Comments on: In electric car stakes, it's Miles to go
Southern California company joins a host of start-ups hoping consumers will get a charge out of electric-powered sedans.
Most Popular
Latest tech news headlines
- NASA's next frontier: Venus, the moon, or an asteroid
January 2, 2010 3:30 PM PST
- Leaked HP, Gateway 'Core i3' laptops are low-cost
January 2, 2010 11:43 AM PST
- AT&T, Luke Wilson try smaller coverage number
January 2, 2010 9:41 AM PST
- See all headlines
RSS Feeds
Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.
More feeds available in our RSS feed index.
- Markets
Related quotes
The reason I ask is if they are expecting people to have 2 cars - one for commuting and one for longer travel - then people who have an *extra* electric car just for commuting may in fact be using (or be responsible for) more energy derived from petroleum than someone who owns just one traditional gasoline powered compact car. That is, after you take into account BOTH the energy the electric car uses and the energy needed to make the car in the first place, are you really saving energy?
Let me summarize - is owning the two cars more efficient than owning just one small gasoline powered compact after you factor in all the additional energy it takes to create that second car. My suspicion is that its not even close. But it will, I'm sure, appeal to those fashion-enviro's to whom energy efficiency is more of a fashion statement than a real concern.
Once an EV (electric vehicle) is in your driveway, the cost of its energy (electricity) is 25% of the energy cost (gasoline) to drive an ICEV (internal combustion engine vehicle). That's assuming similar performance. The negatives are that the EV has less range and the refueling time (aka recharging time) is measured in hours instead of minutes. Another EV plus though is that you can refuel it in your garage at night ... no trips to the gas station.
To get more range from an EV, you need more batteries, and they are still very expensive. Probably half the cost of the Javlon is its batteries. Demand and volume should eventually help that problem.
In the mean time, one of the most promising vehicles seems to be this concept EV hybrid from GM:
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
By combining an EV with an on-board generator, it provides the best features of an EV and ICEV in one package. GM claims it will be a production vehicle in 2010.
If they can get a traditional size car or SUV to do that I would be IMPRESSED!
I know many people has a second car that is used primarily for commute to and from work. The other bigger car they have is for family travel. Why do you make an assumption that they EXPECT you to have two car? This is what Americans already are doing. Besides that if you don't have the need, DO NOT buy the second car. The average commute is about 40 miles. So a charge that last 120 isn't bad. In addition to that, let's assume that the same amount of energy use to build & drive an electric car, I would still welcome it especially when it reduce dependency on oil and the big company.
So to sum it up.
1. Nobody force you to buy a second car.
2. Diversify use of energy is a good thing even if everything else equals. That make you less dependent on oil and the monopoly of oil companies or the middle east.
3. Not only that, the cost of electricity is significantly less than a gallon of oil at this present time.
Having said that, the idea of running on electric only isn't too appealing. Having to remember charging every other day is tough. And the need for occasionally travel more than 120 miles is welcome. Hybrid car (oil/electric) with battery that hold charge for at least 120 miles is more suitable. Anyway, there are many issues that need to be address before this can become a good alternative solution.
If a family is going to get two (or more) cars, why not make at least one of them really efficient and cheap to run? Electrics are inherently efficient, and "electric fuel" costs much less than petrol.
Also, some people may choose an electric for their only car, as most of their travel is local, and they can choose to fly or rent a car for those rare long trips.
If this is true, the current 100 to 200 mile recharge cycle is more than enough for most users.
But, I do share your concern about getting stranded if the battery goes out on a long trip.
I have yet to realize why the electric car companies do not install something like a propane powered generator for use to recharge the batteries when no other power source is nearby.
While it is true enough that it would be using fossil fuels to power the generator, burning propane is far less toxic and polluting than burning gasoline or ethanol or even diesel and the same propane canisters used for your outdoor grills are at most gas stations now - so there is already a supply chain available.
Until our electric cars tap into zero point energy (don't hold your breath) or use nuclear batteries (http://www.livescience.com/technology/050513_new_battery.html), the best bet is to use something like Toshiba's fast charging lithium-ion batters (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0503/05032903tosh1minbatt.asp) that recharge up to 80% in one minute.
The initial cost may be higher for the Toshiba batteries, but mass production always seems to nullify that little problem. The real question is whether the Toshiba batteries' output capabilities are sufficient for the task.
When the Model T came out, there were few gas stations; gasoline had to be bought in general stores. Electricity is widely available and can cheaply be offered for EV recharging.
day at 45 miles per hour, but what happens on a zero degree
day when you have to run heat full blast to keep the windows
from freezing up? How about when you set gridlocked on a
freeway on a 90 degree day and need the air conditioning
running full blast?
If the big three could sell 20,000 copies of these per year they
would jump big into the electric market. Mazda developed the
miata for a target of less than 20,000 per year. The first year
target for the Pontiac Solstice was less than 10,000 per year.
And this car is just a conventional car converted to electric, not a
ground up design. If the market was there, one of Toyota/GM/
Ford/Honda/Daimler would already be selling this and could
develop a lot more cheaply than this guy. Has this car been dot
certified for glass/lights/etc. Has the NHTSA-required crash
testing been done on this Chinese market car?
A new ground-up electric design is being done by GM, and it's planned for production in 2010:
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
By adding an on-board charger, the range issue is eliminated. I think their hold-up right now is the batteries. Nobody is making enough lithium ion batteries at a reasonable cost. So it will take a while for that industry to ramp-up enough to feed the auto-makers, plus the cell phones and laptops.
A few months ago, I was skeptical too. I watched a documentary called "Who Killed The Electric Car", and found it very interesting. Then I started doing research on the internet. I've learned that EVs are completely viable.
A 2000 market study (using Dohring auto market survey data) concluded that the EV market will top 200,000 in five years.
GM sued to avoid mass-marketing EVs. Why? Automakers profit far more on Big Iron SUV sales than they will on energy-efficient vehicles (that need few dealer repairs.)
Finally, any automobile offered in the US must meet DOT requirements.
are also not small - at least $11,000, every 5 years or so, regardless of how much mileage you've been able to log. The Chevy VOLT with lifetime batteries and 40 mile range will send this EV to the bankruptcy court. This car costs more than the VOLT, looks horrible and has quality issues and can't get you to any destination over 55 miles away. It's a really bad vehicle that no one would ever consider except for the electric come on. Wait for the VOLT and save you money.
If Chevy sold a Volt today that had a 20 mile electric-only range (maybe using NiMH batteries instead), I would certainly consider buying one. My daily drive is usually less than 20 miles. In those conditions, it would have half the energy cost of a Prius combined with better performance.
Plus I think it looks way more cool. ;-)
I've read that Chevy has plans to be publicly testing Volts in 2008 that have a 10 mile electric-only range. Then a 20 mile range in 2009. Then the 40 mile version will be sold in 2010, provided their lithium-ion battery supplier comes through.
The Model T broke down every 25 miles, you had to buy gas at general stores, and it had to be backed up hills.
Obviously, completely new vehicle paradigms will take development, just as primitive smog-belchers did.
Nah, TheBike45 just underestimated the lifespan of LiIon batteries, especially some of the newer battery formulations that are more durable than the original LiIon cells.
Neither the Volt or the Javlon are currently available, it is possible the current price estimates could be wrong, so it is premature to assume that the Volt would cost less than the Javlon. Ditto for quality - both GM and China have had quality issues.
One of the most fun parts of the ride was the reaction of pedestrians. They loved the little Miles car and many people asked what it was and where they could get one. The quality and value of the ZX40 is indicative of the job Miles Automotive is doing.
I expect the Miles Javlon will be the tip of the spear in the push to prove that electric vehicles (and not Hydrogen) are the future. The car will succeed by utilizing existing infrastructure, being easy to use, and affordable. Plus it carries the double benefits of reduced dependence on foreign oil and an emission free commute. Throw in Pininfarina styling with the ultra-vogue idea of being the greenest person on the street and Miles has a sure hit.
I will be picking up my fully electric car in a couple of weeks, and it is ideal for my situation... I work less than 4 miles from home and my wife's college classes are at the local branch, so we can drive it on meaningful trips 6 days out of 7 and still cost less than a one way trip to work in my Blazer. And it's not a NEV either... it's a 1980 Comuta-Car, capable of keeping up with rural traffic and our small town main roads.
As for the Chevy Volt, I'm a bit confused with their choice of engine for the charging system... a 3 cylinder turbocharged 1.0 litre just to spin a generator? Sounds a lot like a gimmick to make people think it's really powerful... it's not like it's a plug-in hybrid capable of switching over to gas/E85/(bio)diesel once the batteries run out...
DaveP in Ohio
The Volt is a "serial hybrid", but GM is avoiding the word "hybrid". I don't think they want it confused with "parallel hybrids" like the Prius and Saturn Aura.
The Volt electric motor is powered only by the batteries for the first 40 miles, after which it is mostly powered by the generator. So the generator needs to be powerful enough to drive the motor for up to 600 miles, and if there is any juice left over, the generator can simultaneously charge the batteries.
GM only uses the word "hybrid" to describe their "parallel" hybrids, where both the electric motor and gas engine can drive the transmission and power train.
GM calls the Volt an EV with a "range extender" generator. The generator could run on gasoline, ethanol, diesel, or (when pigs fly) even hydrogen.
The Volt seems like a very clever design, since it is simple, modular, and flexible. Conceivably, a customer could order a Volt with different battery capacities or different range extender options. Or even (some day) omit the range extender if they want a purely electric vehicle.
Many feel that the serial hybrids will be superior to parallel hybrids, since they will be much simpler and even more efficient. It seems like the technology is available to make it viable today, but GM is waiting on a large supply of better batteries. They seem to have their heart set on 40 miles of battery-only range, and that is currently planned for 2010.
1) When it comes to powering a car, the cost of electric energy from the grid is about 1/4 the cost of energy from gasoline.
2) Modern electrical plants (even coal fired) are at least as clean as your car. Some forms of generation don't pollute at all.
3) I look forward to the day when big oil finally has some competition (from electricity) in the market of transportation energy. Today big oil has a monopoly, so they can easily gouge you at the gas pump. It's not like you can just drive your electric car instead ... yet.
more in certain parts of the county, and you left out hydro-
electric power.
But here's the point I really want to make, I'm ok with the
apparently negative scenario you imply and here's why: I think
we should use electricity even if it's generated from a petroleum
bi-product source, simply because the more we narrow the use
of petroleum/fossil based power sources down, the easier it gets
to focus on those final sources and to begin replacing them with
alternate sources. It's a little like cornering a mouse in the
dining room, as you get it narrowed to one corner you keep
moving all of the other furniture behind you so that it can no
longer hide in those places, and when it's got no where else to
go then the choices of exactly what you're going to do to catch it
and eliminate it become much clearer. Very rough analogy I
know, but you get the point.
I don't think we should wait to start doing the right thing where
it presensts itself just because we don't have an end-to-end
solution yet, and in the case of petroleum-based fuel the power
of private interests have here-to-fore continued to win out over
really implementing alternative fuel source for cars and
generating electricity in any large scale way. Waiting has been
the number one killer of using non-petroleum based fuel
sources for cars, let's stop waiting until some politician tells us
it's ok to start buying other types of cars and start buying only
cars that DO NOT use gasoline - And let's start that now, not
another ten years from now. (Read that as YET ANOTHER ten
years from now.)
The best power plants do much better(The GE H-System co-generator is about 60% efficient with natural gas). Other losses in the system: Natural gas recovery/transportation 95%, electrical transmission - 92%, charge/discharge efficiency of battery charger/battery - 82%, Electric motor efficiency - 93%. The resulting overall cycle efficiency for an EV is 39%, or roughly twice that of a gas powered IC car.
Coal plants don't run as efficiently, but using the poor efficiency of 1950's era coal plants isn't fair since a switch to EV transportation would require new plants, and those new plants would be of much higher efficiency modern designs.
I have seen numbers showing that even from coal assuming a modern coal plant, the amount of CO2 released by an EV car to go a given distance is still less than a IC engine car.
But that isn't the real point. The real point is that we decouple our cars from a specific source of power. We can continue to improve our sources of electrical power. Getting more and more environmentally friendly, reacting to changing supplies, all without changing our cars. Maybe in the future we'll carpet a small corner of Nevada with solar cells and generate all the electrical power we need for our cars. But we have to make the break from the power source first.
even when charging from Coal Fired Plants.
Studies by the California Energy Commission have significantly
shown pollution is reduced EVEN when the power comes from
coal fired power plants.
Read this,
"Studies by Energy Commission staff of electric vehicles' impact
on the South Coast Air Basin in Los Angeles find that EVs
significantly reduce criteria pollutants, those pollutants for
which there are ambient concentration standards. Some
pollutants are reduced by more than 90 percent and as much as
98 percent, compared to gasoline-powered vehicles, even when
power plant emissions are included. We are confident that
carbon monoxide and reactive organic gases (a precursor of
ozone) will be greatly reduced. We believe oxides of nitrogen
(also a precursor to ozone) will be substantially reduced."
Don't doubt the advantages of ELECTRIC CARS!!!!
Sources:
Quote From, http://www.energy.ca.gov/papers/CEC-999-
1995-002.txt
I would strongly recommed all the readers who disagree with the viability of EV's or the role of oil co's to see this documentry- "Who killed the electric car".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car
"General Motors, Toyota, Honda and Ford all brought out electric vehicles in the 1990s--only to yank them off the market because of dismal sales."
That's the author's opinion disguised as a fact.
Another popular opinion is that they were sabotaged by the auto-makers.
Where you could you buy one of these EVs? Almost nowhere.
Who knew these EVs were even available? Almost nobody.
If you knew about the EVs and where to get one, could you get one? Usually not.
Sounds like a recipe for "dismal sales" to me.
What happened to these EVs? Most were retrieved from lease (still working perfectly), then quietly destroyed.
It almost sounds like a conspiracy. ;-)
Let's debunk the shills, shall we?
LIE #1: "Electric cars just shift the oil/coal burning to the utilities so there would be no benefit-- or maybe even worse pollution!"
Answer: This is a bald-faced lie cooked up by electric car opponents (oil companies, etc). It is repeated ad nauseum by the shills without any research or facts to support it. Acutal facts and research reports demonstrate that electric cars (EVs) are 5-10 times as effecient as gasoline cars. Why? Gasoline engines are very ineffecient, losing much of their eneregy to heat. Plus gasoline takes a lot of energy to be refined from oil, then pumped into trucks, then trucked all around the country. Think about how much gas is burned just moving gasoline to the service stations! Electric motors are extremely effecient, the distribution system is already in place (the energy grid), and EVs use no power when stationary (other than heat/cooling) and regain power when slowing/going down hills. Per mile, an EV "burns" just 10-20% of the oil a gasoline would require.
Oh, while we're on this subject, the oil company shills always forget to mention that electric cars don't need oil changes, saving another 20-30 quarts of oil per car per year. Multiply that by the millions of cars on the road and you have a huge savings, not to mention saving the environment from this toxic oil waste.
LIE #2: "Electric Cars will overwhelm the power plants, and cause them to spew more pollution."
NOT TRUE: There is an enormous amount of unused capacity at power plants at night. According to a California utility (CAL EDISON) there is at least enough exess nighttime capacity right now to support 1 million or more EVs. And pollution? Controlling that is FAR, FAR easier and more effecient when it takes place in one location (an electric power plant) than when spread out over millions of gasoline engines.
LIE #3 "Big Auto gave electrics an honest attempt but the public wasn't interested" This is only partially a lie. GM gave the EV1 a half-hearted attempt, just to satisfy California's zero emmissions laws. But the fact was, in the 90's and up until recently there was far, far more money in building big SUVs. Was there a big conspiracy with Big Oil to kill the EVs? Maybe, but good old greed was probably the biggest factor.
LIE #4: "Battery technology isn't there yet" This is an outrageous lie considering electric cars that will be in production this year get 120-200+ miles per charge. That's plenty for 99% of daily drives. But what about if you need to drive farther than 200 miles? Well, battery technology ALREADY EXISTS (Nanosafe, A123) that allows for 10 minute or less recharges. Equip a few highway gas stations with high-powered chargers and the problem is solved. And with lower manufacturing costs and evolving technology you might get to the point where you can travel 500+ miles on a charge and not need the gas/charge stations at all. Imagine that... No gas stations needed! Maybe just a few mobile emergency stations with chargers for the occasional breakdown/failure. THIS WOULD BE A NIGHTMARE FOR THE OIL COMPANIES.
All the technology for electric cars-- including batteries and rapid charging solutions-- already exists. They could be deployed TODAY... if there were the political will and forsight to do it. And if the powerful interests of the oil companies weren't fighting it every inch of the the way.
From <<<<<<<LIE #1: "Electric cars just shift the oil/coal burning to the utilities so there would be no benefit-- or maybe even worse pollution!"
Answer: This is a bald-faced lie cooked up by electric car opponents (oil companies, etc). It is repeated ad nauseum by the shills without any research or facts to support it. Acutal facts and research reports demonstrate that electric cars (EVs) are 5-10 times as effecient as gasoline cars. Why? Gasoline engines are very ineffecient, losing much of their eneregy to heat.>>>>>>
You neglect to mention that powerplants also get electricity from combustion - when this happens there is still inefficiencies. Powerplants are lucky to have 40-50% efficiency in converting fuel into electricity (due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics), there is inefficiencies in transmission inefficiencies in battery storage and retrival of that energy from the batteries. All of these add up to a lot of losses.
<<<<<<LIE #4: "Battery technology isn't there yet" This is an outrageous lie considering electric cars that will be in production this year get 120-200+ miles per charge. That's plenty for 99% of daily drives. But what about if you need to drive farther than 200 miles? Well, battery technology ALREADY EXISTS (Nanosafe, A123) that allows for 10 minute or less recharges. Equip a few highway gas stations with high-powered chargers and the problem is solved.>>>>>>
The car as stated gets 120 miles, yet you bring in batteries that are not offered, or not available at a reasonable price, so it is not a lie, battery technology is not available for the masses. It may be soon, but as is it is a true statement.
lower than that of gas and diesel cars, but I haven't seen
numbers to support that 5x-10x ratio you claim.
Don't expect to see 10-minute recharging on electric cars, ever.
An electric car needs a pretty big battery pack-- around 25
kilowatt-hours. After accounting for charging inefficiency, a ten-
minute recharge would require a 180-kilowatt power source--
household 220V at 818A (basically impossible) or a medium-
voltage supply of 7,200 volts at 25A. You will not ever see that
kind of power being connected into multiple bays at filling
stations, never mind residential garages.
. png
120 or even 200 miles are not going to cut it. Yes for commuting that's fine for most, but that's not the reason people buy cars. If it was there would be far fewer SUV's. People buy cars to fit there lifestyle, most include the occasional roadtrip. People want the ability to hop into their car and travel some distances to some destination, or perhaps swing by another person's house or apartment after work, perhaps stay overnight and go to work after then return home.
Current electric cars don't allow that unless you can recharge once you get there, which is not always a option.
The solution as I see it is to include a gas generator onboard, perhaps even removable for times when you know that you won't need it. For most commuting the generator is not used, but when the batteries get very low it can be started and will deliver enough power to keep the batteries from fully depleting, but not recharging them much, pruducing enough power to take care of the average power demand of the car, with the batteries making up the difference when demanded and recharging when not so much power is used.
If EV's take off, I'm sure that there will at least be home made generators to recharge enroute, or at least people will carry them around in the trunk just in case they need to recharge.
"The solution as I see it is to include a gas generator onboard, perhaps even removable." In all probability is the best one for the BEV vehicle, and I believe would be best served by a small trailer mounted 110 VAC motor generator. I would choose a unit like the 10 kW Honda and put a 10 gallon fuel tank on it. This would serve a dual function; emergency home power AND the range extention needed for the BEV vehicle.
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
True the 210 KW recharger for this isn't something you find at Sears Automotive department, but it can and has been done.
And it is also true that there needs to be some infrastucture put in place to have charging station seeded thickly enought to make driving cross country a comfortable undertaking. But these changes would be a whole lot less than those required for a switch to hydrogen. The recharging stations would mainly be needed along major highways since for around town, most people would get all the juice they need from their own electric meter.
But you the other responder to this thread has a good point, it wouldn't take a lot to put a small IC engine in a trailer with a generator and a gas tank to pull behind you while you are road trips. That would help bridge the time until recharging stations are numerous enough to fly without a net. I like the idea of having the backup IC do double duty as back-up generator for my house in case of power failure.
entire paragraph repeated...
Do you guys read your articles when you post them? You have an
entire paragraph repeated...
While it has been announced, there has been nothing on testing prototypes or crash testing, which will be necessary before importing for sale. I expect to see a few delays.
Tips & Warning
? As a final precaution, take the car to a mechanic, who should charge a reasonable fee to check over a used car. The seller should agree to this, but may require that you leave a deposit. If the seller won't let you take the car, offer to meet him or her at a mutually convenient garage.
? If you give the seller a deposit in order to take the car to have it checked, make sure to write out an agreement stating that the deposit will be returned immediately if you decide not to buy the car.
If the vehicle's mileage appears unusually low, have a mechanic determine whether someone has tampered with the odometer. If so, the seller must refund any money you have paid and may be liable for punitive damages under federal and state odometer laws?
This is how I acquire my car; I inspected all its auto parts from exterior and interior aspect down to its neuspeed sway bar and other accessories. By doing so, you could be sure of the quality of vehicle you are getting?=)
Tips & Warning
? As a final precaution, take the car to a mechanic, who should charge a reasonable fee to check over a used car. The seller should agree to this, but may require that you leave a deposit. If the seller won't let you take the car, offer to meet him or her at a mutually convenient garage.
? If you give the seller a deposit in order to take the car to have it checked, make sure to write out an agreement stating that the deposit will be returned immediately if you decide not to buy the car.
If the vehicle's mileage appears unusually low, have a mechanic determine whether someone has tampered with the odometer. If so, the seller must refund any money you have paid and may be liable for punitive damages under federal and state odometer laws?
This is how I acquire my car; I inspected all its auto parts from exterior and interior aspect down to its neuspeed sway barand other accessories. By doing so, you could be sure of the quality of vehicle you are getting?=)
- ISITEL Electro Magnetic Vehicle (EMV)
- by ISITEL November 17, 2007 6:41 AM PST
- ISITEL Electro Magnetic Vehicle (EMV) is developing the car of the future. www.isitel.com/emv.htm
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(50 Comments)