Question - Any interest in bolt in Pre engineered Electric Drive Lines for FFR Kits?

[Oppenheimer]

drgrieve, about how much would those batteries and motor, etc, for each of those examples, weigh? I would be interested in comparing the performance potential of these setups with the TDi option FFR intends to offer (and comparing the weight to TDi).

While I am interested in electric drive, and its certainly a space where there is still room to pioneer things, the economics are difficult to surmount. Even if the weight of the TDi drivetrain (motors, trans, fuel, etc) were equivalent to electric drivetrain (motor, batteries, etc), and if the power were similar, the difference in cost of $14K electric vs cost of a TDi drivetrain, would buy a whole lot of fuel. The ROI would be a really long time. Then factor in range for each solution...

[kach22i]

An electric FFR-818 would be grand, however I've started to play with a different idea lately. Take 3 or 4, 20 hp -26 hp peak pancake motors to drive a 3-wheeled or 4-wheeled car (drive each wheel independently). Right now I'm looking at tandem seating, open narrow wheels with guards, and a teardrop shaped body or pod in the middle. Very different than any of the entries, and I'm fitting the FFR template more or less, but did move the driver up a bit.

My 1986 Diesel VW Golf had 80 hp, the design I'm working on will scream with similar hp (not as safe - not the way I would drive it).

The best electric car design will be a clean sheet design, just say'n.

[drgrieve]

Thanks, drgrieve. It's good to have an expert on this thread. I was wondering if you have an EV dyno to show us; as I know ICE HP /= EV HP. Though 180 HP is enough to burn rubber all day long, to get equivalent 1/4 mile times from an ICE, you'd need closer to (my guess) 220 Hp. Is that right?

I'm actually not an expert at all, just a fan of electric drive.

It's hard to compare EV vs ICE HP as the torque curves are different. An EV will be better 0-60 with the immense starting torque. ICE engines will rev higher and produce torque in a narrow band, but if you keep the revs up via gearing gives you incredible power.

I've shown weight - I think the options would be 50 to 100 kg above stock weight when fully fuelled.

You can of course go cheaper if you'll willing to invest your time. Take a 9 or 11 inch forklift motor for $500 and run it at 144v. Build your own controller from a kit for $600. You'd still need $5k of batteries and you'd get a bit less performance compared to option 1.

[Xusia]

You can of course go cheaper if you'll willing to invest your time. Take a 9 or 11 inch forklift motor for $500 and run it at 144v. Build your own controller from a kit for $600. You'd still need $5k of batteries and you'd get a bit less performance compared to option 1.

Instead of $5k worth of batteries, what about a smaller batter pack, and an on-board generator? This has been mentioned elsewhere on the forum and to me seems like a good way to get:
1)Better efficiency--the generator doesn't have to be sized to provide full power to the motor(s) (that's what the small battery pack is for), because at least in normal driving you aren't stomping the pedal all the time. Also, a generator can be made more efficient because it doesn't need to provide power over a broad RPM range.

2)Increased range--because you aren't 100% reliant on the batteries. As long as the car can do a reasonable speed like 70mph on the generator alone it should have the range of a conventional gas-driven car.

3)Decreased cost--Generators don't cost a lot (especially compared to batteries), and are typically much easier to maintain than many traditional automotive engines.

So why don't we see more of this type of car? To me, it seems like the perfect bridge between conventional gas-driven cars, and all-electric vehicles, until the battery technology reaches a point where an all-electric vehicle is more practical.

[drgrieve]

Instead of $5k worth of batteries, what about a smaller batter pack, and an on-board generator?

Problem is to power the electric motor you need a certain base amount of batteries to produce an acceptable amount of grunt.

I'd expect that anyone looking at this car wouldn't want a to build a slug.

So I've shown the bare minimum number of batteries to give bang for buck - they will be stressed under high load, but will be fine when cruising.

Now if you want to extend the range then you'd need to add a generator on top or add more batteries.

Another approach is to use a fast charger to give you back 15 miles per 10 minutes charging.

So things aren't ideal but certainty possible and definitely able to produce an exciting ride.

Also it would help the builder if the chassis was designed for electric drive from the get go instead of a retrofit - but that is R&D time and money. I'm sure if you talked to the right people they'd come up with reasonable ideas - ie belly pan battery pack for extremely low centre of gravity (aka Tesla roadster).

[DrieStone]

Instead of $5k worth of batteries, what about a smaller batter pack, and an on-board generator?

I am not a believer in hybrids (or at least gas/electric hybrids), regardless of their setup. I question the logic of adding two power plants and two power/fuel supplies. You're carrying around a 200lb insurance policy against running out of charge. I sort of question the logic of the whole thing, especially when a good diesel will perform better in many cases (and for less of a premium).

I feel like pure electric cars are a slightly different animal. Especially if the premium for going electric could be narrowed to say within $2k of building a gasoline version it really makes sense. It doesn't sound like its quite there though if we're looking at $9k + whatever non-powertrain parts that we'd still need from the Impreza.

I think I'll build the gasoline powered "fun" 818, and if that goes well, I'd consider the "green" 818 and going electric instead of diesel with it.

[Oppenheimer]

Instead of $5k worth of batteries, what about a smaller batter pack, and an on-board generator? This has been mentioned elsewhere on the forum and to me seems like a good way to get:
1)Better efficiency--the generator doesn't have to be sized to provide full power to the motor(s) (that's what the small battery pack is for), because at least in normal driving you aren't stomping the pedal all the time. Also, a generator can be made more efficient because it doesn't need to provide power over a broad RPM range.

2)Increased range--because you aren't 100% reliant on the batteries. As long as the car can do a reasonable speed like 70mph on the generator alone it should have the range of a conventional gas-driven car.

3)Decreased cost--Generators don't cost a lot (especially compared to batteries), and are typically much easier to maintain than many traditional automotive engines.

So why don't we see more of this type of car? To me, it seems like the perfect bridge between conventional gas-driven cars, and all-electric vehicles, until the battery technology reaches a point where an all-electric vehicle is more practical.

Why indeed. Here is my series hybrid idea (not for 818, for a production car). Its basically your idea above, but with two ICE generators. One just powerful enough to cruise all day long at like 75 mph. The other larger, for use when demand increases beyond that. These ICE's would incorporate the 'instant start' technology that is being used in some hybrids. They would also be stratified charge (regular gas, but diesel ignition), which gets way better mileage, but can currently only be made to operate effeciently in a tight rpm range (but that is fine for a generator).

You have some batteries, but mostly as a buffer to store some charge to cover the hole when you floor it and the second generator hasn't kicked in yet. You also add a zillion capacitors, which you squirel away in every nook and cranny, for the same buffer effect.

Your range is unlimited (just fill up again). Your highway mileage is out of this world (keep it legal and you are only running a very small generator optmized for the rpm & load). Come to hill, the batteries and capacitors fill the gap, until the ECU realizes its not going to be enough, so it fires up the the second generator. You want to do triple digit speeds for extended periods? We got that covered, but its going to cost you fuel running that second gerator for extended periods. But you can do it all day long.

Around town you've got the small generator keeping the batteries and caps charged at the light, which are sized enough to get you back up to speed without needing the second generator. You get up to 30, the small generator has enough to keep you going plus some left over to keep the batts & caps good. You want to floor it off the line? No problem, second generator again.

You have all the range of a normal ICE vehicle (more, the mileage is so good), all the performance (more, you've got all that electric torque off the line). You've got unbelievable hwy mileage, and pretty decent city, too. Yes, you are carrying the weight of second generator around when you don't use it much, but does it weigh more than a full bank of batteries in a 'normal' hybrid? You've also got extra complexity, but is it more complex than all those batteries?

The caps might be enough, might not need batteries at all. That would eliminate the huge batt cost, not to mention cost to replace them, how to recycle them, not to mention their weight.

Since its all electric power, you could drive all 4 wheels (AWD), stuff like torque vectoring, traction control, launch control, etc, is all just lines of software code.

Yes, two generators would be costly, but compared to batteries? heavy, but compared to batteries? Complex, but compared to batteries? This idea gives you all the advantages of ICE, plus all of the advantages of a hybrid, with few of the drawbacks of either.

I'm sure there are things I'm not considering. So if you know why this idea won't work, plus speak up.

[Xusia]

Driestone,

I don't know that I agree with that assessment. As I see it, the main issue with all electric vehicles at the moment is range (because of the poor energy density of batteries), and until that problem is solved, all electric vehicles will never be a primary mode of transportation for most people (keep in mind a lot of people can't afford multiple vehicles...). To get any kind of decent range, you need a larger, heavier battery pack. Even then, it's often hours to restore full range. That just doesn't cut it in the real world for most people (at least in my opinion).

In the scenario I mentioned above, the battery pack is much smaller - sized to function more like a capacitor in order to provide short range, power to the vehicle when stopped, and deliver a surge of power when needed (more than the generator would be capable of), but not sustain it for long (because how often do you really drive with the accelerator floored all the time?). Yes, the weight of the battery pack would be replaced by a generator and fuel, but what you get in return is both range and self sufficiency (because if you have an on board generator, you don't need a charging station).

Also, there is a very large difference in design, and therefore efficiency (among other things), between an engine that is intended to power a car's drive-train, and an engine that's intended to function as a generator. Oh, and I didn't mention it, but I think the ideal generator *IS* diesel powered, not gas. And of course, the generator would only function when necessary. Admittedly, this would likely be at least 50% of the time, probably more

Such a design allows us to continue the development and improvement of all electric drive-trains and battery technology, while being able to utilize our existing [gas station] infrastructure and removing the range problem. (Making it a potentially more fitting choice for the masses)

[Xusia]

Oppenheimer,

I thought about that too. But I reasoned (perhaps incorrectly) that a single, higher capacity generator would be nearly as efficient if only run when the batteries were low, and that the overall weight of a single generator with a small battery pack would be less than 2 generators. Also, without relying somewhat on batteries, technology development in that area could stagnate.

I want to emphasize, to me this isn't a long term solution. It's a stop gap / transitionary measure. Ultimately, I would hope we would develop the battery technology - or alternative power generation technology - to replace the gas or diesel generator.

[BipDBo]

How about this for a hybrid setup. One car in you driveway runs on gas, the other electric. Use the electric when you know you're driving 80 miles or less.

[bromikl]

Opp, capacitors are many times more expensive than chemical batteries of the same capacity. For quicker charging (i.e, braking) one could charge them in parallel, then switch to series (higher voltage) for driving the wheels.

LiOh technology is used in the quick-charge batteries you'll find in power tools. High current capacity, and keeps the same voltage through 80% of the discharge cycle. Also good power density for batteries, but nowhere near the power density of gas or diesel.

[Oppenheimer]

Its that power density that I generally dislike about electric vehicles, or hybrids with batteries. Its their weight (plus environmental impact of manufacture, and disposing when they are used up). That plus 'fill up'. With batteries that is a long charge cycle (even quick charge is way longer than a fuel fill-up).

So while we're waiting for electric storage mediums to catch up, my thought was to use a multi-staged Series Hybrid approach. Its kinda the same concept as those vehicles that can shut down cylinders when not needed. But it tries to leverage the capability of hyper efficient ICE technologies. Many of these limit the rpm power range, but that is fine for a generator. Instead of shutting down cylinders (which still has most of the same friction losses), multiple stages of generators are used.

Since level, steady-state hwy cruising requires only a fraction of the capacity of a vehicle, down sizing a power source optimised for that load should be very efficient. There just needs to be some sort of reserve capacity for all the other times that more power is needed. That need is very unpredictable, so ideally that reserve needs to not be duration limited.

[DrieStone]

Driestone,

I don't know that I agree with that assessment. As I see it, the main issue with all electric vehicles at the moment is range (because of the poor energy density of batteries), and until that problem is solved, all electric vehicles will never be a primary mode of transportation for most people (keep in mind a lot of people can't afford multiple vehicles...). To get any kind of decent range, you need a larger, heavier battery pack. Even then, it's often hours to restore full range. That just doesn't cut it in the real world for most people (at least in my opinion).

In the scenario I mentioned above, the battery pack is much smaller - sized to function more like a capacitor in order to provide short range, power to the vehicle when stopped, and deliver a surge of power when needed (more than the generator would be capable of), but not sustain it for long (because how often do you really drive with the accelerator floored all the time?). Yes, the weight of the battery pack would be replaced by a generator and fuel, but what you get in return is both range and self sufficiency (because if you have an on board generator, you don't need a charging station).

Also, there is a very large difference in design, and therefore efficiency (among other things), between an engine that is intended to power a car's drive-train, and an engine that's intended to function as a generator. Oh, and I didn't mention it, but I think the ideal generator *IS* diesel powered, not gas. And of course, the generator would only function when necessary. Admittedly, this would likely be at least 50% of the time, probably more

Such a design allows us to continue the development and improvement of all electric drive-trains and battery technology, while being able to utilize our existing [gas station] infrastructure and removing the range problem. (Making it a potentially more fitting choice for the masses)

Obviously hybrids are here to stay, but I seriously question their long-term environmental effect (what's the impact of manufacturing the extra components, plus the disposal)? From a cost-savings stand-point it makes no sense. My father in-law recently bought a Camry hybrid (I despise Toyotas by the way). It has a $8k premium above the 4cylinder, only gets about 6-8MPG better milage, has a bit more horsepower (but I bet performance is comparable). By my calculations, gasoline would have to top $10/gal, and you'd have to drive more than 100k miles in the car before it started to save you money. I just don't understand why anyone buys these things.

There's no question that the big problem with electric only vehicles is that you can run out of charge somewhere that you can't recharge (or that you don't have time to recharge). We're years away from some kind of a solution that is as easy as "topping off the tank" in 5 minutes. Yes, hybrid is a reasonable stop-gap for some people, but it's an idea based on laziness (I want electric, I want to be efficient, but I'm used to the way my gasoline car goes and I don't want to change).

The Volt gets what, 40 miles on a charge? I wonder what the cost of carrying around the fuel, engine, etc. is to the car. Could it drive 50 miles if it didn't have the gasoline setup? How many people only need the gasoline engine to make it 45 miles? Maybe there are people who buy the Volt and drive 100 miles between charges. I'm sure they get good milage if you average their trip out, but I might suggest that the Volt was the wrong car to buy for them.

I realize this is all my own opinion, and I'd even admit that it's a little crazy that I seem to dislike hybrids, but I'm excited about all-electric. Chalk it up to my little insanity (and the fact that "hybrid" seems to be a status symbol).


As an aside, speaking of gimmicks, our fuel economy would go up if we'd stop shoving Ethanol into our cars. I think we're up to 10% now, and they're talking about 15%.

[bromikl]

Opp, I'm advocating for a small battery pack with enough power to go 5 or 10 miles (approx. 1/8 of the Chevy Volt's battery capacity.) For most of the trips I take, I'd never even have to start up the generator.

At highway speeds, the generator would supply all the power needed. Ideally, the battery would be on a slow charge at the same time. If I decide to take it up to 100 MPH, I could do so for short distances on reserve battery power.

I suspect such a small battery pack would weigh less than another generator, and be much less complicated to build. In other words, all the abilities of your suggestion - and a couple more - with fewer drawbacks.

[Oppenheimer]

DrieStone, you're not crazy (or we both are). I feel pretty much the same way about dual drivetrain hybrids (when did 'Hybrid' morph from meaning dual-drivetrain to anything that uses electric drive but not exclusively batteries to supply the electricity?)

bromikl, I think your post demonstrates why we need more than one solution. Few of the trips I take in a week are just 5 - 10 miles. Your solution would work great for you, but for me I'd use up the batteries in short order, then waste a bunch of gas hauling around their dead weight the rest of the trip. It seems like the solution really needs to be several solutions, to meet the varying needs we all have.

I think a lot of the downside with all electric is what happens when you 'run out of gas'. Every trip you take you have to be planning how long you can stay out, how you will get back home to recharge. Every drive is like a SCUBA dive, you have to have a plan how long you'll stay down, how much air you'll use, your safety margin, your decompression time, etc. People want to be able to hop in and drive. I think this is what Chevy had in mind with the Volt. You can just fill up with gas and keep going as far as you like.

If there were an electric 'fueling station' infrastructure, as many as there are gas stations, where you could pull up, and swap out your dead batteries for charged ones (like you can with your gas grill propane tank), I think people would be OK with the limited range of electric (well, once it gets closer to how far you can go on a full tank of gas). There would have to be a battery standard, there would have to robot arms that did the heavy lifting to swap them out, but until we have something like that, people are not going to be so willing to make the switch (charging stations aren't enough, too long to recharge).

We have public transportation now that people don't use. Why? What if I get to work, then find out I need to make a 100 mile trip, right NOW? What if I'm at work, and find I need to run an errand nearby? (In my area, people typically live 30+ miles from work). With my car, I hop in and go. Public transport imposes limits that many are not willing to accept. All electric (no matter the range) imposes its own limits. Yes, some people DO take public transport every day. Some pople WILL drive all electric cars. But not everyone will until they solve, not just the range, but the 'refill' issue.

[Xusia]

Exactly!

opp, i'm advocating for a small battery pack with enough power to go 5 or 10 miles (approx. 1/8 of the chevy volt's battery capacity.) for most of the trips i take, i'd never even have to start up the generator.

At highway speeds, the generator would supply all the power needed. Ideally, the battery would be on a slow charge at the same time. If i decide to take it up to 100 mph, i could do so for short distances on reserve battery power.

I suspect such a small battery pack would weigh less than another generator, and be much less complicated to build. In other words, all the abilities of your suggestion - and a couple more - with fewer drawbacks.

[Xusia]

DrieStone, hybrids aren't here to stay - they are a stop gap measure. Like you, I don't know why anyone would buy a Camry Hybrid based on the information you've supplied (I didn't check it, but I assume it's accurate). However, what I'm talking about ISN'T a hybrid. A hybrid, by definition, has 2 drive-trains: Gas (or diesel) and electric. The Volt isn't a hybrid because it only has 1 drive-train: Electric. It also happens to have an onboard generator, and that generator happens to be powered by gas, but that doesn't make it a hybrid. Don't let the fact that the generator is powered by gas fool you. If the Volt had a different type of electrical generation, like solar or hydrogen power cell, calling it a hybrid wouldn't even enter your mind.

The difference between what I proposed and the Volt, is as bromikl stated: A much smaller battery pack. I have no idea how efficient the generator on a Volt is, but such a car should have a highly efficient one - probably diesel powered.

I really think this would work!

My concept is simila

[bromikl]

The word 'hybrid' today means any vehicle which stores energy as gas and electric. Sorry the word got redefined on you. But why does dual fuel have to mean dual drive train?

I understand 5 miles isn't enough for most people - the design I propose would have unlimited mileage by refilling with diesel fuel. And if you charge up whenever you're parked, the first five miles *of every trip* are free. (O.K. - almost free - the electricity would cost a few cents - though much less than the equivalent energy as liquid fuel.) After that, the batteries would recover some of the kinetic energy when stopping, and continuously recharge while the generator is running (unless accelerating or traveling at 80+ MPH.) When the battery is full, the driver may decide shut down the generator for a few miles, avoiding the frictional losses of the ICE.

[bromikl]

... We're years away from some kind of a solution that is as easy as "topping off the tank" in 5 minutes.

We're not; really: http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/37982/ Israel is the first to get it, from a company in California!

"...battery swap stations, where an automated system switches out a depleted battery for a fully-charged one in less than five minutes. Instead of owning the batteries, the car owners buy subscriptions for a certain number of kilometers of driving per year.

...the company has 20,000 individual customers on a waiting list to buy the cars, and 70,000 tentative orders from fleet customers. "That's nearly half the car market for Israel,"

[olpro]

To make a swappable battery pack, you have just added about 100 pounds to the structure of the vehicle.

[olpro]

Electric power has revolutionized radio control airplanes in the last several years. The new technology, in this case primarily Li-poly, nonetheless has a serious safety problem and many RC flyers have paid with their lack of care in charging and maintaining these things by losing their cars and even their homes. Because of these problems, the casing on the battery pack becomes a major issue and it is not likely to be light weight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-AoAYrEy-o
The safety issues of electric power is largely ignored by the "green" press. The recycling and REPLACEMENT issues are also largely ignored and this makes a huge difference in the equation of whether this technology delivers any actual financial advantages.

[bromikl]

The safety issues of electric power is largely ignored by the "green" press. The recycling and REPLACEMENT issues are also largely ignored and this makes a huge difference in the equation of whether this technology is worth messing with.

It's a developing science. In the days of the Model T, there were safety issues too. That's where we are with EV's right now.

Not to nit-pick, but the cost, health, and safety issues of the oil industry are almost always overlooked. The true costs are shifted through tax giveaways, health care costs, and the price we pay for our military to protect our oil supply chain.

[DrieStone]

DrieStone, hybrids aren't here to stay - they are a stop gap measure. Like you, I don't know why anyone would buy a Camry Hybrid based on the information you've supplied (I didn't check it, but I assume it's accurate). However, what I'm talking about ISN'T a hybrid. A hybrid, by definition, has 2 drive-trains: Gas (or diesel) and electric. The Volt isn't a hybrid because it only has 1 drive-train: Electric. It also happens to have an onboard generator, and that generator happens to be powered by gas, but that doesn't make it a hybrid. Don't let the fact that the generator is powered by gas fool you. If the Volt had a different type of electrical generation, like solar or hydrogen power cell, calling it a hybrid wouldn't even enter your mind.

The difference between what I proposed and the Volt, is as bromikl stated: A much smaller battery pack. I have no idea how efficient the generator on a Volt is, but such a car should have a highly efficient one - probably diesel powered.

I really think this would work!

My concept is simila

Actually I was very disappointed in Chevy. If you do a little research, the Volt is no different than the Prius (in as far as the wheels can be powered by both the electric or the gasoline power plant). The gasoline engine is not disconnected from the driveline (http://www.insideline.com/chevrolet/...a-true-ev.html), so that's a failure on GM's part (honestly I was very disappointed in the Volt in general, at least it's a little sexier than the Prius).

I have to assume that the change of direction was based on some kind of engineering research that probably proved that it was more efficient to have the gasoline engine directly power the wheels where needed. It makes sense. I don't know what the losses are from engine -> generator -> batteries, but I wouldn't be surprised if you lose 20% in that transition.

I'm really not trying to be the crazy here (really). Its not that I don't see that there could be some value to a hybrid, but even in a mass-production car I question its value. I can't imagine the expense and the effort to build a DIY hybrid. That said, I encourage any of you to give it a try (and no, that's not sarcasm).

[DrieStone]

The safety issues of electric power is largely ignored by the "green" press. The recycling and REPLACEMENT issues are also largely ignored and this makes a huge difference in the equation of whether this technology delivers any actual financial advantages.

This is what concerns me about Hybrids and why I think the positive environmental impact of hybrids is a load of crap. Ironically it doesn't bother me as much about all-electric... but then again apparently I'm a little batty.

[olpro]

In spite of the fact that I might appear negative to electric, I would seriously consider a nice two-place electric 'city car' with a 40-50 mile range. That would suit 90% of my needs.

[Xusia]

I too, am for all electric vehicles. I just also realize that at least for me, given the current technology / offerings, an all electric vehicle just isn't a viable option (for several reasons). I wish it was.

[Xusia]

In spite of the fact that I might appear negative to electric, I would seriously consider a nice two-place electric 'city car' with a 40-50 mile range. That would suit 90% of my needs.

Agreed. For me - as long as it was cost effective (meaning it can't be a $40,000 affair). I'm thinking $10k or less...

[Tpa65cpe]

Gentelmen; I totally agree with you that "Hybrids" are a stop gap measure and one thing to consider is the fact that all electric is also because approx 90% of the power grid is generated by fossil fuels. Until we as a "People" meaning the entire planet stop relying on fossil fuels we are headed on a course of no return!! As a side note Gollum mentioned Hydrogen as a possible source and I remember somwhere that there was a person in the Clearwater-Largo (Tampa Bay area) that was working on a system that converted water to Hydrogen for fuel and he has already done this for Welding equipment (MIG and Plasma),this was shown to me by a friend about 2YRS ago. His next step was to apply this TECH to the AUTO industry as a retrofit kit for your car. I think this will be the greatest idea if possible so far because you do not have the "charge time" or the extra weight of Batteries, you dont have to redesign the Auto industry and "Water is cheap" also the most abundant ATOM in the Universe is HYDROGEN !!! Sorry for the Hi-Jack just another NUT-JOB sounding off. P.S. hope that I didnt offend anyone!

[Xusia]

I'm TOTALLY offended!!!

[bromikl]

[thread hijack in progress]

I like hydrogen for energy storage, but it has to be produced somewhere using electricity. There is no naturally occurring hydrogen; as all of it is combined with other elements.

My vote for alternative fuels is nuclear - and before you start, there's a way to do nuclear that has all the benefits with few drawbacks. It's called LFTR (pronounced lifter) and uses thorium as the energy source. A reactor using this technology was operated for years at ORNL in the 60's. They failed to follow through with this technology for political reasons. Now, India and China are spending billions to develop the technology for commercial reactors.

For more info: http://energyfromthorium.com/

[/thread hijack]

[DrieStone]

I like hydrogen for energy storage, but it has to be produced somewhere using electricity. There is no naturally occurring hydrogen; as all of it is combined with other elements.

The problem with hydrogen is that (outside of the cost of creating it), is that hydrogen has to be under a signifiant amount of pressure in order to carry it around in a vehicle. This means that the containment vessel has to be pretty significant. Also, although we can get fires and what I'd call minor explosions (potentially) from gasoline or batteries, hydrogen is a different animal.

My vote for alternative fuels is nuclear - and before you start, there's a way to do nuclear that has all the benefits with few drawbacks. It's called LFTR (pronounced lifter) and uses thorium as the energy source. A reactor using this technology was operated for years at ORNL in the 60's. They failed to follow through with this technology for political reasons. Now, India and China are spending billions to develop the technology for commercial reactors.

Of course as soon as you mention nuclear, it sort of becomes a non-starter. You'd have serious cultural fight. That's not to say it can't happen. Look what happened in Japan, the whole country is running scared from nuclear. Obviously there are some serious concerns about any nuclear technology, but as far as global impact its better than fossil fuels.

Gentelmen; I totally agree with you that "Hybrids" are a stop gap measure and one thing to consider is the fact that all electric is also because approx 90% of the power grid is generated by fossil fuels. Until we as a "People" meaning the entire planet stop relying on fossil fuels we are headed on a course of no return!!

I don't disagree with you there (although 90% of the US power grid is fossil fuels, other countries are different). I don't have any facts, but I have to believe that the environmental impact of even mining coal, processing it, burning it to create electricity, and charging your EV has to be less than the environmental impact of drilling for oil, processing it, and burning it to make your car go (of course I have no facts to back that up).

I do have to say that with an EV, you don't have to be reliant on the power grid. You can also opt (in many areas of the country) to choose where your electricity comes from.

Of course I'm the type of person who pays a little extra to try to get his power from wind, and I pay for carbon offsets for my house and cars. Its not much, but I really worry about the state of humanity for the next 100 years.

That said... I want a fast car!

[Xusia]

There are also nuclear batteries being developed that are totally safe. They are still several years away, but they already have working proof of concepts. They predict a battery the size of a quarter could power a mobile phone for years. I don't recall reading if the technology was suitable for cars or not.

[Psay]

I believe you have a very valid point regarding the generation of electricity for the national grid, at leasst if what I was told below is correct.

I have recently been in a presentation regarding the new Euro6 emission standards that come into effect shortly for all road going vehicles here in Europe. We were shown two identical looking vehicles one was all electric while the other had the Euro6 engine. The statement that was made was and I quote "the total emissions created by a Euro6 car will be less than the electric vehicle assuming that the electric comes from a coal powered power station" (the emissions they were talking about is the fuel been used and not the production of the vehicle). That seems to be a very bold statement but that is what was said.

Now I am not claiming that we should not continue developing electric vehicles. I just thought it would be interesting to you guys on the forum. I cannot claim it is true or otherwise, however, it is a claim made by a large car manufacturer and one that already has a complete electric vehicle on sale.

[RM1SepEx]

I built an 1100 lb reverse trike. It's registered and insured but I don't like the basic fiberglass body so I'm redoing it in .050 aluminum. I can bolt any motorcycle chassis to it at the bulkhead behind the seats.

84 volts 425 amps, 185 amp hr batteries (lead acid) I've cruised at 55 mph and it will do abut 45 miles on a charge. I used a D&D ES-32A-50 Sep-ex and a PowerpaK SEM 80 controller. It has regenerative braking. I can cruise at 55 using about 175 amps so you could do a serial hybrid with a small 16 HP generator using a brushless dc motor and blocking diodes.

This means that basically you can have unlimited range if you run the generator... you drain the battery charge to accelerate and it recharges if you are going slower than 55 , down hill or during braking.

I'm planning on using a small trailer for the generator, I have a 16 HP vanguard vtwin from a household generator.

Now the reality of the situation: A plug in hybrid makes no financial or environmental sense

1, the electrical energy stored in ANY existing battery chemistry is not dense enough. It cost more for storage and charging than the comparable gas use ( the 7500 energy credit would buy enough gas for an economy car to go 75,000 miles!)

2, in most areas the electricity used to charge EV's INCREASES the overall load on the "grid" by definition the last sources used on the grid are the least effecient and dirtiest. Where I live, I can see the smokestack of a bunker C oil fired plant, it's dirtier than any car made over the last 20 years thanks to stupid energy pollution trades of "credits" from cleaner sources

3 I could and will power this same chassis setup with a motorcycle engine. It will out perform the electric by a mile at lower cost.

4 the electric could preform better IF I spent an order of magnatude more for lighter, higher technology batteries.... It would take 200,000 miles of driving to offset the battery cost vs fuel use...

5 why did I build it? because I could, and have wanted to since I graduated from college UMO, BSME, 1981

Think 1 inch square tube space frame with bonded and riveted .050 aluminum panels. You sit beside a central tunnel that houses a full row of the big lead acid batteries.

It's un-nerving to drive, the sound of rocks and sand bouncing off the aluminum and hum of the motor is all that you hear.

Thankfully man made global warming is a fallacy. The earth has never been in a steady state condition and historical records show both warmer and cooler periods without man's influences. The models used by the IPCC have been proven to be faulty and a couple of their basic assumptions are just stupid. (ignoring cloud effects and not assuming increased heat loss to space , at absolute zero when / if the earth's temperature increases)

Should we use less oil, absolutely. The best way to do that... DUH drive lighter cars!

[RM1SepEx]

PS

A bit less than 50% of the US power grid is fossil fuels, not 90%

[themrcul]

I believe you have a very valid point regarding the generation of electricity for the national grid, at leasst if what I was told below is correct.

I have recently been in a presentation regarding the new Euro6 emission standards that come into effect shortly for all road going vehicles here in Europe. We were shown two identical looking vehicles one was all electric while the other had the Euro6 engine. The statement that was made was and I quote "the total emissions created by a Euro6 car will be less than the electric vehicle assuming that the electric comes from a coal powered power station" (the emissions they were talking about is the fuel been used and not the production of the vehicle). That seems to be a very bold statement but that is what was said.

Now I am not claiming that we should not continue developing electric vehicles. I just thought it would be interesting to you guys on the forum. I cannot claim it is true or otherwise, however, it is a claim made by a large car manufacturer and one that already has a complete electric vehicle on sale.

The Euro6 engine itself may be producing less emissions than the entire electric car system (which in their calculation would include producing electricity from fossil fuels, mined, packaged, shipped, burnt, electricity produced, etc).
But that may not be taking into account the *entire petrol producing system* which includes mining, packaging, shipping, transporting, etc). Essentially, not comparing apples to apples. If both systems are compared fairly, the electric car system blows the petrol one out of the water in terms of emissions created. On top of that, electric car systems have the ability to run completely *emissions free* if the electricity is generated from solar, wind or water turbine.
If you want a better/more interesting explanation please see this video about the comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfTiRNzbSko

[Tpa65cpe]

Thanks for the clarification RM1SeptX I was not sure about that % but that is a good thing !! I am for a regeneration type of energy source that is clean and not against electric just the disposal problem of the batteries. As to the hydrogen from what I remember the gentelman was proposing that the unit would not use high pressure storage but supply it on demand from water and if he can do this he will be a billionare!! We as a economy will not have to retrofit an entire auto and power industry. Also the way I remember it when you burn hydrogen you get water. But enough of the ECO-babble, electric power is a good idea when the batteries catch up!! P.S. Xusiua I am offended that you are offended!! (just kidding)

[Xusia]

Lol

[DrieStone]

PS

A bit less than 50% of the US power grid is fossil fuels, not 90%

According to Wolfram Alpha (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i...neration+in+us), 77% of US energy comes from fossil fuels (crude oil, natural gas, and coal). Coal is 1/3 of energy production. Renewable is only about 6% of US production.

[DrieStone]

So if we make everything equal (from an environmental point of view), burning gasoline has an impact far beyond the actual burning of the gasoline. For instance:

What's the cost of extracting the oil, transporting the oil, refining it into gasoline, shipping it to the gas station? How many gallons of oil are consumed, how many kWh are exhausted producing the one gallon of gas that moves you 40 miles (if you're lucky).

Obviously electric for your EV also costs us. I read that it takes 7.5kWh to refine one gallon of gasoline how far would that 7.5kWh get us if we charged up batteries for travel?

I guess my point is that even if we're using coal, which is very bad for the environment, I bet that even charging your EV with that coal produced electricity gets you further than the same electricity used to refine and transport gasoline.

I'll admit that there are too many variables to make a truly valid argument, but its worth considering.