Can you elaborate on that, please? Everything that I have have read indicates that NiMH and Lithium-Ion batteries, especially those used in car battery packs, are easily recyclable.
The short range wouldn’t be bad if it didn’t take all night to recharge. And thankfully, quick-recharge technologies seem very feasible.
Just fighting ignorance some here.
If you sell a Zero Emission Vehicle in the state of California, then they are required to have an emissions warranty of 15 years or 150,000 miles.
pdf warning
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/overview.pdf
What killed the electric car?
This and the fact that you can recharge a gas tank in 5 minutes, but lead acid batteries take much longer. Short range and long recharge time makes them much less useful than internal combustion.
On the other hand, any battery disposal issues are minor, especially balancing with the waste issues from drilling, pumping, and refining oil. It’s the kind of objection raised by opponents of a project who have decided they don’t like it for ideological reasons, and are looking for excuses to condemn it.
And even if you’re powering your electric car from a fossil fuel generating plant, it’s still more efficient and less polluting for any pollutant than using that fossil fuel in internal combustion automobiles.
This is exactly what I am talking about. You are conflating the idea that I can have a viable electric car with the idea that the electric car has to meet every driver’s needs and gasoline engines will be gone.
I drive more than 60 miles per day about once every 6 months. I do not need a car that can drive 300 miles on a “tank”, nor one that I can refuel as fast as I can at a gas pump. It doesn’t matter that I might have to pay more for the car, or that poor people can’t afford it. It doesn’t matter that the government is subsidizing it, either.
The only market-relevant facts are that it will do the type of driving I need, and it will cost me considerably less to operate. My driving habits are not so minority that there isn’t any room in the market for an electric car, especially as fuel prices keep going up and people are becoming more environmentally conscious.
No one is going to come pry your F-150 out of your cold, gasoline-scented hands. There is zero reason that an electric car can’t be a practical alternative for a substantial portion of drivers.
ETA: The range of most electric cars is more like 200 miles than 20, by the way.
You shouldn’t necessarily restrict the discussion to batteries: There are some capacitor technologies working their way through labs right now that, once they mature a bit more, might be able to replace batteries in an electric car. Apparently, they can both hold greater energy densities, and be recharged quicker, than batteries: The main hurdle now is getting the price down.
It’s also not out of the question, though I don’t see it happening any time soon, that we might eventually see infrastructure to deliver power to cars on the road (either through third-rail or catenary wire type connections that a driver could connect to, or inductive couplers underneath the road surface). Obviously these wouldn’t be installed everywhere a car could go (since a car can go pretty much everywhere), but if just the interstates were wired, that’d go a long way to extending an electric car’s range.
Seems like it would be prudent to have a spare battery charging in the garage. You could swap it quickly (there’s your 5 minute “refuel” time) and it would also double as an emergency spare in case your primary went bad. It would probably be too heavy for most people to lift unaided, so you’d need a custom dolly or something. And you can’t carry it around with you. The added cost would be a downside.
Actually, what’s so bad about an all-night recharge? You’re not driving while you’re sleeping, are you? As long as the range you get from an all-night charge is enough to get you to and from work with some margin of error, it’s enough. And you could double the range if you can also charge it at your parking place at work, which doesn’t seem implausible.
Actually, that’s one of the more interesting proposals. When you pull into a “gas station” you don’t recharge, you just swap the whole battery pack under you. It is huge, but there’s a crane for that. An intriguing benefit is that the pack’s limited lifespan (another downside to batteries) is no longer your problem. And when you buy the car, you don’t have to pay for the pack! (that is, up front)
But with both this and the electrified road idea, there’s the sense that in 10 years we’ll figure out the battery chem and all this investment in infrastructure will be worthless. (Besides the general groans to doing something new like this on a large scale.) It’s all quite a pickle.
I remember reading a few years ago about proposed fuel cell solutions in which you’d pump out the current mixture and top up with a charged version at a filling station and there you go instant recharge… Also much higher energy density than batteries… whats happened to these solutions, why is everyone still focusing on batteries?
I’m reading now that some fuel cells even worked on gasoline.
That’s kind of the way hydrogen cells would work-- you’ve got a chemical cell that generates electricity and you just refill it with hydrogen sort of like you would fill a regular car with gas. From an energy policy point of view this has the same advantages and disadvantages as an electric car (you have to use electricity to generate the hydrogen), but solves the energy density and refueling issues. I personally think hydrogen cells are the most likely long term replacement for fossil-fuel powered vehicles.
Since the thread has sort of devolved a bit, I’d just like to make another point about EV’s in general. Cars like the EV-1 are only able to achieve the charge range and speeds they do because they are very light, very aerodynamic and have very low rolling resistance. In my mind, if you’re trying to bridge the gap between fossil fuels and whatever future technology (maybe hydrogen, maybe just better EV’s), I think there is much more to be gained by just sticking a small diesel in there and having a car that gets triple digit fuel economy and is cheap enough to be sold in volume now.
Yeah but I was thinking of non-hydrogen fuel cells. found them:
I agree with the most part that the electric motor is the way to go. The Chevy Volt has a back up petroleum based engine that can charge the batteries to run the motor.
A small ICE with the proper tuning can run up to the proper temp and RPM to provide its optimal performance to charge the batteries. Couple that with a variable speed transmission (if the drive motor even needs it) and I see the best of both worlds. And be able to charge it overnight.
And be able to use the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) to charge and ‘fill up’ the batteries for the motor. A diesel will chug along for years if you need it too.
I really think that current hybrids are missing the boat on all of this. You could not plug in and recharge any of them over night.
Current Hybrids are using the ICE as motive power when batteries run low instead of charging batteries. An Internal Combustion Engine does its best work at constant RPM. Let it run at its optimum power and RPM. I think the ICE would better be used as a way to transfer energy to the batteries for the motor, instead of directly to the transmission.
That’s what the Chevy Volt does. I hope it works.
Mom calls and said that Dad had a heart attack and won’t last much longer. You had better get here quick if you want to say your goodbyes. Oops, the car isn’t charged.
But I think the larger question here is Why would a consumer want to make that switch?
Ok, sure, an electric car would be good enough to make my daily commute. I don’t need a 400 mile range for most applications. Check.
But why would I purposely choose to pay more for something which performs poorer?
It would be like saying that instead of your current printer, you can buy one that prints 2 pages per minute and costs $5000. You complain, but others point out that the average print job is only one page and you really don’t need all of that speed.
Is that really an accurate comparison? Do EV’s really cost 50 times more than ICE cars? I haven’t gone EV shopping so I don’t know.
Of course the ink cartridges for my $99 HP printer are $49, so that might be a good analogy of the battery cost compared to the cost of the vehicle itself.
For whatever it’s worth. It doesn’t appear that the article was disputed.
The suspects
The later portion of the film is organized around the following hypothesized culprits in the downfall of the electric car, with verdict of each suspect given at the end of the film:
Consumers
Lots of ambivalence to new technology, unwillingness to compromise on decreased range and increased cost for improvements to air quality and reduction of dependence on foreign oil. Although these allegations are made about consumers by industry reps in the film, perhaps explaining the film’s “guilty” verdict, the actual consumers interviewed in the film were either unaware an electric car was available, or dismayed that they could no longer obtain one.
Verdict: Guilty
Batteries
Limited range (60 - 70 miles) and reliability in the first EV1s to ship, but better (110 - 160 miles) later. Research says the average driving distance of Americans in a day is 30 miles or less and that 90% of Americans could use electric cars in their daily commute.* The film also showed that the company who had supplied batteries for EV1 had been suppressed from announcing the improved batteries that can double the range of EV1, and General Motors had sold the supplier’s majority control share to an oil company.* Towards the end of the film, an engineer explains that, as of the interview, lithium ion batteries, the same technology available in laptops, would have allowed the EV1 to be upgraded to a range of 300 miles per charge.
Verdict: Not Guilty
Oil companies
Fearful of losing business to a competing technology, they supported efforts to kill the ZEV mandate. They also bought patents to prevent modern NiMH batteries from being used in US electric cars. The film also used the crash of oil prices in 1980s as an example of foreign governments and oil companies trying to keep customers from moving towards independence from oil.
Verdict: Guilty
Car companies
The film submits that GM engaged in negative marketing of the EV1, including customer surveys which emphasized drawbacks to electronic vehicle technology which were not present in the EV1. CARB officials were quoted claiming that they removed their zero emission vehicle quotas in part because they gave weight to such surveys purportedly showing no demand existing for the EV1s. Other charges included, sabotaging their own product program, failure to produce cars to meet existing demand, unusual business practices with regards to leasing versus sales. The film showed an explanation that electric cars needed fewer expensive repairs, so the car dealers would not make as much money over the long term as gasoline-powered cars.
The film also describes the history of automaker efforts to destroy competing technologies, such as their destruction through front companies of public transit systems in the United States in the early 20th century. In addition of EV1, the film also showed Toyota RAV4 EV, Honda EV Plus were being cancelled by their respective car companies, with the crushing of Honda EV Plus gained attention only after a PBS interview. On the other hand, the film claimed Japanese government supported the production of Toyota Prius as a response to the American EV1 program.
The filmmakers suggested that GM did not immediately channel its technological progress with the EV1 into other projects following its cancellation, instead letting the technology languish while focusing on more immediately profitable enterprises such as traditional SUVs. In one interview, the film mentioned that only by government legislation, automakers began to introduce important safety and emissions innovations including seat belts, airbags and catalytic converters.
Though GM cited cost as a deterrent to continuing with the EV1, the film interviewed critics contending that the cost of batteries and electric vehicles would have been reduced significantly if mass production began, due to economies of scale.
Verdict: Guilty
Government
The federal government joined in the auto industry suit against California, has failed to act in the public interest to limit pollution and require increased fuel economy, has promoted the purchase of vehicles with poor fuel efficiency through preferential tax breaks, and has redirected alternative fuel research from electric towards hydrogen.
Verdict: Guilty
California Air Resources Board
The CARB, headed by Alan Lloyd, caved to industry pressure and repealed the ZEV mandate. Lloyd was given the directorship of the new fuel cell institute, creating an inherent conflict of interest. Footage shot in the meetings showed how he shut down the ZEV proponents while giving the car makers all the time they wanted to make their points.
**Verdict: Guilty
**
Hydrogen fuel cell
The hydrogen fuel cell was presented by the film as an alternative that distracts attention from the real and immediate potential of electric vehicles to an unlikely future possibility embraced by automakers, oil companies and a pro-business administration in order to buy time and profits for the status quo. The film backs up the claim that hydrogen vehicles are a mere distraction by stating that “A fuel cell car powered by hydrogen made with electricity uses 3 to 4 times more energy than a car powered by batteries” and by interviewing the author of The Hype About Hydrogen, who lists 5 problems he sees with hydrogen vehicles (these are his paraphrased claims, along with exact quotations):
1. Current fuel cell cars cost an average of $1,000,000. This cost, in his words, "has gotta drop."
2. Current materials cannot store enough hydrogen in a reasonable space to "give you the range people want."
3. Hydrogen fuel is "wildly expensive." In his words "even hydrogen from dirty fossil fuels is two or three times more expensive than gasoline."
4. The need for an entire new fueling infrastructure. He claims "someone's gonna have to build at least ten or twenty thousand hydrogen fueling stations, before anybody is going to be interested."
5. Competing technologies will improve over time as well. "You have to hope and pray that the competitors in the marketplace don't get any better. Because right now the best car in the marketplace just got a lot better, the hybrid vehicle..."
Verdict: Guilty
Tesla just did 313 miles on regular roads (not a test track) on one charge, I think they averaged 55mph.
They are a little pricey at 100k, but the “cheap” 50k model is coming out soon.
Depends on how you define perform.
Tesla: 0 to 60 in 3.7 seconds.
How is something like that suppressed? If I am a company that has just achieved a doubling of capacity in my batteries, I’m going to register my patent and call up the networks. How in this day and age is information like that kept quiet?