Did you read the article. Its open now in one place, in France, and only to aquaint people with the idea. Sounds very familiar....remember Preston Tucker. Great idea that never came to fruition. To work, just in the US, they would need hundreds of thousands of 'stations'. One in a state does no one any good at all.
Did you read the article. Its open now in one place, in France, and only to aquaint people with the idea. Sounds very familiar....remember Preston Tucker. Great idea that never came to fruition. To work, just in the US, they would need hundreds of thousands of 'stations'. One in a state does no one any good at all.
Yes I did read the article and it's not only one place at all besides that it's not even France. You might want to read it again.
Your point about having many stations in the U.S. is fair enough, why that would be some kind of problem if the will was there I have no idea.
BTW I'm not saying that "a better place" is the only solution, just that it is A viable option, it shows that in fact electric vehicles can make sense and can be a competitor to gas power. I enjoy seeing new technologies and new ways of solving problems but hey to each their own.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:36 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Yeah a large inventory, how is that a problem? Did you see the size of the battery pack? Think the facility will have to be bigger than a petroleum station? You can probably write an email to tell them it's fruitless as well.
I never said it was fruitless.
Do you have any idea how much power one of these stations will consume to recharge batteries?
Do you have any idea how much power one of these stations will consume to recharge batteries?
Good God man, you can research their site and even send them questions by email if you don't think it will work. I'm sure they are used to answering all the nay sayers.
I'm not their spokesperson believe it or not but seeing that they have begun building stations in Denmark and some other countries I assume they have it figured out.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
07:50 PM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
My mistake...opps. By being with Renault, France just stuck in my mind. Its in Copenhagen DENMARK. I dont forsee driving an electric car over there to pick up a charged battery either.... I read this as it just opened to introduce the concept to potential buyers or leasees. They havent even made a single car yet. No where is it a working system simply because the vehicles dont even exist yet.....or im I reading it wrong. ?
Press Better Place and Renault launch Fluence Z.E., the first “unlimited mileage” electric car together with innovative eMobility packages, in Europe’s first Better Place Center March 3, 2011
COPENHAGEN (March 3, 2011)—Better Place opened today, together with its partner Renault, Europe’s first Better Place center. Visitors will now be able to experience sustainable mobility and will have the opportunity to place an order for a Renault Fluence Z.E. with the Renault staff and sign up with the Better Place team for a subscription of mobility services – conveniently packaged for consumers, fleet managers and the public sector.
Attractive prices unveiled
The Fluence Z.E. “Prime Time” launched in Denmark from 205.000 DKK (€27.496), including VAT, and Better Place will offer consumers a choice of five, fixed-price, packages based on kilometers driven. For drivers who drive more than 40.000 kilometers per year, Better Place offers a fixed-price package of ‘all you can drive’ kilometers for 2.995 DKK (€399) per month, effectively giving drivers of the switchable-battery Fluence Z.E. unlimited driving range and unlimited kilometers in Denmark in an era when oil prices are at a two-year peak and rising.
For drivers who drive fewer than 20.000 kilometers per year, the fixed monthly price offer ranges from 1.495 DKK (€199) to 1.895 DKK (€249). Each subscription includes a one-time fee of 9.995 DKK (€1.341) for the installation of a private charge spot so that drivers can safely plug in at home. Initial delivery of the Renault Fluence Z.E. with Better Place mobility services will occur in the fourth quarter of this year.
The Renault Fluence Z.E. “Prime Time” will include, as standard features
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 03-03-2011).]
My mistake...opps. By being with Renault, France just stuck in my mind. Its in Copenhagen DENMARK. I dont forsee driving an electric car over there to pick up a charged battery either....
Like I said until gas rises high enough for the sheep to complain in North America I doubt you'll see much change in the Electric car industry here. Luckily the other countries that embrace this technology are good test markets for the future.
IP: Logged
07:55 PM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22770 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
My mistake...opps. By being with Renault, France just stuck in my mind. Its in Copenhagen DENMARK. I dont forsee driving an electric car over there to pick up a charged battery either.... I read this as it just opened to introduce the concept to potential buyers or leasees. They havent even made a single car yet. No where is it a working system simply because the vehicles dont even exist yet.....or im I reading it wrong. ?
Press Better Place and Renault launch Fluence Z.E., the first “unlimited mileage” electric car together with innovative eMobility packages, in Europe’s first Better Place Center March 3, 2011
COPENHAGEN (March 3, 2011)—Better Place opened today, together with its partner Renault, Europe’s first Better Place center. Visitors will now be able to experience sustainable mobility and will have the opportunity to place an order for a Renault Fluence Z.E. with the Renault staff and sign up with the Better Place team for a subscription of mobility services – conveniently packaged for consumers, fleet managers and the public sector.
Attractive prices unveiled
The Fluence Z.E. “Prime Time” launched in Denmark from 205.000 DKK (€27.496), including VAT, and Better Place will offer consumers a choice of five, fixed-price, packages based on kilometers driven. For drivers who drive more than 40.000 kilometers per year, Better Place offers a fixed-price package of ‘all you can drive’ kilometers for 2.995 DKK (€399) per month, effectively giving drivers of the switchable-battery Fluence Z.E. unlimited driving range and unlimited kilometers in Denmark in an era when oil prices are at a two-year peak and rising.
For drivers who drive fewer than 20.000 kilometers per year, the fixed monthly price offer ranges from 1.495 DKK (€199) to 1.895 DKK (€249). Each subscription includes a one-time fee of 9.995 DKK (€1.341) for the installation of a private charge spot so that drivers can safely plug in at home. Initial delivery of the Renault Fluence Z.E. with Better Place mobility services will occur in the fourth quarter of this year.
The Renault Fluence Z.E. “Prime Time” will include, as standard features
400 EUROS A MONTH?!?!!? WHAT THE F**K!!!???
So you pay a loan on a 27,000 euro car, and THEN have to pay 400 euros additionally so that you can drive it? Holy **** ...
I agree with newf on one thing: Dependence on foreign oil is a grave mistake. We didn't learn it a few years ago, and we didn't learn it in the 70s.
That said, I think the "answer" to the internal combustion engine is far enough down the road that research needs to be done today (with venture capital - not taxpayer dollars) while native oil sources are harvested as fully and as long as possible. The US is blessed geologically with all manner of natural resources. Let's start there, keep our own A-to-B infrastructure in solid shape and in the meantime go after the pipe dream vehicle system that allows us to propel a ton and a half of steel and glass on raccoon farts.
The problem would be if no one ever comes up with a truly viable replacement (and it could happen this way.) But that's a problem for our grandchildren - just like the deficit will be, so who cares?
IP: Logged
08:14 PM
Khw Member
Posts: 11139 From: South Weber, UT. U.S.A. Registered: Jun 2008
Good God man, you can research their site and even send them questions by email if you don't think it will work. I'm sure they are used to answering all the nay sayers.
I'm not their spokesperson believe it or not but seeing that they have begun building stations in Denmark and some other countries I assume they have it figured out.
On a small scale I'm sure they do. On a large scale, I'm not so sure. Let's just put it this way, the average American home used 938 kwh per month in 2005. A Tesla (240v/90a) 4 hour full charge uses 86.4 kwh for one charge or almost 1/10th the average consumption of a American household per month in only 4 hours. Imagine multiple facilities trying to charge 80 batteries at one time or consuming 1728 kw each hour, almost twice the power consumed by the average American houshold in a month. So if in one hour they use what 2 households would use in one facility, that would be like adding another 1,440 houses to the grid per station for a month.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 03-03-2011).]
We already found a better way than using food, it's called sawgrass. It grows where corn won't, doesn't require petroleum-intensive fertilizers and machinery to grow and harvest...
I know exactly why they do not use Switch-grass and Saw-grass for E85. Monsanto. If you switch away from corn then Monsanto loses it's death grip on farming. I dont care what everyone says about the eco-whatever people and government conspiracies... Monsanto are the most evil group of people on this planet. They happily destroy families farms they let their crap patented corn spread it's genetics all over so that a farmer that is growing non Monsanto corn HAS TO pay Monsanto anyways because the corn genes float in the wind from the neighbors.
E85 IS a viable fuel source if the people involved in the process had any brains and were not corrupt as the day is long. We will NEVER see E85 or any alternative fuels done right. The corruption in the system runs from the top down.
On a small scale I'm sure they do. On a large scale, I'm not so sure. Let's just put it this way, the average American home used 938 kwh per month in 2005. A Tesla (240v/90a) 4 hour full charge uses 86.4 kwh for one charge or almost 1/10th the average consumption of a American household per month in only 4 hours. Imagine multiple facilities trying to charge 80 batteries at one time or consuming 1728 kw each hour, almost twice the power consumed by the average American houshold in a month. So if in one hour they use what 2 households would use in one facility, that would be like adding another 1,440 houses to the grid per station for a month.
Wow I guess they never thought about that...you're right it can't be done.
Wow I guess they never thought about that...you're right it can't be done.
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm just saying it may not be so utopian. Electricity has to come from somewhere and it has to be delivered through something, and those would have to be able to handle the load/demand.
I would hope since EV's would be a gradual transition, that the improvements needed would be made as it happens.
[This message has been edited by Khw (edited 03-03-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:15 PM
Flamberge Member
Posts: 4268 From: Terra Sancta, TX Registered: Oct 2001
The Volt ia POS,I doubt you remember my MANY post on the Volt as it developed ,,The VOLT is one BIG MAIN reason G.M failed GM put a fortune into The volt,because of the greens & GOVERMENT pressure .. Obama had G.M poobah Wagoner fired & was directly responsible for shut down of Pontiac,which wagoner wanted to save Ethanol /gasahol SUCKs it destroyed cars in Brazil,but you were not made aware of this,, Fuel pumps have been the major ethanol Failure in USA Ethanol causes more fuel consumtion, we use the same amount of fuel PLUS ethanol?/BOONDOGGLE BATTERY ARE big POLLUTERS THINK ABOUT IT SNIFF SOME BATTERY FUMES ,imagine the landfills full of batteries Teslas are NOT reliable The EV1 was not that good ,yes there were some people who loved them,, many hated them GREEN demanded the good reports V8 & V6 are a terrible waste of resources,,all cars should have a 4 cylinder engine MaX,none over 100 horse power the biggest car would be a small staion wagon with an ecotec 100 horse power..This would make gas plentiful for many years People do not give a s**t about the enviroment or the country woulf be full of honda civics with 70 horse power & Ford escorts with 85 horsepower. 90% of SUVs could easily be replaced by a small 90 h.p. 35mpg station wagon ! We will do the right thing ONLY when forced to do it .
None of this is important ,, the rising WAR with the dark side is comming( Ive been waiting) the longer it takes for the War to start the heavier price we will pay Many of the turncoat traitor low life sell out thier country scum who purchase jap have return to G.M...a small awakening !! Nuke Iran,,Nuke China
IP: Logged
11:36 PM
Mar 4th, 2011
cone shark Member
Posts: 160 From: Northern, NY Registered: Jun 2001
Dude it's FAR cheaper than GAS. They pay well over $6.00 a gallon. I dont get free gas with my car.
I certainly understand that.... but 400 euros comes out to a LOT of money. That's $558 dollars right now.
Even if gas was at $6 dollars a gallon...
Take for example, me... I drive about 250 miles in a week. I average about 18 miles to the gallon with my Ford Explorer.
So that's 250 / 18 = 14 (being liberal here)
Now 14 x $6 a gallon, that comes out to $84 dollars.
So now let's compare my Jeep Patriot, which by US standards is a fairly fuel efficient car, and would be considered "the norm" for most of greater Europe.
I get about 27 miles to the gallon (average) in that car, and get well over 32-35 on the highway.
So at 27 average, at 250 miles, that's less 9.5, then times 6 a gallon, comes out to $55.
It said this electric car only gets a range of about 60 miles... that means that people would need to change out the battery, probably every other day... or if they were right on that line, they'd have to change EVERY day.
Look... I'm all for alternative sources, but that is utterly ridiculous. No sane person would pay $558 dollars a month to drive a little overweight Peugeot (on top of the finance payments), when you could buy any other normal car, and pay significantly less.
You could buy a Mercedes S class with a 6 liter V12, and drive the same mileage, with the cost of gas, and still have money to spare.
Maybe the only point of this whole concept was to make people not feel as bad about spending $6 dollars a gallon of gas?
quote
Originally posted by newf:
You might want to look at what it costs to run a car on gas in Denmark before you are too shocked.
It was about e6.50 the last time I was in Holland, which was a little over a year and a half ago. I'm guessing it's changed a bit since then, but probably not substantially so. At the very least, 6 months ago, it wouldn't have been much different. Still, even at $9 a gallon, it doesn't come close to being fiscally feasible.
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It was about e6.50 the last time I was in Holland, which was a little over a year and a half ago. I'm guessing it's changed a bit since then, but probably not substantially so. At the very least, 6 months ago, it wouldn't have been much different. Still, even at $9 a gallon, it doesn't come close to being fiscally feasible.
Why not? The number you quoted was for unlimited driving, there were other plans as well.
You think they would have priced themselves out of the market? Look up their site and do some research, maybe send them an email instead of assuming all your numbers.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 03-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:58 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22770 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Why not? The number you quoted was for unlimited driving, there were other plans as well.
You think they would have priced themselves out of the market? Look up their site and do some research, maybe send them an email instead of assuming all your numbers.
Unlimited driving, within a 60 mile range... (that was their number).
My numbers were being VERY liberal in favor of them.
Even if I was twice as liberal in my numbers, it still wouldn't make financial sense.
But hey, like I said... if it isn't using my taxpayer dollars, I could care less. There's a lot of things we do in this world that doesn't make sense... smoke cigarettes, over-eat, have sex with prostitutes... etc...
(none of which I do, except the overeating part, but just sayin...)
Unlimited driving, within a 60 mile range... (that was their number).
My numbers were being VERY liberal in favor of them.
Even if I was twice as liberal in my numbers, it still wouldn't make financial sense.
But hey, like I said... if it isn't using my taxpayer dollars, I could care less. There's a lot of things we do in this world that doesn't make sense... smoke cigarettes, over-eat, have sex with prostitutes... etc...
(none of which I do, except the overeating part, but just sayin...)
No, you're obviously right and this company is set up not to make financial sense for consumers. Really that's actually what you think?
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: Unlimited driving, within a 60 mile range... (that was their number).
My numbers were being VERY liberal in favor of them.
Even if I was twice as liberal in my numbers, it still wouldn't make financial sense.
But hey, like I said... if it isn't using my taxpayer dollars, I could care less. There's a lot of things we do in this world that doesn't make sense... smoke cigarettes, over-eat, have sex with prostitutes... etc...
(none of which I do, except the overeating part, but just sayin...)
yes, with our structure here in the states, it would be tough to make something worthwhile like this work out financially.
Well, you inferred some things that I was never suggesting. At no point did I say the solar panels would power the entire car... I said it could be used to recharge the battery. If the entire hood, roof, and trunk lid was covered in solar panels (they actually have a paintable solar cell that can be molded to any form now), that it could be used to recharge the battery while the car sits outside in the parking lot for 8-9 hours. And as I said, you automatically assume that I'm talking about like a normal sedan. Making the vehicles out of lighter materials will mean that less power needs to be used to move the vehicle.
I know I typed out a lot, but nothing I said was at all unrealistic.
I spent some time talking to many engineers in this field when the Solar Challenge came through Plano a few years ago, and learned a lot of good facts. The solar-powered cars in the event were very light weight and had huge areas of the latest photovoltaic technology. Even still, range was limited and most of the morning and afternoon time was spent parked with panels tilted toward the sun for charging. There was a gold electric Fiero there with solar cells, so I discussed this with various engineers. What I learned is that the charge rate from a normal car-sized solar panel array would maybe to 1-2% charge in a full day, using the highest efficiency cells and assuming a 30 mile range car weighing about 3,000 lbs, with 12 hours of high-quality light available (good sun angle, no clouds). So after a full day of charging, you'd get about 1/2 mile of driving, maybe a hair more. 3,000 feet of travel. This would be for a car that met most crash safety standards, had glass windshields, wipers, and was weather tight. A car that someone could actually safely drive on the street.
To say I was disappointed is an understatement. It turns out you will need several thousand square feet of solar cells to power even the most minimal street-legal EV any meaningful distance. When you suggested solar charging the battery it seemed to me to imply charging it enough to do any travel with. Sorry I misinterpreted that.
Oh, I talked to the Fiero driver, the cells were not even connected and were mainly for show.
IP: Logged
10:40 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22770 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
I spent some time talking to many engineers in this field when the Solar Challenge came through Plano a few years ago, and learned a lot of good facts. The solar-powered cars in the event were very light weight and had huge areas of the latest photovoltaic technology. Even still, range was limited and most of the morning and afternoon time was spent parked with panels tilted toward the sun for charging. There was a gold electric Fiero there with solar cells, so I discussed this with various engineers. What I learned is that the charge rate from a normal car-sized solar panel array would maybe to 1-2% charge in a full day, using the highest efficiency cells and assuming a 30 mile range car weighing about 3,000 lbs, with 12 hours of high-quality light available (good sun angle, no clouds). So after a full day of charging, you'd get about 1/2 mile of driving, maybe a hair more. 3,000 feet of travel. This would be for a car that met most crash safety standards, had glass windshields, wipers, and was weather tight. A car that someone could actually safely drive on the street.
To say I was disappointed is an understatement. It turns out you will need several thousand square feet of solar cells to power even the most minimal street-legal EV any meaningful distance. When you suggested solar charging the battery it seemed to me to imply charging it enough to do any travel with. Sorry I misinterpreted that.
Oh, I talked to the Fiero driver, the cells were not even connected and were mainly for show.
There were considerable break-throughs that were made just a year or so ago with respect to solar cells that could be painted on the car. As the foremost expert in solar technology on Pennocks, I would have assumed you knew about that?
I don't know why you keep saying "Solar Powered" car... because I'm not suggesting it's solar powered, but use the solar power to recharge the batteries (when not at home and plugged in). I've got an electric golf cart, I know what the range is, and I know what kind of energy requirements it needs. To fully recharge, it must be plugged in for 4 hours. That gives me about 18 hours of driving with 36 volts total (6 deep cycle 6v batteries).
I don't know why you think the car has to weigh 3,000 pounds, I specifically mentioned something like a smart car. That only weighs, what... 1,700 pounds? At nearly half the weight, it would require almost half the energy.
It's clear that the biggest problem we're facing is energy storage... batteries haven't changed much, and that's where the focus should be.
by the looks of the above setup, a battery swap is quicker than a fill-up tho, I agree the grid-load is heavy.
The grid-load compared to new housing and business starts is non-existent. 500,000 new mostly electric homes will be built this year, each one of which will use 10X or more electricity than any EV. Commercial buildings will use even more than that. The grid-overload scenario turns out to be a red herring. What's more, the EV charging that does get done for the most part will occur at night when people are home and demands are already lower. If anything, the grid will be more efficiently manageable because loads won't swing so widely from day to night like they do now.* As far as the battery filling station concept goes, since 90% of the miles driven by commuters is less than 30 miles the most likely place for it will be long-distance trips, represent a far smaller segment of the overall butt/miles moved totality.
*Because electricity can't be stored on large scales, variation in grid loads is managed by turning power plants on and off and by throttling them. Its expensive (fuel and efficiency-wise) to turn on a power plant; it's not like starting a car. Many things have to be done in sequence and until it comes on line it's burning fuel but not making sellable electricity. Even then, once it's on line efficiencies go down at any output less than 100%. I don't know what the efficiency losses are from these issues but it wouldn't surprise me if it was 20% or higher.
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-04-2011).]
There were considerable break-throughs that were made just a year or so ago with respect to solar cells that could be painted on the car. As the foremost expert in solar technology on Pennocks, I would have assumed you knew about that?
I feel I've been civil in this discussion, so would appreciate it if you'd keep it civil as well. Sarcasm does not contribute to civility IMHO.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I don't know why you keep saying "Solar Powered" car... because I'm not suggesting it's solar powered, but use the solar power to recharge the batteries (when not at home and plugged in).
I keep saying it because you keep saying it. In one sentence you say, in part, "...use the solar power to recharge the batteries..." This implies that the car-mounted solar cells somehow contribute to the charge state of the car's batteries in a meaningful way, the batteries used to provide power to move the car down the road. You are absolutely correct in a technical sense by saying they would charge the batteries, and in saying that the primary charge mode would be plugged in, but your implication that the amount of power from the solar cells would be enough to accomplish much movement of the car is flawed. I was only trying to explain why. For all intents and purposes, any car-mounted solar cells would be for cosmetic purposes only, and can not contribute significantly to its driving range.
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I've got an electric golf cart, I know what the range is, and I know what kind of energy requirements it needs. To fully recharge, it must be plugged in for 4 hours. That gives me about 18 hours of driving with 36 volts total (6 deep cycle 6v batteries).
I don't know why you think the car has to weigh 3,000 pounds, I specifically mentioned something like a smart car. That only weighs, what... 1,700 pounds? At nearly half the weight, it would require almost half the energy.
I didn't say that, the engineers did. I have to believe that they know what they're talking about, especially as they were competitors in a solar-powered car race and would probably know more about the subject than anyone else on the planet. Though a Smart for Two weighs 1,600 lbs at the curb, removing the drive train and replacing it with batteries would significantly increase its weight, especially if you used SLA batteries. The Smart also has half the surface area of a regular car so half the solar cells would fit. It boils down to a surface area to weight ratio issue, and most cars regardless of size seem to have similar ratios.
Cell efficiency of the best type (crystaline) are still less than the theoretical limit, though not by much. Paint-on technology is far, far less than that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...f%28rev100921%29.jpg
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: It's clear that the biggest problem we're facing is energy storage... batteries haven't changed much, and that's where the focus should be.
And that we can agree on. Lead-acid batteries haven't changed significantly in the last 100+ years of mass production for automotive applications. The latest alternate battery technologies have far more energy/density and better energy/mass ratios than ever, but tend to be "fragile" and tricky to work with. My current favorite is LiFo, it's robust and has almost the same density of Lion and Lipo.
It's not likely that EV will fill more than 90% of the roles that IC vehicles currently do, but it seems non-sensical to discard the 90% it can do just because of the 10% it can't do, especially when EV can do three times the work for the same energy input. ------------------ Bring back civility and decorum!
It's possible to understand someone's point of view without accepting it. It's possible to disagree with someone without being rude and nasty about it. Sure it's hard, but nothing worth doing is ever easy, is it?
[This message has been edited by JazzMan (edited 03-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:33 AM
Pyrthian Member
Posts: 29569 From: Detroit, MI Registered: Jul 2002
Originally posted by JazzMan: The grid-load compared to new housing and business starts is non-existent. 500,000 new mostly electric homes will be built this year, each one of which will use 10X or more electricity than any EV. Commercial buildings will use even more than that. The grid-overload scenario turns out to be a red herring. What's more, the EV charging that does get done for the most part will occur at night when people are home and demands are already lower. If anything, the grid will be more efficiently manageable because loads won't swing so widely from day to night like they do now. As far as the battery filling station concept goes, since 90% of the miles driven by commuters is less than 30 miles the most likely place for it will be long-distance trips, represent a far smaller segment of the overall butt/miles moved totality.
hard to imagine. watch a gas station. how many cars "fill-up" everyday? that is ALOT of electricity humping down to a single point. but - I do agree there are many other single points that draw more.
and - on the good side - depending on distribution setup - a large cache of batteries could also act as a buffer to the grid, making it MUCH more stable.
IP: Logged
11:44 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
Im almost ready to bet this 'company' will take its deposits or payments for these 'to be built' cars, claim it fails next year and take that money and run. Its almost a Ponzi scheme.
Im going to build this new fuel system for a car that will give you 100 miles per gallon no matter the size of the car. I guarantee it will work as advertised, and to show Im completely honest, Ive already built a new dealership to sell and install the system. Just send cash or money order now in the amount of $1500 to get in on my pre introduction price. Ill even send you a printed reciept and warranty. Honest.
hard to imagine. watch a gas station. how many cars "fill-up" everyday? that is ALOT of electricity humping down to a single point. but - I do agree there are many other single points that draw more.
and - on the good side - depending on distribution setup - a large cache of batteries could also act as a buffer to the grid, making it MUCH more stable.
On the filling up visualization, imagine if every car filled up every single day. Each time they'd only be putting in a gallon at a time. Remember, EVs would fill up nightly but only with the amount of electricity to replace what was used that day. Cars fill up far less often. Also, remember that an EV fills up over many hours, not a minute or two, so the instantaneous demand is far less on a per-unit basis.
Average home uses ~10,000 kWh annually The grid has increased in side 13,000 percent in the last 60 years. 62% of electricity is used for commercial or industrial purposes. Much of that is only used during the day (hence big fluctuations in the grid).
I feel I've been civil in this discussion, so would appreciate it if you'd keep it civil as well. Sarcasm does not contribute to civility IMHO.
It was a lot easier to talk to you when you had your Futurama avatar...
Now you just sound whiney, and there's no avatar with which I can place any kind of relevance to...
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
Though a Smart for Two weighs 1,600 lbs at the curb, removing the drive train and replacing it with batteries would significantly increase its weight, especially if you used SLA batteries.
Man... when I wrote that, I was thinking to myself... "he couldn't possibly start complaining about that too???"
I realized now that this could possibly go on FOREVER... because unless I cover every single possible logical scenario, or photocopy my brain and send it to you, you will be incapable of imagining even the most mundane concepts if it even remotely disagrees with your assessment. Who says the conceptual vehicle that weighs 1,600 pounds has to be designed EXACTLY like a smart car, couldn't you design it like a Fiero, or a relatively flat panelled car, and use bicycle wheels for reduced drag?! You could have easily used your brain on that one, but you chose not to.
This basically comes up to this argument.
- You say solar recharging cars will never happen, and are impossible.
- I say they are not, and that one day it could very well be an option.
And that recharge time is quite normal for a golf cart... and that golf cart goes to 21 miles an hour, and weighs over 1,000 pounds.
Many a football player were hauled off the field with this cart...
Originally posted by JazzMan: On the filling up visualization, imagine if every car filled up every single day. Each time they'd only be putting in a gallon at a time. Remember, EVs would fill up nightly but only with the amount of electricity to replace what was used that day. Cars fill up far less often. Also, remember that an EV fills up over many hours, not a minute or two, so the instantaneous demand is far less on a per-unit basis.
Average home uses ~10,000 kWh annually The grid has increased in side 13,000 percent in the last 60 years. 62% of electricity is used for commercial or industrial purposes. Much of that is only used during the day (hence big fluctuations in the grid).
oh, I thought we were still on the automated battery swap system. where the "station" would have a HUGE inventory of batteries, all charging away, getting ready for the next swap out.
yes, individually, these things are a minor impact. A/C is more of a burden at that point.
Im almost ready to bet this 'company' will take its deposits or payments for these 'to be built' cars, claim it fails next year and take that money and run. Its almost a Ponzi scheme.
Are you talking about the company that I referenced?
If so you might look into the companies founder Shai Agassi and the deals he has in place already but either way I'll take your bet if you like.
It was a lot easier to talk to you when you had your Futurama avatar...
Now you just sound whiney, and there's no avatar with which I can place any kind of relevance to...
Man... when I wrote that, I was thinking to myself... "he couldn't possibly start complaining about that too???"
I realized now that this could possibly go on FOREVER... because unless I cover every single possible logical scenario, or photocopy my brain and send it to you, you will be incapable of imagining even the most mundane concepts if it even remotely disagrees with your assessment. Who says the conceptual vehicle that weighs 1,600 pounds has to be designed EXACTLY like a smart car, couldn't you design it like a Fiero, or a relatively flat panelled car, and use bicycle wheels for reduced drag?! You could have easily used your brain on that one, but you chose not to.
This basically comes up to this argument.
- You say solar recharging cars will never happen, and are impossible.
- I say they are not, and that one day it could very well be an option.
And that recharge time is quite normal for a golf cart... and that golf cart goes to 21 miles an hour, and weighs over 1,000 pounds.
Many a football player were hauled off the field with this cart...
I've come to the conclusion that for whatever reason you're going to read anything I write as whining, and will only reply with condescension and uncivil replies. That's too bad. You are right about one thing, though. A solar charging car could happen in the far distant future. It won't happen with any existing, known, or extrapolative technology and it won't happen with physics as we understand it currently, but it can happen.
Gas is amazingly dirt cheap ,it is plentiful now When gas is NOT available,you will wish for a Fiero DUKE
the day of gas station lines will return much sooner than you think !! the democrats are destroying our Fleet,we need many more ships.of course it would be FANTASTIC if no Jap parts could get to the USA,,hmmmm oh wait that is part of the baby murdering Chinese plan..
[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 03-04-2011).]
IP: Logged
09:40 PM
Mar 5th, 2011
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
- [JazzMan says] solar recharging cars will never happen, and are impossible.
- I say they are not, and that one day it could very well be an option.
Assuming only solar cells mounted on the car, which is what I think you're talking about, JazzMan is substantially more correct than you are. The problem is that the power density of sunlight is just too low to recharge a car's batteries in a reasonable amount of time.
Sanity check: Most sources give the power density of sunlight at the earth's surface as about 1.4 KW/m2 (130 W/ft2). For a horizontal flat plate (e.g. a car's roof, hood, and deck lid) you would have to multiply that by the sine of the sun elevation angle (~0.79 in the Kansas City area ... latitude 38 degrees ... at solar noon), and then multiply that by the solar cell efficiency (<20% today) to determine how much electric power you can expect to generate from sunlight on a clear day. If you do the math you will get:
130 * 0.79 * 0.20 = 20 watts peak per square foot of solar cell area (only 0.03 hp/ft2)
(Double sanity check: Commonly-available commercial solar panels are rated at about 4 to 8 watts peak per square foot.)
Of course, this calculation also assumes 100% efficiency charging the battery ... which is similarly unattainable.
That's simply not enough to recharge a car's batteries after a 30 mile DOT urban cycle trip in less than a week or two. Even if by some miracle we could achieve 100% efficient solar cells (theoretically impossible), the power density of sunlight is still too low. Are you willing to wait a week (and hope for seven crystal clear days in a row) for the on-board solar cells to recharge your batteries after a single 30 mile drive?
FWIW ... Way back in 1972, at a client's request, I did the same analysis for a wind turbine generator mounted on an electric car. Using maximum theoretical efficiencies at each step of the process, the recharge time after a 30 mile DOT urban drive cycle was still more than 42 hours ... and that was assuming the wind regime of very windy Oklahoma City (annual mean wind speed ~15 mph). And remember, the wind blows 24 hours a day while usable sunlight is available less than half that time. Wind and sunlight are valid energy resources, but they are very diffuse (i.e. low power density).
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
02:29 AM
82-T/A [At Work] Member
Posts: 22770 From: Florida USA Registered: Aug 2002
Assuming only solar cells mounted on the car, which is what I think you're talking about, JazzMan is substantially more correct than you are. The problem is that the power density of sunlight is just too low to recharge a car's batteries in a reasonable amount of time.
Sanity check: Most sources give the power density of sunlight at the earth's surface as about 1.4 KW/m2 (130 W/ft2). For a horizontal flat plate (e.g. a car's roof, hood, and deck lid) you would have to multiply that by the sine of the sun angle (~0.62 in the Kansas City area ... latitude 38 degrees ... at solar noon), and then multiply that by the solar cell efficiency (<20% today) to determine how much electric power you can expect to generate from sunlight on a clear day. If you do the math you will get:
130 * 0.62 * 0.20 = 16 watts peak per square foot of solar cell area (only 0.02 hp/ft2)
(Double sanity check: Commercial solar panels are rated at about 4 to 8 watts peak per square foot.)
Of course, this calculation also assumes 100% efficiency charging the battery ... which is similarly unattainable.
That's simply not enough to recharge a car's batteries after a 30 mile DOT urban cycle trip in less than a week or two. Even if by some miracle we could achieve 100% efficient solar cells (theoretically impossible), the power density of sunlight is still too low. Are you willing to wait a week (and hope for seven crystal clear days in a row) for the on-board solar cells to recharge your batteries after a single 30 mile drive?
FWIW ... Way back in 1972, at a client's request, I did the same analysis for a wind turbine generator mounted on an electric car. Using maximum theoretical efficiencies at each step of the process, the recharge time after a 30 mile DOT urban drive cycle was still more than 42 hours ... and that was assuming the wind regime of very windy Oklahoma City (annual mean wind speed ~15 mph). And remember, the wind blows 24 hours a day while usable sunlight is available less than half that time. Wind and sunlight are valid energy resources, but they are very diffuse (i.e. low power density).
No, that's not at all what I'm saying, which is why I keep saying JazzMan is being an idiot.
I say we have an electric car, that has solar cells on the roof, to help charge the car when it's not plugged in for the night. I don't know why he's got his panties so budled up because of it.
quote
Originally posted by JazzMan:
I've come to the conclusion that for whatever reason you're going to read anything I write as whining, and will only reply with condescension and uncivil replies. That's too bad. You are right about one thing, though. A solar charging car could happen in the far distant future. It won't happen with any existing, known, or extrapolative technology and it won't happen with physics as we understand it currently, but it can happen.
Solar-ASSIST. You seem to lose all connection from one post to the next... we're talking about a battery powered car that gets charged at night, but has solar cells on the roof. If you didn't know, there have been literally dozens of test vehicles which have been produced that run exclusively on solar powered. They are aerodynamic, and use bicycle wheels. I'm sorry if I keep saying you're whining, but unless you've changed a lot over the past 2 years... you're still the same guy.
The grid-overload scenario turns out to be a red herring.
I disagree. If it is then why were there rolling blackouts in Austin during our last cold front? The grid should be able to handle not just normal usage but high demand usage without rolling blackouts. And Austin is a nutty city, so I'm sure electric cars will be embraced here faster than any other city in Texas. If we have blackouts now because the weather dropped 20 degrees, what it is going to be like to add thousands upon thousands of electric cars to that same grid?
By the way there is a program in Austin called Car2Go, where you go to a parking lot filled with Smart cars and drive one off, then leave it somewhere else in the city. Sounds crazy but appears to be moderately successful.
America has a lot more significant mileage requirements than Europe does, and the consumers here feel very differently about what cars are and what they are used for. Right now electric cars - with current battery tech - are simply not a good alternative for the masses.
IP: Logged
11:02 AM
rogergarrison Member
Posts: 49601 From: A Western Caribbean Island/ Columbus, Ohio Registered: Apr 99
I bought one of those solar battery chargers a while back to keep the battery charged when I wasnt driving the vehicle with all of todays electronics that are always on. It couldnt even keep up with that minor draw. I would say it would take weeks for it to recharge a disconnected dead or low battery. I threw it away.
IP: Logged
11:55 AM
Marvin McInnis Member
Posts: 11599 From: ~ Kansas City, USA Registered: Apr 2002
I say we have an electric car, that has solar cells on the roof, to help charge the car when it's not plugged in for the night.
Rave all you want, but the facts are saying that the "help" provided by such "solar cells on the roof" will be an insignificant proportion of the total energy required.
I don't have the numbers for the DOT urban cycle immediately in front of me, but the energy required for a 30 mile trip in a light vehicle would be in the vicinity of 15 KWH (20 hp-hr). How long do you think it will take for "solar cells on the roof," putting out 10 watts per square foot, to recharge the batteries? Assuming a Fiero-sized roof (~11 square feet) and 100% charging efficiency, it would still take 141 hours ... or about 17 days ... at peak solar cell output. That's not much help.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 03-06-2011).]
IP: Logged
12:16 PM
TommyRocker Member
Posts: 2808 From: Woodstock, IL Registered: Dec 2009
Solar-ASSIST. You seem to lose all connection from one post to the next... we're talking about a battery powered car that gets charged at night, but has solar cells on the roof. If you didn't know, there have been literally dozens of test vehicles which have been produced that run exclusively on solar powered. They are aerodynamic, and use bicycle wheels. I'm sorry if I keep saying you're whining, but unless you've changed a lot over the past 2 years... you're still the same guy.
I think everyone understands it would be solar-ASSIST and not solar powered, but what you are ignoring is the fact that the solar panels would add about 7.682 inches to your range. They would drive up cost and weight and add to the maintenance and repair costs of the vehicle with no appreciable benefit. They may be utilized to power the lights and radio or something but to propel the car, or even to ASSIST in the propulsion of the car, they are of little or no value.
Unfortunately, calling it solar-ASSIST may be more honest but it doesn't make it any more viable.
but seeing that they have begun building stations in Denmark and some other countries I assume they have it figured out.
