Electric cars

[Bob Eld]

Except that it was Clinton who pushed, and signed, the dereg bills
that led to this mess.

John

Yes, Clinton was partly responsible for the mess but the main Character was
Reagan who began the rush to deregulation. Bush and the various congresses
didn't help much either.

Laissez-Faire Capitalism is inherently unstable with built in positive
feedback mechanisms and delays and operates much like a chaotic oscillator.
It requires regulation and control to stabilize it. When we take off the
controls it begins to swing wildly as we can plainly see now and has done so
many times in the past.

The new deal controls kept it reasonably stable up to the 1980's. Several
bubbles have been positive swings while what we are now seeing is the
greatest negative swing since before that time.

One positive feedback mechanism is easily seen in the fact that as people
lose jobs, they spend less money causing factories to lower output who then
layoff people, and around it goes. There are dozens if not hundreds of such
loops in the system all with associated time constants. The overall
interaction is a chaotic system that runs wild if left unchecked and
unregulated.

 

[James Arthur]

Have them talk to Amory Lovins:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...re-bang-*-*-*-installing-alternatives&strip=1

Oh, wait. You want MORE nukes.
If it *was* such a great idea,
nuke plants would be springing up like mushrooms
--or like wind turbines actually ARE springing up.
People's investments are a measure of viability.
Nukes aren't getting any of that because they are dirty in perpetuity.
(All the nuclear waste produced in the USA since ~1943
STILL exists--on the grounds of the plants where it became waste.)

Those aren't good examples--they're subsidized investments.
Subsidies and government also skewed things and gave us
a bunch of flawed investment in ethanol.

And nuclear plants' prices have a lot of political content, not
just technical; opponents arguing their cost are also devoted
to making darn sure their cost is as high as possible. Because
they hate nukes.

But the fastest, easiest, and best route to our energy
self-sufficiency is to use less; use energy more carefully,
more efficiently.

Lovin's lectures detail many ways how.

http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid231.php

Lecture #3 covers cars.

Plenty of gains available; industry uses power roughly like a
7805 uses a +24v input.

James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

A large part of the power required to drive a car at a reasoable speed
is used to overcome aerodynamic drag. Making the vehicle lighter makes
little diference, because it doesn't allow much reduction in the frontal
area, which is largely determined by the passenger cabin dimensions.

Sylvia.

I measured my car as needing 14 hp @ 70mph.

The other 7/8ths of its hulking ICE is to get me there
quickly, after which it's idle, wasted, and wasteful. And
heavy. And it's really not that good for acceleration, since
ICEs' torque (and efficiency) are so dreadful at low RPM.

It's like making your ox cart faster by doubling the oxen--
a case of diminishing returns.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[amdx]

[...]
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each -
not too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for on
hour [...]
Do we have an infrastructure to support it?

On average, a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW
should do fine.

That's as idiotic as 200hp ! 0 - 60 in one minute maybe ?

Graham

A 20 hp motor driven at 50% overvoltage with a current limited controller
will
get a lightweight car up to speed fast enough. At that point you can back
off on the
current and the motor be just fine.
I'm running a 2hp 28 volt motor on my gokart. I have a 48 volt battery
pack. When
I accelerate it draws over 200 amps. 48 x 200= 9.6kw, of course as I get up
to speed
the amperage drops and the motor does fine.
The point is you can get a lot more power out of the motor for short
bursts.
Maybe even 5 times more.
I think the 1/4 mile record is under 8 seconds at 159mph.
Mike

 

[Charlie E.]

Brilliant. Replacing eighty modules every two years, at $100 each, is
much more economical then replacing one battery every two years for
$8K.

John

Of course, if the units did have the pathetic MTBF of just two years,
in that time you would statistically have replaced only half of them.
If you have a single monolithic pack, then you just would have
steadily declining capability until you did that replacement...

Charlie

 

[MooseFET]

[...]
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each -
not too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for on
hour [...]
Do we have an infrastructure to support it?

On average, a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW
should do fine. Even so, you are right to believe that the
current infrastructure wouldn't suffice if everyone used
electric cars.

Jeroen Belleman
.....a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW....

You are probably right, but keep in mind that most of the people (at
least current driving generations) won't accept that. It will take
years and years and years (generations) to change this redneck my-
truck-must-be-bigger-than-your-truck attitude.   (

Just put an added 50W towards making roaring noises and they will be
happy.

 

[JeffM]

[...]nuclear[...]

Have them talk to Amory Lovins:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cach...re-bang-*-*-*-installing-alternatives&strip=1

[...]wind turbines actually ARE springing up.
People's investments are a measure of viability.
Nukes aren't getting any of that because they are dirty in perpetuity.

Those aren't good examples--they're subsidized investments.

My link is a condensation of Amory Lovins' thoughts.
Wind was one of the items on his graduated list.
(It placed better than nukes--which he listed as worst.)

Subsidies and government also skewed things
and gave us a bunch of flawed investment in ethanol.

I won't necessarily argue against you there.
Turning food into fuel--before it is eaten--does seem quite stupid.

And nuclear plants' prices have a lot of political content, not
just technical; opponents arguing their cost are also devoted
to making darn sure their cost is as high as possible.
Because they hate nukes.

....and the 1958 technology that will be implemented yet again,
if allowed.
My link also mentions the >1 decade lag in execution.

But the fastest, easiest, and best route to our energy
self-sufficiency is to use less; use energy more carefully,
more efficiently.

Lovin's lectures detail many ways how.
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid231.php
Lecture #3 covers cars.

In the relatively short article at my link,
*better efficiency* was the final choice listed
(the best choice, by Dr. Lovins' conclusion).

 

[James Arthur]

I measured my car as needing 14 hp @ 70mph.

The other 7/8ths of its hulking ICE is to get me there
quickly, after which it's idle, wasted, and wasteful. And
heavy. And it's really not that good for acceleration, since
ICEs' torque (and efficiency) are so dreadful at low RPM.

It's like making your ox cart faster by doubling the oxen--
a case of diminishing returns.

Oh, and I hasten to add: you could use today's same engine
oversizing ratios to propel a half-weight car to today's
same performance, with an engine that's half today's size.

Cutting weight has many benefits.

As for aerodynamics, yes, those can be improved a lot too;
Lovins details how.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Martin Riddle]

Yes. Just go sit in the corner. Suck your thumb. Then bend over.

Obama, with Al Gore's assistance, will make it feel good ;-)

With hundreds of millions for condoms, it'll at least make it safe
<http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/26/cafferty.obama/index.html?iref=24hours>

Cheers

 

[przemek klosowski]

This is what has been bugging me.
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each - not
too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for on hour
(lucky guys, aren't they?).
It makes 150KWh energy needed to recharge the cars. Assume 10 hours
(overnight) charge. It means 15kW of power (minimum) is delivered to the
house.
Do we have an infrastructure to support it? Am I missing something?

Good You don't need anywhere near 15kW. Last numbers I have seen
are 120V charge at around 10A for 10 hours---so that you can use a regular
garage circuit. This is 1.5-2 kW.

Bad the cost really adds up. The recharge as above costs around 2$
assuming nighttime energy cost of 15 cent/kWh. That's why the GM Volt ads
are misleading when they imply that the car will drive 40 miles for free
('before it uses a drop of gas'). In fact, the cost per mile for the Volt
car seems to be similar to that of a hybrid.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Michael wrote:
[...]
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each -
not too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for on
hour [...]
Do we have an infrastructure to support it?

On average, a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW
should do fine. Even so, you are right to believe that the
current infrastructure wouldn't suffice if everyone used
electric cars.

Jeroen Belleman

But, of course, not everyone will buy an electric car immediately when
they become available. As more and more cars come on line, then the
electric company will be doing some dancing to put in all the
additional service throughout all the towns and cities to support the
additional demand

Either that, or solar chargers of some sort will become extremely
popular...

Charlie

how do you charge by solar at NIGHT? The vehicles will be at work during
the day.

I would wager that most of us here have some form of electricity at
their workplace, and that in most (but probably not all) cases it
comes from the grid.

http://newdeal.feri.org/tva/tva10.htm



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[Ben Bradley]

...

But the Obama/Pelosi Congress is about to _require_ unions.

Not true! It's just that not voting to unionize has ... um ...
consequences.

That ought to be neat ;-)

We'd be better off with the Mafia running our country.

What? Those men are pillars of our community (center building)!

 

[Ben Bradley]

Answer, NO. We do NOT have an infrastructure to support electric cars. Keep
in mind that an auto engine or motor, electric or gas uses a small fraction
of its available power most of the time. Therefore the problem is not as bad
as you propose.

Another issue is that 1/2 of the electricity generated in the US comes from
burning COAL. What is the point of eliminating convenient liquid fuels and
replacing them with the dirtiest fuel available and hooking up to that fuel
with expensive 400 mile long extension cords?

Electric cars make little sense until the electricity itself is green or
nuclear, non polluting.

In recent years new nuclear plants have been in planning stages and
are apparently being built, so these will come online and help fulfill
future demand in perhaps a decade or so.

But I haven't checked on the status of nuke plants since last
Wednesday, so it may have changed. Future needs for electric power
might be met by putting solar arrays atop Al Gore's house.

 

[Jim Yanik]

To replace lost gas tax revenue, right? People are driving less,
which is good, so let's tax 'em more.

However much Oregon charges, it won't be enough--as soon as
people start getting their bills, they'll quit driving.

Good for green GPS jobs though.

Clinton promised a BTU tax, which I actually liked--energy
conservation is in the national interest. He backed off
though once elected--the idea was VERY unpopular.

Cheers,
James Arthur

in Orlando,Fl,Orlando Utilities(OUC) is raising electric rates because
consumers cut back on their electric usage,and OUC is now "losing money".
So,conservation is now costing the consumers MORE money.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Hooey or no, conservation's still in the national interest.
It doesn't make economic sense to send boatloads of cash
out of country for something we could live equally well using
a lot less of.

Conservation's really bad for oil exporters like Canada and
Mexico, but good for us.

Cheers,
James Arthur

Yes,BUT,Obama's idea is to not use oil,and thinks to replace it with other
"alternate fuels" or wind/solar/geothermal(which aren't going to power any
current autos).

Instead,we should be drilling new US oil sources(ANWR,coastal),WHILE
pressing for more economical autos,and reducing the number of gashog SUVs
and light trucks that people wrongly use for daily transpo.

But Obama and his envirowackjobs are not going to do that.

His real goal is to move people into mass transit,and lower our standard of
living.(and freedom)

 

[Jim Yanik]

No!! There's a load on Amory Lovin's Rocky Mountain Institute
website, but the gist is you can make a same-size car a bunch
lighter with lightweight materials. Then, it needs less power
plant to propel it, so you can use a smaller engine for equal
performance, which makes it lighter still. Both measures save
gas. It's a virtuous circle.

except in REALITY,you have to pass safety and crash tests.
Cars USED to be a lot lighter than they are today,and that is because of
crash standards and added equipment.
Many people today are still stuck on big heavy cars/SUV/trucks because they
think it makes them safer(at the expense of other's safety...).
They simply DONT WANT small cars,fuel efficient or not.

Me,I LIKE small cars;they're easier to drive,more maneuverable(safer),more
fun,and better on gas.I've only owned ONE big car,the rest have all been
small cars.Mostly Hondas,1 Triumph Herald,1 English Ford Cortina GT!)

He also addresses making such a car _safer_ than current cars
with simple, energy-absorbing cones placed inside.

yeah,and WHY hasn't anyone else used this "simple" technology?
If it's that good,and simple.....

Propulsion technology is a separate, independent issue: the
improved body design equally benefits gas, hybrids, and electrics.

There's an _excellent_ video on the site, but it takes an hour
to watch. .PDF notes of the presentation too. (hard to interpret
without watching the video)

Good stuff. Really.

Cheers,
James Arthur

I have dialup,so I'm not going to watch any video.
But,I suspect it's all Utopian dreaming;
not PRACTICAL for manufacturing in any volume at prices people could
afford.

 

[Jim Yanik]

His preferred material is a carbon-fiber composite. That's
not currently cheap, but he argues that it easily could be.

James

can't be repaired easily,not practical for mass manufacturing.
Old cars would not be recyclable,either.

 

[Jim Yanik]

History. You refuse to learn from it, so you'll repeat it. Often.

Europe is surrendering to the Islamics.
By population and by allowing sharia law,kowtowing to Islamic complaints of
lack of respect for Islam.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Those aren't good examples--they're subsidized investments.
Subsidies and government also skewed things and gave us
a bunch of flawed investment in ethanol.

And nuclear plants' prices have a lot of political content, not
just technical; opponents arguing their cost are also devoted
to making darn sure their cost is as high as possible. Because
they hate nukes.

nuke waste remains at the power plants because enviroNIMBYs put so many
roadblocks in place;Yucca Mtn. is a safe place to put the waste.
Other countries like Japan and France effectively deal with their nuclear
waste,and generate far more of their nations powwer from nukes.
If THEY can do it,so can we.

But the fastest, easiest, and best route to our energy
self-sufficiency is to use less; use energy more carefully,
more efficiently.

defeatist thinking.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Yep. Real products... tanks, weapons, aircraft, ships... not "make
work". "Make work" has no multiplier from trickle down... it just
pays enough to make little commies out of every leftist weenie.

...Jim Thompson

and the knowledge gained from making those REAL products was converted to
making consumer products (in the US!) after the war.