousands of cars per day are stuck in stop and go traffic for 10 minutes. A lot of people hours are wasted. It would be MUCH more reasonable to divert bikes onto the equally unused sidewalks.

I do think that bike lanes are valid in areas where there is a lot of bike or pedestrian traffic. I don't think we need one everywhere.

Daniel


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 15, 2007)

Double post


----------



## jtr1962 (Dec 16, 2007)

Darell said:


> For me... cold on a bike is under 40 F and wind. I'm a sissy, what can I say? I can comfortably ride between 40 and 95 F.


My own limit is in the low 30s. I can ride when it's hot (that's above 55°F to me) but I don't enjoy it. Up to about 70 is tolerable. 80s or over is horrible even though I can cope physically. This all applies to night riding. If I've got the sun beating down, I'd rather not ride at all if it's above, say 65.


----------



## jtr1962 (Dec 16, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> Yep, I disagree with almost all the points Darell made.
> 
> In a perfect world someone living two blocks from me will work within 2 blocks of where I work and be willing to work the hours I work, and neither of us will be called upon to work overtime. In reality, 511.org shows exacly one person who lives within 2 miles of me who works within 5 minutes of my office and works (supposedly) similar hours. There were two more within 5 miles, with next closest match 4 miles away. To be honest, I was surprised to find that there was that many.
> 
> ...


You make some valid points here but the real crux of the problem is that since WWII we built far too many places (both residential and commercial) which are accessible only by private transportation (usually car), and way too spread out. Because of these facts, people traveling 35 miles to work is far too common in this country. All this was caused by public policy of the worst kind, driven mostly by a strong auto lobby and its labor unions, to "encourage" automobile ownership. This trend was so pervasive that attempts were even made, some unfortunately successful, to divide neighborhoods with highways in places like NYC where many people didn't even own cars, or want to. Pre-WWII it was possible to go just about anywhere settlements the size of a small town or larger existed via some combination of railroad, interurban (i.e. long-distance trolley), regular trolley, or subway. Sure, you may have had to walk up to a mile or so to get where you ultimately wanted to be, but that's not a huge hardship for most people.

This extensive public transit system existed because people needed it, and used it. It could easily be that way again if the system is rebuilt in small stages, and with modern design. The logical place to start is in large cities which already have decent networks. You gradually expand those networks to connect with others in smaller cities. Eventually you'll have something pretty decent. The ideal would be a grid of high-speed rail lines for intercity travel, supplemented by local light rail or subway service. This would encourage settlement along the new lines, away for post-WWII exurbs (which would be left to return to their natural state). Fact is even putting aside rising energy costs, the per capita expenditure to service extremely low population density settlements is just not sustainable. The government funded a lot of the initial infrastructure, such as roads. These roads are now reaching the point of needing major renovation. It makes little sense for a government to pump a billion dollars to rebuild a road which services a community of 2000 people, when the same money can build a few miles of new subway in an outer borough of NYC which might service 100 times that many. This isn't even getting into how much land which could grow CO2 absorbing trees is taken up by the road just for the convenience of roughly one subway train's worth of people. Probably the biggest trend of the 21st century will abandonment of a good portion of suburbia and decreasing use of automobiles. And bikes will undoubtably play an increasing role, both as primary transport, and to connect with public transit where distances are too great to walk.

I'll also add that if convenient, reliable, fast public transit exists traveling 35 miles to work isn't necessarily a bad thing. I commuted 70 miles _each way_ to college for 5 semesters. Average travel time was 2 hours, best time was 1:50. This is entirely on public transit with 3 vehicle changes (local bus-subway-commuter rail-shuttle train). Driving the same route at the same time would have taken 3 hours each way easily. Since I usually got in at least an hour of study, in effect the commute only took an hour or less of my time each way. That's another factor in favor of expanding use of public transit-time traveling isn't necessarily completely wasted as it is when driving.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 16, 2007)

Yes, those are all good points. Urban centers can easily take advantage of economies of scale, and it's not impossible to ban all automobile traffic within city limits so as to force the population to maximize value of the public transport. 

On the other hand, Urban centers also maximize the efficiency of crime (gangs) while minimizing your options. The rent for small two bedroom apartment in San Francisco will cost more than my house payment in an upscale suburb. 

But back on subject... I dislike the conventional paradigm of public transportation. It results in empty light rail trains running from station to station just in case someone wants to get on. Buses run past all day long with only 1 or two riders. Because they run on a schedule to predetermined stops, you almost always have to brave the elements while waiting for the bus or train. The result is miserable rides during rush hour when you are lucky to get a seat, and you may or may not have to share it with some unwashed guy who's mumbling to himself the whole trip. During off hours you can be the only one in a 100 person train car... well the only one other than that guy mumbling to himself.

We live in a different era. Everyone has a phone. Computers can handle scheduling and routing. GPS can be used to locate resources and riders, and can maximize the use of resources. Has any research been done into the relative efficiency of small buses and one car trains dispatched on demand during off-peak? If the airport parking facility can manage to send a shuttle within 5 minutes of being called, I imagine the city transportation system could do the same.

Public transport is not always financially viable. I've used public transport many times for many years. When commuting to SF on light rail (BART) I found it cost more than driving and took an extra 45 minutes each way. There were several artificial barriers to driving; most notably a $3 bridge toll that primarily goes to subsidize public transport while slowing down the entry to SF. There was also the scarce parking in the area I worked, which added $200 a month. The daily traffic jam at the bridge toll booths was the deciding factor that pushed me onto BART.

The sad part of the BART story is that I've paid tens of thousands of dollars in special sales taxes over the last 30 years that were specifically for BART.

Daniel


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 16, 2007)

Since I haven't followed this thread perhaps I shouldn't post now but curiousity dictates otherwise. I read about the congestion and not enough lanes and size of transport is obviously part of the equation. I did a google on electric alternatives a couple months back and came across an electric Smart Car. I got prety excited when I found there is a dealer here on Maui planning to handle the Smart Car but then discovered this would be the gas model, at least initially. I recently received an E-letter from Smart USA that they are ramping up to bring these cars to dealers throughout the country. I realize these aren't EV or ALt fuel vehicles but in terms of physical congestion and the dinky parking spots around these days, do these cars represent a viable alternative for some of the problems we face?

I am very happy driving my Vespa Scooter around but during heavy rain and stormy weather, a covered 4 wheel transport is preferable and the Smart Car might be a good alternative. An electric version would make my day, me thinks?!?!


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 16, 2007)

I'd say the Smart will not do much unless we build an infrastructure just for them. Just as a single Vespa takes up a full sized parking space, a Smart will too. When you start reserving spaces for them the equation changes, but only in as much as you can keep them full. If a parking lot has 100 spaces, of which 30 are 1/2 size and resrved for microcars it's a net loss unless more than 15 of those spaces are filled.

A similar situation should apply to motorcycles and micro cars on the road. You are still required to follow at a set distance so (with the exception of lane splitting) you don't get a higher passenger density per linear foot of roadway with either one. One could make the case that a motorcycle that is lane spliting is tailgating, but that's another topic.

I think that when it comes to commuting, Vanpools have the highest convenience + density factor. 


Daniel


----------



## rodfran (Dec 16, 2007)

My bus pass costs $10 a month. That won't buy much gas today. Like jtr says-I listen to music,read books,newspaper, etc. Every day when I walk under the freeway to my home, the people on the freeway are in gridlock. Also I am well rested, since I have not had to drive a car and fight the terrible traffic. The bus driver takes care of all the driving hassles. A guy I work with has had three wrecks in three months, so car insurance is also an important issue.


----------



## L.E.D. (Dec 18, 2007)

Any y'all heard of the new Barium Titanate capacitors? In theory, you could charge it for 5 minutes and go a few hundred miles off of it: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/eestor_capacito_1.php

These are many, MANY times better than the old "supercaps" everyone was all excited about. Good GOD would I love to have a flashlight powered by a small version of this type of cap.


----------



## James S (Dec 18, 2007)

so then will my car go "mewweeeeEEEEEEEE" as it charges like my old camera flash? 

Can I connect them to the hull plating to fight off attacks of hottentots, cannibals and giant squid?

no but seriously.. thats fantastic.

Course you wont be able to charge them instantly from a regular outlet, as a regular outlet can still only supply 15 amps, or 20 but you could get bigger outlets to supply more power you just wouldn't need to be connected as long.


----------



## L.E.D. (Dec 18, 2007)

Lol @ regular outlets, cannibals and giant squid. Think it's fake? Tell that to the Google multimillionares who have already begun investing in EEStor and the capacitors.


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 19, 2007)

That 'treehugger' webpage is dated 18 months ago. I don't recall seeing any new or different EESTOR claims since then. Have they made it to manufacturing, or are they still in R&D?

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Dec 19, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> That 'treehugger' webpage is dated 18 months ago. I don't recall seeing any new or different EESTOR claims since then. Have they made it to manufacturing, or are they still in R&D?



Yeah, as Daniel points out, these are not "new." In fact they don't yet exist enough to be called more than a really exciting idea. They haven't yet produced anything that I'm aware of. EESTOR has had these similar claims for a few years now. And still no product. I do wish them the best, but it certainly has been a while.

Caps have the potential to be a great option. The problem is that everybody who's tried using them (and that includes most of the folks who are working so hard on Fuel Cell vehicles) have gone back to batteries for one reason or another. If these EESTORE caps prove to be as good as claimed when they are mass produced, then they will change the game. In the meantime, we've got to get on with the products that are proven.

The Zenn was supposed to have a vehicle running around on these by the end of 2007. But no. Not a peep.


----------



## L.E.D. (Dec 19, 2007)

Wow. That sucks to hear . Hopefully there is some bit of truth to it. Hopefully it's not as much of a hoax as that darned "MEG" or Motionless Electromagnetic Generator.


----------



## Darell (Dec 19, 2007)

L.E.D. said:


> Wow. That sucks to hear . Hopefully there is some bit of truth to it. Hopefully it's not as much of a hoax as that darned "MEG" or Motionless Electromagnetic Generator.



I look at it like the Chevy Volt. Great specs. And they're definitely working toward something to sell. But until it can exist in the light of day, we can only sit and hope and wonder. The EESTOR folks have let lots of stuff "leak" but spend most of their time saying, "we aren't going to tell you anything."


----------



## ledlurker (Dec 19, 2007)

When it comes to stuff discussed above, I call it "View-Graph Engineering". If only 20% of the power point presentations I participated in at NASA would have been possible and implemented then there would already be a single-stage-to-orbit spacecraft in use. Some things that can work on a 1/3 scale test vehicle do not scale up when building the real thing.

I have a friend in the electronics business that has developed the technology for high end processors that would consume less than 1 watt of power, but he is having to deal with the limitations of materials and the boundary of physical laws in order to have a scaled up version that can survive outside a laboratory environment. His most valuable employees at this point is mathematicians and physics experts.


----------



## Darell (Dec 19, 2007)

Wow! Nanosolar has shipped its first commercial panels to a 1 Megawatt municipal solar power plant in East Germany. Projected cost per watt is $1, which is a radical reduction (about a factor of 5 reduction in cost). Here's hoping that this is *real*.


Nanosolar Ships First Panels
December 18, 2007

After five years of product development – including aggressively pipelined science, research and development, manufacturing process development, product testing, manufacturing engineering and tool development, and factory construction – we now have shipped first product and received our first check of product revenue.

We are grateful to everyone who supported us through all these years and the many occasions where there appeared to be mile-high concrete walls in our path; the unusual intensity and creativity of our team deserves all the credit for achieving this major milestone today.

Our product is defining in more ways I can enumerate here but includes:

- the world’s first printed thin-film solar cell in a commercial panel product;

- the world’s first thin-film solar cell with a low-cost back-contact capability;

- the world’s lowest-cost solar panel – which we believe will make us the first solar manufacturer capable of profitably selling solar panels at as little as $.99/Watt [snip...]

(sorry, no link to full article)


----------



## McGizmo (Dec 19, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> I'd say the Smart will not do much unless we build an infrastructure just for them. Just as a single Vespa takes up a full sized parking space, a Smart will too. When you start reserving spaces for them the equation changes, but only in as much as you can keep them full. If a parking lot has 100 spaces, of which 30 are 1/2 size and resrved for microcars it's a net loss unless more than 15 of those spaces are filled.
> 
> A similar situation should apply to motorcycles and micro cars on the road. You are still required to follow at a set distance so (with the exception of lane splitting) you don't get a higher passenger density per linear foot of roadway with either one. One could make the case that a motorcycle that is lane spliting is tailgating, but that's another topic.
> 
> ...


 
Good points. Over here, it seem that the parking stalls have already been designed with a Smart size car in mind; if you want to avoid car door damage and actually open the doors when parked. On (curb) and off street parking as well could be increased with these smaller cars. I recall many curb situatuons in SF where only a bike or Smart sized car would fit between driveways.

In the past, when I had 4WD vehicles, I often enjoyed the option of creative parking with curbs not limiting _well _off street parking. If I had a car the size of the Smart, I suspect I would find unmarked places I could squeeze into.

This is all OT for the thread though unless the Smart BioDiesel or Electric version make the scene..........


----------



## Darell (Dec 19, 2007)

McGizmo said:


> unless the Smart BioDiesel or Electric version make the scene..........



The part that ticks me off is that one company after another has said that they'll bring E-smarts to the US. For YEARS we've been hearing this, and it keeps not happening. 

It is odd that we've marked out all these parking spaces for some "average" size of car. They're too small for the hulking SUVs, and they're too big for motorcycles and Smart/Tango-size cars. And since people in general can't be trusted to park appropriately for themselves... we end up with this one-size-doesn't-fit-all system.

The answer, of course, is to get rid of all private autos.


----------



## raggie33 (Dec 19, 2007)

darrel was you on that show called who killed the electric car. one guy looked like you kinda


----------



## Darell (Dec 19, 2007)

raggie33 said:


> darrel was you on that show called who killed the electric car. one guy looked like you kinda



My lovely self and my cars are in the movie a couple of times, yes. I also supplied some of the footage that was used.

I'm the good-looking guy.


----------



## raggie33 (Dec 19, 2007)

Darell said:


> My lovely self and my cars are in the movie a couple of times, yes. I also supplied some of the footage that was used.
> 
> I'm the good-looking guy.


thats cool as hell i thought it was you.i still haver the dvd ya sent with ya car some where.thats a good movie i saw it a few times. ps ya realy should watch that show with edd begly he has a cool setup.i think its on a and e i forget.


----------



## Darell (Dec 19, 2007)

raggie33 said:


> thats cool as hell i thought it was you.i still haver the dvd ya sent with ya car some where.thats a good movie i saw it a few times.


Excellent. Yes, I remember sending the EV1 movie to you a while back!

As for Ed B... yes, I've seen the show a couple of times. But I don't get any fancy channels here, and rarely have the TV on anyway.


----------



## raggie33 (Dec 19, 2007)

they are going to re aire it 1/1 /2008.ill check it out again when they re aire it


----------



## Brock (Dec 20, 2007)

Great news on the solar panels. As soon as we are moved in to our new house I have to get our panels up. Right now they are making power at my father-in-laws house. He was having fun turning everything off and watching the meter run backwards.

Anyway I was going to double my size, only up to 960w, but maybe I will wait and see what is up with these. The KC125's I have are going for $4.73/watt $1/watt heck even $2/watt and I could start making money


----------



## BB (Dec 21, 2007)

If you can take seconds with visual defects that don't affect the output or warranty--take a look at http://www.sunelec.com/ ... Currently ~190 watt "Sun" (German) seconds are running $3.14 / watt -- and not too long ago SenElec had panels down to $2.74 per watt (based on supply and demand)...

The engineer/owner of Solar-Guppy has purchased from this vendor before and recommends them very highly (and the seconds too).

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Dec 21, 2007)

raggie33 said:


> they are going to re aire it 1/1 /2008.ill check it out again when they re aire it



Ah.. but again - I don't get those fancy channels. Nothing but the networks here. And PBS.


----------



## Darell (Dec 21, 2007)

BB said:


> If you can take seconds with visual defects that don't affect the output or warranty



You mean that there are people who would care about visual defects in something that sits way up there on the roof? Yikes. Great find!


----------



## Brock (Dec 21, 2007)

BB, dang those are great prices. Now I just have to figure out how to use those with the 4 KC12's and the MX60. Maybe a series setup... I have to get back on wind&sun more often


----------



## rodfran (Dec 22, 2007)

A $1 a watt! Hope it is true! I watched a show awhile back on PBS about solar PV. They showed solar panels everywhere in Germany. Homes, barns, etc. 

Hello Brock, Good luck on your move. When you get your solar array up and running at your new home, post some pics! I never get tired of looking of pics of solar arrays!


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 23, 2007)

When prices get that low the payback is pretty fast. Of course, there's installation and the inverters and so forth, but that'a still darn attractive.

Funny story, car related; I was filling the tank on my 2002 Prius yesterday, and another prius driver hails me from where he's gassing up his. We chat for a moment, and he's asking me the normal questions..."how do you like it, how many miles"... blah blah blah. Then he hands me his business card and tells me he can sell my 2002 (66K miles) for $3 above high blue book because it has the car pool stickers.

Strange experience.

Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 25, 2007)

gadget_lover said:


> Then he hands me his business card and tells me he can sell my 2002 (66K miles) for $3 above high blue book because it has the car pool stickers.



$3? Shouldn't there be two or three zeros after that?


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 25, 2007)

*LOL* 

Thanks Idleprocess. I guess that I should not post late at night nor first thing in the morning. 

Yes, it was $3,000 over blue book.

What I did not mention is that I really prefer my little old 2002 ( AKA classic) Prius over the newer (2004 - 2008) models. I rented a 2007 last month and did not find it to be significantly better in any area, and my older model FELT like it was roomier in the driver's seat. 

I dread the day mine wears out. Now that I'm commuting 350 miles a week that will be in the within the next 5 years.  I don't know what I'd replace it with.

Daniel


----------



## Brock (Jan 3, 2008)

Well we got our electric scooter today. It is an EVT Z-20b with a 2500w hub motor with a 60 volt battery pack. http://www.evtamerica.com/z_20.htm We put it all together and drove it around inside my work before I drove it to our new house being built just over a mile away. I don't know how much I will get to play, I mean use it, until it gets a bit nicer out. Today it was -4F or -20C outside and quite windy. Anyway on the way home I got behind a truck going 40 and couldn't go open throttle so it goes at least that on a slight incline.

Here is a pic of it with me with a confused look on my face...


----------



## Darell (Jan 4, 2008)

I recognize that look, Brock. 

Cute scoot.


----------



## Darell (Jan 8, 2008)

The first flight of a battery airplane has now happened.

http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=17087


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 8, 2008)

Darell said:


> The first flight of a battery airplane has now happened.
> 
> http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=17087


Not bad-30 mile range on battery power. Now they need to scale up the technology so it can be used to give something the size of a 747 the range for international flights.


----------



## Darell (Jan 8, 2008)

jtr1962 said:


> Not bad-30 mile range on battery power. Now they need to scale up the technology so it can be used to give something the size of a 747 the range for international flights.


Can you imagine the folks at Kittyhawk even considering that something like a 747 could ever work?

This is the first of many flights, and I think it is awesome! For a sport plane there'd just be nothing better. Hmmm. I wonder if they'll use regen instead of flaps to slow down.


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 9, 2008)

Darell said:


> The first flight of a battery airplane has now happened.
> 
> http://www.evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=17087



Someone managed to scale up what the RC people have been doing for several years now, eh? 

It's both amazing that they got 30 miles' useful range out of it, yet not entirely unexpected - lithium-polymer cells seem to be doing a great job of both astounding energy density and peak output. I imagine that an aircraft that's built less as a demonstrator with more batteries and a better airframe would see markedly greater range.


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2008)

Wow... it would appear that the nails are finally being pounded into the Hydrogen Highway coffin.

"SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's vision of a "hydrogen highway" - 100 fueling stations by 2010 that would make it practical for California motorists to use nonpolluting hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles - has hit a roadblock. 

Each of the last three organizations offered a state grant toward a fueling station has decided not to pursue the project. In the most recent rejection, Pacific Gas and Electric decided not to build a key San Francisco Bay Area fueling station in San Carlos. 

In addition, three stations have recently closed, including one in Richmond that served Contra Costa County buses and was dismantled this week."

Full article:

http://www.dailynews.com/search/ci_7926303?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jan 10, 2008)

Hydrogen is explosive. I've never ever subscribed to Hydrogen cars!

When they build a useful plug in Hybrid that will do 80-100 miles on battery lets talk!


----------



## Darell (Jan 10, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> Hydrogen is explosive. I've never ever subscribed to Hydrogen cars!


In many important ways, gasoline is far more dangerous to drive around with than Hydrogen. Hydrogen has its own serious problems. Just being compressed is at least as important as the flamable aspect. Regardless, it is basically a non-starter on many fronts. The expense being the most obvious right now. Followed closely by efficiency, and then durability. Eventually we get to safety...



> When they build a useful plug in Hybrid that will do 80-100 miles on battery lets talk!


Hell, just give me the 100 battery miles and save the ICE for somebody else to lug around!


----------



## Darell (Jan 25, 2008)

All eyes are on Isreal now. While we're still throwing money away on the hydrogen highway - Isreal is pushing hard for electrics. Of course it is for no more compelling reason than: They don't have a choice!

http://inventorspot.com/articles/making_electric_car_work_can_isr_10188


----------



## James S (Jan 27, 2008)

I would say that we dont really have a choice either we just haven't reached the point where we have to make the non-choice yet.


----------



## Darell (Jan 27, 2008)

James S said:


> I would say that we dont really have a choice either we just haven't reached the point where we have to make the non-choice yet.


We're certainly in agreement there. Odd how some people - people who also believe this - still think it is no problem just continuing along as unsual until we ARE forced to make the non-choice. Yeah, we're still on easy street since so many countries are still willing to sell us oil - at whatever price they decide to ask.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 27, 2008)

Speaking of the hydrogen highway...

I was driving to work the other day, a cold Californina morning. I was only a mile from work when I spotted a bus waiting to cross the road I was on. As we both waited for our turns at the stop light, two things caught my eye. 

There was this big banner along the top of the bus that read "Zero Emission Fuel Cell Bus" I almost never see them in motion. I've only seen them parked at the bus yards.

But the first thing that caught my attention was the plume of steam shooting out the back of the bus where the diesel exhaust pipe should have been. At idle the plume was longer than the car behind it. Then the light changed and the bus driver punched it. The plume shot straight back for more than two whole car lengths, momentarily obscuring the pick-up behind it. I fumbled with my cell phone but failed to catch a picture of it.

I'm assuming that it was steam.  I can only imagine how much extra water vapor would be released into the area if hydrogen was actually practical and became popular. I don't think it was "ZERO Emission". I can't even be sure that there were no toxic materials in that exhaust plume, since the hydrogen and or oxygen supply may have had impurities in them that could have been transformed to something icky.

5 minutes later finds me at another cross street, and I see the same bus approaching a red light from my left. I quickly turned onto the same street and positioned myself at the next driveway.

The video is not real impressive. It was shot with a cell phone on the spur of the moment. The grey sky blended in with the steam, making it hard to see. You can still get an idea of what I was seeing. 

http://home.earthlink.net/~dbsweb/clean_bus.3g2

This video is in 3g2 format, (a quicktime derivitive, or so I'm told) which can be read with windows media player, but I've not had any luck getting my wife's windows system to read the AVI file that I generated. My Linux system reads it with mplayer. Go figure.

Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jan 27, 2008)

gadget_lover said:


> I was driving to work the other day, a cold Californina morning.


My North and Eastern friends laugh at me when I say this... and when I talk of using my seat warmers. 

Great little video. Shows it well.

But the first thing that caught my attention was the plume of steam shooting out the back of the bus where the diesel exhaust pipe should have been. At idle the plume was longer than the car behind it. Then the light changed and the bus driver punched it. The plume shot straight back for more than two whole car lengths, momentarily obscuring the pick-up behind it. I fumbled with my cell phone but failed to catch a picture of it.



> I can only imagine how much extra water vapor would be released into the area if hydrogen was actually practical and became popular. I don't think it was "ZERO Emission".


As many reservations as I have with H2 for transportation - this isn't one of them. Gasoline exhausts about the same amount of water to propel a given vehicle. Lots of other things to gripe about - and having that exhaust FREEZE in truly cold climates is one of the issues. 

Now... try and get some video of EV exhaust. 

What boggles my mind is how this "The only exhaust is pure water" tag line is used as if exhausting ANYTHING is somehow good for us. Honestly, I just don't get it. Of course it does tend to overshadow all the upstream pollution costs if you keep harping on this harmless water. Same with calling all EVs "Zero emission." There's that pesky upstream problem. Obviously easier to fix for a battery car than a Fuel Cell car though!


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 27, 2008)

Darell said:


> Great little video. Shows it well.




Thanks. 

[


Darell said:


> As many reservations as I have with H2 for transportation - this isn't one of them. Gasoline exhausts about the same amount of water to propel a given vehicle. Lots of other things to gripe about - and having that exhaust FREEZE in truly cold climates is one of the issues.
> 
> Now... try and get some video of EV exhaust.
> 
> What boggles my mind is how this "The only exhaust is pure water" tag line is used as if exhausting ANYTHING is somehow good for us.




I don;t know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the water in car exhaust is the moisture in the air that's been compressed, heated and spit back out. It might be a product of hydrocarbon molecules recombining... 

But in the case of hydrogen, it's like importing power. There will not be huge plants to create hydrogen in the big cities, they will be where the power is cheapest. The the big cities are where the hydrogen and oxygen are recombined, creating water that must go somewhere.

I could, of course, be all wrong.

Daniel


----------



## rodfran (Jan 27, 2008)

I was curious as to what process is used to produce the hydrogen that is used in the California hydrogen powered vehicles?


----------



## Groundhog66 (Jan 27, 2008)

I have a 2000 Ford Ranger 3.0 V6 Flex Fuel, but it has never had Ethanol in it. My questions are....

1) Is it advisable to use alt fuel on a vehicle with 145,000 miles on it?

2) What are the benefits of alt fuel?

3) Where in the Bay Area can you get it, I am out in Livermore, CA and have yet to see it .


Thank you

Tim


----------



## Darell (Jan 27, 2008)

gadget_lover said:


> I don;t know for sure, but I'm pretty sure the water in car exhaust is the moisture in the air that's been compressed, heated and spit back out.


Water is acutally created. Yes, the hydrogen in gasoline is combined with O2 in combustion... and creates water. Surprisingly the same chemistry as a Fuel Cell. 

Really. There would be no negative humidity impact if all our cars suddenly became FCV's overnight.


----------



## Darell (Jan 27, 2008)

rodfran said:


> I was curious as to what process is used to produce the hydrogen that is used in the California hydrogen powered vehicles?


As far as I know - most of it is stripped out of fossil fuels. NG is likely the most available and most common, and has historically been the cheapest. So instead of just burning the NG directly, we strip out the H2, and use that much less efficiently. You know... to be "clean."

H2 CAN be made cleanly. BUt it is a heck of a lot cheaper to just strip it out of hycrocarbon fuels.


----------



## Darell (Jan 27, 2008)

I'll take a shot, though I'm not much up on the flex-fuel stuff.



Groundhog66 said:


> I have a 2000 Ford Ranger 3.0 V6 Flex Fuel, but it has never had Ethanol in it. My questions are....
> 
> 1) Is it advisable to use alt fuel on a vehicle with 145,000 miles on it?


Shouldn't be a problem with a vehicle that was designed for it from the beginning.



> 2) What are the benefits of alt fuel?


Not imported from countries that hate us. Theoretically less pollution. Rest assured that these vehicles were NOT built to help with our gasoline/pollution problems. They were built to garner clean air credits. I've yet to hear of anybody burning anything but gasoline in them.



> 3) Where in the Bay Area can you get it, I am out in Livermore, CA and have yet to see it .


Very few places. We have a few stations around the Davis/Sacramento area. Don't know exactly where else. I do know that there's a web site with all this on it though. I'll see if I can track it down.


----------



## Darell (Jan 27, 2008)

I'll take a shot, though I'm not much up on the flex-fuel stuff.



Groundhog66 said:


> I have a 2000 Ford Ranger 3.0 V6 Flex Fuel, but it has never had Ethanol in it. My questions are....
> 
> 1) Is it advisable to use alt fuel on a vehicle with 145,000 miles on it?


Shouldn't be a problem with a vehicle that was designed for it from the beginning.



> 2) What are the benefits of alt fuel?


Not imported from countries that hate us. Theoretically less pollution. Rest assured that these vehicles were NOT built to help with our gasoline/pollution problems. They were built to garner clean air credits. I've yet to hear of anybody burning anything but gasoline in them.



> 3) Where in the Bay Area can you get it, I am out in Livermore, CA and have yet to see it .


Very few places. We have a few stations around the Davis/Sacramento area. Don't know exactly where else. I do know that there's a web site with all this on it though. I'll see if I can track it down.


----------



## Brock (Jan 27, 2008)

Ha, Darell, I have one up on you. You can burn E85 in a true flex fuel vehicle. I burn it in our Toyota Sienna van which isn't flex fuel so I try to keep the blend under about E40 by filling every second or third time with E85.

The catch is when you switch your likely to have a "bad" tank, you might get some miss firings and reduced mileage, but that is typically caused my the ethanol cleaning out the gunk from dino fuel. Also most flex fuel cars adjust to what they have been burning so it might take a tank or two to get the timing down. Basically the engine changes the timing to accommodate the high-octane fuel, Ethanol is typically has an octane over 100. But once the ECU sees your changing things up it should be just fine, just don’t give up on one tanks result.


----------



## Darell (Jan 27, 2008)

Brock said:


> Ha, Darell, I have one up on you.


Ha. Not while you're still burning something you don't.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 27, 2008)

Groundhog66 said:


> I have a 2000 Ford Ranger 3.0 V6 Flex Fuel, but it has never had Ethanol in it. My questions are....
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> 3) Where in the Bay Area can you get it, I am out in Livermore, CA and have yet to see it .



I'm pretty sure that you are seeing an ethanol blend at the pump. The pump has a label saying that it includes ethanol. I noticed it when my mileage went down a little despite driving the same route every day.


Daniel


----------



## idleprocess (Jan 28, 2008)

rodfran said:


> I was curious as to what process is used to produce the hydrogen that is used in the California hydrogen powered vehicles?



It's almost certainly made by "reforming" methane (or another hydrocarbon) to separate out the hydrogen and turn that unwanted carbon into carbon dioxide _(which then goes into the atmosphere, funny that)_. The other, more energy-intensive process is electrolysis where water is zapped to separate it into hydrogen and oxygen. It's worth noting that both processes require more energy than the resultant hydrogen itself contains - and even then you're not done expending energy before it reaches the fuel cell (or internal combustion engine). It must be compressed (or refrigerated - but that technology isn't likely to be ready for prime time ... ever), transported, re-compressed into the vehicle, then "burned" at ~50% efficiency in a fuel cell (or ~20% efficiency in an engine).


----------



## Brock (Jan 29, 2008)

Darell, so true…

The weird thing is ethanol should increase mileage if it is E10 or less because of the increased octane. But I suppose if an engine is tuned for 87 octane and you feed it 95 octane and it doesn't advance the timing it won't help economy. I have heard on flex fuel vehicles they get the best mileage about E10-E15 range. I do notice in our van I go from 24 to 22 burning E40 or so. So for Daniel that might be 48 to 44 mpg?

In our TDI I just passed 70,000 miles and it is at 55.43 mpg over that 70k miles, I can't complain.


----------



## Darell (Jan 29, 2008)

Brock said:


> I have heard on flex fuel vehicles they get the best mileage about E10-E15 range.


Ah. I didn't realize that the sweet spot was so light on the "flex" part. Shouldn't surprise me much. As I said earlier - so few of these "flex fuel" vehicles burn anything but gasoline that it is insignificant. It was a wonderful loophole in the system to garner those pesky clean air credits. 



> In our TDI I just passed 70,000 miles and it is at 55.43 mpg over that 70k miles, I can't complain.


That's awesome. One day we'll have to come up with a unit of energy that everybody uses so that we can compare (even comparing gallons of diesel to gallons of gasoline is misleading). This universal unit of auto fuel should likely be kWh (if I had my way!). I see the same thing happening with cars as I do with light bulbs. We keep calling new tech bulbs "Wattage equivalent." When I go to buy a CFL, I have to search long and hard before I find out just how much wattage the thing REALLY uses. The package uses wattage as a measure of brightness! Ug. We need Lumens for lights, and we need a unit of energy for vehicle efficiency. The longer we keep talking in the wrong units, the harder it is to change to a relevant system.


----------



## Brock (Jan 29, 2008)

So true, I don't know for sure but doesn't diesel have about 15% more BTU's then gasoline and gasoline has about 20% more BTU's then ethanol.

I would second the kW/hr. It is interesting to see most European auto's engines are listed in kW.


----------



## rodfran (Jan 30, 2008)

To idleprocess and Darell: Thanks for the responses on my hydrogen question!

So, they take the hydrogen from the fossil source to power the fuel cell to make electricity for on board batteries to run an electric motor?
I understand the fuel cells are extremely expensive because of some of the materials in them. So, poop-can the fuel cell and add more batteries and you have an electric vehicle!


----------



## James S (Jan 30, 2008)

These busses aren't at all about saving energy or being "green" in that sense. They are a technology demonstration first so that people see that, yes, it may have taken a government mandate to pay for them, but look, there it is, and secondly to combat smog and particulate polution from busses in large cities. The older busses these replaced made a lot of particulate exhaust that was hard on a lot of people and while there weren't a lot of them in comparison to cars, they were never kept tuned up and they run constantly. So it does make a difference from that point of view. And people are often willing to pay a huge premium for quality of life issues like smog. But they are much less efficient pre mile as far as overall energy use is concerned since the gas or methane or whatever it is has to be converted first.


----------



## Brock (Jan 30, 2008)

I could be wrong but I thought they were ICE’s modified to burn H2 instead of gasoline? That bus video sure looked like and ICE and not a fuel cell, could be wrong, I hope I am.

But if it fuel cell, it is basically and electric bus that charges the batteries (small pack) from the fuel cell. Fuel cells are good at continuous small output levels, they are not really good and going from nothing (stopped) to full output like accelerating a bus. Again maybe they have somehow changed that.


----------



## gadget_lover (Jan 30, 2008)

It said Fuel Cell across the top of the bus, so I have to take them at their word. There was no pulsating to the exhaust plume as you might see with an ICE at idle.

My understanding of the use of fuel cells matches Brocks. The fuel cell keeps a battery bank charged, and the battery provides the current when there is high demand such as accelerating from a dead stop. Without the batteries, the fuel cell would have to be huge and would still lag when responding to changing demand.


Daniel


----------



## Darell (Jan 31, 2008)

rodfran said:


> So, they take the hydrogen from the fossil source to power the fuel cell to make electricity for on board batteries to run an electric motor?


That's pretty much it, yes. And no, Brock... nothing has changed in that regard. That would be a pretty big breakthrough!



> I understand the fuel cells are extremely expensive because of some of the materials in them. So, poop-can the fuel cell and add more batteries and you have an electric vehicle!


They are expensive because of the exotic materials used AND all the complications. I mean there is a ton of plumbing on board - much of it under extreme pressure. That plumbing can't be made out of just any material since H2 leaks *through* the pressure tanks that we use for NG. And it has to survive vibration, temperature extremes, etc. Cars are no easy environment for something as delicate and finniky (sp?) as fuel cells!

Yes, every FCV on the road is a battery EV that is simply fed from the fuel cell, which in turn are currently fed from fossil fuel feed stocks. In general terms, a FCV is a gasoline-powered EV. Yay! In fact - no kidding - there is much work being done to have onboard reformers where you would literally fill up your FCV with gasoline. The H2 would be taken out of it, and used to power the car... and well, you get the idea. A new, VERY expensive way to consume even MORE gasoline.

The cars would not be safe to drive on the road without batteries. Not enough energy to accelerate them up to speed in anything near "freeway merge" speeds. Many of the FCV proponents talk about how batteries are not ready and all that. They either don't realize, or choose to ignore that FCVs rely on the same batteries that true battery EVs do!

It is a pretty exciting time right now in transportation.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 31, 2008)

The switch to E10 dropped mileage by about 10% in our cars.


----------



## Darell (Jan 31, 2008)

AndyTiedye said:


> The switch to E10 dropped mileage by about 10% in our cars.



Hmm. That would mean that the 10% "E" was inert and contained zero energy. Would be the same result if you just left 10% of the gasoline out of the tank instead of filling that space up with the E. You'd be able to travel the same number of miles with or without the E. Something doesn't add up.


----------



## IlluminatingBikr (Feb 1, 2008)

So it looks as though Tesla Motors is going to make a gas-electric car, or what I believe is also known as a series-hybrid. I really think I prefer the idea of towing a generator for longer trips, rather than a series hybrid car. What do you guys think?


----------



## Darell (Feb 1, 2008)

IlluminatingBikr said:


> So it looks as though Tesla Motors is going to make a gas-electric car, or what I believe is also known as a series-hybrid. I really think I prefer the idea of towing a generator for longer trips, rather than a series hybrid car. What do you guys think?


Tough call. First off... they need to get the roadster to the buyers! Then we can talk about the next gen.

As for towing a trailer - the downsides are another vehicle to register and license and insure and store. And it is much harder to park and reverse and all that. The convenience gets a nod to having it all incorporated. The efficiency folks will want the trailer to avoid having to haul around all that unused crap the 95% of the time when it isn't needed.


----------



## Darell (Feb 1, 2008)

Hey... this just in. Roadster #1 has just been delivered. To Elon Musk.


----------



## James S (Feb 2, 2008)

How big are those trailer generators? Is it a limitation of the car that is has to be on a trailer and not say on one of those trailer hitch cart things that just hang off the trailer hitch? I suppose they are too big and the car too small to handle the change in center of gravity. But I imagine that something interesting could be done...


----------



## Darell (Feb 2, 2008)

This is how big Toyota's was.


----------



## Darell (Feb 2, 2008)

James S said:


> one of those trailer hitch cart things that just hang off the trailer hitch? I suppose they are too big and the car too small to handle the change in center of gravity. But I imagine that something interesting could be done...


You can do it. Really screws up the weight distribution though! Scroll down to the bottom of this doc to see it done.
http://evnut.com/docs/rav4evpfc50.pdf


I specifically researched and added air springs to help out this situation:
http://evnut.com/rav_airlift.htm


----------



## idleprocess (Feb 2, 2008)

Darell said:


> You can do it. Really screws up the weight distribution though! Scroll down to the bottom of this doc to see it done.
> http://evnut.com/docs/rav4evpfc50.pdf



...Yeah. I guess it's not a good idea to load up the RAV with a dozen sacks of concrete either? Does an 11kW generator need to weigh that much?


----------



## Darell (Feb 2, 2008)

idleprocess said:


> Does an 11kW generator need to weigh that much?



Not if it is purpose-built and enough money is thrown at it for weight savings. Soon you'll be able to just take one out of the Volt and do whatever you like with it.


----------



## Darell (Feb 2, 2008)

Darell said:


> Hey... this just in. Roadster #1 has just been delivered. To Elon Musk.



Just because I like quoting myself... Here is an article with a short video of the delivery. Not very exciting... unless this kind of thing excites you. 

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8149186

** edited


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 2, 2008)

You can reach that link with 
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8149186

The ncheck=1 will force you to the mercury news login page. 


Daniel


----------



## Darell (Feb 2, 2008)

gadget_lover said:


> You can reach that link with
> http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_8149186
> 
> The ncheck=1 will force you to the mercury news login page.
> ...



Thanks Daniel. I learn something new every day. Since I'm registered, I don't see the login page so it was transparent to me.


----------



## IlluminatingBikr (Feb 2, 2008)

Darell said:


> You can do it. Really screws up the weight distribution though! Scroll down to the bottom of this doc to see it done.
> http://evnut.com/docs/rav4evpfc50.pdf



I wonder if a roof-mounted solution would be any better.  I guess it just screws up your weight distribution in a whole other way though.


----------



## Darell (Feb 17, 2008)

Too bad the light isn't better - but would you like to see six Pretty Teslas driving by?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CErclCee5Cc


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 18, 2008)

When you start to see processions in the streets, it bodes well for the future availability.



Daniel


----------



## rodfran (Feb 18, 2008)

and soon there will be thousands of them, and then .......aargh...millions more...I hope!!!


----------



## tvodrd (Mar 6, 2008)

A plug-in EV could make sense for me for daily transportation as I'm 8-9 miles from work/groceries etc. Found this bizarre study.

Larry


----------



## LukeA (Mar 6, 2008)

tvodrd said:


> A plug-in EV could make sense for me for daily transportation as I'm 8-9 miles from work/groceries etc. Found this bizarre study.
> 
> Larry



Those plants use water very inefficiently. They boil it for steam, cool the steam with water, run the turbines with the cooler steam, and then cool the used steam with yet more water and send it back to be reheated. If you don't mind my saying, it's pretty retarded and quite wasteful.

A little reworking of the standard thermoelectric power generation process could drastically cut water usage.


----------



## LukeA (Mar 6, 2008)

Darell said:


> You can do it. Really screws up the weight distribution though! Scroll down to the bottom of this doc to see it done.
> http://evnut.com/docs/rav4evpfc50.pdf
> 
> 
> ...



I like how the efficiency is at least as good as the straight gas model. It's similar to why diesel-electric locomotives are diesel-_electric._ The electric motors can provide the torque the drive wheels need much more efficiently and in a smaller, simpler (much less gearing) package than just the diesel ICEs could, even though the diesel engines can provide lots of power. This is the same principle, but at much higher wheel rpm.


----------



## Darell (Mar 7, 2008)

tvodrd said:


> A plug-in EV could make sense for me for daily transportation as I'm 8-9 miles from work/groceries etc. Found this bizarre study.
> 
> Larry



Larry - yeah, I'd say it would work since we use ours for about 50 miles/day on average... and still don't even need to charge it every day.

Yeah, isn't that a bizarre one? Complaining about the *water* needed for making electricity? The amount of water AND electricity needed to make gasoline should maybe be mentioned to???

The key here is not to throw out EVs with the bathwater, but to fix our power generation!


----------



## Darell (Apr 11, 2008)

Hey. Where's everybody been?

Here's something neat. (partially) Wind-powered mega-building.
video: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7340528.stm

Info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahrain_World_Trade_Centre


----------



## Darell (Apr 11, 2008)

And then... just so you don't think I've been sitting around picking lint out of my belly button.... here are some newspaper articles that feature a picture of my car with the giant parade plug. This was from a Recent CARB hearing... well, you can read all about it, I guess.

http://evnut.com/rav_plug_news.html

What have you guys been up to?


----------



## rodfran (Apr 11, 2008)

I used to pay $10.00 a month for a bus pass. Now my job provides me with a free bus pass. So I go to work and back(and anywhere else I go)for free.

The wind generators on the buildings are way cool!


----------



## Brock (Apr 12, 2008)

I am ripping my electric "moped" apart and rewiring it. I know it can go faster then 40 mph, but I will let you know


----------



## Darell (Apr 12, 2008)

Brock said:


> I am ripping my electric "moped" apart and rewiring it. I know it can go faster then 40 mph, but I will let you know



Excellent!

Boy, these guys sure seem like they're making a go of it:
http://www.zeromotorcycles.com/index.php


You should get yourself one of those with street tires. User configurable controller.


----------



## Brock (Apr 13, 2008)

Actually changing the tires is supposed to make a huge difference in speed on these scooters for top end speed. I will likely change them after I abuse these tires a bit. Before I took it all apart I had it up to 38mpg. All the interconnects on the batteries and going back to the controller are #10 and I was surprised at the size of the wire and the crimping jobs at the interconnects so I am starting over with thicker wire and solder and crimp the lugs on.


----------



## Brock (Apr 21, 2008)

Darell you might have to drive down there and check this out 

http://www.aptera.com/


----------



## Darell (Apr 21, 2008)

Been there, done that.


----------



## Darell (Apr 23, 2008)

Great NOVA show on future cars the other night.

See all segments online here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/program.html

Give everything a fair shake and is up front and honest about the challenges of the main competing technologies.


----------



## Darell (Apr 28, 2008)

Crickets in here...

So, it seems that Nissan gets it.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/electricvehicleguide/archives/137476.asp

Watch the movie.


----------



## BB (Apr 29, 2008)

'Evening Darell,

I have a couple questions for you... What ever happened since that last 2006 letter where folks were trying to get PG&E to fix the great "E-7 Tariff Screwup" (were net generation during one period was "added" to net consumption during a different TOU period).

A few people out in the valley have been looking at larger home Grid Tied systems (5kW+) with A/C and night pumping of irrigation water on the Wind-Sun solar energy forum.

Has PG&E done the right thing and gone back to where Net Generation is subtracted from Net Consumption to figure baseline/tiers (instead of adding and bumping up tiers).

Also, did anyone ever do a spread sheet of the E-6 rate plan were folks can do what-ifs simulations of Solar PV and Off Peak loads (vs E-1, E-7 or other available rate plans)?

And is E6 now mandatory for new installs or is E1 still an option--and what is happening with Real Time Rate meters--are we all (at least those with solar PV systems) going to be forced to the new system (whenever that is done)?

-Bill


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 29, 2008)

I don't know about EV or Alt fuel but I saw a SMALL car on I45 just south of Conroe that I could hardly believe was on the road!

Could not have been more than 16 feet long if that. Kind of tall and skinny too.

Front wheels seemed sort of tucked under.... wonder if everything was peachy with the suspension....

It was up to 70 in front of me and I had to get of the freeway at that point.

What the heck did I see?????


----------



## Darell (Apr 29, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> I don't know about EV or Alt fuel but I saw a SMALL car on I45 just south of Conroe that I could hardly believe was on the road!
> 
> Could not have been more than 16 feet long if that. Kind of tall and skinny too.


The only tall/skinny tiny car that I know of that'll do 70mph is the Tango.
This it?
http://evnut.com/tango.htm


----------



## Darell (Apr 29, 2008)

BB said:


> I have a couple questions for you... What ever happened since that last 2006 letter where folks were trying to get PG&E to fix the great "E-7 Tariff Screwup" (were net generation during one period was "added" to net consumption during a different TOU period).
> 
> Has PG&E done the right thing and gone back to where Net Generation is subtracted from Net Consumption to figure baseline/tiers (instead of adding and bumping up tiers).


Yup, that got fixed a while back.



> Also, did anyone ever do a spread sheet of the E-6 rate plan were folks can do what-ifs simulations of Solar PV and Off Peak loads (vs E-1, E-7 or other available rate plans)?


Both E6 and E7 keep chagning (E7 went away, came back, when away, changed and came back. Tough to put anything down in ink!



> And is E6 now mandatory for new installs or is E1 still an option--and what is happening with Real Time Rate meters--are we all (at least those with solar PV systems) going to be forced to the new system (whenever that is done)?
> 
> -Bill


Dunno what's up with the real-time meters. No rate is mandatory for solar. You can have E1, E6, E7... assuming they're even available. All the TOU rates are subject to change at any time, and at the whim of PG&E, so they can switch us over to something else at the drop of the hat.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 30, 2008)

No not THAT skinny.

Maybe about as wide as two guys with decent shoulder width. Kind of like my old Honda 600 Coupe.

There was a Corolla or something similar next to it and it was maybe 6-8" taller than the "normal" car.


----------



## BB (Apr 30, 2008)

Thank you Darrel,

Glad to hear, at least, they have fixed the baseline/tier calculations back to something sane.

-Bill


----------



## idleprocess (Apr 30, 2008)

PlayboyJoeShmoe said:


> No not THAT skinny.
> 
> Maybe about as wide as two guys with decent shoulder width. Kind of like my old Honda 600 Coupe.
> 
> There was a Corolla or something similar next to it and it was maybe 6-8" taller than the "normal" car.



Perhaps it was a Smart?


----------



## Darell (Apr 30, 2008)

The Smart was my first thought too, though I guess I never considered it a tall/skinny car. Not when compared to a Tango at least!


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 30, 2008)

I don't THINK it was a smart especially if they are two tone like the link. 

This was all silver/gray.


----------



## Darell (Apr 30, 2008)

Turns out that they can paint them anything/anyway they like.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Apr 30, 2008)

I suppose it's POSSIBLE it was a Smart.

I've been watching to see it or another.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (May 10, 2008)

I have concluded that I MUST have seen a Smart.

I say this because I have since seen two more and I can hardly believe they are safe according to the Gov't!!!!


----------



## gadget_lover (May 11, 2008)

Safe is always relative. We have plenty of cars and SUVs that will barely make it around mountain curves at freeway speed. We have motorcycles with so much power that they will pull the front wheel off the ground when you crack the throttle at 90 mph.

My GUESS is that the feds require a certain level of safety equipment, and some level of passenger protection. That's different from requiring a car to actually be safe.

Safety recalls tend to happen when a safety device is badly designed or implemented. 

I could, of course, be wrong.

Daniel


----------



## Bright Scouter (May 13, 2008)

OK everyone,,, I am wondering if anyone has an electric assist for their bicycle. I am considering that if I can find one that I can modify to assist to any speed. I think most are set to cut off at a certain speed? Like between 20 and 25? Anyone have one or have tried one that actually seemed to work?


----------



## HarryN (May 13, 2008)

Hi, I am starting the newish vehicle process. Not that my opinion actually matters since this will be my wife's vehicle, but of course we are "sensitive" to the normal energy / emissions / cost aspects


----------



## HarryN (May 13, 2008)

Hi, I am starting the newish vehicle process. Not that my opinion actually matters since this will be my wife's vehicle, but of course we are "sensitive" to the normal energy / emissions / cost aspects.

(Daniel knows what I am talking about :wave: ) 

Anyway, we are looking around for a 6 passenger plus baggage vehicle to replace our 96 Dodge Caravan. Please don't bother suggesting cramming us into a Prius.

One of its very useful features of the old Dodge is an "almost real time" miles per gallon indication - which actually is pretty good. Using this "indicator", syn oil, good tires, and driving at at the mpg sweet spot of 68mpg, in cruise control, I manage to eek out around 24 - 25 mpg on the hwy. City driving, which is actually more of our use, is a different matter.

I managed to average 25 mpg on a rental Caravan on a recent drive to AZ and back to the Bay Area, but - for some reason, it did not have the real time mpg indicator. 

With this in mind, it is interesting that a hybrid GMC Yukon would actually be a better choice (for fuel consumption) than any of the new mini vans on the market. The SO is not convinced 

I am actually interested in the potential of using a plug in hybrid to help offset my home electricity cost. I work from home, so we are always here, and our electric bill shows it. It isn't the 11 cent / kwh tier that is a problem, it is the 33 cent / kwh tier that hurts. At 33 cents / kwh, that is almost burn gas to make electricity territory - not that I want to, but reality is reality.

Anyway, I wonder if any of the plug in hybrids are set up to provide back up power instead of just sucking it down ?


----------



## Brock (May 13, 2008)

Ummm, just so you know some of the best gasoline gensets make electricity at about $1.50 per kw. So using gas to generate power, even with a good genset is out of the question. Typical Home Depot backup generators run about $3.00 per kw. You can get some of the larger diesel generators in the $.70 range. Of course this is all at $3.75 for gas and $4.50 for diesel.

A car engine falls somewhere in the $1.50 to $2.00 per kw range, which is why plug in hybrids are gaining in popularity, you can replace that $1.50 of gas with $.11 of electricity from the grid, even your on peak rate of $.33 is WAY cheaper then burning gas.

And if you take in to consideration the emissions from burning gas compared to even the dirtiest diesel fired electrical generating station (Hawaii) is still four times cleaner then a gas car. The typical power plant in the US is about 15 times cleaner then an automobile engine. Just think of the scrubbers and efficiency you can get in a stationary location compared to on a car.


----------



## HarryN (May 13, 2008)

Hi Brock - thanks for the reminder to double check my math on using a car to make power. Maybe I missed a zero somewhere. Cars actually are remakably clean when measuring "conventionally regulated" exhaust emissions. Yes, I know CO2 is a different matter.

Unfortuneately, you are almost right about the dirtiest power generators - around here (SF / Oakland), the absolute dirtiest power comes from all of the container ships coming in burning heavy fuel oil - with absolutely NO cleaning of the exhaust. The particulate from this is a major health problem in Oakland, SF, and Long Beach.

We can thank these ships with their "denser than water tar fuel" for the persistent forever spill here in the bay - which largely sank to the bottom and tarred over everything there.

Sorry for the rant - anyway, thanks for pointing out the questionable use of a car for regular power generation. Maybe save it for emergencies.


----------



## BB (May 14, 2008)

Can you do Grid Tied solar? Without any of the rebates, you can probably do $0.25 per kWhr or better... With the old CA $2.50 rebate and the 10% federal, I am down somewhere around $0.14 per kWhr)...

However, the rebates are down to the $1.19 or so per kWhr, and the federal tax credit is about to go away too (IIRC).

There are other issues with adding solar grid tie now in California--you probably have to go with the PG&E E6 time of use plan--and if you can't put off using power in the middle of the day (because of your home office)--your bill may suffer.

Take a look at your monthly/yearly power bill and see how many kWhrs per month/year you use and how large of solar Grid Tied system it would take to offset your usage. This tool does a pretty good job of estimating the output of a grid tied solar array.

Conservation (insulation, ground sourced heat pumps, double pane low E windows, using lower powered computers--like laptops, etc.) can help. Although, if you are in a newer home--your insulation and appliances may not need improvement.

You might want to pickup a Kill-A-Watt meter to look at some of your 120 VAC 15 amp loads (standard wall outlet). At that high of power usage--sounds like you have some large AC loads (like air conditioning) and/or some large office equipment that you use during the day...

Regarding mpg gauge, you might look at the ScanGauge II 3-in-1 Compact Multifunction Vehicle Computer with Customizable Display... Have not tried one myself--but it may fill your need.

-Bill


----------



## Brock (May 14, 2008)

BB said:


> Regarding mpg gauge, you might look at the ScanGauge II 3-in-1 Compact Multifunction Vehicle Computer with Customizable Display... Have not tried one myself--but it may fill your need.-Bill



I would second the scangauge. I have an older SG1 now in our van and the SG2 in our TDI. It really helps you understand how driving style can affect fuel economy. Honestly I think my single biggest improvement in MPG was when I bought the SG 1. It has become sort of a game to see how high I can get my mpg numbers on trips to or from work. You hit one red light at the wrong time and game over 

Harry I didn't mean to knock you I was just pointing out that isn't the best way to produce electricity. Actually in our last home I had a line from our garage (4 aut) to my 2000 amp 12v battery bank which in turn fed our 5kw of inverters. In an extended power outage I could idle the TDI and generate 100amps at 12vdc or 1200w. I only had to do this once, the TDI is much more quiet then a genset as well


----------



## Darell (May 14, 2008)

HarryN said:


> I am actually interested in the potential of using a plug in hybrid to help offset my home electricity cost.


Yeah, as Brock pointed out, this is the sure way to make your electricity MORE expensive. But, modern EVs will have V2G option - so in a pinch you can do it - and doing it with an EV means that you are just storing your cheap electricity for use later - not making it with gasoline.


----------



## Darell (May 14, 2008)

HarryN said:


> Hi Brock - thanks for the reminder to double check my math on using a car to make power. Maybe I missed a zero somewhere. Cars actually are remakably clean when measuring "conventionally regulated" exhaust emissions. Yes, I know CO2 is a different matter.



Cars have become remarkably clean at the tailpipe, as you point out. Please do NOT ignore all the upstream pollution of making and delivering that gasoline to your corner station. I'm not railing on you here - but how often do I hear how dirty EVs are because of the power plant emissions (though no tailpipe emissions) and how clean the tailpipe emissions of gasoline cars are today. Oops... what happened to the creation-of-gasoline emissions (including all the electricity that goes into the process!)????


----------



## HarryN (May 14, 2008)

Hi BB - I looked at grid tied solar, and just cannot make it a win for me. Selling power at more or less whole sale, then buying it back for retail is not a win. At least using my variation of math, it seems more likely that a solar tied to a few specific "often on" appliances / lights would have more impact on the bill - at a lower cost than a grid tied setup. Plus, the potential benefit of having some back up power. (the grid here is remarkably unreliable)

As far as loads - we do have A/C, but none used in Feb / Mar / Apr, and we have no large computer loads (laptops and LCD screens only). Frankly, if I could buy 5 cent / kwh electricity like my Dad does, I would look strongly at an EV - but it is not even on the radar at this point. I do believe in it strongly enough to go down a PHEV vs HEV though - just in case.

There are times when my driving needs might actually be below 10 kwh / day, so the idea of charging up the PHEV batteries with a solar panel could be interesting at some point, esp if it were car roof mounted. Not sure if that is viable yet.

We do have electric wash / dry / cook, so that is a factor with a family. Hot water is gas.

I don't think our loads are really that high - we even cut our electrical power useage 25 percent compared to last year in April, but still hit strongly into the second tier price. (which is just BS in IMHO)


----------



## BB (May 15, 2008)

Harry,

Actually, PG&E sells and buys the power at "retail"... They actually look at the usage and if you used more power, they charge you $0.11 / kWhr, and if you made more than you used, they put $0.11 in the "bank"... At the end of the year, you either pay the negative balance in the bank, or if a positive value, it is set to zero (they will not cut you a check).

Generally, you generate power during the day (meter runs backwards) and use power at night (meter runs forward)... Rates tiers are the same buying or selling. Ideally, you can move your tiered pricing down (say from 100 kWhr per month to 300 kWhrs per month)... You still pay, but know it is at $0.11 per kWhr.

Now, that is the simple explanation... The real one is that you will probably put in E6 Time of Use metering (PDF file)... Charge more for power usage during the day/evening, and less at night. Ideally, you turn the meter backwards at $0.29 per kWhr during the day and run it forwards at $0.09 / kWhr at night.

Because of the TOU pricing, tiered pricing, weekday vs weekend/holiday pricing, and seasonal pricing, the E6 plan is a pain to try and predict how it will affect your bill (should save money over E1 flat rate residential--especially if you can load shift your power to off peak use and turn the meter backwards during the peak times).

If you do it right--you may be paying $0.09 per kWhr for that EV... Much better than $0.33... Plus you have to pay about $5-$6 per month minimum connection charge (that is all I ever pay for the last 2.5 years) to use the utility as a 1 year capacity storage battery...

Going with an Off-Grid system to generate power is a real killer for cost--instead of ~~$0.25 / kWhr for Grid Tied Solar power cost, you are probably looking well north of $1.00 per kWhr for Off Grid power (cost of extra charge controller/off-grid inverter, batteries, battery replacement every 5-10 years, loss opportunity charging--3 day storage vs 1 year "storage" for Grid Tie).

Over on the west side of the bay--we have had a couple hand full of power outages over the last 5 decades that have lasted, at most, a few hours... I like the idea of an off grid capable system--but it was not worth the costs... I just purchased a Honda eu2000i generator, hooked up a manual transfer switch for a few circuits, and store some gas (1-2 gallons per day) for it (or siphon the car if I need more). The last long outage (5 days on the coast) was over fifty years ago.

There are hybrid Grid Tied / Off Grid systems now available--probably a bit more cost effective in the long term. The Xantrex XW system looks pretty nifty.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (May 15, 2008)

OK, not really an "Alt" vehicle, but at least topical from a previous sighting. Turns out that the Smart is a safer car than it looks.

Link to Smart safety rating


----------



## HarryN (May 17, 2008)

Hi BB, I am going to try to put some numbers together assuming 
- a $ 2 K investment in solar panel
- my "real" useage - which frankly, is not easily time shifted from peak
- grid tied vs just using PV to power a few specific loads with enough battery for each day of operation.

I have heard numbers like 20 K plus for a PV system, and for me, that is just not an option. Being an old school project engineer, and the expected life of PV components, I do the math based on 5 year cost basis - and that is really generous. A real company will not survive doing doing an operational change with long pay backs unless it is VERY strategic.

What I am expecting, is that grid tied is good for PGE, but not for me. It seems like if I can get some relatively moderate but constant draws usually off of the grid (like a frig, some lights, furnace, A/C fan - not compressor), then I can potentially stay away from the 33 cent power and maybe some of the 22 cent power.

I don't trust PGE to be looking out for my best interest on a "timer" basis. The obvious one is their latest gig - trying to get us to go to a tiered system of time dependent use - with no real incentive. So far , lots of complaints that bills are going up. Gee - I wonder why PGE is so excited to push the program. :sick2:

Sorry if this more home ish useage is somewhat OT.

Just curious - has anyone had success with using abut 1 sq meter of PV to charge up a hybrid battery to reduce fuel use ? In other words, if I mounted a panel on a plug in hybrid, could I drive 3 - 10 miles day around town and notice a difference ?


----------



## BB (May 17, 2008)

Harry,

I have tried many times to cost out an off-grid solar system, and assuming 20 year life for everything...

Lets say you drive to Florida and get the cheapest (still very good quality with 25 year warranty) and get $2.50 per watt solar panels (cheap price this week...). 1kWatt worth of Sun-170 watt panels, Get 6 of them (1,020 watts). $467.50 * 6 = $2,805 for a set.

And you get a good quality charge controller (MX 60 by Outback) for $500.

Power wise, you really should use a pure sine wave inverter for your loads (stay away from the cheap Mod Sine/Square wave inverters). Exeltech XP1100 24-volt 1100 watt sine wave inverter for $612.

Lets guess that you will want ~1kW of solar panels--That will give you about 80-140 kWhrs per month of useful energy at SF, CA (using 52% as the derating factor for off-grid systems with 120 vac inverter. Or 2.67 to 4.67 kWhrs per day (winter-summer). The system will generate a total of 1,446 kWhrs for an average year...

Batteries, wet cell lead acid, 3 days of no sun, 50% max discharge level, 4.67kWhrs per day, 24 volt inverter.

Bat AH = 4,670 WH/24v * 3 days * 1/50% discharge = 1,168 AmpHrs of battery (24 volt pack).

Crown Industrial Battery 6-125-15 12 Volt, 1090 Amp-Hour is close enough. Very good quality battery, will last 20 years. $5,200 for a pair. 850 lbs each.

Add 20% for sales tax, shipping, wire, hardware (SWAG)...

So, for a 1kW simple off grid system, in San Francisco CA, with 3 days of off-grid battery and a 600 watt pure sine wave inverter and 20% adder for misc stuff = $10,904 in parts costs (no labor, permits, etc.).

Cost per kWhr = $10,904 / (1,446 kWhr/yr * 20 years) = $0.38 per kWhr

You should add some more costs, transfer switch, backup charger/generator. Also a battery monitor (look at the XBM model) to make sure you don't kill your $5,000 battery bank.

So, that $0.38 per kWhr is the cheapest I can see making this system... $2.50 is a great price (6 panel minimum order to ship). Normally they are closer to $3.75-$5.00 per watt. If you miss the good deal, add another $2k or so to the price (another 20%).

Also, with an off grid system, you cannot use 100% of your power every day--you only have three days of storage, and you cannot leave the battery flat ever (or even below 75% charge for more than a day or so) without risking dramatically shortening the life of the battery.

If you can only use 50% of the power every day (on average), your costs will double. If you need permits, labor, add a few more $k. Want a better inverter (one with automatic transfer switch to AC mains and mains capable battery charger, add another $1,200 (or another 10% cost increase to your power)...

Anyway, this is about the optimum priced off-grid capable system that I can think of at the moment. You can try making a 1/5 sized system ($2k instead of $10k), but you will also end up with, roughly 1/5 the usable power (and the smaller/fewer pieces may cost you more money anyway as the economy of scale drops). That will give you about 500 W*H to 900 W*H per day of energy...

A standard Energy Star 15-18 cuft fridge would be close to 1 kWhr per day.

A $2k system would not even be able to really power your single average fridge/freezer. You could try modifying an Energy Star rated chest freezer with a new thermostat that can keep the temp between 33 and 38F--it might work on that small of system...

I probably forgot something, or made a stupid mistake somewhere--but I think that this is as good an estimate as I can do tonight.

Regarding a single solar panel on a car--basically a 66"x33" 205 watt ($1,000) BP solar panel mounted flat (zero degrees) in San Francisco will generate about 8-30 kWhrs per month (deep winter-summer peak)--at 2-3 miles per kWhr for an electric car, that would range between 16-24 miles per month (deep winter) to 60-90 miles per month (peak summer months). Or a maximum of 2-3 miles per day in the summer... Ignoring any conversion losses from the low voltage solar panel to the high voltage Hybrid battery pack.

In the end, the current solar electric program, IMHO, is a pain in the butt for PG&E. They are buying and selling electricity at retail prices. Basically, not getting any money for moving the energy from my house to my neighbor's home... And they still need to supply all of us power when the sun sets or the clouds come in (in the summer, peak power usage in around 6-9 pm at night--not during the middle of the day).

And with TOU charges--I sell my power at $0.29 per kWhr (summer peak) and my neighbor is buying it at $0.12 (residential flat rate). And I get to "buy" my power back during the night and weekends at $0.09 per kWhr...

I would not want to go into that business without massive government/"other customer" subsidies (which is exactly what they are doing) and limiting it to a maximum of 1% of my customer base (which is also true). And if it gets too out of hand, reserve the right to change all the rules and create a new "real time pricing system" which I will force my solar PV customers on to (also true--in my PUC rate schedule)...

-Bill


----------



## Diesel_Bomber (May 17, 2008)

Biodiesel just went up to $4.99/gal. I'm not surprised, I've expected such a price increase for a long time. The price will go much higher, as will the price of dino diesel.

(Mini rant ahead, not necessarily properly informed and in no particular order.)
It burns me that something made in our country costs so much yet it's "cheaper" to give billions to other countries and ship oil from thousands of miles away. I can buy new vegetable oil retail for ~$3.50/gal and build my own biodiesel processor for ~$1,500. (I haven't looked into collecting "free" waste oil as my time is far too valuable to make that worth even considering.) After paying for methanol, lye, and power, my cost would be roughly $4/gal for home made biodiesel. With the amount of fuel I use for business and personal transportation, the processor would pay for itself in less than 2 months. As fuel gets more expensive this payback period will only get smaller. I can also almost certainly get cheaper oil by buying wholesale and buying thousands of gallons at a time, again making the payback period smaller and eventual profits larger. Extremely tempting. Alas, the time required to set up each batch of fuel still makes it cheaper to keep forking out $$$ for premade fuel. I may build the processor anyway, cost be damned.

:buddies:


----------



## rodfran (May 18, 2008)

Hey BB-Thanks for the information. That is the best deal I have ever seen on solar panels. It is really expensive to go off the grid vs. intertie because of the battery cost. 

Have you guys checked the prices on deep cycle batteries lately? They have gone through the roof.

To Diesel_Bomber- If you do set up for making the biodiesel, let us know how it goes!


----------



## HarryN (May 18, 2008)

Hi Bill - Thank you for that post - really sums it up for me. More or less confirms what we all suspect, but wish were not true - PV does not make sense at the consumer level.

I wish I could buy my power at the 0.12 / kwh that your neighbor does.

For me, a 20 year payback is not a good investment, because every 5 - 10 years, my setup will go obsolete or get broken some how.

Just curious - I looked at Exide deep discharge 12 volt batteries at the auto store the other day - label at least talks to "100 amp hours with reserve" - putting it somewhere near 1 kwh. Would that $ 100 battery make it for at least 1 year, or is this a "historical labeling capacity concept".

I guess my continued focus on insulation improvement is the way to go from a "investment vs savings method".


----------



## BB (May 18, 2008)

Don't know about the Exide--You want to ensure that it is a deep cycle battery and not an RV or Marine battery.

Typically, many people start with 6 volt "golf cart" batteries that they can get from Wal-Mart and other places... Sometimes nicknamed "training" batteries, they are usually a good deal and last a reasonable amount of time (3-5 years, and some people get upwards of 8 years).

Issues with wet/flooded cell deep cycle storage batteries is the deeper the discharge, the shorter the battery will last. If you can keep it above 75% State Of Charge (SOC), the battery will not form hardened sulfates (below ~75% SOC, the sulfates in the discharged plates starts hardening within a few hours--and if left in a low state of charge, large amounts will harden and the battery will loose capacity as the hardened sulfates cannot be recharged). Taking a battery below 50% and the plates will quickly start to be permanently damaged.

Also with flooded cell batteries, they evaporate water during charging/equalization. Requires distilled water to refill and makes a mess on the top of the battery and of the cables. You can get caps (Water Miser is one brand) that will reduce water loss.

Good thing with flooded cell batteries is they tolerate over-charging pretty well because you can add water back in.

AGM's are a good battery once you know how to manage your system. The cost something like twice as much--but you can cycle them deeper and they don't out gas... However, because you cannot refill them with water, they are very susceptible to damage from over-charging/over heating.

Your Exide battery--if you only plan on cycling it about 20% every day--it should last 1-3 years (just a SWAG).... 100A*H * 12v * 20% = 240 Watt*Hours (or, if this is a twenty hour discharge rate a 12 watt load for 20 hours--not very much useful power unless it is a few lamps or a radio).

And, if you are in Oakland CA, using PG&E, and an E1 residential rate (PDF file), your first ~300kWhrs per month are $0.11556 per kWhr. You don't pay $0.32/kWhr until you use over ~600 kWhrs per month.

Yea, battery (Lead) prices are going way up... But so is the copper wire to connect up your system.

-Bill


----------



## HarryN (May 19, 2008)

Well, here in Pleasanton, my rates for last bill are:

Base 400 kwh = .115 
next 123 kwh = .135
next 280 kwh = .227
next xxx kwn = .33 something

Mid April - Mid May 2008 = 697 kwh (no AC running yet on that bill, but it this past week we had multiple days over 105 F. ) So my AC more or less costs me .33 / kwh - pretty ridiculous given that in OH, my Dad pays 0.05 / kwh.

Last year, same period = 874 kwh

There is much more temp range out here, even though it is not that far away. Also, working from home adds some kwh, as well as having kids. 

Thanks for the battery tips - for some reason, I had it in my head that marine and RV batteries were designed for regular deep discharging through most of their capacity - jokes on me I guess.

AGMs - Are those the so called "gel cells" ? I know a guy that had gel cells in his mazda miata, and if they went dead even once, you had to toss them. Real pita.


----------



## Darell (May 19, 2008)

HarryN said:


> More or less confirms what we all suspect, but wish were not true - PV does not make sense at the consumer level.


This is simply not a true blanket statement. Nothing works well for everybody - but grid-tied PV most definitely makes sense at the cosumer level for a large percent of the population. And it'll make more sense when we start charging the proper amount for the "cheap" energy that is killing us and destroying our mountains, lakes and rivers. Sounds dramatic, I know... but there it is.

If you meant to say that off-grid PV is a tough sell at the consumer level - you are closer to the mark. There is a huge difference - like 100% difference in price. But that can be (and is!) a great bargain if it costs $1500/foot to bring power to your home from the nearest town. I have friends who faced bringing the grid in for 1.7 million dollars (and then renting the electricity every year on top of that), or spending $75,000 on off-grid solar. Which made more sense?



> For me, a 20 year payback is not a good investment, because every 5 - 10 years, my setup will go obsolete or get broken some how.


There is no set ROI for anybody or any system. For one thing it depends on the ever-increasing cost of electricity. The more expensive your electricity becomes, the faster the ROI. Right now you are renting your energy. At the end of the year, you have nothing to show for it. I own my electricity - I paid up front for my power for the next... well, quite possibly the rest of my life. And in my case, it "paid off" the very moment that I turned my system on. I could not afford to NOT put in solar.

As for things going obsolete or breaking - well that happens so rarely that we hardly even think about it. If something does break, it certainly isn't the whole system! And I'm not really sure what obsolete means in this case? I suppose that any car you buy last year is obsolete this year... but it keeps doing what it ever did, so who really cares? I suppose my entire 5-year-old PV system is "obsolete" and there it is out there making electricity just like it did five years ago.



> I guess my continued focus on insulation improvement is the way to go from a "investment vs savings method".


Conservation is almost always going to be your best bang for the buck, and I totally agree that EVERYBODY should be concentrating on this. Yet so few do.


----------



## BB (May 19, 2008)

AGM's are not Gel Cells... You can read a bit about the difference between the various Lead Acid battery types and their individual issues here (Battery FAQ from NWAS--a solar equipment dealer).

Short answer, stay away from Gel Cells for anything solar related. That leaves flooded cell or AGM. Flooded cell are cheaper and more resistant to over charging damage. AGM are better at deep cycling, faster recharging, and much less mess and maintenance--but very susceptible to over charging damage.

"Out West" here (San Mateo, CA), we generally have cool nights and can open windows to let the heat out at night... With an old 1930's home (built with zero insulation), just insulating the walls, ceiling, and floors (floor insulation not needed--but was easy to do--even went as far as insulating and double pane low E windows for the garage too), and double pane vinyl windows retrofitted everywhere--I can easily get a 20 F differential between outside peak vs indoor peak temperatures...

For example, on our 95 F day (last week has been warm), our downstairs temperature is ~70F and upstairs is 75F peak... As the warm days go on, I get about another 5F on those temperature peaks during the day--and that is without A/C (hit about 80F upstairs). But if I compare 80F (plus a couple ceiling/floor standing fans) without A/C and "the government" which is trying to mandate 78F for the A/C set-point--I have been really happy with the insulation (plus it makes our home much quieter wrt outside noise).

This was a home that before insulation/windows needed fans and open windows to keep livable when the temperature when above 75F. A very nice improvement (smallish 2 story 3 bedroom home). Now, early spring and late fall--when the temperature outside still gets above 70F--I now sometimes use central heat for 20 minutes to bump the house temp above 65F after a cool night because of all the insulation that prevents heat gain (and of course--heat loss).

Funny thing is now, in our upstairs bedrooms, I can see it start to warm up on a cold day just from having people in the rooms, and turning on a 170watt TV--it is really heating our room at night (of course, our nights are pretty mild 40F-55F).

We also added some operating skylights (with shades/blinds to control excessive light/heat) which cut down on the need for lighting and open for ventilation. Mostly, We use an old 30 watt laptop during the day, and leave the copier and printer off--except when needed. Although, this does work well for our family--it certainly does not work for everyone else.

The last thing to look at with Solar Grid Tied systems--is that TOU pricing can actually help because of generating power during the expensive part of the day and consuming power during the lower cost night.

My 3kW rated (Peak STC) system generates a bit more power than I consume (+4,000 kWhrs over 982 days or ~124 kWhrs per month extra (about $14 in "extra power per month), that resulted in $25 extra money to purchase at $0.09 per kWhr off-peak or ~278 kWhrs per month because of the TOU plan (or ~3x "more power" from our solar panels because of the TOU offset pricing).

My system will allow me to plug in an EV and consume ~278 kWhrs per month for free (not really free--I oversized my system specifically to support a solar EV/plugin-hybrid), and another ~300kWhrs per month at $0.09 per kWhr (base tier pricing).

I am no Darell--but I try in my own way. :wave:

-Bill


----------



## Darell (May 19, 2008)

BB said:


> I am no Darell--but I try in my own way. :wave:



 Some days you REALLY don't want to be Darell. Trust me on that.


----------



## BB (May 20, 2008)

Mythbuster's electric go-cart conversion article in Popular Mechanics Mag (not much technical detail). Pretty fast and lots of low-end torque.

-Bill


----------



## Darell (Jun 9, 2008)

I was just on KQED Quest radio:
http://www.kqed.org/quest/radio/who-will-revive-the-electric-car

I'm at the beginning and at the end. Whole thing is just five minutes.

My 15 seconds of fame has come and gone.


----------



## Brock (Jun 20, 2008)

Darell you used 5 minutes with Art Bell and 5 minutes on KQED, you still have 5 left 

As an update since I have moved closer to work I have started using my new EVT electric scooter. It does about 40 mph on a flat road, fast enough for the 35 mph roads. Anyway I was calculating some things and came up with this.

6 miles to and from work takes just about 1 kw to recharge. Right now I am charging with off peak power at $.0589 / kw, lets call it 6 cents, that puts the scooter at 1 cent a mile or 6 miles / kw or 166 w / mile. Fuel consumed for the VW TDI diesel at 60 mpg at 4.69 a gallon is 7.81 cents a mile. Our van getting 24 mpg at 3.96 a gallon is 16.5 cents a mile. So to sum up

1 cent a mile - electric scooter
8 cents a mile - VW Jetta TDI diesel
16 cents a mile - Toyota Sienna van

I plan on getting the solar panels up this weekend, so the scooter will be charged by the sun 

I think I am driving very aggressive with the scooter, lots of WOT (wide open throttle) and heavy breaking. I will try driving more conservatively to see how much it makes a difference.

Darell what is your w/mile or miles per kw averaging? (I know but what you to post  )


----------



## Darell (Jun 20, 2008)

Well, I was wrong that it has gone. I've since done some extended air time bits. But won't bore you guys with it here.

The Rav does about 3-4 miles/kWh from the socket to the road. The EV1 did 5-6. Obviously the numbers are better for the battery to the road calculation. But socket to the road is more meaningful.


----------



## PlayboyJoeShmoe (Jun 20, 2008)

I was listening to Kirby Wilber who was in for (stupid brain can't...) OH! Shaun Hannity (and I'm HAPPY when there is a guest host!) and they were discussing electric cars and how we'll get enough power to charge thousands of them.

It comes down to coal fired power in the short term. But the opposition won't allow ANY new plants.

It always comes down to the same A-holes who cry about getting off oil won't allow what it takes to get off oil.

The free market needs to decide it anyhow!


----------



## Darell (Jun 20, 2008)

> It comes down to coal fired power in the short term. But the opposition won't allow ANY new plants.
> 
> It always comes down to the same A-holes who cry about getting off oil won't allow what it takes to get off oil.
> 
> The free market needs to decide it anyhow!


I'm not sure I totally understand. Is this what was said on the show, or is this what you think, or both? Coal is horrible, and we have no need to build more coal plants to help us get off of oil. None. In the short term, we have the capacity to power 70% of the cars on the road with what we already have in place. We won't replace gas cars with EVs over night, and don't need to build out more power over night. Renewables like wind and solar are a PERFECT match for battery cars since the cars can be used as storage. And storage is really the main stubmling block for weather-dependent renewables.


----------



## Darell (Jun 27, 2008)

Great extended interview with Elan Musk of Tesla. Answers some important questions.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june08/musk_06-25.html


----------



## rodfran (Jun 28, 2008)

Hello Darell,

I read an article in EVWorld the other day about the RAV4EV's. Some are 10 years old now. But I guess the technology for BEV's is not ready yet!

How many miles do you have on your RAV4EV?

My wife works at a local hospital and she says scooters are everywhere. I wish more people could discover the electric scooters like Brock. Bicycle sales in our area is up 30%. One of the best ways to get off the oil is to not have to use it.


----------



## Darell (Jun 28, 2008)

I'm coming up on 60,000 miles. We have one private driver - in a 2002 vehicle like mine - who has just passed 150,000 miles on his Rav. Yup. Same batteries. His batteries are only now showing signs of degredation. At 150,000 I think everybody calls that "the life of the car." How many gasoline engines have needed replacement WELL before that? Since there have been some, I guess gas engines aren't quite ready for "prime time?" :sigh:

Yeah, the scooter and bike sales are great. What drives nuts is how many more GAS scooters and motorcycles we have on the road. They typically pollute more than our modern cars. 

If you saw the article that I think you saw (starts "we made a car that lasts too long.") then please also see my comments below that article wehre some of us explain several things that were not true.


----------



## Darell (Sep 14, 2008)

Hey guys... we have our own whole forum now! Bring your interest in EVs over to CPF Green!

http://www.cpfgreen.com/vb/showthread.php?t=64


----------



## vadimax (Dec 21, 2017)

Darell said:


> Great extended interview with Elan Musk of Tesla. Answers some important questions.
> http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june08/musk_06-25.html



And some truth as well:



P.S.: Yeah, I do manage to summon dead threads...


----------



## vadimax (Dec 21, 2017)

Tesla build and service quality:


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 23, 2017)

vadimax said:


> P.S.: Yeah, I do manage to summon dead threads...


Almost 10 years later? Absolutely. I remember when this thread moved to CPF Green ... then CPF Green went away.



vadimax said:


> And some truth as well:
> 
> https://youtu.be/LlvYv1SJJEY


I had a nice reply typed out then the forum decided I wasn't logged in and away it went. So here's an abbreviated response.

Sure, Tesla has issues with reliability, delivering on promises, and growing pains. They're the first automotive startup in the United States in roughly a century, so not a surprise that they're still struggling.

Model S reliability used to be something that Tesla kept quiet. The affluence of their owner base - quite often with many with multiple daily drivers to choose from - meant that their customers could tolerate Tesla's randomly failing and spending yet another day in the shop. Model 3 owners, whom are likely to have but one daily driver, will not and cannot tolerate this sort of low quality ... thus Tesla needs to up their game considerably. A friend bet another friend with a Model 3 on reserve $100 that they would not see their vehicle this year ... wish I'd thought to make that bet - I'd be $100 richer in about another week.

The commentator decries the lack of detail presented. He's right that Tesla has issued breathless press reports absent critical details. But the general motoring public is not the target market - freight companies are to some extent and distribution divisions are in particular. Some major distribution operators like Wal-Mart, UPS, and PepsiCo have signed on with Tesla for pilot programs, suggesting that they have access to more complete information and find it sufficiently compelling to test.

It'a amusing that the commentator decries Musk's PR juggernaut and its appeal to emotion, yet here he is in a _video_ light on density relative to print and high on emotional appeal as he gives us his snappy opinions and witticisms.

The commentator does reasonably correctly assess that the battery will be staggeringly heavy, but then bafflingly implies that the motors and control electronics will also subtract from the net capacity. Motors capable of generating hundreds of HP, hundreds of lb-ft of torque and moving 20+ tons of laden truck are pretty lightweight relative to engines and transmissions capable of the same. The control electronics are going to be a rounding error. Given that diesel fuel is a significant percentage of the operating cost of a truck, it's entirely possible that using far-cheaper electricity will offer savings sufficient to alter the logic around maximizing tonnage hauled.

The commentator is correct that delivering 800kWH _net_ to a pack in 30 minutes will require 1600MW of continuous power. Missing is the likely requirement for an additional tens of kW of external cooling to ensure the pack doesn't cook in the process. One suspects that like Tesla's supercharging network, these megachager stations will be strategically located - possibly in industrial areas or simply near substations so they can manage such staggering power requirements. I can only imagine the contacts and conductors required to manage such a charge.

Recall how I mentioned _distribution_ divisions being the likely target market? They tend to run shorter more regimented routes and aren't as sensitive to maximum tonnage as over the road _freight_ operators. It's very likely that they will routinely operate these vehicles with out-and-back distances below the rated range and simply slow-charge them overnight at the distribution center/depot.

I got about 11 minutes into the video then other priorities demanded my attention. If there were any bombshell reveals in the last 6 minutes I apologize for missing them.

Time will soon tell if Tesla can indeed deliver a semi that industry wants. Industrial customers will be far more demanding than personal automobile buyers and Tesla should be well aware of this, so I give the general _concept_ some credence. Time will tell if Tesla survives to produce these things beyond the first article prototypes they rolled out for the big reveal a month ago.


----------



## vadimax (Dec 23, 2017)

This was the best one:


> _I did not have time to write a short letter.
> _




Personally I think this Tesla phenomenon is based on people desire to believe in something outstanding, no matter it contradicts the laws of physics. They manage to call EV vehicles “green” when Li-Ion cell production is poisonous as hell. They are ready to cry with relief tears when they see EV truck commercial with reflected wind generators on its side, absolutely ignoring that those wind generators kill thousands of birds, including those that are listed in The Red Book of vanishing species.

Sometimes I even think that EV idea is a dangerous and extremely expensive toy. Unless something changes dramatically in electric power storage technology, increasing power density at least twice.

P.S.: http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/30/north-carolina-lawmakers-pass-two-year-ban-on-wind-turbines/


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 23, 2017)

vadimax said:


> This was the best one:
> [/I]
> 
> Personally I think this Tesla phenomenon is based on people desire to believe in something outstanding, no matter it contradicts the laws of physics. They manage to call EV vehicles “green” when Li-Ion cell production is poisonous as hell. They are ready to cry with relief tears when they see EV truck commercial with reflected wind generators on its side, absolutely ignoring that those wind generators kill thousands of birds, including those that are listed in The Red Book of vanishing species.



I'm glad you found the time to respond to my _signature_ then whatever else was on your mind rather than the points I raised in my post.


----------



## bykfixer (Dec 23, 2017)

If you look at military bases you'll see tractors the size of a riding lawn mower pulling jet airplanes and very heavy cargo containers. Some go back to WW2. Still in service.

Now industry is using similar. Tesla vehicles would make great fork lifts, mini excavators on tracks, mules and all kinds of uses beyond a comuter vehicle.
Hopefully they can tap into that market while they perfect their trade.

Soichiro (pronounced So-ee-chee-row) Honda began by making a radio generator drive a bicycle run off of a combination of pine sap and gasoline. That led to Honda scooters and what is now one of the greatest automobile manufacturers on the planet during a time when the Japanese government discouraged him while favoring Mazda, Nissan, and Toyota. 

I say that to say I think Tesla has a real chance at changing the game in due time.


----------



## vadimax (Dec 23, 2017)

idleprocess said:


> I'm glad you found the time to respond to my _signature_ then whatever else was on your mind rather than the points I raised in my post.


Well, I may switch to details, but will that help?

For example, you believe that electric motors are lightweight. But if you take ( will you?  ) a MACK MP8 semi truck engine [505 hp, 1860 lb/ft, 2597 lb] and try to find its electric equivalent, you will discover that it will weight nearly exactly the same. And now, suddenly, you will understand why the author decided to omit engine weight comparison 

Edit: Sorry, I was wrong! The equivalent in power and torque electric engine weighs TWICE more and costs... attention! $42996 alone!!!


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 23, 2017)

vadimax said:


> Well, I may switch to details, but will that help?
> 
> For example, you believe that electric motors are lightweight. But if you take ( will you?  ) a MACK MP8 semi truck engine [505 hp, 1860 lb/ft, 2597 lb] and try to find its electric equivalent, you will discover that it will weight nearly exactly the same. And now, suddenly, you will understand why the author decided to omit engine weight comparison
> 
> Edit: Sorry, I was wrong! The equivalent in power and torque electric engine weighs TWICE more and costs... attention! $42996 alone!!!


Your observations about that particular industrial motor are indeed correct, but not necessarily relevant.

Tesla Model S motor weighs 70 pounds, 362HP, 317 ft-lb of torque (per Google). Given the differences in how electric motors rate HP and torque (average) vs internal combustion engines (peak), I suspect that about 4 would suffice - a pair per drive axle. Double the mass to address the markedly greater weight each motor has to accelerate and you're still at 560 pounds. No transmission other than a reduction gear so there's another ton or so of weight savings. I gather the Model 3 motor has a bit less HP and torque but is permanent magnet, so it's apt to be lighter still.


----------



## moldyoldy (Dec 24, 2017)

the last portion of this thread is interesting vis-a-vis Tesla and the general EV hype relative to the electric grid which is not ready for lots of EVs.

however to my input about high-torque electric motors: when we were designing the next generation howitzer (155mm), the intent was to replace all hydraulics with electric motors. the engineers repeatedly said in meetings that they had no problem finding electric motors with sufficient torque and speeds (trapezoidal drive curves, etc.), or even generating sufficient electric power to drive these motors. but cooling these electric motors was nearly impossible. Moving a 100lb projectile from the magazine to flick-ram'd in <10 seconds was not a trivial design exercise. when the next-gen howitzer was started (sponson diesel), the fan noise was so loud I thought the vehicle would levitate! The fans were intended to attempt to dissipate the heat energy to minimize susceptibility to IR sights on tanks or anti-tank missiles. ehhhh, the Soviets proved to be very effective in triangulating Wehrmacht Artillery in WWII by sound alone and delivering counterbattery responses.


----------



## vadimax (Dec 24, 2017)

moldyoldy said:


> the last portion of this thread is interesting vis-a-vis Tesla and the general EV hype relative to the electric grid which is not ready for lots of EVs.
> 
> however to my input about high-torque electric motors: when we were designing the next generation howitzer (155mm), the intent was to replace all hydraulics with electric motors. the engineers repeatedly said in meetings that they had no problem finding electric motors with sufficient torque and speeds (trapezoidal drive curves, etc.), or even generating sufficient electric power to drive these motors. but cooling these electric motors was nearly impossible. Moving a 100lb projectile from the magazine to flick-ram'd in <10 seconds was not a trivial design exercise. when the next-gen howitzer was started (sponson diesel), the fan noise was so loud I thought the vehicle would levitate! The fans were intended to attempt to dissipate the heat energy to minimize susceptibility to IR sights on tanks or anti-tank missiles. ehhhh, the Soviets proved to be very effective in triangulating Wehrmacht Artillery in WWII by sound alone and delivering counterbattery responses.



Very interesting point. EV advocates somehow prefer to consider electric motors to be an “abstract spherical horse in vacuum” (Russian saying). When they count electric motor effectiveness they like to use 97% number. The reality is 85%-97%, where 97% — is a narrow application band of conditions met. Most of the time it will be 10-15% of pure heat. This is why production high torque motors are so massive — to absorb and then dissipate tremendous thermal load. Electric motors just cannot be cooled from inside (without extreme sophistication). On the other side combustion engines feature integrated and simple liquid cooling.


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 24, 2017)

moldyoldy said:


> the last portion of this thread is interesting vis-a-vis Tesla and the general EV hype


While there is indeed a legion of Tesla eleon Musk fanbase that will not tolerate the brand and the personality that they've hitched their ego to, it's a really clever and sneaky tactic for the commentator in said video to harp on the point so - by implication if you dare disagree _you must be an irrational fan too_.



moldyoldy said:


> relative to the electric grid which is not ready for lots of EVs.


It also can't handle our ever-increasing demand for air conditioning, acres of parking lots lit at night, baseboard heaters, scrap steel smelters, and all the other non-EV things we routinely hook to the grid without much concern. But no one worries about these loads - it expands to meet those loads as they come online.

A little more than a century ago one might have worried about having sufficient filling stations or refinery capacity to accommodate the burgeoning new automobile market. We worked it out then _building out infrastructure from the ground up_; EV's present a far lesser challenge since the electric grid is already pretty much everywhere. We won't have 10% of the driving population hook one up tomorrow - adoption will take time.



moldyoldy said:


> however to my input about high-torque electric motors: when we were designing the next generation howitzer (155mm), the intent was to replace all hydraulics with electric motors. the engineers repeatedly said in meetings that they had no problem finding electric motors with sufficient torque and speeds (trapezoidal drive curves, etc.), or even generating sufficient electric power to drive these motors. but cooling these electric motors was nearly impossible. Moving a 100lb projectile from the magazine to flick-ram'd in <10 seconds was not a trivial design exercise. when the next-gen howitzer was started (sponson diesel), the fan noise was so loud I thought the vehicle would levitate! The fans were intended to attempt to dissipate the heat energy to minimize susceptibility to IR sights on tanks or anti-tank missiles. ehhhh, the Soviets proved to be very effective in triangulating Wehrmacht Artillery in WWII by sound alone and delivering counterbattery responses.


Sounds like it was _still_ an application for hydraulics rather than electric motors. Short bursts of intense/brutal work and maintaining force when slack are something they're exceptionally good at.



vadimax said:


> Very interesting point. EV advocates somehow prefer to consider electric motors to be an “abstract spherical horse in vacuum” (Russian saying). When they count electric motor effectiveness they like to use 97% number. The reality is 85%-97%, where 97% — is a narrow application band of conditions met. Most of the time it will be 10-15% of pure heat. This is why production high torque motors are so massive — to absorb and then dissipate tremendous thermal load. Electric motors just cannot be cooled from inside (without extreme sophistication). On the other side combustion engines feature integrated and simple liquid cooling.



Most of the time I see a ~90% figure quoted.

Internal combustion engines are ~65% 'pure heat' by comparison.


----------



## vadimax (Dec 24, 2017)

idleprocess said:


> While there is indeed a legion of Tesla eleon Musk fanbase that will not tolerate the brand and the personality that they've hitched their ego to, it's a really clever and sneaky tactic for the commentator in said video to harp on the point so - by implication if you dare disagree _you must be an irrational fan too_.
> 
> 
> It also can't handle our ever-increasing demand for air conditioning, acres of parking lots lit at night, baseboard heaters, scrap steel smelters, and all the other non-EV things we routinely hook to the grid without much concern. But no one worries about these loads - it expands to meet those loads as they come online.
> ...



Consumer EV vehicles are not an issue. An issue is a commercial half truck with a 14 ton battery which needs to suck 1.6 MW in half an hour in the middle of nowhere.

Internal combustion engine features a coolant liquid flow 1/3 of an inch from its burning camera. And most part of that heat is immediately removed from it with exhaust (the source of its relatively low effectiveness — aborted adiabatic expansion).


----------



## gadget_lover (Dec 25, 2017)

I saw a post a few days ago with a chart from Cummins. It seems an 18 wheeler will use 265 HP at 440 ft/lb of torque to drive 65 MPH on flat land without a headwind. Go faster or uphill and the power needs go up, as does the fuel consumption. 

That's quite within the range of an electric motor. Don't need a 1 ton motor to do it either.

Dan


----------



## vadimax (Dec 25, 2017)

gadget_lover said:


> I saw a post a few days ago with a chart from Cummins. It seems an 18 wheeler will use 265 HP at 440 ft/lb of torque to drive 65 MPH on flat land without a headwind. Go faster or uphill and the power needs go up, as does the fuel consumption.
> 
> That's quite within the range of an electric motor. Don't need a 1 ton motor to do it either.
> 
> Dan



But all half trucks face a miserable problem — merging the traffic on a highway. You either stand and wait indefinitely (or until someone kindly lets you in) or floor accelerator to fill an opened gap. And exactly at that moment you need full power and torque.


----------



## idleprocess (Dec 30, 2017)

vadimax said:


> Consumer EV vehicles are not an issue. An issue is a commercial half truck with a 14 ton battery which needs to suck 1.6 MW in half an hour in the middle of nowhere.


Such expansion will need to be coordinated with the utility - significantly more than a gas station, indeed. Give them some lead time - and toss some project money their way - and it can happen. These will most likely be situated along major transportation corridors - like their supercharger stations for personal autos - where access to substantial power is easier to arrange.

Much like how one cannot obtain a vehicle for US $20k with a 3 second 0-60 time capable of 200 MPH weighing <1000lb with world-beating offroad performance capable of hauling 14 tons that fits in a single parking spot and runs reliably for 20 years of brutal flogging with little maintenance, this truck is no more capable of being _everything to everyone_ than any other real-world vehicle. I expect they'll be used for distribution rather than freight based on the companies placing pre-orders and their other limitations. I'm a bit surprised that Tesla hasn't toed the waters for box trucks in the local distribution/delivery market - I see dozens every day living near a major international airport - but perhaps that market is more crowded with entrants than just the beleaguered Smith Electric and some tentative pilot projects from the likes of Benz and the long(er)-haul market is where they see opportunity.



vadimax said:


> Internal combustion engine features a coolant liquid flow 1/3 of an inch from its burning camera. And most part of that heat is immediately removed from it with exhaust (the source of its relatively low effectiveness — aborted adiabatic expansion).


Heat is pretty much not an issue with a reasonably well-designed motor since waste heat is small relative to the input power and it has but one moving part. Tesla's reliability issues seem to stem mostly from early driveshafts/U-joints, electronics, body components, and interior - here's _Consumer Reports_' data on the Model S and here's their methodology. Save a blip in 2013 looks like they've not had any notable problems with their motors. Getting the motor right was apparently not as difficult as making the fancy door handles pop out consistently, getting the window regulators to work reliably, or ensuring the ECU firmware doesn't wander off the reservation. For comparison, here's _CR_'s data on the Nissan Leaf.



vadimax said:


> But all half trucks face a miserable problem — merging the traffic on a highway. You either stand and wait indefinitely (or until someone kindly lets you in) or floor accelerator to fill an opened gap. And exactly at that moment you need full power and torque.



Torque in motors is markedly different than engines. They produce peak torque when stalled while engines typically peak somewhere middle of their RPM band. If you've ever seen electric vehicle drag race videos they tend to beat ICE vehicles off the line for this reason. Engines also specify torque as a peak figure at whatever RPM and occasionally give you the curve while motors tend to specify an average figure. The "getting on the highway" problem is not something that a reasonably well-designed EV suffers.


----------

