Happy Atheist Forum

For no particular reason I've been researching electric cars. Actually it's because of the Chicago Auto Show. Anyway, these are the main options I know of if you want a car that runs on 100% electricity (not a hybrid). All but the Teslas also have a gas engine that kicks in after the battery runs out.

Tesla Roadster
0-60: 3.9 seconds
range on electric power: 244 miles
price: $101,500

Tesla Model S
0-60: 5.6 seconds
range on electric power: 300 miles
price: $49,900

Fisker Karma
0-60: 6 seconds
range on electric power: 50 miles
price: $90,000

Chevy Volt
0-60: don't know
range on electric power: 40 miles
price: $40,000

Hyundai Blue-Will
0-60: don't know
range on electric power: 40 miles
price: ?

Toyota Prius (new plugin-in model)
0-60: think of this more as a stealth car than a sports car
range on electric power: 13 miles
price: ?

If I wanted a car it would be a Tesla Model S. I had no idea you could get that kind of performance from an electric car. 300 miles for 45 minute / $4 charge. It looks nice (http://www.teslamotors.com/models/) in an unremarkable way too.

i didnt know they had electric cars that could preform well. perhaps this will lead into more development of electric cars as opposed to gas. seeming they can keep up now.
Lol a prius is more of a stealth car. makes me think of robin williams joking about electric cars being used at nascar events.

My next car is going to run on the blood of the exploited worker class.

...er, wait, I already have one that does that. Damn you, Exxon!  

Quote from: "curiosityandthecat"My next car is going to run on the blood of the exploited worker class.

...er, wait, I already have one that does that. Damn you, Exxon!  

the blood really? mine just runs on the tears and broken dreams. wonder witch makes for better fuel?

I don't know....electric and hyprid is only more "green" if your electricity source is clean.

Current car is now on it's 3rd transmission in the past few months and still leaking fluid everywhere, so I'm thinking maybe a stick shift.

Years ago I developed a car that ran off willpower....it never went anywhere...

I will wait for the new electric plug in prius to come to cyprus. I know it will take time. Until it comes, and until cyprus has good recharging  stations, Ill stick with hybrids

I'm waiting for air powered cars myself.  

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... 51491.html (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html)

I suppose if one ran out of compressed air, one could always use a bicycle pump.  

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of cars using compressed air as a means of storing energy. I suppose the advantage is that a bottle is cheaper than a battery. Comparison of energy densities by volume:

87 octane gas: 32,000 kJ / litre
Fully charged lithium ion battery: 900 - 1,900 kJ / litre
Air (compressed to 200x atmospheric pressure): 106 kJ / litre

I think I would prefer to pay the extra for the order of magnitude improvement in energy density of batteries.

Quote from: "kenh"I'm waiting for air powered cars myself.  

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automot ... 51491.html (http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html)

I wonder if that is any more efficient on power than electric?  You'd still have to use electricity to compress the air.

Just not a Hydrogen powered car. From what I understand they do have much cleaner emmisions. However it takes WAAYY more energy to produce the hydrogen then you get from it (obviously) which in the long run creats more green house emmisions then just using a gas only car would have produced.

Quote from: "Tanker"Just not a Hydrogen powered car. From what I understand they do have much cleaner emmisions. However it takes WAAYY more energy to produce the hydrogen then you get from it (obviously) which in the long run creats more green house emmisions then just using a gas only car would have produced.

yet people who have hydrogen cars now are probably driving around with their nose up in the air bragging about how green they are...

I hate how appearing green has become a fashion statement....it makes it even harder to achieve real progress.

Hydrogen is produced industrially from methane. You can get that from landfill and cows . Whether you can get enough that way is questionable. The waste product in turning methane into hydrogen is carbon dioxide, which I believe is less harmful to the environment than methane. The reaction might also need some additional input energy. My chemistry is failing me...

Hydrogen combustion is completely clean. The only "waste" product is water. The hydrogen combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce H2O.

This is distinct from the idea of using compressed air as a means of storing energy. As Whitney pointed out, you need to compress it somehow, probably using an electrical compressor. I don't really see any advantage over using batteries for storage except maybe cost.

Quote from: "AlP"Hydrogen is produced industrially from methane. You can get that from landfill and cows . Whether you can get enough that way is questionable. The waste product in turning methane into hydrogen is carbon dioxide, which I believe is less harmful to the environment than methane. The reaction might also need some additional input energy. My chemistry is failing me...

Hydrogen combustion is completely clean. The only "waste" product is water. The hydrogen combines with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce H2O.

This is distinct from the idea of using compressed air as a means of storing energy. As Whitney pointed out, you need to compress it somehow, probably using an electrical compressor. I don't really see any advantage over using batteries for storage except maybe cost.

Ah, but to turn methane into hydrogen require energy. Which would most likely come from comercial sources, the most common of which is coal plants (even in America). As the second law (i think) of thermodynaics states "energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The enrgy required to produce Hydrogen is higher then its return and in the long run, at this point, it is NOT cleaner to use it.

^ Above might well be correct. I'll leave it to someone who knows more about chemistry. For the record, I'm not promoting hydrogen as a long term solution for powering vehicles.  

I like the Volkswagen L1 (http://gas2.org/2009/09/14/volkswagens-diesel-hybrid-1l-concept-gets-170-mpg-available-by-2013/).
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgo635254.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fgas2%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F09%2Fvw-l1-concept-001.jpg&hash=2aa8790703f95b4eb00bce2a8032f31b83e8ad5d)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgo635254.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fgas2%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F09%2Fvw-l1-concept-002.jpg&hash=fae226767e5df5258bcc9280e3c9b0df0cb5bed6)
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgo635254.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fgas2%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F09%2Fvw-l1-concept-004.jpg&hash=f4d07e96b495b97588af329a6a826a17105b3908)

It's only 800 lbs., it has a 2-cylander, hybrid (diesel/electric) 1.0L engine, and it gets an astonishing 170 mpg. Yes, 170 mpg. All I need is some home-made biodiesel and this thing is one of the greenest ways to travel without pedaling. Last I heard, it's coming out 2013.

If I only use the L1 for long-distance travel and use my bike/feet for things like work or shopping for food, I'll be living la vida verde (the green life).

According to this (http://autos.yahoo.com/auto-shows/frankfurt_auto_show_2009/1106/Volkswagen-L1-Concept) article, the L1 can do 240 mpg. Mileage is only reduced to 170 mpg when its travelling at its top speed of 100 mph.

How fast can it do 0-60 though? I have no interest in buying a car that can't beat at least a Mustang off the lights!  

Quote from: "AlP"According to this (http://autos.yahoo.com/auto-shows/frankfurt_auto_show_2009/1106/Volkswagen-L1-Concept) article, the L1 can do 240 mpg. Mileage is only reduced to 170 mpg when its travelling at its top speed of 100 mph.

WHOA. With the proposed 2.6 gallon fuel tank, that's a theoretical range of 624 miles. The range of my current car is only about 400 miles. Still, 170 mpg at 100 mph is awesome, too. It must be that 7-speed gearbox.

Quote from: "AlP"How fast can it do 0-60 though? I have no interest in buying a car that can't beat at least a Mustang off the lights!  

Based on weight and power, I'm guessing about 14 seconds 0-60. Sounds like the Tesla roadster has what you need.

I'll stick with the bus for now.

It's 2010!

Where's my damn flying car?!?!?

Here's my next one (as soon as it's legal):
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.businessweek.com%2Fss%2F06%2F03%2Fflyingcars%2Fimage%2F8_mollerb.jpg&hash=55f63852c6d1217e14fe0245e84d5ccd1959964b)
(more info at http://www.moller.com/

... seriously?  I'll probably get a hybrid at some point.
Got a Toyota Rav4 now, and it's a workhorse... still gets about 25 mpg.

(mmmm.... Jetpack!)
JoeActor

It makes a lot of noise before anything happens but it does eventually fly.

[youtube:3fhqv83x]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNuW6Bfx840[/youtube:3fhqv83x]

Sets you back $39,800. You have to assemble it yourself.

A number of people have nailed what irks me about electric cars. You can either put petrol into your car, and achieve a 20 odd percent energy conversion, (chemical to kinetic), or, you can pour coal into a power plant, get 40% of the chemical energy, lose 25% of that in transmission to your house and into your battery, then lose another 75% of that going from the electricity in the battery to kinetic, so, compared to 20% for a petrol car, or, 0.4*0.75*0.25 (chemical->electric->chemical->electric->kinetic), which equates to a whopping 7.5% efficiency. All buying an electric car does is move pollution out of the city centre. Will has exactly the right idea, massive mpg in a light car, along with things like Kinetic energy recovery are currently the best way forward (though fall miles behind things like buses and trains used at efficient rates) if you want to cut carbon emissions. Obviously though, some sanctimonious tool would never give up their enormous car, they would instead prefer to make a token effort and then wallow in how green they are. This why we need to have politicians who are educated in relevant areas, you can't be energy secretary unless you have a physics/chemistry degree, you can't be chancellor without an economics degree, it's so simple, yet so many people miss it.

Quote from: "SSY"All buying an electric car does is move pollution out of the city centre.

Good point!  I've wondered why this insight is not explored more often in public discussions.   Electric cars seem to be getting a free ride.

If the power can be generated in a green manner, then electric cars make an important contribution.   Maybe we should see electric cars as a step in the right direction, that won't really pay off until we complete the transition to green power generation.

The Tesla Roadster has a petroleum-equivalent efficiency (by US DOE specification (http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2000/June/Day-12/i14446.htm)) of between 250 and 300 mpg, depending on what you read. That's actually slightly better than the L1, everything taken into account. Am I being wrong headed here?

How about combining the L1 and the Tesla technologies? I bet you could make something very efficient indeed.

Also, don't electric vehicles at least have the potential to be powered by less environmentally damaging energy sources? If you stuck solar panels on the hood and roof, how many miles could you drive per day if you just left it out in the sun? That seems like a pretty convenient place to have a solar panel.

I still prefer the bus. Living in San Fransisco, that just works better for me. I appreciate this would be impractical in other locations.

Edit: no edit. I changed this as Whitney was posting so I reposted the change as a new post. Phew.

Quote from: "AlP"Also, don't electric vehicles at least have the potential to be powered by less environmentally damaging energy sources? If you stuck solar panels on the hood and roof, how many miles could you drive per day if you just left it out in the sun? That seems like a pretty convenient place to have a solar panel.

Yes, they do...and, at least here in Dallas, there are already companies which offer energy from sustainable sources and the price of that energy has been coming down.  So, if someone were to purchase an electric car and charge it using energy from a sustainable source (sustainable sources also tend to not pollute) then they'd have little impact from their vehicle.

I don't know if solar panels can produce enough energy to be stuck on a car and power it for any practical amount of time...but they have been working on doing that for quite a few years now...I remember seeing prototype solar powered electric cars on tv growing up.

Back of the envelope arithmetic for solar panel idea:

Total solar energy available per square meter per year is about 1.3 MJ (source (http://www.totalsolarenergy.co.uk/solar-power-facts.html) is for a south of England, not a sunny place).

Say you can mount 2m^2 of panels on the car. That's 2.6 MJ per year. Solar panels have reached about 40% efficiency, leaving about 1.0 MJ per year stored in the battery. The Tesla roadster battery capacity is 53 KJ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster). So you could fully charge it from solar power about 19 times per year. If you timed everything right that would get you 19 x 244 = 4636 miles or about 18 miles per work day (252 per year). Did I screw up by an order of magnitude? Lol.

[youtube:dykxssw4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlvZxjxQ-eg[/youtube:dykxssw4]

Quote from: "AlP"The Tesla Roadster has a petroleum-equivalent efficiency (by US DOE specification (http://www.epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2000/June/Day-12/i14446.htm)) of between 250 and 300 mpg, depending on what you read. That's actually slightly better than the L1, everything taken into account. Am I being wrong headed here?

It depends, I suppose. Should I buy the L1, I'll be using biodiesel, which adds a lot more math to the equation to figure out how much oil it takes to create the biodiesel. The local station here uses mostly waste to create theirs, which I can appreciate. Still, I might not always be able to get biodiesel, which means just regular diesel. I don't think I have enough information to determine which would be better on average. Let's just say they're both efficient options.

Quote from: "AlP"Also, don't electric vehicles at least have the potential to be powered by less environmentally damaging energy sources? If you stuck solar panels on the hood and roof, how many miles could you drive per day if you just left it out in the sun? That seems like a pretty convenient place to have a solar panel.

Solar is a good way to do it, but the power needs of a Tesla are considerable. I think I'd need about 3GWh to run my house (about half my roof), I'd imagine needing more like 4.5 if I had to plug in my car, and that's assuming regular development of power. I don't think solar on the roof and hood would do much. Not to mention the Tesla is already a bit heavy for a sports car with all those laptop batteries. During the Top Gear test comparing the Tesla Roadster to the Lotus it's based on, the Lotus decimated the Tesla in turns.

I think Tesla would be smart to start looking into more efficient batteries (power to size/weight ratio).

Someone had their Tesla parked outside Facebook a few weeks back. I have to admit, I was green with envy. Get it? Because we're all going green? Ba-zing.

I think the Tesla's use lithium ion batteries, which are pretty good in terms of energy density (by mass and volume). Wikipedia says there are better batteries though. Lithium Thionyl Chloride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density#Density_data) look like they're significantly better but I don't think they're designed to be rechargeable.

This looks practical. (http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/articles/prius-white-paper.shtml) A solar panel roof and extra batteries for a standard Prius. You can run the car in electric only mode if you want. They sell you the whole car (based on a used Prius) with the gear installed for $25K.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solarelectricalvehicles.com%2Fimages%2Fproducts1.jpg&hash=fddbaebef4bbc5a992c75593d7428517f087dbeb)

Something else cool, you can plugin it into the electric grid and sell solar power to your utility company during the day when it's expensive and defer charging the batteries until the cheaper night time rates.

I guess the performance is the same as a regular Prius in electric only mode but with the range extended by the additional batteries. And you've got the hybrid engine for encounters with Mustangs, though you would still lose badly.

Rather than placing solar panels on cars, why not car ports? better yet, car parks? Charge up while you go about your business.  

Quote from: "elliebean"Rather than placing solar panels on cars, why not car ports? better yet, car parks? Charge up while you go about your business.  Google does that for it's fleet of cars.

Somebody would have to pay for it. I suppose it's an extension of the idea of paying for a parking space.

What would be the motivation for the garage operators to use solar power over whatever the cheapest electricity they can find is? User pays more for the green option? They can also house more cars if the roof isn't covered in solar panels. I suppose the solar panels could be on legs with the cars underneath.

Making the idea overcomplicated... I wonder if the electrical power could be transferred to the car by induction? That way there would be no pesky cables.

Quote from: "elliebean"Rather than placing solar panels on cars, why not car ports? better yet, car parks? Charge up while you go about your business.  

They already have those placed sporadically in some large cities...Dallas apparently isn't one of them though.  I saw a few in Portland, Or.