The electric car: is it ideal transportation if a good battery exists?

[Musicat]

First, let me say that I have no ax to grind in this debate. I don't design electric cars, I don't own any stock in electric car companies, and I am not in favor of electric cars over other designs just on principle.

But it seems that of all the current, proven technologies, electric cars might be the best vehicle if it wasn't for the excessive space, weight, and cost of batteries.

For example:

An electric car:

1. Doesn't need much of the baggage of an internal combustion engine like a carburetor, muffler, distributor, transmission, etc.
2. It is quieter than an ICE
3. Is less polluting than an ICE (yes, I know that power generation is not pollution-free, but it's easier to contain it at a single power plant than at a million cars)
4. Is vibration-free, so the ride is smoother
5. Doesn't spend fuel or cause vibration at idle
6. The engine is smaller than the same power plant in an ICE
7. The power plant is more reliable because it doesn't rely upon hundreds of explosions per second and it is rotary motion, so maintenance is cheaper.

So, for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume that a good battery or other electrical storage device has been developed; it is cheap, it is compact, it is safe with careful handling, it can be recharged under reasonable conditions (takes little more than the time it takes now to fill a gas tank) and it lasts long enough that replacement cost is not a major consideration.

Under those conditions, is the electric car the best option today?

[Chronos]

Under that assumption, I can't see how there can be any possible objection, until you get into the lunatic fringe arguments like "CO2 is good for plants! Why do you want to kill off all the plants?". But that's a pretty big assumption.

[gonzomax]

The Volt has a range of about 50 miles. More than 80 % of the people drive less than that every day.
It is not suitable for those with long commutes or who have to drive a lot as part of their jobs. But it could cut down on gasoline usage and pollution immediately. I like it.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Chronos

Under that assumption, I can't see how there can be any possible objection, until you get into the lunatic fringe arguments like "CO2 is good for plants! Why do you want to kill off all the plants?". But that's a pretty big assumption.

It's a bit more then that, it singles out battery technology as the only technical hurdle left. With charging infrastructure also a factor, though not a technical one.

Is it ideal? I sort of like the transporter concept myself, though that seems to be too much a challenge scientist at the moment.

[DSeid]

I am an owner of stock in various aspects of the electric car industry, and even I don't see that as a fair hypothetical - if you could make the technology ideal would it be ideal? Well uh sure.

And if instead you could get biodiesel (algal or otherwise) to scale up to a point that was cheaper than gas and produced minimal net CO2, then that would be the best option.

And if you could find a cheap way to produce hydrogen for fuel cells in a CO2 neutral manner and got FCVs down to a reasonable price, they would be.

That said, yes, EVs are closer to being ready and are already ready for certain market segments.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

It's a bit more then that, it singles out battery technology as the only technical hurdle left. With charging infrastructure also a factor, though not a technical one.

Yeah, that's what I was going for. If energy storage is the only option, isn't the electric car the best choice, at least for now?

Chronos, how does CO₂ enter into the equation? Electric cars don't emit CO₂. Are you assuming that there would be more if existing power plants had to be expanded to handle the additional load from electric cars?

And as far as charging tech, I know I specified that charging shouldn't take any longer than filling a gas tank, but I can't see a big problem if it took me 4 hours to tank up.

[DSeid]

That sort of his joking point - much less CO2 ... but won't anyone think of the plants!

Rapid charge (Level 3) chargers an fill up most EVs to 80% in about 20 minutes. That said most people would charge up at home overnight.

Metal air batteries may be the real game changer.

If the reports are right, the cost will be a bit more than equivalent lead acid at weights and capacities 10 to 12 times the range of the 40 mile electric vehicle of today.

But the current technology is good enough now for most commuters' needs.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by DSeid

But the current technology is good enough now for most commuters' needs.

That may be a bone of contention. I don't travel far or often, but if my max range was 40 miles without a recharge, I will absolutely not be an electric car customer no matter what, because I want that extra cushion just in case.

So even if 80% of my needs are met by current technologies, I don't want to have to call my wife, call the AAA, or return home to change cars if I grind to a dead halt on 20 days of every 100. So an electric car is not in my future purchase plans, nor is it for 99% of my neighbors (100% of my neighbors within a 3 mile radius do not own even a hybrid).

But I would be first in line if this obstacle were removed.

Sorry, Chronos, I was thinking backwards.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Musicat

That may be a bone of contention. I don't travel far or often, but if my max range was 40 miles without a recharge, I will absolutely not be an electric car customer no matter what, because I want that extra cushion just in case.

So even if 80% of my needs are met by current technologies, I don't want to have to call my wife, call the AAA, or return home to change cars if I grind to a dead halt on 20 days of every 100. So an electric car is not in my future purchase plans, nor is it for 99% of my neighbors (100% of my neighbors within a 3 mile radius do not own even a hybrid).

But I would be first in line if this obstacle were removed.

Sorry, Chronos, I was thinking backwards.

While for a single, or single with child/children, person it would not be ideal, for a couple with 2 cars it could be, for one of the 2 cars to be electric, but it would require a shift in conventional thinking that one car is one person's and the other is the others, to both cars being both and a sharing of the cars based on the immediate needs.

[DSeid]

Most EVs (not the Volt, which not really an EV as EV's don't have tailpipes; the Volt also has an ICE) have about a 100 mile range (YMMV).

The only times I travel farther than that in a day I know it in advance - dropping a kid off at college, things like that - and I don't do that in my commuter car in any case.

I think they are practical for many more people than most people think, but nevertheless, they are not right for everyone right now. If you drive even over 90 in a day with any kind of regularity, where you can't charge up along the way, like at work, then most current EVs are not for you (the Volt or another EREV/PHEV may be a good choice though). You'll probably make it most of the time but if conditions are bad you may be sweating it some on a few of those days. And be stranded once out of thousand is too often, to heck with 20 out of 100. If you occasionally drive those distances or more and have another car in the family, then an EV is fine. If you very rarely to never do, then an EV is more than fine.

In certain markets the charging infrastructure is being rolled out fairly quickly, but even then, these are not cars to go cross country in ... yet. If you do that often, get a diesel or a hybrid or a Volt.

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by DSeid

That sort of his joking point - much less CO2 ... but won't anyone think of the plants!

Rapid charge (Level 3) chargers an fill up most EVs to 80% in about 20 minutes. That said most people would charge up at home overnight.

Metal air batteries may be the real game changer. But the current technology is good enough now for most commuters' needs.

That article is pretty non-technical- can you explain how those work? What's the difference between those and conventional batteries?

[XT]

But it seems that of all the current, proven technologies, electric cars might be the best vehicle if it wasn't for the excessive space, weight, and cost of batteries.

Well, there are a few other things, but essentially you are right (for instance, the materials to build the more advanced batteries are, afaik, really expensive and fairly rare at this time...which means that they aren't widely available and present bottlenecks to production). The trouble is that this is a rather large 'if'. Certainly if you could figure out a way to make batteries charge rapidly like capacitors, make them store a lot more energy (and discharge it slowly, over time, unlike capacitors), make them weigh less and make them cost substantially less, then building the infrastructure to support them would be child's play in comparison...and this would make EVs the best choice for a replacement vehicle.

If you could do those things, however, you'd be a generation ahead of your nearest competition and probably looking at which countries you wanted to buy to spend your summers in.

Under those conditions, is the electric car the best option today?

Yep....no doubt. Just like if you could make unlimited amounts of cheap oil or direct converted gas and bio-diesel then what we have today would be the optimal choice. Or, if you could make abundant and cheap hydrogen (and figure out ways to store and transport it cheaply and avoid the corrosive effects) then hydrogen powered vehicles (either direct or fuel cell) would be best. Or, if you could figure out how to produce solar panels that could be mounted on a cars roof surface and provide 100% of it's power needs (rain or shine) then solar would be the best. Or, if you could figure out a safe way to build a small fusion plant that uses garbage and is the size of a food processor, then...

-XT

[Chronos]

Certainly if you could figure out a way to make batteries charge rapidly like capacitors, make them store a lot more energy (and discharge it slowly, over time, unlike capacitors),

You can make a capacitor charge quickly and discharge slowly: It just depends on what the effective resistance is of the thing you're hooking up across the capacitor. They're not ready for powering cars just yet, but currently capacitor technology is advancing far faster than battery technology, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if we saw general-purpose capacitor-powered vehicles before general-purpose battery vehicles.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

The Volt has a range of about 50 miles. More than 80 % of the people drive less than that every day.
It is not suitable for those with long commutes or who have to drive a lot as part of their jobs. But it could cut down on gasoline usage and pollution immediately. I like it.

Well beyond 50 miles it's gasoline engine kicks in and it still get's crazy good gas millage operating as a hybrid. I like it too. Someday when I'm rich I'm gonna get one, or something based on it.

[XT]

When I'm rich I'm going to get a Tesla. Now THAT would be truly cool! Plus I'd really love a Segway...

(BTW, I thought the Volt was an all electric vehicle...so, assuming I'm remembering correctly, gonzo isn't talking about a hybrid there at all)

-XT

[flickster]

Has a study been completed to predict what the power grid demand would/will be should they become the "gotta have" transportation?
How many more power plants will be required?
What are the costs of recharging on a daily basis?
What are the costs for battery replacement?
How often will that be necessary?

Personally, 50 miles fits within my commute, but barely. If I had to visit a client or make some other side trip I'd be operating on gas.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by xtisme

When I'm rich I'm going to get a Tesla. Now THAT would be truly cool! Plus I'd really love a Segway...

(BTW, I thought the Volt was an all electric vehicle...so, assuming I'm remembering correctly, gonzo isn't talking about a hybrid there at all)

-XT

Teslas are cool too. The Volt is a series hybrid, or a plugin hybrid, meaning it powers it's drive train through it's electric engine just like an electric car, and as long as its batteries hold out, it is an electric car. However if its batteries drain it runs a gasoline engine which generates electricity.


In contrast to something like a Prius which is a parallel hybrid, meaning it powers its drive train directly through both electric and gas engines at same time.

[XT]

Gotcha...thanks for the clarification. I thought the Volt was an all electric vehicle, but I admit I haven't followed it too closely since I don't intend to buy one.

-XT

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by kanicbird

While for a single, or single with child/children, person it would not be ideal, for a couple with 2 cars it could be, for one of the 2 cars to be electric, but it would require a shift in conventional thinking that one car is one person's and the other is the others, to both cars being both and a sharing of the cars based on the immediate needs.

See, that's where I have a problem. Sure, most families could rearrange their lifestyle to take advantage of a short-range, ecological transportation vehicle. Maybe I could. But it's a hassle the average Joe doesn't want to deal with when time and money is on the line. And I can't afford to have a long range vehicle and a short range one, too, so if my car won't handle the infrequent, longer trips, it won't be my first (or second, or third) choice.

But if a particular vehicle could handle more than just a dedicated few, it would have a much larger market. It wouldn't have to rely upon the Ed Begley Jr.'s to proselytize it; it would have its own inherent advantages and would sell itself. I think maybe only the energy storage is what's holding the electric car back.

[Musicat]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Yep....no doubt. Just like if you could make unlimited amounts of cheap oil or direct converted gas and bio-diesel then what we have today would be the optimal choice. Or, if you could make abundant and cheap hydrogen (and figure out ways to store and transport it cheaply and avoid the corrosive effects) then hydrogen powered vehicles (either direct or fuel cell) would be best. Or, if you could figure out how to produce solar panels that could be mounted on a cars roof surface and provide 100% of it's power needs (rain or shine) then solar would be the best. Or, if you could figure out a safe way to build a small fusion plant that uses garbage and is the size of a food processor, then...

No argument from me. It looks like: If the energy storage requirement were worked out,

1. ...for the hydrogen car, then that would be the best, or
2. for the electric car, then that would be the best, or...

So what's holding all of these ideas back is not the inherent engine technology, but the energy storage technology. Perhaps that is the Achilles' heel of modern transportation.

Personally, I'm counting on Mr. Fusion in a DeLorean.

[The Tao's Revenge]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Gotcha...thanks for the clarification. I thought the Volt was an all electric vehicle, but I admit I haven't followed it too closely since I don't intend to buy one.

-XT

No prob.
Being a hippie and into technology I kinda turned into a Volt fanboy even if it'll be many years before I'll be able to get one.

[Sam Stone]

There's no guarantee that electric is the most efficient way to transport people, but it's pretty damned good.

But for me, the big advantage of electric is that you are separating the infrastructure of consumption from the infrastructure of production. Automobiles are dependent on fossil fuel. The size of the automotive economy alone makes it hard to transition to other sources of energy. But electric transportation can run on coal, or oil, or natural gas, or wind, or solar, or whatever else we come up with. That makes our energy infrastructure much more flexible and adaptable.

I've been surprised by how good electric cars are getting in only their second generation. The new Ford Focus Electric looks like the real game-changer. It's got a 100 mile range, and can be charged in 3 hours on a 240v charger. That makes it a completely usable vehicle for almost all city driving. 100 miles per day is a lot of city driving, and even if you come home near empty a 3 hr full charge means that even after an hour or so of coming home you could go for another 30 mile drive.

I have no financial interest in Ford, but man this looks pretty cool. This is a car I'd like to drive on its own merits, even forgetting the environmental benefits. And that's what you need to be able to sell these cars to the mass market.

[Nametag]

Originally Posted by appleciders

That article is pretty non-technical- can you explain how those work? What's the difference between those and conventional batteries?

A metal-air battery has a metal anode (usually zinc, AIUI) and is porous to air, providing an oxygen "cathode" -- basically a fuel cell. What's suggested for cars is a mechanically replenishable cell, with circulating zinc granules or powder, and an ionic liquid electrolyte, which would have much greater energy density than water-based batteries.

[gonzomax]

A solar panel garage that can recharge a Volt would be ideal.

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Musicat

Personally, I'm counting on Mr. Fusion in a DeLorean.

Mr Fusion only powered the Flux Capacitor. The DeLorian required petrol.

[RitterSport]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

Teslas are cool too. The Volt is a series hybrid, or a plugin hybrid, meaning it powers it's drive train through it's electric engine just like an electric car, and as long as its batteries hold out, it is an electric car. However if its batteries drain it runs a gasoline engine which generates electricity.


In contrast to something like a Prius which is a parallel hybrid, meaning it powers its drive train directly through both electric and gas engines at same time.

Just to nitpick, the Volt acts as a series and parallel hybrid, depending on the needs -- the engine can power the wheels directly to provide extra torque.

[godix]

Asking if electric cars are ideal assuming you set aside battery issues is like asking if the Titanic was safe assumed you set aside iceburg issues.

Right now, battery disposal and shipping batteries around really do change the issue from 'Should I save the environment' to 'Which method should I fuck the environment?' As others are mentioning, there's lots of battery research going on now and reason to be optimistic that the next generation or two of electrics cars will be great. Currently? They're just a rich man's toy so he can feel more ecological than thou, even though he's dumping a large amount of heavy metals at some point and the carbon footprint of shipping that batteries currently go through is fucking huge.

[What Exit?]

Originally Posted by godix

Asking if electric cars are ideal assuming you set aside battery issues is like asking if the Titanic was safe assumed you set aside iceburg issues.

Right now, battery disposal and shipping batteries around really do change the issue from 'Should I save the environment' to 'Which method should I fuck the environment?' As others are mentioning, there's lots of battery research going on now and reason to be optimistic that the next generation or two of electrics cars will be great. Currently? They're just a rich man's toy so he can feel more ecological than thou, even though he's dumping a large amount of heavy metals at some point and the carbon footprint of shipping that batteries currently go through is fucking huge.

The shipping carbon footprint on those batteries is minimal compared to a 7 year life in a car reducing CO2. The first generation Hybrids seem to have a very good record on recycling the batteries.

[scr4]

Electric cars are at best a stop-gap measure, until we reduce our dependency on cars. The problem with internal-combustion cars is the car part, not the internal-combustion part.

Cars are large pieces of machinery that require a lot of energy (of some kind) to operate. Moreover, cars require a lot of land use, for parking and roadways. This necessitates cities and suburbs that are spread out, which increases our transportation needs even further. Until we break that vicious cycle, the environmental (and other) cost of cars will always be a problem.

[Cheesesteak]

Originally Posted by Musicat

it can be recharged under reasonable conditions (takes little more than the time it takes now to fill a gas tank)

This is not strictly a battery problem. The key problem with rapid recharging is pushing an extreme amount of power through copper wire. Level 3 recharging is a 480V system, and it still can only give you <100 miles of range in 20 minutes of charging. You can't really increase the voltage any more, so the only way to ramp this up is to make the wire thicker and thicker to push more amps. It's hard to see it as viable when a gas tank "recharge" is 2 minutes and gets you 400 miles of range.

Batteries can solve this problem, though, by making "on the road" recharging a non issue. If you can manage a 400-500 mile range, it would be an extremely unusual event for you to need recharging on the road, 99.9% of your trips would start and end within your base range, at which point you plug in for a leisurely 240V 30-50A overnight recharge.

Hotels and motels could offer charging services, for folks who are taking a long trip, but I would see that as a scheduled stop, rather than stopping at the "next" station.

[razncain]

I’m anxious to see how the Germans do with these batteries. From the link, it’s not only more powerful than other batteries, it will also be less expensive, although they weren’t able to give a price. Unlike most electric cars that have short range, this four seat Audi went 376 miles at 55 mph on average. It can be fully charged up in six minutes. They are supposed to be 97% efficient. They hope to have 1 million of these electric cars cruising their highways by the end of the decade.

I’ve always thought the ultimate electric car would be one that got their power from the road itself. The road could supply the electricity by having metal strips built into it, and therefore being able to eliminate all batteries that power the electric motor if one wanted to. One could still either have a small battery pack or small gasoline engine for where there still wasn’t power connected up to the road. Popular Mechanics magazine did an article on this decades ago on how it could be done, and how it would be safe too, but I don’t remember much in the way of details. I also wonder how the electric company would collect on the electricity the cars are using. Would they have a special meter that automatically got read by satellite that would bill them monthly? Perhaps, but anyway, I think at least one American city ought to experiment with this. If it proved successful, others should join in on setting up major highways with this system.

[XT]

Originally Posted by scr4

Electric cars are at best a stop-gap measure, until we reduce our dependency on cars. The problem with internal-combustion cars is the car part, not the internal-combustion part.

Good luck with trying to get people to give up personal transport. Not really a viable option, since not many people who have access to them (even leaving the US out of the equation) think that it's a 'problem'. And most people who don't have access to them wish they did.

-XT

[Chronos]

Quoth flickster:

Has a study been completed to predict what the power grid demand would/will be should they become the "gotta have" transportation?
How many more power plants will be required?
What are the costs of recharging on a daily basis?

If most recharging is done overnight, we wouldn't even need any more power plants, or expansion to the distribution grid. Currently, most electrical usage is during the day, so there's a lot of surplus generating capacity at night (this is why many electric companies charge lower rates at night). As for the cost of recharging, even at peak rates and with the current state of technology, it's still a fraction of the cost of gasoline.

[kanicbird]

Originally Posted by Musicat

See, that's where I have a problem. Sure, most families could rearrange their lifestyle to take advantage of a short-range, ecological transportation vehicle.

I don't see a 1 petrol / 1 electric car 2 driver family as needed to rearrange their lifestyle to any extent like you state above. Yes it some car switching will be needed occasionally, though this already is pretty common today when a family has one good car and a station car, occasionally the normally station car driver will need the 'good car' and usually for the same reason - a longer trip.

And I can't afford to have a long range vehicle and a short range one, too, so if my car won't handle the infrequent, longer trips, it won't be my first (or second, or third) choice.

Again much more ideal for a 2 driver household where both normally drive w/i the electric range. For singles I would say a serial hybrid is about as good as currently gets.

But if a particular vehicle could handle more than just a dedicated few, it would have a much larger market. It wouldn't have to rely upon the Ed Begley Jr.'s to proselytize it; it would have its own inherent advantages and would sell itself. I think maybe only the energy storage is what's holding the electric car back.

Charging time and infrastructure is also a factor, but I agree better batteries, or other storage, would go a long way.

[davidm]

I think the charging infrastructure is a large hurdle at least in some areas. In many urban environments people park overnight at the curb in whatever space they can find open on their block. They can't be expected to charge at home overnight.

I live in a second floor apartment and park on the street, so my gas electric hybrid is a good compromise for my situation.

I think the long term answer may be plug-in electrics for those with garages or some other way of charging, and for everyone else some sort of electric / liquid fuel hybrid that uses some kind of renewable liquid fuel.

[scr4]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Good luck with trying to get people to give up personal transport. Not really a viable option, since not many people who have access to them (even leaving the US out of the equation) think that it's a 'problem'.

Why do you think "reducing our dependency on cars" means giving up cars and not having access to them anymore?

In most American suburbs and small cities, the car is the only means of transportation. And I think many Americans do see that as a problem. It means teenagers can't go out anywhere unless the parents give them a ride, or allow them to own and drive a car. It means your grandparents can't even go to a social gathering on their own when their eyesight is too bad to drive. It means having to buy and maintain as many cars as there are drivers in your household. These are not inevitable consequences of owning cars. They are a consequence of our complete dependency on cars.

In most other countries, people have (and want) cars, but they're not dependent on them. There are other ways to go shopping or get to work. People without cars (by choice or otherwise) still live a full life without being dependent on family members or friends. Most families can get by with one car, rather than one for each driver. I don't see that as an unachievable goal for US cities and suburbs.

[XT]

Originally Posted by scr4

Why do you think "reducing our dependency on cars" means giving up cars and not having access to them anymore?

It was implicit in your statement that the car is the problem, not what powers the car...which is what I was responding to. I don't think that, realistic, we can reduce our dependency on cars in any case, not unless no means exists or will exist to power said cars at an economical rate that most people can afford. It's only if the costs become prohibitive that cars would fade away for the general public.

In most American suburbs and small cities, the car is the only means of transportation. And I think many Americans do see that as a problem. It means teenagers can't go out anywhere unless the parents give them a ride, or allow them to own and drive a car. It means your grandparents can't even go to a social gathering on their own when their eyesight is too bad to drive. It means having to buy and maintain as many cars as there are drivers in your household. These are not inevitable consequences of owning cars. They are a consequence of our complete dependency on cars.

Setting aside how accurate it is that the car is the ONLY means available for transportation in 'most American suburbs and small cities', one question would be to ask why this is so and how it came to pass. WHY are we so dependent on our cars and what does this say about how we think about the 'problem'.

In most other countries, people have (and want) cars, but they're not dependent on them.

Well, a couple things here. This is a meme that is often repeated, but how true is it, really? Certainly smaller wealthy countries that have very concentrated populations have better options for mass transit than the US does, but in every country I've traveled too that has a population with any sort of wealth you will notice something right off...that is, a rather large amount of traffic. From cars. Travel around Europe and you will be surprised to see that, while yes they have good mass transit, they still have a hell of a lot of cars tooling about. Same in Asia. Go to Tokyo sometime, for instance and you will notice lots and lots of cars. Ooodles of the things.

Even in poor countries you will see something odd...lots and lots of cars. Go to Mexico City and take a look around. They may not use them to the same extent as we in the US do (and they aren't available to everyone as they pretty much are to citizens in the US), but this is only a degree of difference.

I don't see that as an unachievable goal for US cities and suburbs.

No, I don't either...which is why I don't believe you were correct that the car is the problem. The real problem is simply finding an economical alternative to the current model of power plant and fuel we use to make the car go. The car is simply too convenient and flexible for people who can afford it (such as Americans) to give up unless there is simply no economical alternative. And, IMHO, unless you are a small country with a large and dense population distribution, the car is going to increasingly become the dominant form or transportation as long as it's affordable. Which is why countries like China and India are having explosive growth in the numbers of cars on their roads, and will continue to have explosive growth if we can figure out how to continue to power the things in the future. Something I'm pretty confident we will do, since it seems to be something that a large majority of people want.

This isn't to say that we shouldn't have alternatives such as mass transit for folks who don't want to drive, especially in high density population areas...but then, we DO have those things, even in backwards America. We have them because people actually want them and are willing to pay for them. Just like we have cars because people want them and are willing to pay for them.

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread, since it's really about magical batteries and interesting stuff like that, and not about mass transit.

-XT

[godix]

Originally Posted by What Exit?

The shipping carbon footprint on those batteries is minimal compared to a 7 year life in a car reducing CO2. The first generation Hybrids seem to have a very good record on recycling the batteries.

The carbon footprint on batteries is far smaller than 7 years of a gasoline operated car. However, the carbon footprint on batteries is larger than zero, and quite a bit larger because of excessive shipping.

Recycling is good, and mandated by law in all the US AFAIK. However, the point is that there are literally tons of heavy metals in batteries. Or a different battery type can be used, which bring their own downsides. Nickel metal hydrides for example have poor efficiency, poor performance in cold weather, slightly toxic (although fully recyclable) and some patent issues IIRC. Lithium ion degrades relatively quickly, can pose a fire risk if punctured, and still have some toxic parts.

Then, of course, there's the issues of material supplies. The metals for batteries still has to be dug up which involves all the environmental issues of any large scale mining. As well, there's the rare earth issue we've been hearing about from China. It may be that we'd trade a dependence on the middle east for oil to a dependence on China for rare earths. Which is a rather questionable trade. Or we open up rare earth mines in the US, many of which already have been shut due in large part to environmental concerns.

Anyway, my point is, electric cars are great. I'm not dissing them. However, many people seem to think electric cars are the magical cure all that will save the world or something. They aren't. There are many problems with them, beyond just their range. Pushing to go to them with the technology in use right now is, in many ways, just trading one type of problem for another rather than actually solving problems. There's good indications that in a generation or two of design they'll be far superior, but at the moment it just isn't true.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by scr4

Cars are large pieces of machinery that require a lot of energy (of some kind) to operate. Moreover, cars require a lot of land use, for parking and roadways. This necessitates cities and suburbs that are spread out, which increases our transportation needs even further. Until we break that vicious cycle, the environmental (and other) cost of cars will always be a problem.

You seem to assume future vehicles will be as space and energy inefficient as what we drive today. There are some designs that don't have a much bigger footprint than a bicycle. We will be able to fit 4 vehicles in what a single car takes up today.

I'd suggest reading up about robocars.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Yep....no doubt. Just like if you could make unlimited amounts of cheap oil or direct converted gas and bio-diesel then what we have today would be the optimal choice. Or, if you could make abundant and cheap hydrogen (and figure out ways to store and transport it cheaply and avoid the corrosive effects) then hydrogen powered vehicles (either direct or fuel cell) would be best. Or, if you could figure out how to produce solar panels that could be mounted on a cars roof surface and provide 100% of it's power needs (rain or shine) then solar would be the best. Or, if you could figure out a safe way to build a small fusion plant that uses garbage and is the size of a food processor, then...

The secret to hydrogen is to convert it into ammonia and use that for fuel. Ammonia is a cheap efficient way to transport and store hydrogen. It is actually better than methane (natural gas), since it easier to liquefy and doesn't produce GHGs. The catch is that we can just pump methane out of the ground , which we have to make ammonia. If we built a lot of nuclear power plants, then we could harness them to make ammonia at off peak hours.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

I'd suggest reading up about robocars.

I just realized Brad Templeton isn't going to writing much new stuff about robocars for awhile. He is doing consulting on robocars for Google.

http://ideas.4brad.com/working-robocars-google

[DSeid]

A few answers to questions earlier asked -

The current grid could handle 80% of cars being electric as long as they were charged in "trough" times.

The net CO2 savings depends on the power generating mix. Obviously the more that is nuclear and/or renewable electricity generation, the better. 100% current dirty coal not so much so.

Batteries are expected to last the life of the vehicle and to then have a second life tied together as stationary storage units (they are still functional for that purpose even when they have lost enough capacity that they are no longer fully functional for their original intended use.) Both the GM Volt and the Nissan Leaf have 8 year/100K warranties. The makers think they will last much longer than that.

How much will that residual value be and how much will a replacement cost if you got to 8 plus and needed to replace? Most experts are fairly sure that by then they will be below $250/kWh which would mean about $8K for the Nissan Leaf. (Minus its residual value) That's just on the basis of economies of scale and commoditization. If metal air or some other technologic break through does become a reality then much less than that. Then again it might be worth $8K for a new battery as there little else to wear out on an EV and getting another 8 years out of it is very likely.

Figure maybe 8 kWh for a 40 mile day (the Volt aims for 40 miles going from 70% to 30% of its 16kWh battery) and $0.12/kWh, so a bit under a buck a day for the charge. Maybe significantly less if there is discounted charging at night.

Electricity costs are likely going to be less volatile than gas prices and less likely to spike quickly. The grid is likely to get less CO2 intensive as time goes on.

The batteries used by Tesla are the classic cobalt based lithium ion batteries tied together into larger packs; most other makers are using lithium polymer with titanates and spinels and LiFePO4 large format packs which are amazingly safe.

Long term future of transportation several of those who post here believe that cars will become more semiautonomous, able to participate in machine to machine communication and form ad hoc platoons or "car trains" for much of the trip. That has little to do with EVs per se however.

The adoption of full EVs is expected to be somewhat gradual in America but much faster in China where the government has declared it as a major part of their future plans. That market will likely drive the economies of scale for the battery makers.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by gonzomax

A solar panel garage that can recharge a Volt would be ideal.

So would a nuclear powered car. It isn't cost effective.

Chrysler has the right idea. They are not making hybrids right now because they are not financially viable. They are going to bring over the Fiat electric/hydraulic valve technology which should provide hybrid level fuel economy at a much reduced price.

[scr4]

Originally Posted by xtisme

Anyway, I don't want to hijack the thread, since it's really about magical batteries and interesting stuff like that, and not about mass transit.

-XT

I thought the thread was about whether an electric car is an ideal form of transportation or not. But if you feel this way, I apologize for the hijack and stop this line of argument.

[Sam Stone]

Originally Posted by scr4

Why do you think "reducing our dependency on cars" means giving up cars and not having access to them anymore?

In most American suburbs and small cities, the car is the only means of transportation. And I think many Americans do see that as a problem. It means teenagers can't go out anywhere unless the parents give them a ride, or allow them to own and drive a car. It means your grandparents can't even go to a social gathering on their own when their eyesight is too bad to drive. It means having to buy and maintain as many cars as there are drivers in your household. These are not inevitable consequences of owning cars. They are a consequence of our complete dependency on cars.

Funny, I live in a suburb, and my daughter can catch a bus pretty much anywhere she wants to go. I believe that's true in just about any large city or suburb in America, with varying degrees of inconvenience. And elderly people have these handi-cab things they can call, which will take them where they want to go for free or for a nominal fee. I can also call a cab any time I need one and be in it within 15 minutes. When the weather is good, the kids ride bicycles to school or to their friend's places. Don't exaggerate the issue.

In most other countries, people have (and want) cars, but they're not dependent on them. There are other ways to go shopping or get to work. People without cars (by choice or otherwise) still live a full life without being dependent on family members or friends. Most families can get by with one car, rather than one for each driver. I don't see that as an unachievable goal for US cities and suburbs.

When I was a kid, my family didn't have a car. I got along just fine with typical city services - buses, biking and walking, mainly. My mother shopped for groceries at a store that had a delivery service. It worked fine. My mother still doesn't drive.

It seems to me that cities already have a mix of transportation services that people like, based on how they spend their money and how they vote. So how are you going to achieve your goal? Through force? Tax their cars until they get rid of them?

And what are you trying to achieve with mass transit? What problem are you ultimately trying to solve? Save the environment? Reduce road congestion? Improve the quality of life for most people? Or what?

If it's the environment you're trying to save, you'd better be careful. If you overbuild your mass transit and can't fill all the buses and trains, you could easily burn more energy than those dastardly cars did. If you are trying to reduce congestion, just remember that when roads are free to use, congestion becomes the limiting factor. So if you convince 10% of the people to ride the bus, that will just increase the marginal value of the less-congested roads for everyone else, which will stimulate more road use anyway. That's why Europe has great mass transit - and its roads are still congested.

In any event, when you talk about other countries that have great mass transit, you're generally talking about small, densely populated countries in Europe, or very large, highly populated cities. The efficiency of mass transit is closely correlated with population density, so you should be comparing countries with similar population density in populated areas, population density in the cities, and road distances between cities. How about comparing the U.S. to Australia, New Zealand, and Canada? Do those countries have advanced mass transit systems, high speed rail, and all the rest?

[XT]

Originally Posted by scr4

I thought the thread was about whether an electric car is an ideal form of transportation or not. But if you feel this way, I apologize for the hijack and stop this line of argument.

It seems to be about electric cars being the ideal form of transport given pretty much ideal technology and circumstances and a lot of assumptions. No apology needed for me, I just didn't want to side track the discussion away from where the OP seemed to want to go and what they seemed to want to discuss.

-XT

[Sam Stone]

Solar charging of car batteries is a good idea, but only for trickle-charging, maintaining a top-up, and for use in helping maintain the battery in good condition. If you might not be driving your car for a month or two, a solar trickle charger might be a reasonable investment.

But a reasonable solar panel isn't going to be charging your car up very much. An average rooftop solar system might provide 1kW of power when the sun is shining. The Ford Focus electric has a 23 kW/h battery. Assuming you work at night so you can charge your car during the day, and you get an average of 50% of rated output of your panels during the day (cloud cover, dirt, sun angle, etc), and assuming 70% charging efficiency, and 8 hours of daylight time per day in which your car is being charged, your rooftop solar system can put a full charge into your car in 8-9 days. 1 kW solar system will set you back maybe $5,000-$7,500. Not a great investment.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Sam Stone

Funny, I live in a suburb, and my daughter can catch a bus pretty much anywhere she wants to go. I believe that's true in just about any large city or suburb in America, with varying degrees of inconvenience.

I've lived in various suburbs all my life and there is no way public transportation serves the community at large. If by some bizarre coincidence a bus goes near a useful location they are a tremendous inconvenience to use. It would be a prison sentence of limitations to rely on them.

I can't imagine hiking to a bus stop in the cold of Winter, the heat of Summer, or the rainy days of Spring and then repeating the process at a transfer point only to hike to my final destination under the same conditions. Basic grocery shopping would mean hauling bags of food all over hell's half acre and there is zero transportation nodes that could handle anything large. It would all have to be delivered at my expense.

[Musicat]

The reason I started this thread and emphasized the battery angle is partly because about 60 years ago I read a book that listed "100 inventions that are sorely needed and would change the world," or some such title. The only one that I still remember is the one that said, "A far superior battery or other electrical power storage."

I wish I had that book now. I suspect many of the proposed inventions have come true, but this one seems to lag behind. If you compare a tube-type portable AM radio of the 1950s with its large and multiple batteries to a pocket radio of today powered by a coin cell, much of the progress is in the lower power drain and greater features of the electronics.

I realize the technical problems with super-fast charging compared to filling up a gas tank, but that seems like the ideal. If an electric tank could be filled in 2 minutes, no one could object to the recharge time. In a practical sense, an hour or two isn't all that bad -- let's say you are taking a long trip and 300 miles is all you get on a charge. If you stop for a bite to eat and your car could be charged while you munch, that's not a huge imposition on your travel style. But a 10 hour charge could make the vehicle impractical.

[Magiver]

There are so many battery research projects going on I expect one of them will bust through with a high density/rapid charge system that is a fraction of the cost of current versions. When that happens it will be a game changer. I look forward to energy independence. It would be nice to see all that money pouring out of the country stay in domestic circulation.

There's an interesting NOVA program called Making Stuff Cleaner that discusses different battery technology both for cars and also power plant storage.