Now IF or when they come up with ultra fast charge energy storage that can hold the mass amounts of energy recovered.........
Super high-tech Capacitors are on the horizon.
In 1995, a small fleet of innovative electric buses began running along 15-minute routes through a park at the northern end of Moscow. A decade later, a few dozen seaport cranes in Asia, a couple of light-rail trains in Europe, and a battalion of garbage trucks in the United States have joined their high-tech ranks.
A smattering of mass-transit vehicles and industrial machines may seem like one wimpy revolution, but revolutionary they are. Unlike most of their electric relatives, these vehicles all share one key attribute: they don't run on batteries. Instead, they are powered by ultracapacitors, which are souped-up versions of that tried-and-true workhorse of electrical engineering, the capacitor.
A bank of ultracapacitors releases a burst of energy to help a crane heave its load aloft; they then capture energy released during the descent to recharge. Buses, trams, and garbage trucks powered by the devices all run for short stretches before stopping, and it's during braking that the ultracapacitors can partially recharge themselves from the energy that's normally wasted, giving the vehicles much of the juice they need to get to their next destinations.
Because no chemical reaction is involved, ultracapacitors--also known as supercapacitors and double-layer capacitors--are much more effective at rapid, regenerative energy storage than chemical batteries are. What's more, rechargeable batteries usually degrade within a few thousand charge-discharge cycles. In a given year, a light-rail vehicle might go through as many as 300 000 charging cycles, which is far more than a battery can handle. (Although flywheel energy-storage systems can be used to get around that difficulty, a heavy and complicated transmission system is needed to transfer the energy.)
The synergy between batteries and capacitors--two of the sturdiest and oldest components of electrical engineering--has been growing, to the point where ultracapacitors may soon be almost as indispensable to portable electricity as batteries are now.
Ultracapacitors are already all over the place. Millions of them provide backup power for the memory used in microcomputers and cellphones. They also supply brief bursts of energy to numerous consumer products containing batteries. In a camera, for example, an ultracapacitor can extend battery life by providing the oomph for power-intensive functions, like zooming in for a close-up.
Perhaps most exciting is what ultracapacitors could do for electric cars. They're being explored as replacements for the batteries in hybrid cars. In ordinary cars, they could help level the load on the battery by powering acceleration and recovering energy during braking. Most deadly to the life of a battery are the moments when it is subjected to high-current pulses and charged or discharged too quickly. Conveniently, delivering or accepting power during short-duration events is the ultracapacitor's strongest suit. And because capacitors function well in temperatures as low as –40 C, they can give electric cars a boost in cold weather, when batteries are at their worst.
I'll respond to each item, but don't feel like quoting them individually. For the sake of the argument, I'd like to know if the point of discussion is because you support Obama and are arguing this from that standpoint, or if you actually think the Volt is a worthwhile car in the marketplace?
$100,000 value. The fact is, the taxpayer has ALREADY paid the R&D costs for the car, and since the car has really had rather dismal sales, no matter how you look at it... we are in fact currently paying ~$100,000 per vehicle from the company / taxpayer standpoint. Your suggestion that I consider the cost based on sales that have not happened yet makes no logical sense whatsoever. This isn't me looking at it from a half-empty vs half-full standpoint, this is me simply looking at it from a logical standpoint. You believe that this price will go down substantially in some undisclosed amount of time (which you haven't mentioned), yet the sales figures, and it's forcasted sales, suggest exactly opposite of what you're hoping for.
As for the Volt's competition, I brought up the positives of the Volt's compeition over a price comparison. You're argument is simply to suggest that the compeition is somehow inferior, even though you've yet to express what the substantial benefits of the vehicle are over and above the "extended range" technology that you talk about. This "extended" range is a product that is relatively useless to the overwhelming vast majority of the buyers who WOULD be interested in the car anyway. No one buys a car like the Chevy Volt, with the intention of taking it on a very long road-trip. Highway miles are calculated under an ideal situation where there's really no traffic, and the person is driving 65-70 miles an hour. What exactly is the Volt going to do when it reaches it's destination, and how is it going to recharge? The concept of an electric car's whole purpose was to provide a substantial fuel economic improvement over gasoline for inner-city travel. The Leaf, most hybrids, and even the original EV-1 were designed to be cars that would work well in the city, or even in suburbs. The Volt fails horribly in comparison to the Toyota Prius in city-driving... which is really the whole point of a plugin to begin with.
And again, your cost assumption is totally flawed... one because you assume that fuel prices will never fluctuate, but second because you forget that a quarter of US energy production comes from petroleum sources anyway... which means that for 25% of US population, electricity costs will still be tied to the cost of oil. I also don't know how you came up with those numbers... because if you were actually going to USE a Volt in a way that would actually make it cost benefited, then the amount of energy that you'd need to use to recharge it would be more significant anyway... flawed numbers.
You're right about the $31,000... didn't realize that... I was SURE that it was 41,000... but you're right. That does change things, but not enough to circumvent the issues I've outlined above. It does however lessen the benefit to deficit ratio...
EDIT: about Natural Gas... there are actually more natural gas filling stations in the US than there are Ethanol stations. Don't quote me on this... but there are entire fleets of postal carriers that use natural gas. I know that entire police departments used to use natural gas too when the Crown Victoria was being sold. There are truck fleets, taxi fleets, and California certainly uses a lot of them. It's always been one of my big arguments... it's actually used QUITE extensively... even some cities use natural gas to power their entire public transit system, but people don't realize it. I would suspect that lobbying from oil companies has probably had a huge negative impact on the spread of natural gas to the private sector. In the public sector, and private fleet use... it's very common. More so than most people realize.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
This is only partially true. " Chemical fuels are never going to be ideal in stop-and-go conditions because they can't recover energy from braking, where EVs can excel." The truth is that EV's suck at recovering brake energy. They can not store the energy as fast as it is recoverd. practically all of the energy is wasted anyway. A small % can be recoverd and reused. Now IF or when they come up with ultra fast charge energy storage that can hold the mass amounts of energy recoverd, THEN and only then can your statement be true.
It actually works quite well in Formula-1. Unfortunately, the weight of the batteries hurts the car's handling. But the CURS system that some F1 drivers elect to use, does regenerate a lot of power. A quick sprint of the CURS can give an additional 20mph on a single straight, but requires perhaps two whole laps around the concourse before it's regenerated. (for those reading who don't know the difference between F1 and Indy cars... F1 cars make left and right turns, and always do a lot of braking). For use in normal daily driving though... you'd never be doing the kind of braking that you'd need to generate a substantial regenerative benefit. If you were... then you'd probably be using substantially more power because of that type of driving anyway...
[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 03-11-2012).]
IP: Logged
12:46 PM
masospaghetti Member
Posts: 2477 From: Charlotte, NC USA Registered: Dec 2009
I'll do the same and not re-quote everything you say.
I'm not sure how I feel about Obama but my argument certainly has nothing to do with him. For the record I think it's stupid of him to be so public about his endorsement of the Volt and also to try and increase the EV subsidy. I'm arguing because I think the Volt is a very well designed machine and is being treated incredibly unfairly in the media. More controversial, I feel that the subsidy for new technology like the Volt, when applied correctly (as a temporary subsidy, not an ongoing one) are worthwhile.
As far as the $100,000/car from the taxpayer...I think that including R&D and infrastructure costs that have ongoing benefits into the cost per current unit sold is completely invalid. You ignore the fact that the R&D has future benefits (arguably more than its current benefits) and also ignore the fact that battery production plants and other support systems associated with the Volt can be used to produce future vehicles. By your logic, the first Volt produced would have cost the taxpayer millions of dollars! Maybe, strictly speaking, thats true, but its a meaningless number because it ignores future value.
I think the second generation of Volt will be far more economical than Gen 1, but it depends a lot on total sales volume and battery advances. I predict a reduction in cost of between 10-20% of Volt Gen 2 when it's released in the next few years, but we'll have to wait and see.
Regarding the Volt's competition...the primary drawback of an EV is its lack of range and slow recharge time, at least to a significant portion of the driving public. While most trips are short, the occasional long trip is enough to make a pure EV (like a Leaf or Focus EV) impractical as primary vehicle. I think the range extension is, by far, the most important aspect of the Volt - for most people, it requires virtually no sacrifice (just the ~15 seconds or so to plug it in at night) and yet for most people's use, reduces their energy consumption by a factor of 2 or 3. It doesn't need any change in infrastructure and almost no change in people's habits. If you need to take a trip, the Volt will get you there at a very reasonable 40 MPG with indefinite range.
The Volt retains the benefit of the EV (high efficiency in inner city driving) with none of the vices. I don't know where you're getting the "Volt fails compared to Prius in city driving" - it would be much BETTER in city driving for the first 35 miles.
Regarding energy prices - Petroleum only accounts for about 1% of grid energy production. Look at historical trends. Electric rates are much more stable than motor fuel prices.
Natural gas is good for fleets that can rely on a specialty filling station. Right now there just aren't enough public filling stations for CNG. I'm sure this could change, fairly rapidly, but it's still a concern.
[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 03-11-2012).]
IP: Logged
01:10 PM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
The Chevrolet Volt is everything that is wrong with Washington on four wheels, and investors (that’s you and me) should be furious.
Wrong #1: The Volt should be re-named the Vote. Who can forget that Super Bowl ad, with the pseudo-assembly line of Volts rolling through Hamtramck, Michigan, and the voice overlay that “this isn’t the car we wanted to build; it’s the car America had to build…from the heart of Detroit to the help [sic] of the country.” How true—corporate welfare on wheels, buying votes in a state vital to the President’s re-election. There is simply no way that GM can kill it.
Wrong #2: Paying workers for not working. Several days before Christmas, production was phased out for the holidays, which in the case of the Volt plant, lasted until February 6. Last Friday, GM announced another shutdown, from March 19 through April 13, or five weeks. That’s right: the Hamtramck plant will produce “the car America had to build” for less than seven out of 18 weeks. When it’s open the plant only runs one ten-hour shift for four days a week. When the plant is shuttered, the 1,300 workers still get paid. Not counting obligations to retirement, the average hourly wage and benefits cost to GM union employees is about $55 per hour. Shareholders ponied up a little more than $30 million in wage costs alone for these 11 weeks of leisure. Nice job if you can get it! Of course, institutional overhead probably tacks on another $15 million or so. All while not one car is produced.
How many unsold Volts are out there? GM says there were 3,600 at the end of February, and Autoweek and The Wall Street Journal say 6,300 (which would be in the ball park of the total non-fleet sales of Volts for all of 2011). Cars.com lists a bit over 4,300. Even using conservative figures, the average Volt sits on the average dealer’s lot for 60 days.
Wrong #3: Subsidizing well-off taxpayers. The Administration is doing everything it can to goose sales. The President’s new budget raises the subsidy paid to Volt buyers another 33%, to $10,000 per car in a direct tax credit. The median price of all the Volts on cars.com is $43,200. The average household income of Volt purchasers is in excess of $170,000, around the 93rd percentile. At the 28% tax bracket (married, filing jointly), this is equivalent to $36,000 of tax-free income. The car which is traded most for the Volt is none other than the Toyota Prius, which, according to most analyses, will not have been owned long enough to save in gas money the total premium paid for the car, compared to a comparable conventional vehicle.
Wrong #4: Corporate cronyism and coercion. Last month, General Electric, whose CEO Jeffrey Immelt chairs the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness, announced that all 2012 sedans ordered by employees for corporate use will be Volts. That’s Competitive! Beginning next January 1, GE will not reimburse employees for any corporate travel unless it is done in a Volt. If GE purchases the 12,000 Volts it is committed to buying, it will get a $120 million subsidy.
Mark Modica, of the National Center for Policy Analysis, has uncovered another whopper. Dealers that sell Volts to nonprofits, such as municipalities, can claim the subsidy. The Obama Administration is simply determined to give away money to move this car that so few want.
The political calculus on the Volt may in fact be wrong. Yes, it may deliver Michigan. But people in other battleground states aren’t happy about subsidizing a car with their children’s (and grandchildren’s) future wages.
When testifying to Congress about the (overhyped) Volt battery fires last January, GM CEO Dan Ackerson lamented “We did not develop the Chevy Volt to be a political punching bag”, but rather “We engineered the Volt to be a technological wonder”.
In fact, it is an impressive piece of technology. It is also an expensive one for which the shareholders (us) are paying workers not to work, buying the vote in Michigan, subsidizing the wealthy and paying one of the richest corporations in the world to be subsidized to buy something that just cannot roll on its own four wheels.
How could the more-aptly named Chevrolet Vote not become a political punching bag?
Republican bearing whine. What a bunch of pessimist. grasping at failure with glee. Ya'll are the same folks that said the wright brother were crazy. No problem . The Chinese will develop the technology and we can buy it from them. They are a can do nation, like we once were.
In the first Place, the Wright Brothers WERE crazy. Most people who take risks on a new venture are. That is the nature of entrepreneurism.
In the Second Place, The used their OWN money.
In the Third Place, Both Orville and Wilber were Republicans.
FAIL.
IP: Logged
01:57 PM
Mar 13th, 2012
rstubie Member
Posts: 421 From: Toledo,Ohio,USA Registered: Aug 2006
The ev-1 was GMs response to California requirements and it's purpose was to prove that electric cars were not feasible. That's why they refused to let anyone have them and crushed them all. They weren't even allowed to be museum pieces.
Ok.
From the Henry Ford Museum:
EV1 The 2002 addition of one of General Motors' 1997 EV1 electric cars, brings the museum's collection to twelve electric vehicles: nine battery powered cars, one battery powered truck, and two solar powered cars. These vehicles span over a century of history--from 1896 to 1997.
Made: 1997 Photo ID: G802
One is at the smithsonian, in storage, and
Kris Trexler's EV1 is at the Peterson Museum:
First of all, congratulations Chris Paine. Your film is incredible. I'm happy to see you not only thoughtfully explained the history of the EV1, you spread the blame for it's demise fairly and equitably. No single villain is to blame, your film clarifies that. Kudos!
For those of you who are longtime EV1 fans, you know who I am. One of the first people to lease an EV1 on December 5, 1996. I was very active in the EV1 Club in the early days when the car seemed to be on the cusp of igniting a automotive revolution, but I went dark in later days for reasons I'd like to explain. After seeing Chris Paine's INCREDIBLE film "Who Killed the Electric Car," I feel compelled to resurface, at least temporarily. I wasn't able to see the film until today, July 20, because I've been out of the country for a few weeks.
As many of you old timers know, in 1998 I embarked on the trip of a lifetime. I drove my 1st generation EV1 from Los Angeles to Detroit in an effort to get the word out about the miracle of electric cars, and to disprove the naysayers who said it couldn't be done. Well I did do it, and much to the surprise of General Motors and others, I had nary a glitch with my EV1 and the trip was totally successful. I called my journey "Charge Across America." During my ultimate EV1 road trip I was interviewed by newspapers and other media along the way, showed off the car to busloads of school children who flocked to see it while I was charging up, and enjoyed meeting some of the folks at GM factories in the midwest where components of the car were designed and manufactured. I doubt I'll have an adventure as exciting as that again. To read my diary and see photos, visit http:// www.kingoftheroad.net/chargeacrossamerica
The trip was taken on my own initiative with little initial enthusiasm from GM. However, some inside GM wanted to stay in touch with me as I traveled in case there were problems, and I was furnished a company cell phone with numbers to call in case of trouble. There wasn't any trouble during my 3,275 mile trip, so my phone calls were invariably exited accounts about how well things were going. GM took notice of the great publicity the company and the car was getting during my cross-country trip, and even arranged a finish line party at GMATV headquarters in Troy, Michigan. It was an uplifting ceremony as I drove my EV1 through a huge paper banner welcoming me to Michigan.
Shortly after the successful conclusion of my trip, a prominent GM executive involved with the EV1 (all names withheld) thanked me for my efforts. Whether or not the top brass at GM approved, execs and staffers at lower echelons within the company were obviously elated that their little gem had received so much national publicity. As the GM exec told me, "no amount of advertising dollars can buy this kind of goodwill for a company." Further, he said "you have done so much for us. What can we do for you?" With absolutely no hesitation, I said "sell me that EV1 at the end of my lease." After a few seconds of silence, the GM exec replied "I can't sell you the car. But we WILL GIVE YOU THAT EV1." Imagine my astonishment! A top GM exec PROMISED to give me an EV1 as a gift! From day 1, the company had stated that the cars would never fall into the hands of individuals, they would always be company owned. And now I was being GIVEN one of these precious vehicles! The exec told me to call other GM staffers on the West Coast to let them know this would be happening. I vividly recall the astonishment I heard on the phone from those GM employees, but it was soon widely known within GM that I had been promised the car. I was sworn to secrecy not to discuss GM's promise to give me the car. This could obviously open a flood gate of demands and requests from other EV1 "owners" (as we were called, even though we only leased the cars).
A few months later, the GM exec called me again. This time to tell me that he was resigning to pursue other interests. But he promised to make sure his replacement was well aware of the company's legal obligation to follow through on their verbal promise (verbal contract?) to give me the car. Further, he told me it was OK to post news about his resignation on this very same EV1 Club discussion list. Guess what? My posting of that news was the first word ANYONE at GM heard about his resignation! He had enlisted me to get the word out, knowing well that GM closely monitored this discussion list. It wasn't long before my phone started ringing with inquires from GM execs and staffers wanting to know why I was the first to know about the resignation. To this day, I have no idea why the exec asked me to publish his recognition on the internet before formally submitting his resignation to the GM board.
Within a few weeks, the predecessor in that job called me to confirm and reassure me that he and the company were on track to give me my EV1 #99 at the end of my lease period. Months passed, 2nd generation EV1s were finally introduced, and lots of other good and bad news about the project came and went. Then one day I got another call from GM. This was a "good news, bad news" call. I was told the bad news was that GM would not be giving me the car as promised. Although I could have challenged GM's verbal contract with me in court, I was advised that GM's legal department would likely prevail. The good news was that rather than be mothballed or crushed as was intended for the vast majority of EV1's, GM would donate my EV1 #99 to the museum of my choice, in my name. After careful consideration, I unhappily decided to accept the "good news" offer. Of course I was DEVASTATED beyond belief that I would not get to keep #99.
Those of us that had the privilege of leasing and driving EV1's invariably became attached to our little gems, and due to my cross country "Charge Across America" in 1998, I was relieved that my special car would be saved and appreciated in a museum. GM allowed me to choose the museum for the donation, and I selected the prestigious Petersen Automotive Museum in Los Angeles. I worked with GM and the museum over a period of months to get the donation on track after the lease ended. GM took the car back for a few weeks, permanently disabled it, and a donation ceremony at The Petersen was arranged with press invited. By the strangest of coincidences, Michael Jackson's misfortunes came to a head the previous day, and virtually the entire Los Angeles press corp headed off to Neverland Ranch on the same morning as the donation ceremony at the Petersen Museum. So the ceremony was an odd one, with lots of catered food and a splashy presentation, but no press at all. That twist of fate had nothing at all to do with GM - I think the company really wanted to get some goodwill press out of the donation, especially considering the EV1 funeral and other negative news about the EV1 that was less than helpful to the company's image. GM's ever-present Dave Barthmuss was on hand at The Petersen that day, and he must have been relieved that he didn't have to deal with the press to defend GM's decision to dump the EV1. My car is occasionally on display at the Petersen Museum, and will remain on loan from GM to the Petersen collection permanently - supposedly. It's too bad that GM reneged on their verbal promise to give me EV1 #99, but at least my car was not crushed and shredded as most were.
I hope this explanation satisfactorily explains my long silence. I have been as frustrated as everyone else who is and was passionate about the EV1. But my promise to remain quiet when GM promised me the car, as well as my desire that the Petersen donation not be botched kept me off the radar. I didn't want to do anything to screw up the donation until it was already done. Chris was in the process of shooting his film at the time, and I desperately want to be part of the saga. But after seeing the film today I realized it's finally time to speak up.
Chris, thanks for preserving the EV1's legacy. Thanks for showing Chelsea with my #99 at the Petersen, and thanks for the nice credit at the end of the film. I can't wait to buy a copy when the DVD is released.
Kris Trexler Los Angeles
Oops, how did this get in here?
Of course after the Volt dies, I don't think it will be in museums, maybe in carnivals next to the "Freak Shows" as curious oddities.
[This message has been edited by htexans1 (edited 03-13-2012).]
IP: Logged
09:51 AM
Mar 17th, 2012
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35468 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
Thrusting itself into the news cycle yet again is the much-maligned Chevy Volt. It is just us or does it seem like it’s one thing after another with this car?
Take, for instance, just last week when the Obama Administration tried again to increase the Volt’s tax credit from $7,500 to $10,000. Pretty big increase, right?
But perhaps more controversial than the car’s generous tax credits, or the fact that GM refuses to admit it’s a flop, or that the batteries seem to have a real problem with spontaneous combustion, is the fact that even GM admits the car can be very dangerous — and it’s going to cost you.
Writing for Town Hall, Steven Smoot reports: “[T]he Department of Energy allocated $4.4 million dollars for programs to prevent fire fighters from electrocuting themselves while trying to rescue crash victims.”
Smoot continues:
Last year, the National Fire Protection Agency started a program of state level trainings focusing on how first responders can safely deal with the new problems posed by the Chevy Volt and other cars of similar design. The NFPA in a press release estimates that over 10,000 first responders have taken at least some training in dealing with the dangers of cars like the Volt.
The danger to firefighters comes in two forms: the Volt’s battery and the construction of the car itself.
“The lithium-ion used in modern electric cars are not like the old lead-acid batteries of the past. They are more powerful and, when damaged, the fluid inside can leak out, creating a short on the circuit boards that are used to control the batteries,” industry expert Gary Howell of Howell Automotive said.
“The fluid dries and crystallizes, creating a short, sometimes weeks after the damage to the battery occurred,” he adds.
And that’s how we get the aforementioned “spontaneous combustion” issues.
But what about the car’s design? Consider the following: General Motors Service Technical College actually provides instruction manuals to firefighters around the country on how to not kill themselves while saving someone from a wrecked Volt.
“Just this week, their publication on the Volt was cited by a Baltimore County, Maryland Fire Service Special Interest Bulletin,” Smoot notes. “After a bizarre paragraph extolling the virtues of the car itself, the bulletin gets down to the business of informing fire fighters of how to not kill themselves trying to rescue a crash victim.”
According to the bulletin:
There is a yellow First Responder cable “cut” tag wrapped around the low volt positive battery cable behind the fuse panel door, located on the left side of the rear compartment (see diagram on next page). This cable should be cut first to disable the vehicle safely before beginning any extrication. The cable should be cut on both sides of the label to ensure the cut cable ends do not inadvertently touch and re-energize the vehicle.
But wait! There’s more! The GM manual makes sure to warn that “cutting these cables can result in serious injury or death.” So yeah, the possibility of a firefighter dying while trying to save someone from a wrecked Volt is, apparently, very real.
“Hence the need for spending $4.4 million in taxpayer money to train firefighters across the country to protect themselves from a car that the government paid people $7,500 per unit to purchase,” Smoot writes.
Considering the all safety issues Smoot raises, along with the other reasons for why owning an electric vehicle right now might be a bad idea, is it any wonder GM can’t sell these things?
IP: Logged
11:23 AM
PFF
System Bot
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
DOE Allocated $4.4M to Teach Firefighters How to Rescue People From Wrecked Volts Without Killing Themselves
Considering the all safety issues Smoot raises, along with the other reasons for why owning an electric vehicle right now might be a bad idea, is it any wonder GM can’t sell these things?
Dude, this is stupid. Just make a video of were to cut and post on Youtube. No need for $4.4 million to retrain fire fighters. The same can be said of other electrical cars on the road.
IP: Logged
01:24 PM
dratts Member
Posts: 8373 From: Coeur d' alene Idaho USA Registered: Apr 2001
(I tried to do it in a "comical" manner, not meant as an attack.)
I didn't take it as an attack and I sincerely did appreciate the correction. The last thing I would want to do is spread misinformation. Thank you again.
IP: Logged
07:21 PM
Mar 18th, 2012
cliffw Member
Posts: 37848 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
This post was started a week, a week and a half ago. I did not finish it nor proof read it. I have to submit it, to clear it from my ... unfinished business. I wanted to add responses to other's thoughts. I have not even been able to keep abreast of the ongoing discussion and it don't look like I will be able to for awhile. I just want to submit the thoughts which I spent time on thinking about. which took me longer to type out,
quote
Originally posted by Wolfhound: Republican bearing whine. What a bunch of pessimist. grasping at failure with glee. Ya'll are the same folks that said the wright brother were crazy. No problem . The Chinese will develop the technology and we can buy it from them. They are a can do nation, like we once were.
I don't recall hearing of anybody who thought the Wright brothers were crazy. History is, manned flight had been thought of since as least as early as Leonardo DeVinci. Whom envisioned manned flight with great thought. Scientific thought. Complete with notes and illustrations. Human powered flight (wings) and even the ideal of a helicopter. He also conceptualized concentrated solar power, a calculator, military tanks, double hulled boats, and the rudimentary theory of plate tectonics (earthquake causes). He was born in 1452 and died in 1519. Do you think that with government mandates that his ideals would have come to fruition ... in how many years ? I would not think that people thought of Leonardo as crazy. Naturally, he being a genius and recognized as such by individuals, scientific bodies, and Kings, his ideas could not be be understood by others not having his intellect. They would be called skeptics. The Wright brothers, well, they were not recognized as being geniuses. Did people think they were crazy ? I doubt it. Nobody even knew who they were much less what they were experimenting on while they drank beer. Did the Wright brothers develop the technology ? Did other countries buy it from the Wright brothers/the United States ? NO ! Now, let's talk about that technology, the electric car, . When did the first manned flight by the Wright brothers take place ? 1901 ? The first electric car in the USA came out in the 1890's. Man has since flown to the Moon, and back. The electric car, ... a failure ? Many times over through the years. Now to be a gooberment mandated success ? What could make it a success ? Higher gas prices ? Oh, I get it. Create a crisis and mandate a solution ? Sure, gas prices go up but there are reasons they do, and reasons which allow it to happen. Perhaps a different topic. Would high gas prices make it a success ? We are familiar with the "mpg" ratings that internal combustion engined cars rate at. What is the cost analysis quotient for electric cars ? Not only would it have to include the cost of a charge, it would also have to account for the time it takes to charge. Time, after all, is money. The electric car ... ? That is the answer ? Where does electricity come from ?
Not only is the cost of electricity a factor, the fact that it also exists due to fossil fuels is also a factor. How much more, or less, fossil fuel consumption does it take, how many more pollutant emissions are created, and what would be the usage requirements placed on the electric delivery grid be if everyone owned two or more electric cars ? What would happen if the power goes out and you could not charge your car ? Sure, with developing technology ans infrastructure improvements, these problems can be overcome. But what would we have ? A commuter car ? When will buses, 18 wheelers, and even pick up trucks be capable of electrical power ? Batteries are hazardous waste products and if I am right, very expensive. Not to mention they weigh a ton. For those that say this is cutting edge technology, no, it is not. Electric cars have been around for a very long time, as have batteries.
quote
Originally posted by fogglethorpe: I have been saying for years that electric cars will NEVER be viable because of that nagging Third Law of Thermodynamics.
Could/would you explain that for us please ?
quote
Originally posted by User00013170: I don't see the volt being a "POS". I see it as being too expensive for its market. And while its not *the* answer, electric is part of the long term solution and we need to keep R/D working on it to bring costs down.
What makes the Volt a "POS", is the fact that we are mandated to support it. Government knows best ? I do not elect government to make decisions for me and to tax and take care of me from cradle to grave. This country was made great by individual freedom. Imagine. The Wright brothers, in the bicycle business, giving birth to human flight. The way to the future was found without gooberment mandate. The same with electricity, the telephone, air conditioning/refridgeration, and a whole bunch of other technological breakthroughs. All gooberment is good for is getting in the way. Why am I thinking of the movie, "Tucker, a Man and His Dreams" (I think that is what it is called and it is an honest question) ? I also question, is an electric car a part of the long term solution ? I don't think so. We are the Saudi Arabia of natural gas. Vehicles can be powered by it, and no better bang for the buck has been found which will equal the power of the internal combustion engine. As efficiency inefficient as it is.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I dont see why most people are so blind to think we can ignore the superiority of electric cars.
Please. Enlighten us. Why is it taking government mandates to re-educate "we the stupid people ? Let me ask. With all the koolaid euphoria surrounding "the electric car", how come no mention of the type of electric motor which is being used to power it ? Is it a brush motor, a brushless motor, or an uncommutated motor (homopolar or ball bearing) ? ( Not to confuse you with technological wizardry as I am as dumb as they come.) The type of motor does matter though. I drill oil wells for a living. We lift the drill string in and out of the well with electric motors. I have seen one million pounds lifted though 100,000 pounds is a more average string weight. Our electric motors are called "traction motors" (a high voltage brush motor). They can also be found on locomotives and subways cars. Traction motors are the motors needed to productively provide the primary rotational torque of a machine, usually for conversion into linear motion (traction). I guess by definition, an electric vehicle's electric motor would be a traction motor. However, the voltage required to operate a traction motor on a drilling rig is substantial. 460 volts AC. Locomotives and subway cars I think are comparable. An electric car operating on 12 volts DC, ... I think is the problem with electric cars. Have you ever seen a 460 volt rechargeable battery ? What would that battery look like, weigh, and what/how much energy would be needed to recharge it ? Also, with electric motors, they ain't cheap and they weigh a ton (what would that do to mileage efficiency ? Also worth mentioning is that batteries also weigh a ton. Electric motors also produce heat. Heat is also an enemy of electric motors. Even the computer. Our traction motors have to be force fed cooling air, much like a computer. The more powerful engines that we would need, for an electric car to be a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine, the greater an enemy of an electric motor we would create. I just don't see the superiority of an electric vehicle. Especially since our dear leader states that the cost of electricity must astronomically increase.
quote
Originally posted by Fiero_Fan_88: I've stopped by Chevy and have taken a look at a few, in all reality it would make a very practical car for most people.
Care to tell us why you think that, at even half the price ?
quote
Originally posted by rstubie: Again to those who continue to have an opinion about something they know nothing about, this car is powered by an electric motor. This motor is powered by either battery reserve or the on-board gasoline engine. The engine runs just slightly over idle as it essentually a generator. The gas engine does not provide propulsion of any kind. No need to find a charging station.
Please, tell me about the electric motor. See my question above. What kind of electric motor is it ? You did remind me of a point I forgot to mention. I said electric motors weighed a ton, as do batteries. Generators are not light either. Weight is a mileage hog. ? I really just don't get it, I guess.
A little off topic, but a Texas based "EV" Fiero will be attempting a record run soon--shooting for 150 MPH in the standing mile.
quote
We will be bringing DC Plasma my drag race car to run the Texas Mile in Beeville, TX on Saturday March 24th.
DC Plasma runs the 1/4 mile in 9.89 seconds at 134 mph. We will be turning it down, way down, for its inaugural run of any electric car to ever attempt a one mile drag race. We are shooting for 150mph. Which will be the fastest EV speed for a conversion car I have ever heard of and the first attempt at this by any electric vehicle. Even the $130,000 Tesla electric has a top speed of 130mph.
Of course, DC Plasma is a 1984 Pontiac Fiero 2M4 conversion and from the outside looks fairly stock except for the norms fiberglass front end.
Under the rear hood of course are the motors and batteries. We make about 860 battery Horsepower and 1500ftlbs of torque.
We will then trailer her out to Tucson in April, to attend the Bookmans Spring Thaw and Drag Race where all the fastest EV's will race. *Location:* Southwestern International Raceway <http://sirace.com/> *Time:* 04/14/2012 - 10:00am - 6:00pm
The Volt's lithium-ion battery (Li-ion) battery pack weighs 435 lb (197 kg) and consists of 288 individual cells arranged into nine modules. Plastic frames hold pairs of lithium-ion cells that sandwich an aluminum cooling fin. The design and construction of that aluminum plate was critical to ensuring an even temperature distribution with no hot or cool spots across the flat, rectangular cell. The battery pack has its own cooling circuit that is similar to, but independent from, the engine cooling system.[48][55]
The battery pack stores 16 kW·h of energy but it is controlled or buffered via the energy management system to use only 10.4 kW·h of this capacity to maximize the life of the pack. For this reason the battery pack never fully charges or depletes, as the software only allows the battery to operate within a state of charge (SOC) window of 65%, after which the engine kicks in and maintains the charge near the lower level. The minimum SOC varies depending on operating conditions. When more power is required, such as mountain mode, the lower limit of the SOC will rise to 45% to ensure there is enough power available.[12][48]
Inlet for the electrical charger in the left side of the Chevrolet Volt with the manufacturer's provided charging cord Despite containing near identical energy (+/- 0.5kWh), the Volt's battery pack is over 70% lighter than the EV1's original 1,310 lb (590 kg), 16.5 kW·h AC Delco lead-acid battery pack, mainly because the Volt uses higher specific energy Li-ion batteries. Li-Ion batteries are expected to become less expensive as economies of scale take effect.[56][57][58]
Because batteries are sensitive to temperature changes, the Volt has a thermal management system to monitor and maintain the battery pack temperature for optimum performance and durability. The Volt's battery pack provides reliable operation, when plugged in, at temperatures as low as −13 °F (−25 °C) and as high as 122 °F (50 °C). Because the Volt features a battery pack that can be warmed or cooled, in cold weather the battery is preheated during charging to provide full power capability; in hot weather the battery can be cooled during charging. The Volt’s thermal management system can also be powered during driving either by the battery or engine.[48][59]
The Volt's battery is guaranteed by General Motors for eight years or 100,000 miles (160,000 km), and will cover all 161 battery components.[59][60] As all rechargeable batteries degrade over time, General Motors estimates the Volt battery will degrade by 10 to 30% after 8 to 10 years.[61] The Volt’s battery management system runs more than 500 diagnostics at 10 times per second, allowing to keep track of the Volt’s battery pack in real-time, 85% of which ensure the battery pack is operating safely and 15% monitor battery performance and life.[59]
I've looked at various websites to see if I could find the voltage that the Volt's motors operate at with no luck. I will bet that it is significantly higher than 12 volts.
IP: Logged
05:09 PM
Rick 88 Member
Posts: 3914 From: El Paso, TX. Registered: Aug 2001
Car and Driver magazine recently completed a 25,000 mile test on the Volt. The Volt completed the test with no problems at all. No fires, no smoke, no issues requiring it to go to the dealer for repair, or adjustment. Other than normal maintenance, all it required was a tire rotation. While I still think it is too expensive, it appears GM has built a high quality product. As this technology becomes more affordable car's like the Volt will become more mainstream.
I just drove a 2013 Malibu Eco with the new e-assist powertrain. It was one of the nicest driving 4 cylinder sedans I have recently been in. It is rated at 29 mpg combined city/highway and up to 37 mpg highway with the e-assist drivetrain. Not too shabby for a car it's size.
. When did the first manned flight by the Wright brothers take place ? 1901 ? The first electric car in the USA came out in the 1890's. Man has since flown to the Moon, and back. The electric car, ... a failure ? Many times over through the years. Now to be a gooberment mandated success ?
