Newest urban electric vehicle
Quote: pacomartinFord was selling the Model B in 1933 for $495. Engines were at least 75 horsepower with a speedometer that went to 80 mph.
The average family incme in 1933 was $1500. So this car
cost 1/3 of that. Which is not bad. A person making 45K
today can easily afford payments on a 15K car. $495
is the same as $9000 in today's money.
When I think about it, though, food and utilities and even
gas took a bigger bite out of a paycheck then they do now,
percentage wise. So maybe it was pricey for the average
family.
Quote: pacomartinJoseph Biden gave a speech recently that said within a decade we will be able to drive an electric car for a thousand miles without recharging.
Does he know something that I don't? That sounds outrageous.
Sounds like an ordinary day for Biden. And the liberals somehow think Sarah Palin is the dumb one?
Quote: AZDuffmanSounds like an ordinary day for Biden. And the liberals somehow think Sarah Palin is the dumb one?
First of all it seems ludicrous. Second of all the range of most cars of over 300 miles is secondary to the fact that there are roughly 159K service stations (one per 1600 automobiles) in the USA. Most of us can refuel in a reasonable amount of time. A Nissan Leaf takes 30 minutes at a level 3 charging station.
Even if you did have a super battery that could propel a car 1000 miles, then how long would it take to recharge?
Quote: AZDuffmanI've been hearing about how electrics will take the market since 1980. Still waiting.
You might be right. Perhaps EV sales will never surpass sales of internal combustion engine vehicles.
But keep in mind that in 2012, sales of electric vehicles almost tripled! Total sales in 2011: 17,000. Total sales in 2012: 50,000. Those statistics include both pure electric (Nissan Leaf) and plug-in hybrids (Chevy Volt.) Anylists are predicting that those numbers will double again in 2013. (In March 2013, Nissan Leaf sales increased 286 percent over March 2012.)
I admit that EVs still only account for 1 or 2 percent of the entire auto market. But it's a big market. And if this rate of growth continues, doubling and tripling every couple years, it won't be long before EVs comprise 10 or 20 percent of the entire auto market.
The popular assumption is that future gains in EV technology will come from cheaper batteries with greater range. That will probably happen, but that's not the only area with room for improvement. Former GM engineer Bob Purcell has raised $125 million for an advanced EV technology which aims to put electric motors directly in the wheels. His system uses independently controlled in-wheel motors with an integrated inverter, control electronics and software. By packing all the power and torque directly into the wheel systems, it eliminates the need for costly and cumbersome gearboxes, transmissions, driveshafts, axles and differentials. This makes cars lighter and more efficient, by eliminating wasted drivetrain energy during acceleration and braking. It also opens up new creative possibilities for auto designers, who would no longer have build their designs around a bulky transmission and driveshaft.
Quote: renoFormer GM engineer Bob Purcell has raised $125 million for an advanced EV technology which aims to put electric motors directly in the wheels. His system uses independently controlled in-wheel motors with an integrated inverter, control electronics and software. By packing all the power and torque directly into the wheel systems, it eliminates the need for costly and cumbersome gearboxes, transmissions, driveshafts, axles and differentials. This makes cars lighter and more efficient, by eliminating wasted drivetrain energy during acceleration and braking.
Protean Electric Unveils Production In-Wheel Electric Drive System
A lot of wasted weight to not have to carry around anymore.
$1 billion : design money spent
262 mpg
2.6-gallon fuel tank,
310 mile range
94 mph maximum speed
90 minutes to fully recharge
1753 lbs weight
47 hp two-cylinder diesel
27 hp electric battery, which can propel it about 31 miles on its own, up to 62 mph.
Pretty impressive! But at over $100K it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
A BMW ActiveHybrid 7 starts at $84,300. For 350 horsepower (top speed 147 mph) I would settle for 30 mpg hwy. It would still make me feel green
Quote: pacomartinVolkswagen XL1 by the numbers:
$1 billion : design money spent
262 mpg
2.6-gallon fuel tank,
310 mile range
94 mph maximum speed
90 minutes to fully recharge
1753 lbs weight
47 hp two-cylinder diesel
27 hp electric battery, which can propel it about 31 miles on its own, up to 62 mph.
Pretty impressive! But at over $100K it's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
A BMW ActiveHybrid 7 starts at $84,300. For 350 horsepower (top speed 147 mph) I would settle for 30 mpg hwy. It would still make me feel green
$100K for a coal fired car. Seems like a step backward.
Quote: renoFormer GM engineer Bob Purcell has raised $125 million for an advanced EV technology which aims to put electric motors directly in the wheels. His system uses independently controlled in-wheel motors with an integrated inverter, control electronics and software. By packing all the power and torque directly into the wheel systems, it eliminates the need for costly and cumbersome gearboxes, transmissions, driveshafts, axles and differentials.
It's been done before.
Downside include:
* Limited top speed - motors don't pull the rpm
* Significantly increased unsprung mass, reducing both suspension effectiveness and ride quality
* Lacks room for a dedicated friction brake
* High mechanical shock on electrical components
They even done inboard brakes, that is move brakes off the wheels, just to reduce the unsprung mass.
As such the choice between wheel hub motors vs FWD or RR remains in question. Wheel motors need to be 4WD to pull the torque, they need to provide large braking torque, they need to handle the streams of dirt, sand and potholes. Transmission complexity is reduced, but suspension complexity increased.
So far the prevailing opinion is that wheel hub motors are acceptable for a city car and a conventional 2WD scheme is preferable for anything expected to encounter more severe conditions or require higher speeds or performance.
Quote: pacomartin
262 mpg
2.6-gallon fuel tank,
310 mile range
Am I the only one seeing a flaw in those numbers?
Quote: pacomartinIt would still make me feel green
And isn’t that the only point of it all?
I just don’t see battery based electric making much headway. They’re too heavy, too restricted in range, and don’t solve anything as far a “greenism” goes. Their production alone is worse than the emissions from fossil fuel based transportation, and the power is derived from the same dirty means that are being vilified. Perhaps, in places like NYC, London, Paris, where small cars and short distances are the norm, widespread use may be found. But at least in America, where the car is king and even daily commutes push the limits of today’s batteries, they’ll simply never work.
Paco, are you familiar with the Honda Clarity? That is one concept I could see making headway. It’s H2 powered, combining with O2 to create electricity and emitting only water. It fills just like petrol (just connect a hose from a pump and fill in 2 minutes), eliminating the range restrictions. It’s cost comparable, and I imagine might be greener (although I’m unsure of the true environmental cost of producing H2). I see it as being a much better solution to the electric game, although I admittedly have heard almost nothing about it outside of one episode of Top Gear.
(InB4 Hindenburg reference)
Quote: Face
Paco, are you familiar with the Honda Clarity? That is one concept I could see making headway. It’s H2 powered, combining with O2 to create electricity and emitting only water. It fills just like petrol (just connect a hose from a pump and fill in 2 minutes), eliminating the range restrictions. It’s cost comparable, and I imagine might be greener (although I’m unsure of the true environmental cost of producing H2). I see it as being a much better solution to the electric game, although I admittedly have heard almost nothing about it outside of one episode of Top Gear.
(InB4 Hindenburg reference)
Hydrogen as a fuel is no different than an electric car other than you don't have the environmental problems of the producing and recycling the battery. Hydrogen is produced by breaking down water to H and O2 via electrolosis. You still need the electricity which for many years yet will have a substantial coal generation component to it. This is particularly true if the alternate energy cars became popular and we actually required significantly more electricity in a short time frame. This would just keep coal fired generation going longer.
Bottom line is a hydrogen car is simply using the hydrogen as a different form of battery with hydrogen being more dangerous to store and transport than electricity itself.
If X units of electricity propel a car Y miles, how much hydrogen is produced by X units of electricity and how many miles can you get? Is the difference slight? Severe?
Also, how does the grid work? Obviously, many different plants all throw their electricity into the grid, so each unit of electricity you use can come from many different sources. But, does not location play some role? Would boymimbo in Niagara Falls receive most of his energy from the Falls hydroelectric plant since he’s close, whereas I’d receive mostly coal electric since I’m close to a coal fired plant? And if that is true, then couldn’t the H2 plant simply be built closer to clean electricity sources (hydro, wind, nuclear) to “clean up” the production of H2? Additionally, with our ailing and overstressed grid, wouldn’t it be better, if we go electric, to have one large source of use (H2 plant) as opposed to thousands of small uses (home charging)?
And finally, it’s mostly a practical deal. Yes, it’s still electric, just from H2 rather than a battery. But it’s a damn sight better when you factor in convenience. 2 minutes to top off as opposed to 19 hours to recharge.
Safety I’m not concerned about. We already accept toting around an explosive, flammable gas, who cares if we switch to an explosive, flammable gas?
Quote: FaceOh I know how hydrogen is made; the devil is in the details.
Hydrogen can also be extracted from oil and natural gas. I'm not sure about the details, though. Pressumably by some sort of chemical reaction.
Quote:[..]whereas I’d receive mostly coal electric since I’m close to a coal fired plant?
Actually the US is in the midst of a natural gas boom thanks to the extensive use of fracking techniques. Some utilities have switched or are switching to natural gas as it becomes cheaper. That's a much cleaner fuel than coal.
Quote:Safety I’m not concerned about. We already accept toting around an explosive, flammable gas, who cares if we switch to an explosive, flammable gas?
Hardly. Liquid gasoline is not explosive at all. It's not even as flamable as people think. A match will set gasoline on fire, sure, but a lit cigarette won't. Gasoline becomes explosive, and highly flammable, when it's vaporized. At gas stations open flames and cigarettes are banned because of the likely prescence of gas vapors.
Hydrogen isn't that explosive, either, though it's more flammable. See the Hindenburg disaster. It burned, sure, but nothing blew up. Any hydrogen on a fuel cell car, though, would be under pressure and fully or half-liquefied. In that case, the sudden release of pressure in an accident, from a ruptured tank, would be explosive. How explosive, though, i've no idea.
Quote: NareedHydrogen can also be extracted from oil and natural gas. I'm not sure about the details, though. Pressumably by some sort of chemical reaction.
I thought it was just cooling, as different gases condensate at different temps. Just a guess as I haven't done a lick of research.
Quote: NareedHardly. Liquid gasoline is not explosive at all. It's not even as flamable as people think. A match will set gasoline on fire, sure, but a lit cigarette won't. Gasoline becomes explosive, and highly flammable, when it's vaporized. At gas stations open flames and cigarettes are banned because of the likely prescence of gas vapors.
Such a stickler! =)
I know, I know, only gases burn. But if you’re in an accident wherein petrol is uncontrollably released, chances are vapor will be present. I’m sort of an expert on the properties of gasoline (practical, not theoretical. I’m not a chemist, I just like to set gas on fire ;)) and it is sort of a surprising liquid. It’s all about that magical air/fuel mixture. You can light an open 2ltr pop bottle full of the stuff and it’ll just burn like a candle. But tip it over and you’re going to the hospital =D
Source: I do it all the time =D
Quote: NareedHydrogen isn't that explosive, either, though it's more flammable. See the Hindenburg disaster. It burned, sure, but nothing blew up. Any hydrogen on a fuel cell car, though, would be under pressure and fully or half-liquefied. In that case, the sudden release of pressure in an accident, from a ruptured tank, would be explosive. How explosive, though, i've no idea.
Yeah, it’s not so much the flammability differences between the two as it is the differences in properties. Petrol is already a liquid. Whatever volume it is in the tank will be the volume when released. Liquid hydrogen is far, FAR different. My chemistry is a little rusty, but if I remember my haz-mat correctly, hydrogen has an expansion rate of about 800. That means if you have one square foot of liquid hydrogen (not unimaginable for a fuel cell) and release it, it’ll instantly expand to 800 square feet of gaseous hydrogen.
The fireball would be incredible.
Of course, using cartoon logic, the state of matter change would first freeze you and the resulting fireball would thaw you, leaving you none the worse for wear. Perhaps you’d be left with only an exasperated look to show for it. Worst case, your beak would be on backwards, and that’s an easy fix ;D
Quote: FaceI know, I know, only gases burn. But if you’re in an accident wherein petrol is uncontrollably released, chances are vapor will be present.
Yes, but by then the sparks ahve already flown and ignition isn't likely. How many bad car accidents have you seen which involved fire? Excepting things involving gasoline or LP tanker trucks, naturally.
Quote:That means if you have one square foot of liquid hydrogen (not unimaginable for a fuel cell) and release it, it’ll instantly expand to 800 square feet of gaseous hydrogen.
I'm no expert either, but it seems odd to measure volume using surface units.
You have to allow for safeguards, too. Modern gas tanks, for instance, are built not to spill gas on impact. That's why you see few fiery traffic accidents. One assumes thre will be similar safeguards on hydrogen tanks.
A bigger worry is the energy per unit available and the efficiency with which it is used. For instance, my 2011 Corolla can squeeze out about 700 kilometers from one tank of gas (I don't know the size), under highway conditions (and much, much less under city traffic conditions). Will a similarly sized fuel cell car deliver that kind of range?
Quote: NareedYes, but by then the sparks ahve already flown and ignition isn't likely. How many bad car accidents have you seen which involved fire? Excepting things involving gasoline or LP tanker trucks, naturally.
Perhaps it's...confirmation bias? That's not right, but...
As I wrote in my racing thread on DT, I just this last Friday saw an amazingly horrific car fire. I suppose typically I'd write fire danger off as an unlikelihood, but I guess my recent eye witness has temporarily skewed my thoughts.
Quote: NareedI'm no expert either, but it seems odd to measure volume using surface units.
You have to allow for safeguards, too. Modern gas tanks, for instance, are built not to spill gas on impact. That's why you see few fiery traffic accidents. One assumes thre will be similar safeguards on hydrogen tanks.
A bigger worry is the energy per unit available and the efficiency with which it is used. For instance, my 2011 Corolla can squeeze out about 700 kilometers from one tank of gas (I don't know the size), under highway conditions (and much, much less under city traffic conditions). Will a similarly sized fuel cell car deliver that kind of range?
Damn and blast, the hell is wrong with me... yeah, I meant CUBIC feet. 1 cubic foot of liquid expands to ~800 cubic feet of vapor. As far as your "other worry", yeah, that is what I'd like to know, and why I think H2 might be the way to go, or at least a hell of a lot better avenue than electric batteries.
The H2 powered Clarity was reported to give "comparable" range as a typical internal combustion engine. If you can get similar range, similar practicality, similar quick fueling, and a completely clean result from usage, the only question that remains is the environmental cost of producing the H2.
Quote: FaceOh I know how hydrogen is made; the devil is in the details.
If X units of electricity propel a car Y miles, how much hydrogen is produced by X units of electricity and how many miles can you get? Is the difference slight? Severe?
Also, how does the grid work? Obviously, many different plants all throw their electricity into the grid, so each unit of electricity you use can come from many different sources. But, does not location play some role? Would boymimbo in Niagara Falls receive most of his energy from the Falls hydroelectric plant since he’s close, whereas I’d receive mostly coal electric since I’m close to a coal fired plant? And if that is true, then couldn’t the H2 plant simply be built closer to clean electricity sources (hydro, wind, nuclear) to “clean up” the production of H2? Additionally, with our ailing and overstressed grid, wouldn’t it be better, if we go electric, to have one large source of use (H2 plant) as opposed to thousands of small uses (home charging)?
We can view the grid as continous for all of North America for most analysis. The bottom line is that North America and the US in particular are still dependent on a large amount of coal generated electricity. I make no practical difference from an environmental perspective of where the major users are other than the line loss of transporting the electricity on the power lines. If you build your hydrogen plant in Niagra Falls and use water generated electricity it just means that there is less of the green energy that can be sent elsewhere. The additional load will always be taken up by the coal fired plants since that is where the spare capacity is. This scenerio remains true until we have enough capacity constructed and on line to provide for all the needs of North America.
Producing new power plants of any kind is always controversial. Greatly increasing fracing to provide more natuaral gas is controversial. Building dams is controversial, run of river projects face oposition in some juristictions, windmills kill birds and endangered owls in other areas so all new projects face delay after delay as all face opposition from a multitude of special interest groups including NIMBY for any project. Hence the status quo is the only option and that is existing coal powered plants.
Quote: NareedAny hydrogen on a fuel cell car, though, would be under pressure and fully or half-liquefied. In that case, the sudden release of pressure in an accident, from a ruptured tank, would be explosive. How explosive, though, i've no idea.
Either under pressure or liquefied, never both.
While some industrial cryogenic storage systems do use pressure to keep the boiloff low, it's only deemed worth the cost on a large scale. BMW Hydrogen 7 used non-pressurized liquefied hydrogen and was good for 2 weeks from a full tank to near-total boiloff.
Pressurized hydrogen is dissipated almost instantly; it's not a major fire hazard in open space, but is one indoors. The largest hazard comes from the mechanical force of the pressure explosion of the tank itself, since H2 needs to be kept under very high pressure to achieve reasonable density.
Quote: FaceThat means if you have one square foot of liquid hydrogen (not unimaginable for a fuel cell) and release it, it’ll instantly expand to 800 square feet of gaseous hydrogen.
Liquid hydrogen evaporates gradually, forming combustible vapor, same way as gasoline does. Hydrogen has significant specific heat capacity and heat of vaporization, so the process is far from instant, though it is fairly quick (likely sub-minute). The vapor is dissipated rapidly unless it is trapped or otherwise contained.
Generally hydrogen fires are a significantly lesser safety concern than petrochemical fires, since they are not sustained for a sufficient time to ignite or severely damage solid matter around them. The total heat delivered to all directions but directly up is far smaller.
Hydrogen tank fire in a vehicle would be a "walk away" occurrence, not spreading to the interior or otherwise through compartment barriers.
