RE: Electric Lotus Elise gets a sibling
Discussion
annodomini2 said:
mechsympathy said:
andytk said:
Batteries are still these things archillies heel.
Until someone develops a battery that can withstand at least 3700 cycles and has an operational life of 10 years, costs just £4,000 and can deliver at least 64kWh then we're going no where fast.
So far there are batteries that can do elements of the above. But none that can do all of the above.
Then of course there's the small matter of production volumes. What happens when we're collectiveley trying to make 10,000 tonnes a day of lithium polymer batteries??
How many cars are going to need built and how much rare earth metal will be needed?
Andy
Until someone develops a battery that can withstand at least 3700 cycles and has an operational life of 10 years, costs just £4,000 and can deliver at least 64kWh then we're going no where fast.
So far there are batteries that can do elements of the above. But none that can do all of the above.
Then of course there's the small matter of production volumes. What happens when we're collectiveley trying to make 10,000 tonnes a day of lithium polymer batteries??
How many cars are going to need built and how much rare earth metal will be needed?
Andy
And what is the point of using aluminium (which uses more energy to produce than steel AFAIK) in a car that is carrying a half tonne of batteries? And where do you charge the car? In the street? People struggle for parking in cities as it is. And that's before we confront the issue of electricity supply. California (and there were mutterings about the UK) struggles to produce enough electricity for current demands, so where is the power going to come from for the estimated 30 million cars we have?
It might happen, but it's not going to be soon.
Yup with regards to the batteries can have low weight and dump the current required when you plant your right foot.
Aluminium does takes more energy to produce from raw Ore, but actually takes less energy to recycle due to the lower temperature melting point. With the long term goal now becoming to recycle as much as possible the energy usage will acutally decrease with time due to the available quantities becoming more available due to increased use.
Due to the huge electricity requirements for smelting Al the plants tend to be located next to hydro dams for their power source, thus, in essence making Al production Carbon Free.
Whereas, the smelting of FE requires the burning of huge amounts of coke, thus producing shed loads of Carbon.
May be a little out of date but it may be the case that AL is more environmentally friendly to produce than Iron.
Anyway, the principle of the electric car is to shift carbon creation from thousands of uncrontrolable units over to single large plants which can be dealt with at source for emissions of taxed arrodingly under the Carbon Credit system.
From my physics from years ago, I'm sure that Hyrdrogen is separated via electrolysis so that fuel cell concept is still shifting the burdon.
Both EVs and Fuel Cell cars are great starting concepts and I do look forward to actually seeing some clever growth in this market.
Horse_Apple said:
Due to the huge electricity requirements for smelting Al the plants tend to be located next to hydro dams for their power source, thus, in essence making Al production Carbon Free.
Whereas, the smelting of FE requires the burning of huge amounts of coke, thus producing shed loads of Carbon.
May be a little out of date but it may be the case that AL is more environmentally friendly to produce than Iron.
Anyway, the principle of the electric car is to shift carbon creation from thousands of uncrontrolable units over to single large plants which can be dealt with at source for emissions of taxed arrodingly under the Carbon Credit system.
From my physics from years ago, I'm sure that Hyrdrogen is separated via electrolysis so that fuel cell concept is still shifting the burdon.
Both EVs and Fuel Cell cars are great starting concepts and I do look forward to actually seeing some clever growth in this market.
Yes, electrolysis IS the major provider of hydrogen..........but its from water and the car would be self providing this in the same way it provides electricity to itself right now to power spark plugs, stereos, lights etc etc etc..... All the car would need is a supply of water........
Not sure you've worded that well, Yeti. You can't just bung water in a fuel-cell car and pull electricity out - burning the hydrogen you get via electrolysis of water won't get back as much energy as is required to electrolyse the water in the first place. You don't get energy for nothing...
Basically the choice between fuel-cells and batteries just comes down to the efficiency of the energy storage mechanism. Neither fuel cells nor batteries are energy sources in their own right - they need the energy from somewhere. In batteries, electricity from power stations, in fuel cells either hydrogen produced by electrolysis from electricity from power stations, or methanol (which isn't carbon free anyway in production or combustion).
Moving the energy production to large power stations is good for efficiency (since a large power station can use economies of scale to make it clean and efficient), however you then lose some of the independence of micro-generation. If the government won't let you use the power grid, you're stuck. But that's a question of centralised control and another argument...
Basically the choice between fuel-cells and batteries just comes down to the efficiency of the energy storage mechanism. Neither fuel cells nor batteries are energy sources in their own right - they need the energy from somewhere. In batteries, electricity from power stations, in fuel cells either hydrogen produced by electrolysis from electricity from power stations, or methanol (which isn't carbon free anyway in production or combustion).
Moving the energy production to large power stations is good for efficiency (since a large power station can use economies of scale to make it clean and efficient), however you then lose some of the independence of micro-generation. If the government won't let you use the power grid, you're stuck. But that's a question of centralised control and another argument...
Hydrogen based systems though have the advantage of a more conventional filling process. You plug in and fill the thank rather than having to charge a battery with the associated time delay. There has been talk of filling stations being able to produce the hyrdrogen on site using solar power or whatever, or even home filling stations again using solar power to fill storage tanks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen for a bit more info.
Does anyone know how the overall weight compares between a rack of batteries and an hydrogen tank + fuel cell?
Does anyone know how the overall weight compares between a rack of batteries and an hydrogen tank + fuel cell?
cyberface said:
Not sure you've worded that well, Yeti. You can't just bung water in a fuel-cell car and pull electricity out - burning the hydrogen you get via electrolysis of water won't get back as much energy as is required to electrolyse the water in the first place. You don't get energy for nothing...
Basically the choice between fuel-cells and batteries just comes down to the efficiency of the energy storage mechanism. Neither fuel cells nor batteries are energy sources in their own right - they need the energy from somewhere. In batteries, electricity from power stations, in fuel cells either hydrogen produced by electrolysis from electricity from power stations, or methanol (which isn't carbon free anyway in production or combustion).
Moving the energy production to large power stations is good for efficiency (since a large power station can use economies of scale to make it clean and efficient), however you then lose some of the independence of micro-generation. If the government won't let you use the power grid, you're stuck. But that's a question of centralised control and another argument...
Basically the choice between fuel-cells and batteries just comes down to the efficiency of the energy storage mechanism. Neither fuel cells nor batteries are energy sources in their own right - they need the energy from somewhere. In batteries, electricity from power stations, in fuel cells either hydrogen produced by electrolysis from electricity from power stations, or methanol (which isn't carbon free anyway in production or combustion).
Moving the energy production to large power stations is good for efficiency (since a large power station can use economies of scale to make it clean and efficient), however you then lose some of the independence of micro-generation. If the government won't let you use the power grid, you're stuck. But that's a question of centralised control and another argument...
Of course, yeah, my bad. I did word that badly. But the idea is that the water will deplete like petrol would anyway. Of course you can't get back the energy you put into it, but you can certainly sustain energy to produce the fuel to run a relatively normal internal combustion engine. If that makes sense?...........
Sounds good, if it was cheeper i'd buy one.
Especially if you could attach a hose pipe and power to the car
and the onboard converter in the engine bay dose its stuff.
Seem to remember the water needs to be distilled.
On the other hand given our ability to supply the raw ingredient of WATER.
I don't think it would work in this country.
Especially if you could attach a hose pipe and power to the car
and the onboard converter in the engine bay dose its stuff.
Seem to remember the water needs to be distilled.
On the other hand given our ability to supply the raw ingredient of WATER.
I don't think it would work in this country.
The electric's down side, absent some dramatic breakthroughs, will prevent its widespread use. Honda, looking into the future, has quietly gone about perfecting the hydrogen-powered fuel cell. Their current production vehicle is 4-door 4-passenger, range about 300 miles, top speed 85 mph. It's got 3 electric motors, 1 larger one in front, and 1 on each rear wheel, with 100 KW at their disposal. The elements of the fuel cell have been separated so as to be tucked unobtrusively into otherwise empty spaces. It works quite well even at below-freezing temps.
They understand that their big problem would be refueling, and so are working to improve a currently available device that uses natural gas (that most of us have for the kitchen range) to produce hydrogen. They expect to have this sized for home use, as well as public filling stations. Time to refuel should be about the same as gasoline or diesel.
The wave of ther future?
They understand that their big problem would be refueling, and so are working to improve a currently available device that uses natural gas (that most of us have for the kitchen range) to produce hydrogen. They expect to have this sized for home use, as well as public filling stations. Time to refuel should be about the same as gasoline or diesel.
The wave of ther future?
TheYeti said:
Electric power is dead in the water even now. The "green" aspect is a complete misnomer as the "emissions" will just be moved elsewhere i.e. the power stations. And if we all, within say 10 years, all change to an electric powered car, can you IMAGINE the drain on the power plants around the country? There are over 30 MILLION cars on the road and lets say there will be 15 million of them all charging at the same time (i.e. overnight)..........the grid would go into meltdown!!!
This argument against is trotted out every time someone mentions electric cars, agree on the increased drain on the grid being a problem but not about moving the emissions. At a guess a power station is a lot more efficient than a car at converting fuel into energy so yes emissions at the station increase due to demand but not to the equivalent level so overall they are less IYSWIM. If any power station engineers can confirm my efficiency theory that would be grand.
Ben
Hydrogen power is too inefficient, and dangerous. However the oil companies are promoting it as its something for them to generate revenue from.
I will try and track it down but I read on a few websites that it takes approximately 35x more energy to travel the same distance in a Hydrogen fuel cell car as it does in a normal petrol car (This includes making the fuel etc). but will check.
There are new types of 'battery' just being developed which have the recharge capabilities of a super capacitor (charge in about 5mins) and power storage like a Lithium polymer battery. I don't know the peak current output at this stage, which is the main problem with Lithium batteries (limited to about 30A peak).
Long term it will be a battle of Hydrogen and Full Electric.
Short term it will be Hydrogen and Renwable Bio-Fuel.
When they finally get fusion working then we may see more interest.
I will try and track it down but I read on a few websites that it takes approximately 35x more energy to travel the same distance in a Hydrogen fuel cell car as it does in a normal petrol car (This includes making the fuel etc). but will check.
There are new types of 'battery' just being developed which have the recharge capabilities of a super capacitor (charge in about 5mins) and power storage like a Lithium polymer battery. I don't know the peak current output at this stage, which is the main problem with Lithium batteries (limited to about 30A peak).
Long term it will be a battle of Hydrogen and Full Electric.
Short term it will be Hydrogen and Renwable Bio-Fuel.
When they finally get fusion working then we may see more interest.
benyeats said:
TheYeti said:
Electric power is dead in the water even now. The "green" aspect is a complete misnomer as the "emissions" will just be moved elsewhere i.e. the power stations. And if we all, within say 10 years, all change to an electric powered car, can you IMAGINE the drain on the power plants around the country? There are over 30 MILLION cars on the road and lets say there will be 15 million of them all charging at the same time (i.e. overnight)..........the grid would go into meltdown!!!
This argument against is trotted out every time someone mentions electric cars, agree on the increased drain on the grid being a problem but not about moving the emissions. At a guess a power station is a lot more efficient than a car at converting fuel into energy so yes emissions at the station increase due to demand but not to the equivalent level so overall they are less IYSWIM. If any power station engineers can confirm my efficiency theory that would be grand.
Ben
Agreed, the argument IS trotted out, but "moving" the emissions is again a misnomer. I 100% wholly agree that "moving" the emissions to a place where the efficiency of coversion is MUCH higher than that of a car would always be a good thing, but whatever the way you do this, be it coal, oil or nuclear, you are just concentrating the emissions to one place. Yes, I agree, in that place, they can be tightly controlled and monitored, but as it stands, power stations STILL pump out large amounts of emissions and to imagine that they will stay as this little "cloud" above the plant and not move and will disperse accordingly is just nonsense. it might all be very efficient and it might all be well controlled, but stuff is still getting into the air and thats the problem. So, regardless of where these emissions are controlled, that are still being put out there.
Also, negating the control and efficiency effect would be the vast increase in the drain on the system anyway. So, we make plants more efficient and control the emissions more tightly. Electric cars come on line, the world takes them aboard and hey presto, massive increase in energy needs and therefore, output of emissions and control goes back up. You can't have one without the other...........
Each point is completely valid as you look at it. But the bigger picture........it just isn't going to change in the long run.......
annodomini2 said:
Hydrogen power is too inefficient, and dangerous. However the oil companies are promoting it as its something for them to generate revenue from.
I will try and track it down but I read on a few websites that it takes approximately 35x more energy to travel the same distance in a Hydrogen fuel cell car as it does in a normal petrol car (This includes making the fuel etc). but will check.
There are new types of 'battery' just being developed which have the recharge capabilities of a super capacitor (charge in about 5mins) and power storage like a Lithium polymer battery. I don't know the peak current output at this stage, which is the main problem with Lithium batteries (limited to about 30A peak).
Long term it will be a battle of Hydrogen and Full Electric.
Short term it will be Hydrogen and Renwable Bio-Fuel.
When they finally get fusion working then we may see more interest.
I will try and track it down but I read on a few websites that it takes approximately 35x more energy to travel the same distance in a Hydrogen fuel cell car as it does in a normal petrol car (This includes making the fuel etc). but will check.
There are new types of 'battery' just being developed which have the recharge capabilities of a super capacitor (charge in about 5mins) and power storage like a Lithium polymer battery. I don't know the peak current output at this stage, which is the main problem with Lithium batteries (limited to about 30A peak).
Long term it will be a battle of Hydrogen and Full Electric.
Short term it will be Hydrogen and Renwable Bio-Fuel.
When they finally get fusion working then we may see more interest.
I think this is the article: http://media.popularmechanics.com/doc
The article was about biofuel, but they compared many technologies in the centerfold sidebar: gasoline, ethanol, methanol, biodiesel, compressed natural gas, hydrogen fuel cells, and, of course, electric cars. They compared the cost of a cross-country drive for each of the cars, all of similar size. The benchmark drive cost is $212 in a Honda Civic. The VW Diesel Golf came close at $230. E85 ethanol (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) came in at $425; methanol cost $619; the hydrogen fuel cell drive cost a whopping $804! Compressed Natural Gas looked pretty good at $110. And the electric car? $60. And the article wasn’t even about electric cars…
The key point about H Cell and EV cars is that they shirt the source of pollution from an urban environment out to more controllable and cost effective power stations.
In the UK most of our power is from burning oil, thanks to the discoveries in the North Sea 30 years ago. Previous to that it was coal. Nuclear was just getting going when we discovered the oil/gas and this pretty much brought that side of development to a halt.
The nuclear power stations that we have are mostly of the old and outdated Magnox variety which are very messy and ineffecient compared to more modern technologies (and hugely expensive to de-commission).
No one can argue that a city like London would benefit hugely from a dynamic shift away from the classic combustion engine.
Hydrogen cars are easier to fill up as and when you want, EVs just require a little bit of planning. We all used to be able to plan our lives in the past or we would never have all been able to meet up at a certain pub at a certain time on a certain date prior to the invention of the mobile phone
You need to have at least two options so as to meet the different requirements of the end user. I have underground parking at home and the office and so it is easy for me to charge an EV, if you don't have parking and the local authorities are not is a rush to put charging points on residential streets then the H Cell option may be better.
If you live out in the sticks then quite frankly this isn't really an issue that should concern you as your pollution is not really all that relevant to the grand scheme of things, it becomes an ethical choice only.
I was under the impression that H Cell cars basically worked by filling a multi celled tank with H gas and burning that in an engine, but I understand that some car manufactureres are working on a more localised power plant that carries out the convertion to electricity within the vehicle.
To be honest, the H Cell will get more support as it allows current car manufacturers, in collusion with the fuel companies to deliver a product that fits perfectly into their existing business models.
It is clear that industry is retarding the development of EV delivery and ownership, which is why local government are the only main body pushing this forward.
Within 2 years I believe that it will be a very serious option for me to run an electric car in the city while maintaining a real car for proper journies.
Hydrogen cn be burned in turbines, as well as consumed in fuel-cells. A small, light drivetrain consisting of a tiny turbine (used soley to generate electricity) driving an electric motor (through - if needed - a two-speed or CVT transmission) has the potential to optimised for personal transportation far more easily than fuel-cells. Fuel-cells have a problem with "throttle response", so fuel-cell cars waste weight and space storing electricity, so that power is available on demand. a Hydrogen-turbine driveline's acceptable throttle response allows minimal electricity storage, hence less extra weight. An Elise-sized Hydrogen-turbine commuter could be Big Fun, as well as responsible!
Hydrogen has enduring structural advantages, when compared with direct delivery of electricity, as a system for supplying society's power needs: Hydrogen can be stored and transported easily and efficiently; electricity has substantial problems in all these areas. Direct electric production of Hydrogen, using huge-scale solar-power plants located in the world's deserts, will solve our species' need for energy - this could be a long term, totally sustainable solution.
Hydrogen has enduring structural advantages, when compared with direct delivery of electricity, as a system for supplying society's power needs: Hydrogen can be stored and transported easily and efficiently; electricity has substantial problems in all these areas. Direct electric production of Hydrogen, using huge-scale solar-power plants located in the world's deserts, will solve our species' need for energy - this could be a long term, totally sustainable solution.
Stephen White said:
Hydrogen cn be burned in turbines, as well as consumed in fuel-cells. A small, light drivetrain consisting of a tiny turbine (used soley to generate electricity) driving an electric motor (through - if needed - a two-speed or CVT transmission) has the potential to optimised for personal transportation far more easily than fuel-cells. Fuel-cells have a problem with "throttle response", so fuel-cell cars waste weight and space storing electricity, so that power is available on demand. a Hydrogen-turbine driveline's acceptable throttle response allows minimal electricity storage, hence less extra weight. An Elise-sized Hydrogen-turbine commuter could be Big Fun, as well as responsible!
Hydrogen has enduring structural advantages, when compared with direct delivery of electricity, as a system for supplying society's power needs: Hydrogen can be stored and transported easily and efficiently; electricity has substantial problems in all these areas. Direct electric production of Hydrogen, using huge-scale solar-power plants located in the world's deserts, will solve our species' need for energy - this could be a long term, totally sustainable solution.
Hydrogen has enduring structural advantages, when compared with direct delivery of electricity, as a system for supplying society's power needs: Hydrogen can be stored and transported easily and efficiently; electricity has substantial problems in all these areas. Direct electric production of Hydrogen, using huge-scale solar-power plants located in the world's deserts, will solve our species' need for energy - this could be a long term, totally sustainable solution.
Turbines are just as inresponsive as a fuel cell if not more, not to mention they can be extremely inefficient when operating outside ideal conditions, more so than a normal internal combustion engines, if it was used in a hybrid system with a generator designed to operate at the speeds of the turbine, usually 100k-120k rpm. Then there is the possibility, as a gearbox will be inefficient as it needs to be big and heavy to handle those kinds of velocities, not to mention cost due to the complexity. There are also many other problems due to cost, turbines are expensive, hybrid components are currently still expensive. Servicing would be expensive due to the complexity of the system.
The whole idea is naive! The only major problem with electricity is having batteries to store it and capable of being charged in a sufficient time. Which I must say are currently in development. The technology to supply electricity in sufficient quantity already exists it would only require investment to implement this technology where required.
Hydrogen is an extremely dangerous and volitile substance, in liquid form it is extremely costly to store due to cooling requirements and transportation has the same problems. It is potentially explosive (search the net for hydrogen fires) and burns with an invisible flame so car fires become an even bigger potential hazard in that the flames cannot be seen with the naked eye.
The thought that hydrogen would be produced from large solar arrays is a big pipe dream the amount of fuel consumed by the world would require more surface area than the earth can provide 24hrs a day, not including weather.
andytk said:
Batteries are still these things archillies heel.
Until someone develops a battery that can withstand at least 3700 cycles and has an operational life of 10 years, costs just £4,000 and can deliver at least 64kWh then we're going no where fast.
So far there are batteries that can do elements of the above. But none that can do all of the above.
Then of course there's the small matter of production volumes. What happens when we're collectiveley trying to make 10,000 tonnes a day of lithium polymer batteries??
How many cars are going to need built and how much rare earth metal will be needed?
Andy
Until someone develops a battery that can withstand at least 3700 cycles and has an operational life of 10 years, costs just £4,000 and can deliver at least 64kWh then we're going no where fast.
So far there are batteries that can do elements of the above. But none that can do all of the above.
Then of course there's the small matter of production volumes. What happens when we're collectiveley trying to make 10,000 tonnes a day of lithium polymer batteries??
How many cars are going to need built and how much rare earth metal will be needed?
Andy
Just imagine if Mr Daimler / Ford, etc had that mentality back about a hundred years ago ...
Sooner or later, we will have to move on to something besides petrol. This is a good start, although I think it is a pricey one. We need cheap cars that can be used for daily driving. I also wonder how much range these cars will really have once you turn on the airconditioning, heater, stereo, headlights ....
thirsty said:
Just imagine if Mr Daimler / Ford, etc had that mentality back about a hundred years ago ...
Mr Daimler and Mr Ford DID have this mentality 100 years ago. Luckily for them they were competing against the godawful method of personal transportation the horse and carrige.
So their soloution was highly competative and desirable.
Electric cars are currently neither.
cyberface said:
Bollocks to the boo-boys and naysayers. This is a brilliant idea, and as long as they sell it at a similar price to a real Lotus Elise, it will rock.
Its £67K If I recall correctly (about $120,000) before import taxes.
Plus the battery is NOT warrantied and will need replacing in approx 5 years.
At an estimated $25,000 per replacment (their lowball estimate, not mine) that works out to be $5,000 a year, or £2,780 in real money.
So over, say, 10,000 a year that works out at 27.8p/mile before any other costs.
On top of that you'll have all the usual costs. Plus they reckon that consumption will be 0.25 kWh per mile.
So for 10,000 miles a year, you're "fuel" bill will be £175 (@ 7p per kWh)
Thats cheap at only 1.75p per mile, but not when you take into consideration the battery costs.
And I still am not convinced that batteries will get much cheaper.
Its a bit like saying that steel gets cheaper the more you make. Thats true, but only up to a limit. You cannot continue to half the cost by doubling the throughput.
Batteries are more like heavy engineering rather than electronics. Ie. they DO NOT conform to Moore's law.
Having said all that, I do believe that battery electric vehicles do represent the long term future.
It just won't be a very cheap future.
Andy
I'm not usually paranoid or given to conspiracy theories but could it be that our government is so keen on road pricing because that is going to be the only way to replace the income they get from fuel taxes once we are all charging up electric cars from our own solar or other renewable energy? What a shame it would be if we finally got high performing, virtually free to run, electric cars that have a range of, say 500 miles only to find that the government charges us 40p per mile driven to "reduce congestion". So, brilliant engineers offer us a motoring utopia only for it to be snatched away again by greedy politicians. What has happened to all the Road Fund Licence money that wasn't spent on the roads (most of it)? Ditto for the fuel taxes that should be spent on reducing congestion by building roads. Of course you need better public transport and more 'park and ride' schemes to cope with city centre congestion but we should and could have twice as many trunk roads as we now have if the money was spent properly. Resist road pricing at all costs. You have been warned!
As pointed out by Andytk above the Tesla is currently a car for rich..ish people, although it's a third of the price of the British electric Lightning or the French Venturi Fetish and it's a properly engineered, crash tested car available to buy very soon in the States. Their business plan foresees building a 4 door, 5 passenger, saloon (think BMW 5 series) for around £25-30,000, followed by a smaller economy car for around £15,000 as soon as the battery technology and reducing prices make this possible, while still making a profit. Elon Musk is not Mother Teresa...he expects to make money from this eventually.
Personally I can't wait for sensibly priced, all-electric cars to become a reality. My main cost worry then is road pricing, which the government will use to maintain its fuel-tax income.
Personally I can't wait for sensibly priced, all-electric cars to become a reality. My main cost worry then is road pricing, which the government will use to maintain its fuel-tax income.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff