[QUOTE=dropzone]
And then all of the manufacturers would be locked into 2007 technology with a negative incentive to improve on it.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Allowing de-facto standards to emerge is nearly always better than the government (or the special interest groups slipping said government some cash under the table) to dictate what it THINKS will be the best solution.
-XT
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Couple of problems with this (besides what Sam came up with). First, do you have any idea how heavy these things are? Couple of hundred pounds at least. It would be a major under taking unless battery technology some how takes quantum leap in the very near future to remove the drained batteries and then swap in fully charged replacements. Bit more than simply putting in a nozzle into the tank of your car.
Which leads to the second problem…standardization. You’d have to basically not only come up with some kind of standard battery size, shape and interface but force all the manufactures to comply to that standard (since they will all make things there way until some kind of defacto standard emerges). Otherwise your friendly electric refueling station not only would have to stock various sizes and types of battery but also have to have the trained personnel in order to swap them out of various types.
Which brings us to another problem…those trained technicians (with gorilla like arms to move all these heavy batteries). Either that or the huge capital investment in some kind of robotic automation (this is at your local fueling station mind you).
Doesn’t seem very practical to me. I’d say a better way is to either come up with a fast charging, long lived battery or go for the Mr. Fusion solution…
This comment deserves both a :rolleyes: AND a 
for the totality of your lack of understanding.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
As usual your childness shows, Fact is that there is a huge history of standardization in engineering and manufacture. There was a time when something as fundamental as screw threads were non standard. It required Society of Manufacturing and other bodies to be formed to create standards. There is a huge precedent and the organizations that do it are already in place. Standardizing battery sizes and connections would be simple due to the vast historical precedent that automotive component manufacturers have followed. If the big auto manufacturers took on the project standardization would quiclky follow.
There was a company making electric=propelled cars (SOLECTRIA, Wilmington, MA). This company converted gasoline powered GEO METRO cars to electric operation (lead-acid batteries), $35,000 for a small car with a 30-mile range-what sense does that make?
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
There was a company making electric=propelled cars (SOLECTRIA, Wilmington, MA). This company converted gasoline powered GEO METRO cars to electric operation (lead-acid batteries), $35,000 for a small car with a 30-mile range-what sense does that make?
[/QUOTE]
It’s not dependent on gasoline.
Thirty mile range is poor. The vehicle would be practically useless ,unless you lived on Key West. But, that is not the end of development. Already the range has gone up hugely and it will continue.
Some people would buy to feel good that they are doing their best to fight pollution and oil use. The EV1 users loved it.
Auto companies outsource the development of most innovative products, They will subcontract to a company with a strong background in the field and oversee via project managers.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
As usual your childness shows
[/QUOTE]
As does your disrespect for this Forum. Stop with the name-calling and personal insults.
[ /Moderating ]
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
As usual your childness shows, Fact is that there is a huge history of standardization in engineering and manufacture. There was a time when something as fundamental as screw threads were non standard. It required Society of Manufacturing and other bodies to be formed to create standards. There is a huge precedent and the organizations that do it are already in place. Standardizing battery sizes and connections would be simple due to the vast historical precedent that automotive component manufacturers have followed. If the big auto manufacturers took on the project standardization would quiclky follow.
[/QUOTE]
Before you insult people, you might want to make sure that you know what you’re talking about. Xtisme knows about standardization, I assure you. Of COURSE there is standardization of many things - where it makes sense. He drew a distinction between standardization based on market needs, and standards imposed by the government. There is a big, big difference.
You’ll notice that when standards emerge, they are often superceded because the original standard wasn’t up to the changes in technology. You’ll also note that they tend to be more prevalent as the item to be standardized gets simpler. So you get standardized screw heads, thicknesses, and thread counts. Where standards are applied to complex devices or processes, they are often challenged and have to survive in the marketplace by proving to be better or by finding a special niche. So you have competing or multiple standards for communications protocols, factory automation, etc.
When government issues standards, they become immune from competition and are not forced by the market to change as technology and needs change. Thus, you get perverse effects as people work around them. Higher EPA mileage standards created the SUV category of vehicle - an unintended consequence no one predicted.
If you leave the market alone, some aspects of electric batteries probably will become standardized over time - at least between models of the same manufacturer. Things like charging plugs will become standardized because they are simple and there is great need for one type of charging plug.
But setting standards for things like battery capacity and size is like setting a standard that says all cars must have four doors and be exactly 17.5 feet long. It doesn’t meet the needs of the market. The battery requirements for a tiny 2-seat runabout wouldn’t be anything like the requirements for an electric truck. Forcing the truck to use a battery sized for a smart car would require that it carry arrays of such batteries. Make the battery big enough that a truck can reasonably be powered by one or two of them, and the battery is gross overkill for the little car.
Batteries are simply not a one-size-fits-all thing. At the very least, you’d need to have a range of standard sizes, but that would drive up the inventory cost for gas stations dramatically.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
There was a company making electric=propelled cars (SOLECTRIA, Wilmington, MA). This company converted gasoline powered GEO METRO cars to electric operation (lead-acid batteries), $35,000 for a small car with a 30-mile range-what sense does that make?
[/QUOTE]
Your explanation does not actually support your claim.
You have provided an example of one case in which a company is attempting to employ some level of technology to produce a product you would not buy.
You cannot conclude from that single example that “Electric cars make NO Sense!” You can only conclude that in the current level of technology, you consider the price of that particular product to be overpriced and lacking in utility.
To make the claim that “Electric cars make NO Sense,” you need to demonstrate that the technology will never improve to the point where a cheaper car will employ longer-lifed batteries with faster and easier recharging capabilities. Your statement is equivalent to looking at a “pocket calculator” in 1970 that was too large to fit in any pocket, supporting only 8 digits and only the add, subtract, multiply, and divide functions, with no memory, for $425 and claiming that “Pocket Calculators make NO sense!”.
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
As usual your childness shows, Fact is that there is a huge history of standardization in engineering and manufacture. There was a time when something as fundamental as screw threads were non standard. It required Society of Manufacturing and other bodies to be formed to create standards. There is a huge precedent and the organizations that do it are already in place. Standardizing battery sizes and connections would be simple due to the vast historical precedent that automotive component manufacturers have followed. If the big auto manufacturers took on the project standardization would quiclky follow.
[/QUOTE]
This is practically a text book example of your failure to grasp the problem. Certainly standards emerge…its a strawman argument that I ever said differently. The POINT you fail to grasp is that they EMERGE…they aren’t dictated by fiat by the government. Look at the example you used…the screw. At one point various manufacturers used different head and thread sizes…everyone pretty much doing their own thing. EVENTUALLY standard sizes emerged as various manufacturers adopted them to be compatible with other manufacturers (or as manufacturers like auto companies standardized, thus forcing other companies to standardize on certain parameters as well).
Standardized connection and size for batteries would NOT be simple…because simply put there IS no front runner right now dictating that others need to standardize on THEIR model. You’d have to basically dictate size, connect, etc by fiat and then FORCE all the other current developers to accept that model. Throughout the world. Because, you see gonzo, there are a LOT of companies that are developing THEIR vision of what the electric car will or will not be…and these companies aren’t all in the US. In addition there are more markets than the US (so silly/stupid legislation dictating interface and battery size in the US would have little effect on foreign manufacturers, unless you got other nations or organizations like the EU to ALSO adopt them).
Seriously, you need to learn a bit more before calling someone else childish…when your basic grasp of the easy stuff is so tenuous.
-XT
Just echoing what Tom said really but …
We’ve got two curves here.
The first is the cost of ownership of an ICE car, including gasoline, oil changes etc. This is going up fairly steadily and it is likely that worldwide demand increases will continue to outpace worldwide supply increases, which is to say that much higher prices are likely yet to come. You can add into this the price to our world from exces carbon emissions … which may eventually provoke a real dollar and cents cost on the product even if it currently does not.
The second curve is the cost of MJ/$ and per unit weight in battery technology. Here technology has made tremendous strides and will likely continue to do so. Will it be the same progression as has been seen with “Moore’s Law” in transistor research? I don’t know, but the curve is clearly going towards more power for less money and less weight.
These curves are getting closer and they will intersect. The only question is whether that will be closer to two years or ten. My read from the battery makers is that two is much closer to the mark than ten.
Thomas Edison once famously predicted that “more electricity will be sold for electric vehicles than for light.” He may have seen that happening by 1925 and not foreseen the advances made in the ICE, but 100 years late his vision will likely be a reality. (Especially if we all start using those compact flourescents!:))
[QUOTE=xtisme]
This is practically a text book example of your failure to grasp the problem. Certainly standards emerge…its a strawman argument that I ever said differently. The POINT you fail to grasp is that they EMERGE…they aren’t dictated by fiat by the government. Look at the example you used…the screw. At one point various manufacturers used different head and thread sizes…everyone pretty much doing their own thing. EVENTUALLY standard sizes emerged as various manufacturers adopted them to be compatible with other manufacturers (or as manufacturers like auto companies standardized, thus forcing other companies to standardize on certain parameters as well).
Standardized connection and size for batteries would NOT be simple…because simply put there IS no front runner right now dictating that others need to standardize on THEIR model. You’d have to basically dictate size, connect, etc by fiat and then FORCE all the other current developers to accept that model. Throughout the world. Because, you see gonzo, there are a LOT of companies that are developing THEIR vision of what the electric car will or will not be…and these companies aren’t all in the US. In addition there are more markets than the US (so silly/stupid legislation dictating interface and battery size in the US would have little effect on foreign manufacturers, unless you got other nations or organizations like the EU to ALSO adopt them).
Seriously, you need to learn a bit more before calling someone else childish…when your basic grasp of the easy stuff is so tenuous.
-XT
[/QUOTE]
When you quit childish insults and arrrogant snotiness ,you will be worth talking to. The S.A.E. got together years ago and set up manufacturing standards for the building of autos and everything involved in the production. Interchangability was the key . After they did not all die or go stupid. If you are familiar with the internet I am sure you have encountered how quickly it standardized. Even without your great insights they will be capable of something as simple as standardizing We have been througfh it before and long before it is a serious problem. it will be adressed. It not legislation. it was done by manufacturers themselves when they saw the need.
ISO std have made the changes international.
Here you go gonzo…click on the link and get it all off your chest. I’d rather see you do that than get yourself banned. Knock yourself out…
-XT
More in terms of affordibility and on what time scale- the next step is mass manufacture and economies of scale. Already US companies are positioning themselves with Chinese battery producers. A123 Systems has a deal with China BAK
and ChinaBAK is in line to ramp up production for a developing homegrown EV and HEV market
Those same curves will intersect sooner in China, where production costs of the technology will be less and the rising cost of oil significant compared to their massive coal reserves. It may be that EV’s will be China’s big entry into the car market!
(A123 btw is one of the two compaines contracted with GM to submit product for the Volt concept. ChinaBAK is publically traded on the NASDAQ.)
[QUOTE=astorian]
For those who think GM and the oil companies killed the electric car, a question:
Why would the Japanese go along with the plot?
The Japanese have no oil, and they have no major oil producing companies. Electric cars would be a blessing for them. They also have numerous top-notch electronics firms (Matsushita, Sanyo, Sony, et al.) that could make a fortune producing them. So, why didn’t THEY churn out electric cars for domestic consumption, if those cars are as wonderful as Ed Begley Jr. insists?
[/QUOTE]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7816102/ They are on it.