Okay, now they've got my attention... Brammo

[Brammofan]

Howdy - new to the forum, but this thread came up on my google web alerts and I can't pass up a good Brammo discussion.

Looks like the usual debates are well underway here: CO2, "zero-emissions", battery life, battery end-of-life, design (needs more fairings etc.), and cost of the bike is too high.

One thing I want to hurl into the vortex is the "cost of maintenance." This is one area where electric motorcycles seem to have gas bikes beat. No oil changes. No tune ups. No engine rebuilds. Basically, I keep my tires inflated, lube my chain, and make sure the brakes are in good working order, and that's it.

I'll be the first one to point out the shortcomings of my Brammo Enertia - Range is certainly an issue. Cost - yeah, it's more than most bikes. Speed - top speed is 62, so I don't take it on the highway for the most part.

Still, it's great fun to ride, gets lots of attention and questions from folks, and being able to plug it into the wall after my 25 mile commute make it a winning proposition for me.

[ninja3575]

Originally Posted by CZroe

You're right... we do have a lot of coal. Last time I checked, being less reliant on other countries for your energy needs was a good thing.

Also, CO2 is not a pollutant. Some say that more CO2 was released in the eruption of Mt. St. Helens than in all fossil fuels man has ever consumed. Though I kinda doubt that, CO2 is completely natural and NOT a pollutant.

True... CO2 is a naturally occurring gas... rather than calling it a "pollutant" I should have left it as being a greenhouse gas... although, and as Shaun has mentioned, just because its naturally occurring does not make it safe... CO2 is a toxic byproduct, at least for us homo sapiens ...

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

WRT the generation of CO2 and HC consumption from transportation, you have to consider complete end to end, not just the end or the beginning.

Yes, I agree, I wish I had viable numbers to work with. Switching over to electric vehicles would be revolutionary, as you mentioned, but what is the hidden costs? if every vehicle on the road today were magically switched to battery power, what would be the costs? will the increase in electric consumption diminish our carbon footprint even with the increase in the burning of coal to meet those increased needs? and what of the batteries after they have lost their charging capabilities? I'm imagining this mountain of used batteries much like the millions of used tires occupying landfills....

In my mind the cost benefits haven't been completely explained to the average consumer... It seems we're just gonna jump on board and deal with the consequences as they come... a foolhardy proposition in my opinion.

Well, what is certain is we need to reduce our fossil fuel dependence ... and at this point, we're lean on ideas... unless of course that one guy on Youtube, manages to market his car that runs on water...

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Eva689

CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) is also a volcanic gas. It is also natural. It just so happens to be poisonous.

...Not all natural things are good for you/me/Earth.

The most significant greenhous gas is water vapor. CO2 is no more dangerous to you on a personal level than water. Sure, your can drown in water or suffocate in CO2, but that would be because you displaced oxygen, same as entering deep space or holding your breath (cells will use remaining oxygen and be unable to exhaust CO2 generated/released by cellular metabolism). Well, deep space has a host of other issues. CO2 is arguably bad for certain species because of a long-term theorized impact assuming that the environment isn't supposed to change and hasn't always been changing, but it's generally good for all species on a personal interaction level.

No matter what your position on CO2-drive AGW, we should all be able to agree than CO2 is neither toxic nor a pollutant.

Originally Posted by ninja3575

True... CO2 is a naturally occurring gas... rather than calling it a "pollutant" I should have left it as being a greenhouse gas... although, and as Shaun has mentioned, just because its naturally occurring does not make it safe... CO2 is a toxic byproduct, at least for us homo sapiens ...

I think you're just messin' with me now. Toxic? Carbon MONOxide is, but not Carbon DIOxide (CO2). Agriculture would FLOURISH if both temperatures and CO2 levels raised. Historically, the Medieval Warm Period alone caused an agricultural boom.

[ninja3575]

Originally Posted by CZroe

I think you're just messin' with me now.

Maybe just a little.. ha !

So..I didnt say it was toxic to all life... i said to us homo sapiens... CO is toxic because it has a greater affinity to Hemoglobin and displaces the binding of oxygen and we suffocate and die...

CO2 toxicity is a known medical condition... and at high enough concentration... results in death by suffocation... Both CO2 and CO cause death in a similar fashion... deprivation of O2... resulting in death.

Things that are "toxic" to humans as you know are not necessarily toxic to other biological life forms so i use the term relatively loosely... for instance... arsenic is highly toxic to humans but certain bacteria thrive on it... Anyway the point i was trying to make is... CO2 under normal atmospheric concentrations is "harmless" .... CO is also "harmless" at low concentrations... I'm breathing it right now... (classroom windows are open and theres a busy street just outside)... but yet its classified as toxic to humans... it is toxic given the concentration administered or exposed. The same goes for CO2... at high concentrations CO2 is "toxic" to humans... and by toxic I am of course referring to it ability to cause death.

Seriously though... why are all you ninjette owners so over-educated?!! hahaha... i musta slipped through the cracks when signing up and got away with not checking the box stating that I had at least a Masters...

Yet again I digress... apologies to all who came to this thread to read about the awesomeness of electric motorcycles...

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by CZroe

I think you're just messin' with me now. Toxic? Carbon MONOxide is, but not Carbon DIOxide (CO2).

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Just sayin...

[spooph]

Somebody here mentioned something about gasoline's inefficiency.... Sure, we waste a lot of power due to heat... BUT, the energy DENSITY of gasoline is unrivaled! No battery can equal it. Hydrogen doesn't stand a chance! Not to mention the ease of refueling. Range doesn't have to be great, there are gas pumps everywhere! Sure, a utopia with electric bikes running off of arc-reactors with ranges to equal the lifespan of the bike would be excellent, however, not a reality yet.....

So glad somebody mentioned H2O vapor is the most prevalent green house gas... Also, not by a small margin, but more like 2/3's plus (I forgot the exact number now.... 67%? 76%, whatevs).

Forget CO2, CO, H2S and all that fun stuff, start looking at LI-PO and NiMH and see what that does to the environment. Even the phosphate polymer packs their coming out with.... They like mini enviro-nukes waiting to happen. Not even to mention the danger of a pack overheating and exploding... Dangerous stuff.... Go look up li-po battery overcharge on youtube... awesome fireworks!

Originally Posted by Brammofan

One thing I want to hurl into the vortex is the "cost of maintenance." This is one area where electric motorcycles seem to have gas bikes beat. No oil changes. No tune ups. No engine rebuilds. Basically, I keep my tires inflated, lube my chain, and make sure the brakes are in good working order, and that's it.

I agree, the amount of effort you have to put into an electric bike is a lot less when compared to a oil-burner, however, me thinks maintenance costs are lower for oil-burners, when looking into the life span of the vehicles and including the base-price....

I mean, it costs me $15/oil change, $12 for a valve check, and I think everything else is about the same (tires, chain, etc). I do all my own wrenching, so I don't have to pay the shops for somebody's time.... Sure you don't have to spend that time wrenching, but I guess my wrenching time is special to me....

A new battery back - 50% the price of the bike?

Not dogging on you dude. Glad you like your Brammo! We should all enjoy the bikes we ride. I've played on a Zero and Quanta, and some homebrew thing that was an absolute hoot! Unfortunately for me, electric isn't an option yet....


I really wish somebody would play with a diesel-hydraulic hybrid system on a bike. Puts electric regen braking to shame! And diesel is just a fertilizer anyway....

OK OK, fine, still not good enough...

I really wish somebody would play with on-board hydrogen generation feeding into a fuel cell, in a semi-closed system. No, I'm under no delusions of perpetual motion, but even at 15% efficiency with a reasonably sized tank, range could still be 200mi+ AND refueling is water... The only "motive" waste of this puppy is HEAT! And scientists can figure out how to beat that.... Safe - water doesn't explode, the small amount of H reservoir produced isn't enough but to warm the legs on a cold winters morning if it explodes. In this system H's low energy density doesn't matter, cause you're carrying a TON of it in the form of water - this whole gas thing is over-ratted.

Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, I'm rambling. Somebody smack me!

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by ninja3575

Maybe just a little.. ha !

So..I didnt say it was toxic to all life... i said to us homo sapiens... CO is toxic because it has a greater affinity to Hemoglobin and displaces the binding of oxygen and we suffocate and die...

CO2 toxicity is a known medical condition... and at high enough concentration... results in death by suffocation... Both CO2 and CO cause death in a similar fashion... deprivation of O2... resulting in death...

Indeed. If you breathe anything at a high enough concentration, you will die... even straight oxygen (O2)! Have you read about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

From http://dhmo.org/facts.html:

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
Each year, Dihydrogen Monoxide is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment. Some of the known perils of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:


* Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
* Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
* Excessive ingestion produces a number of unpleasant though not typically life-threatening side-effects.
* DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
* Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
* Contributes to soil erosion.
* Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.
* Contamination of electrical systems often causes short-circuits.
* Exposure decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes.
* Found in biopsies of pre-cancerous tumors and lesions.
* Given to vicious dogs involved in recent deadly attacks.
* Often associated with killer cyclones in the U.S. Midwest and elsewhere, and in hurricanes including deadly storms in Florida, New Orleans and other areas of the southeastern U.S.
* Thermal variations in DHMO are a suspected contributor to the El Nino weather effect.

What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Despite the known dangers of DHMO, it continues to be used daily by industry, government, and even in private homes across the U.S. and worldwide. Some of the well-known uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide are:

* as an industrial solvent and coolant,
* in nuclear power plants,
* by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels,
* by elite athletes to improve performance,
* in the production of Styrofoam,
* in biological and chemical weapons manufacture,
* in the development of genetically engineering crops and animals,
* as a spray-on fire suppressant and retardant,
* in so-called "family planning" or "reproductive health" clinics,
* as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs,
* as a byproduct of hydrocarbon combustion in furnaces and air conditioning compressor operation,
* in cult rituals,
* by the Church of Scientology on their members and their members' families (although surprisingly, many members recently have contacted DHMO.org to vehemently deny such use),
* by both the KKK and the NAACP during rallies and marches,
* by members of Congress who are under investigation for financial corruption and inappropriate IM behavior,
* by the clientele at a number of bath houses in New York City and San Francisco,
* historically, in Hitler's death camps in Nazi Germany, and in prisons in Turkey, Serbia, Croatia, Libya, Iraq and Iran,
* in World War II prison camps in Japan, and in prisons in China, for various forms of torture,
* during many recent religious and ethnic wars in the Middle East,
* by many terrorist organizations including al Quaeda,
* in community swimming pools to maintain chemical balance,
* in day care centers, purportedly for sanitary purposes,
* by software engineers, including those producing DICOM programmer APIs and other DICOM software tools including DICOM routers,
* by popular computer science professors,
* by the semi-divine King Bhumibol of Thailand and his many devoted young working girls in Bangkok,
* by the British Chiropractic Association and the purveyors of the bogus treatments that the BCA promotes,
* by commodities giant Trafigura in their well-publicized and widely-known toxic-waste dumping activities in Ivory Coast,
* in animal research laboratories, and
* in pesticide production and distribution.

What you may find surprising are some of the products and places where DHMO is used, but which for one reason or another, are not normally made part of public presentations on the dangers to the lives of our family members and friends. Among these startling uses are:

* as an additive to food products, including jarred baby food and baby formula, and even in many soups, carbonated beverages and supposedly "all-natural" fruit juices
* in cough medicines and other liquid pharmaceuticals,
* in spray-on oven cleaners,
* in shampoos, shaving creams, deodorants and numerous other bathroom products,
* in bathtub bubble products marketed to children,
* as a preservative in grocery store fresh produce sections,
* in the production of beer by all the major beer distributors,
* in the coffee available at major coffee houses in the US and abroad,
* in Formula One race cars, although its use is regulated by the Formula One Racing Commission, and
* as a target of ongoing NASA planetary and stellar research.



One of the most surprising facts recently revealed about Dihydrogen Monoxide contamination is in its use as a food and produce "decontaminant." Studies have shown that even after careful washing, food and produce that has been contaminated by DHMO remains tainted by DHMO.

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

CO2 is toxic in higher concentrations: 1% (10,000 ppm) will make some people feel drowsy. Concentrations of 7% to 10% cause dizziness, headache, visual and hearing dysfunction, and unconsciousness within a few minutes to an hour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

Just sayin...

Read it again. Atmospheric CO2 is measured in parts per million. Even 1% is not environmentally possible. The effects of 1% can displace up to 4% of the breathable O2 (oxygen) and cause shortness of breath the same way thick humidity would (shortness of breath or, when calm, enough to breathe slowly, it would make you "drowsy"). Anything CAN be toxic, but it doesn't make it specifically "toxic." Consider that atmospheric CO2 is around 388 PPM and yet the surface of our planet is 2/3rds water. You can't possibly call CO2 "toxic" unless you call H2O the same, which is ridiculous (hence the "DHMO" humor). Yes, water toxicity is MUCH more likely than asphyxiation by CO2, as is asphyxiation by water (water can be toxic when inhaled or ingested!). The truth is, you can take a full breath of 100% CO2 and be perfectly fine. In fact, you can probably take every other breath of 100% CO2 for the rest of your life and be just as well off as a person with only one lung (50% breathing volume). Actually, you'd probably be better off than someone with one lung because you can still exhaust carbon faster. If it were "toxic" in any other sense, would we really carbonate our drinks with it and CONSUME it.

Atmospheric CO2 is not a pollutant or toxic or directly harmful. The indirect effects on global climate change are theorized and about as indirect as can possibly be. To call it toxic and not call water the same is.... misleading (to say the least).

[ninja3575]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Indeed. If you breathe anything at a high enough concentration, you will die... even straight oxygen (O2)! Have you read about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide?

Yeah, its called water... Now who's trying to mess with who? I think the notion that humans are not contributing to Greenhouse gases is ludicrous... Yes water vapor is a large component of green house gases... The green house gases are essential to our enviroment... However, like you demonstrated with O2... too much of a good thing can kill...

The natural balance of greenhouse gases is being augmented by vast amounts of additional CO2 into the atmosphere... would it not be correct to theorize that this would in turn intensify the greenhouse effects? Why is it that scientists 20 years ago stated that the CO2 greenhouse effect were a myth and now that same scientific community is backtracking ? NOW its an accepted fact (well the possibility is greater that it is)... and now there is a push to limit greenhouse gases... ?

Do you believe humans do not impact the environment? obviously we do... so why does it not translate to air pollution? Is it that far fetched an idea to think we may be accelerating a natural phenomena to the point where it is environmentally dangerous?

I'm actually kind of surprised that there are still those who staunchly support the idea that we have ZERO impact on the greenhouse effect... Yeah its easy to see how a petrol spill in the ocean negatively affects the environment, but pumping out CO2 into the environment artificially is a non-event... hmm...

Well, i guess we gotta agree to disagree ... Though I must say this topic is an interesting one...

[Domagoj]

Environmental concerns aside, did you really look up the capacity of the biggest battery they offer? Its 10 kWh! Thats rubbish! And the motor is 40kW, meaning that with full throttle you can run for whooping 15 minutes. So much about your track day. 10 laps and dead. Superb. And then sit and relax for 8 hours recharge...

The worst gasoline you can buy has over 33 MJ/l , which equals approx. 8,5kWh/l, and compare that to lets say 30% of gasoline engine efficiency, you get 2,75 kWh/l effective.
So your ninjette with 12 l tank has over 30 kWh of energy stored.

I think that this is still very very far from practical. Price is double, recharge time is huge, its effective range is probably under 40 miles.

[Brammofan]

Originally Posted by Domagoj

Environmental concerns aside, did you really look up the capacity of the biggest battery they offer? Its 10 kWh! Thats rubbish! And the motor is 40kW, meaning that with full throttle you can run for whooping 15 minutes.

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I'm pretty sure that the motor controller would prevent you from pulling a continuous 40 kw from the battery to turn the motor. Otherwise, I think the motor would melt.

Anyway, I'm not saying that electric doesn't have its limitations. Of course it does. But lets look at the Enertia with its 40 miles of range and the just-announced Enertia Plus with double that - 80 miles of range. The reported weight of the Enertia Plus is the same as the Enertia. Brammo doesn't report the weight of the actual battery in each model, but my point is that they've doubled the range in one year without increasing the weight of the overall package. Kind of reminds me of Moore's Law about transistor count doubling every two years. How long before energy density in batteries (and, perhaps the use of ultra-capacitors) makes range a non-issue?

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by spooph

I really wish somebody would play with on-board hydrogen generation feeding into a fuel cell, in a semi-closed system. No, I'm under no delusions of perpetual motion, but even at 15% efficiency with a reasonably sized tank, range could still be 200mi+ AND refueling is water... The only "motive" waste of this puppy is HEAT! And scientists can figure out how to beat that.... Safe - water doesn't explode, the small amount of H reservoir produced isn't enough but to warm the legs on a cold winters morning if it explodes. In this system H's low energy density doesn't matter, cause you're carrying a TON of it in the form of water - this whole gas thing is over-ratted.

Blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda, I'm rambling. Somebody smack me!

Where would the energy for the on-board hydrogen generation come from? That's something that's conveniently overlooked by the HHO scammers and fanatics. Water (H2O) is the waste byproduct of combining Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen (O2) and releasing energy as a result. If you want to go the other direction, separating H2O into H and O2, you need to add energy. What's more, as explained by the laws of thermodynamics it is impossible to get as much out as you put in. In other words, entropy is the ultimate banker, always getting a cut to itself of any energy transaction. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, but always a cut. Electrolysis is fairly inefficient in its current form, with specialized highly efficient processes reaching maybe 50%. That means that half or more of the energy input into making H and O2 is lost as waste heat. That doesn't even include losses in making the electricity used.

That's why a vehicle-mounted electrolysis process can never be even close to useful. That, and any system that claims to get more energy out than put in (in whatever form) is fundamentally a perpetual motion machine by definition.

In fact, if you level the playing field by starting at the wall socket (therefor making all the losses equal regardless of what happens after the wall socket) batteries and electric motors are still the best way to go. Thermal losses in a modern battery pack charging system are fairly minimal, a few percent, and modern brushless multiphase motors are nearly 99% efficient at converting stored power into actual work, and as has been stated before, electric drive systems offer easy regenerative braking to recapture energy otherwise lost as brake heat.

No matter how you look at it, EV is the future if there's any future to be had. Railing against it only serves to delay the better future that EV will enable.

Edit: Just to clarify my point WRT your onboard H generation idea, you would need to carry and use an energy source to break water into H and O2, then for highest efficiency you would then put that H and O2 into the fuel cell to make electricity again. At a significant loss. Say you have a gasoline-powered generator using 40,000 Watts/gasoline equivalent to put out 10,000 Watts of electricity into an electrolysis cell. The cell would put out about 5,000 Watt/equivalent of H and O2, the rest would be lost as heat. For highest efficiency that H and O2 would go into the fuel cell where it would be combined back into H2O, producing about 2,500 Watts of power and 2,500 Watts of heat. So, by the time the energy of the gasoline running the generator gets to the input of the electric motor running the wheels over 93% of it will have been lost as waste heat. It would be better to use the generator to run the wheels directly, or better yet, to charge batteries. Using it this way gives you the ability to optimize the generator to be more efficient in a much narrower output range compared to normal direct-drive gasoline motors which give up peak efficiency for broad-RPM efficacy. Remember, every time you change energy from one form to another you lose some. Chemical to electricity to chemical to electricity to mechanical, that's the system I described using a generator. Eliminating the middle steps eliminates transactional losses. The less steps the better.

Reading comprehension is just fine, thank you very much.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Brammofan

Kind of reminds me of Moore's Law about transistor count doubling every two years. How long before energy density in batteries (and, perhaps the use of ultra-capacitors) makes range a non-issue?

And that's really the question. The problem, is that unlike Moore's law, the energy density in commercially viable batteries hasn't gone up by even a single order of magnitude in 100 years. There are physical constraints that have proved challenging for as long as people have been at this, and while there is always hope for improvement, huge improvements have proved to be much harder than just about anyone would have imagined 5, 15, or even 50 years ago.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by ninja3575

Yeah, its called water... Now who's trying to mess with who? I think the notion that humans are not contributing to Greenhouse gases is ludicrous... Yes water vapor is a large component of green house gases... The green house gases are essential to our enviroment... However, like you demonstrated with O2... too much of a good thing can kill...

The natural balance of greenhouse gases is being augmented by vast amounts of additional CO2 into the atmosphere... would it not be correct to theorize that this would in turn intensify the greenhouse effects? Why is it that scientists 20 years ago stated that the CO2 greenhouse effect were a myth and now that same scientific community is backtracking ? NOW its an accepted fact (well the possibility is greater that it is)... and now there is a push to limit greenhouse gases... ?

Do you believe humans do not impact the environment? obviously we do... so why does it not translate to air pollution? Is it that far fetched an idea to think we may be accelerating a natural phenomena to the point where it is environmentally dangerous?

I'm actually kind of surprised that there are still those who staunchly support the idea that we have ZERO impact on the greenhouse effect... Yeah its easy to see how a petrol spill in the ocean negatively affects the environment, but pumping out CO2 into the environment artificially is a non-event... hmm...

Well, i guess we gotta agree to disagree ... Though I must say this topic is an interesting one...

I never said what side of the anthropogenic global warming issue I fall on and very particularly only discussed it's direct effects on us. My position on AGW is actually decidedly undecided. You can not draw conclusions from the position of the people who are in a position to get paid based on one outcome: Want some grant money to study the mating habits of gibbons in Madagascar? Then just say you want to study the effects of AGW on the mating habits of gibbons in Madagascar and be sure to interpret the results in a way that causes the funding source to remain concerned enough that the money will keep flowing for all future projects! I don't know why people think that money only taints results with it comes from corporations when it has the power to corrupt no matter where it is from.

Also, greenhouse gasses do not work the way you imply. There is a spectrum of light. Not all wavelengths (colors both visible and invisible) are absorbed by a typical greenhouse gas. In fact, the majority of the visible spectrum is allowed through unimpeded except when cloud cover scatters it. But, here's the thing: If one gas already exists to absorb a particular wavelength in enough quantity to ensure 100% absorption, adding more does nothing to that absorption rate. It's like having a home with half the windows covered with blinds but only adding blinds behind the windows that already have them. The light CO2 absorbs is covered by other greenhouse gasses nearly 100%. Water, by far, has to widest spectrum of absorption AND the most direct positive reinforcement (more heat = more water vapor on a planet with 2/3rds of the surface covered by the liquid form). The difference is that water vapor is also reflective of the visible spectrum and can actually cool the earth with cloud cover, though it would still be "climate change" (more clouds, storms, rain, etc). Water vapor is so efficient at absorbing the sun's energy in so many wavelengths that it creates gigantic engines with spinning turbines to dissipate the energy: Hurricanes. CO2 doesn't hold a candle to that kind of effect, so when people talk about significant greenhouse gases, they MUST talk about water vapor, which is by far the most significant.

As for our contribution to total CO2, it really is smaller than you think... and I don't just mean by percentage/PPM compared to a planetary scale. People don't tell you how absolutely tiny our output is by comparison to all the natural sources (animals, plants, and, most of all, the oceans teaming with plankton and releasing absorbed CO2). It's humbling, to say the least. No one is saying that additional CO2 can't have any effect, but when it's being added faster than we could ever dream of doing it by natural processes whether we we adding ours or not, you really have to stop and consider why you are only being told that we are the najor source.

Climate science is a science of observation. No model has ever been able to predict something it wasn't modeled to predict ("measuring with your own yardstick"). Our observation is that the Earth *IS* getting warmer. It has been getting warmer for far longer than mankind has been adding CO2 to the atmosphere (remember the Ice Age?), but seeing if our involvement is a factor is justified. Assuming that we and CO2 are the cause is very short-sighted, especially seeing that CO2 has always raised after global temperatures in history (obviously, not driving the change), but it is a justifiable concern that warrants investigation. The problem is that far too many have closed the book due to preliminary, most likely, skewed studies by people with plenty of motive to continue skewing. To them, AGW is fact.

Originally Posted by Alex

And that's really the question. The problem, is that unlike Moore's law, the energy density in commercially viable batteries hasn't gone up by even a single order of magnitude in 100 years. There are physical constraints that have proved challenging for as long as people have been at this, and while there is always hope for improvement, huge improvements have proved to be much harder than just about anyone would have imagined 5, 15, or even 50 years ago.

I'm hoping ultracapacitor tech can change this (not exactly a battery).

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Where would the energy for the on-board hydrogen generation come from? That's something that's conveniently overlooked by the HHO scammers and fanatics. Water (H2O) is the waste byproduct of combining Hydrogen (H) and Oxygen (O2) and releasing energy as a result. If you want to go the other direction, separating H2O into H and O2, you need to add energy. What's more, as explained by the laws of thermodynamics it is impossible to get as much out as you put in. In other words, entropy is the ultimate banker, always getting a cut to itself of any energy transaction. Sometimes a little, sometimes a lot, but always a cut. Electrolysis is fairly inefficient in its current form, with specialized highly efficient processes reaching maybe 50%. That means that half or more of the energy input into making H and O2 is lost as waste heat. That doesn't even include losses in making the electricity used.

That's why a vehicle-mounted electrolysis process can never be even close to useful. That, and any system that claims to get more energy out than put in (in whatever form) is fundamentally a perpetual motion machine by definition.

In fact, if you level the playing field by starting at the wall socket (therefor making all the losses equal regardless of what happens after the wall socket) batteries and electric motors are still the best way to go. Thermal losses in a modern battery pack charging system are fairly minimal, a few percent, and modern brushless multiphase motors are nearly 99% efficient at converting stored power into actual work, and as has been stated before, electric drive systems offer easy regenerative braking to recapture energy otherwise lost as brake heat.

No matter how you look at it, EV is the future if there's any future to be had. Railing against it only serves to delay the better future that EV will enable.

NASA's Voyager 1 & 2 are still running off a heat-based power source in deep space (generated by radioactive decay). If we can make something that can efficiently absorb, convert, and utilize that "waste" heat energy then... well, then we should use the tech inside our gasoline motors too! Make a hybrid.

[Brammofan]

Originally Posted by Alex

And that's really the question. The problem, is that unlike Moore's law, the energy density in commercially viable batteries hasn't gone up by even a single order of magnitude in 100 years.

It might depend on your definition of "commercially viable" but are you saying that a Lithium Ion battery from 2010 doesn't have at least twice the energy density of a lead acid battery of the same size from 1910?

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Brammofan

It might depend on your definition of "commercially viable" but are you saying that a Lithium Ion battery from 2010 doesn't have at least twice the energy density of a lead acid battery of the same size from 1910?

To be raised an order of magnitude higher it must be at least the same amount squared... not just doubled. "Amount of what?" I dunno, some smaller capacity measurement that doesn't total to "1" or "2" in said LA battery.

[Brammofan]

Originally Posted by CZroe

To be raised an order of magnitude higher it must be at least the same amount squared... not just doubled. "Amount of what?" I dunno, some smaller capacity measurement that doesn't total to "1" or "2" in said LA battery.

I'm one of those guys who, in the electric motorcycle forums, always leaves it up to the EE geniuses to debate this kind of point. Maybe you're right about it not being an order of magnitude better... Moore's law is just about doubling the number of transistors on a board every two years.

I'll go ask the question over on the electric motorcycle boards and see what kind of answers I get. It's a valid point.

[Brammofan]

I knew I could count on my electric nerds. You're right, CZroe. No order of magnitude increase in batteries. Here's the response I got:

Looks like SLA (sealed lead acid) is in the neighborhood of 50wh/kg and Lithium Ion is like 150wh/kg (not all, just some. Lifepo4 is still under 130wh/kg as far as I know). Thats still 3x (which is huge for us, but not enough realistically for everyone). Gasoline is 12.7kwh/kg. So He's right.... kinda. Because you no longer need a huge engine, gas tank, exhaust and all of the support mechanicals and you also have 3-4 times the efficiency in electric than you do in a gasoline powered engine. So you're really only looking at what, 2540wh/kg...... but thats still 50 times the energy in SLA..

He links to a discussion on another forum about energy density.

Another poster on the electric motorcycle forum said, "You should have asked him if he has gasoline which could get him 10 times further per gallon."

[Alex]

Originally Posted by Brammofan

It might depend on your definition of "commercially viable" but are you saying that a Lithium Ion battery from 2010 doesn't have at least twice the energy density of a lead acid battery of the same size from 1910?

I'm sure that it does have twice, and perhaps even 10 times the density. Here's a link on wikipedia: (scroll down to "True Energy Density" table)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

But comparing improvements like that with things like Moore's law just isn't a particularly useful or valid relationship, as IMO it gives people a false expectation of what really is possible (or likely). Density of transistors and computing power truly does double (ish) every 18 months. Improvements in energy density do nothing of the sort. Which isn't unexpected, as it's rare for just about anything else in science or engineering to improve in the way that computing power & density has.

[spooph]

dihydrogen monoxide - that's hilarious!

Frugal - thank you for your amazing display in reading comprehension!

[rockNroll]

Ginger or Mary Ann?

[backinthesaddleagain]

Originally Posted by spooph

It is usually the case yes... 220 rocks! 50hz doesn't though...

220, 221 whatever it takes

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by CZroe

To be raised an order of magnitude higher it must be at least the same amount squared... not just doubled. "Amount of what?" I dunno, some smaller capacity measurement that doesn't total to "1" or "2" in said LA battery.

Actually, though your definition might be technically true in some way, the most accepted definition and the way the phrase "order of magnitude" is most often used is by a factor of ten, not squared. Earthquakes are described that way, for instance.

Moore's Law won't apply to battery technology because the limitations there can't be overcome with miniaturization as has been the case in semiconductor technology. Battery technology has come a long way, very long way, since 1910. It is now mature enough with the Li technologies to become a viable energy storage medium for a large portion of the mobile transportation segment of this country. Remember, most people in this country drive 30 miles or less each way to work and back most of the time.

If we could replace just a few percent of the vehicles in this country with EVs (that would easily meet the needs of half the commuting public) we could tell OPEC to shove it up their arse. Would that be something worth doing? I sure think so. It sucks being beholden to a hostile organization.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Brammofan

I'm one of those guys who, in the electric motorcycle forums, always leaves it up to the EE geniuses to debate this kind of point. Maybe you're right about it not being an order of magnitude better... Moore's law is just about doubling the number of transistors on a board every two years.

I'll go ask the question over on the electric motorcycle boards and see what kind of answers I get. It's a valid point.

Electric motorcycle boards? Where might I find such a thing?

[onetruevibe]

1.21 Jigawatts, FTW



Someone had to do it!

I dig the looks of the Empulse, for sure.

[Brammofan]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Electric motorcycle boards? Where might I find such a thing?

The two 'general' boards are at http://elmoto.net and http://electricmotorcycleforum.com

Plus, if you're interested in a more specific forum, there's always the Brammo Owners Forum at http://brammoforum.com . (Disclaimer: it's a forum that I administer).

[Brammofan]

Originally Posted by onetruevibe

1.21 Jigawatts, FTW



Someone had to do it!

I dig the looks of the Empulse, for sure.

I actually have a "Warning: Flux Capacitor" decal on my Enertia.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Brammofan

The two 'general' boards are at http://elmoto.net and http://electricmotorcycleforum.com

Plus, if you're interested in a more specific forum, there's always the Brammo Owners Forum at http://brammoforum.com . (Disclaimer: it's a forum that I administer).

Thanks for the links! I do intend to build an EV bike at some point, likely on a mountain bike chassis for surface street use only. My goals are 45mph sustained through hills with a range of at least 25 miles, preferably 40, using the existing chain/sprocket system and keeping the pedals for legal reasons. We'll see how that works out...

[ninja3575]

Originally Posted by CZroe

Also, greenhouse gasses do not work the way you imply. There is a spectrum of light. Not all wavelengths (colors both visible and invisible) are absorbed by a typical greenhouse gas. In fact, the majority of the visible spectrum is allowed through unimpeded except when cloud cover scatters it. But, here's the thing: If one gas already exists to absorb a particular wavelength in enough quantity to ensure 100% absorption, adding more does nothing to that absorption rate. It's like having a home with half the windows covered with blinds but only adding blinds behind the windows that already have them. The light CO2 absorbs is covered by other greenhouse gasses nearly 100%.

I am not suggesting that greenhouse gases work in the way that your typical green house works... via convection...

From your description... i'm not quite certain what you mean by 100% absorption of wavelengths of light... In terms of greenhouse gases, it is not the absorption that is the issue... it is rather the reflection of Infrared heat put out by the Earth (as a result of the rays from the sun)... that is the issue.

Greenhouse gases do absorb this IR heat.... but it is NOT 100%... The reflected Infrared heat is what warms the earth... and as you increase the concentrations of CO2 and Methane (artificially and naturally) you in turn increase the amount of Infrared heat that get returned back to the earth and warms the atmosphere... That is my understanding of how the system works and I believe to be correct.

Apologies if I misunderstood what you implied... but it seems your suggesting the absorption process as being the cause to warming... and if the capacity is already at 100% absorption, than adding to it makes no difference... Also you bring up the significance of water vapor... Sure water vapor may be present in the highest concentration... but how is it related to the subject at hand? Its like bringing up O2 or N2 in a case involving carbon monoxide poisoning..

Greenhouse gases are GOOD... they are an essential part of our environment... the concentration levels of one versus another do not play a part in how significant they are... The problem comes when we artificially manipulate them and increase them UNNATURALLY... then we have accelerated/inceased warming of the environment... at least thats how i've come to know how it all works... and of course i'm abreviating something that is a little more complex and better explained by individuals whose lives revolve around the atmospheric system above....

We have a fundamental difference in our understanding of the process... and I stand by my version... that the key to global warming is the increased reflection of IR heat by the greenhouse gases in our upper atmosphere (triatomic molecules) and to increase their concentrations would also increase the capacity to reflect heat back to the Earth...

Now as far as the politics involved, and the questionable models and methods used to conclude this correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming.... well... thats a whole other can O' worms that i'd love to tackle someday...

and yes... I've gone nuts over the BOLD text feature... my bad...

[ninja3575]

Originally Posted by onetruevibe

1.21 Jigawatts, FTW



Someone had to do it!

I dig the looks of the Empulse, for sure.

Hilarious stuff there Brian...

[Jerry]

We need some standard sizes established so some organization can begin to offer a battery swap service. Drive in, instant swap, drive out with a "full tank" or "full bank" if you will.

Need to go far? Opt for the deep cycle batteries...Need for speed? Get ya some high discharge Duracells.

Lead acid batteries are highly recycleable, or so I've read.

There are some motorcycles out there that only have a range of 150 miles on a tank, but it's not a major problem because it's hard to find a place in the country that is both on a road, and more than 100 miles from a gas station.

Maybe Pep Boys, or WalMart, even Starbucks could build a support system, and sell "Cheaply Made Machines" for $2000. Sell a fresh-charged set of batteries for about the price of a tank of gas (or something approaching mile-for-mile capacity) and you may just find a market, that Starbucks crowd sure likes scooters in my neck of the woods.

...and I stayed on topic!

[Domagoj]

Originally Posted by Brammofan

I'm not an electrical engineer, but I'm pretty sure that the motor controller would prevent you from pulling a continuous 40 kw from the battery to turn the motor. Otherwise, I think the motor would melt.

Anyway, I'm not saying that electric doesn't have its limitations. Of course it does. But lets look at the Enertia with its 40 miles of range and the just-announced Enertia Plus with double that - 80 miles of range. The reported weight of the Enertia Plus is the same as the Enertia. Brammo doesn't report the weight of the actual battery in each model, but my point is that they've doubled the range in one year without increasing the weight of the overall package. Kind of reminds me of Moore's Law about transistor count doubling every two years. How long before energy density in batteries (and, perhaps the use of ultra-capacitors) makes range a non-issue?

Dont get me wrong here. Im not trying to degrade new tech and advancement.

Perhaps it is a good idea to try to look at this from another picture:

Powerful motorcycle is a luxury product. What im trying to say is that if you want to be economical and cheap and green, you will buy a 50cc 4 stroke scooter for under 1000 $, and give rest of 13000$ to help whales or help some sort of environment friendly research. Or better, you will take a bus or train, and give away 14k.

Brammo is not trying to save the world. They are trying to make money. They just had an idea that a motorcycle like the one they make will find its place in the market. Please do not think that i am against them in any personal way. But also please dont believe that they are doing this because they are environmentally aware. Its just that they are targeting a specific market of people who really do think about environment, or on the other hand rich folks who like new and fancy toys. Again, im not trying to lessen the engineering effort - it is there evidently, but in its current stage, it is not revolutionary.

[Brammofan]

Originally Posted by Domagoj

Brammo is not trying to save the world. They are trying to make money.

I hear you, and agree with most of what you said. I just wanted to add one detail that I happen to know because I know the guy who started the company and why he's making these bikes. Brammo used to be the North American licensee of the Ariel Atom. The Atom is a supercar - 0 - 60 in 2.7 seconds. He had an epiphany after several years of making these cars that he needed to change direction. (yes, it had something to do with Gore's movie, but also had to do with his growing family). Anyway, he started working on an electric Atom, but decided that the battery technology couldn't support the type of performance (and range) required. But two wheeled vehicles could.

So sure, he wants to make money - can't fault him for that. But there definitely is a "save the planet" incentive behind what he and his company believe in. If that underlying mission wasn't there, he'd still be building supercars for the super rich. It was more profitable and financially logical than starting his own motorcycle company in the middle of this particular decade. He's either crazy, stupid, a scammer, or a visionary. Since I ride his product -- and it's a blast to ride -- I can eliminate "scammer" from that list. The rest of the possibilities, however, remain to be seen.

[billmi]

Originally Posted by Brammofan

http://elmoto.net and

And it's worth noting, that there are multiple electric Ninja 250 conversions or conversions in progress represented there.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by Jerry

We need some standard sizes established so some organization can begin to offer a battery swap service. Drive in, instant swap, drive out with a "full tank" or "full bank" if you will.

Need to go far? Opt for the deep cycle batteries...Need for speed? Get ya some high discharge Duracells.

Lead acid batteries are highly recycleable, or so I've read.

There are some motorcycles out there that only have a range of 150 miles on a tank, but it's not a major problem because it's hard to find a place in the country that is both on a road, and more than 100 miles from a gas station.

Maybe Pep Boys, or WalMart, even Starbucks could build a support system, and sell "Cheaply Made Machines" for $2000. Sell a fresh-charged set of batteries for about the price of a tank of gas (or something approaching mile-for-mile capacity) and you may just find a market, that Starbucks crowd sure likes scooters in my neck of the woods.

...and I stayed on topic!

That's exactly what I was suggesting. It would probably have to be some kind of service where you don't actually own the battery. LA is very renewable as it's always possible to add fluids and restore them.

That said, the swap could be performed as fast as dispensing gas without having to wait hours for a recharge. The "problem" of a standardized battery not being as space-efficient is not a real problem... it can be augmented with integrated Li cells that are usually only charged when you reach your destination with the larger standardized packs fitting in the largest cavities reserved for batteries.

[CZroe]

Originally Posted by ninja3575

I am not suggesting that greenhouse gases work in the way that your typical green house works... via convection...

From your description... i'm not quite certain what you mean by 100% absorption of wavelengths of light... In terms of greenhouse gases, it is not the absorption that is the issue... it is rather the reflection of Infrared heat put out by the Earth (as a result of the rays from the sun)... that is the issue.

Greenhouse gases do absorb this IR heat.... but it is NOT 100%... The reflected Infrared heat is what warms the earth... and as you increase the concentrations of CO2 and Methane (artificially and naturally) you in turn increase the amount of Infrared heat that get returned back to the earth and warms the atmosphere... That is my understanding of how the system works and I believe to be correct.

Apologies if I misunderstood what you implied... but it seems your suggesting the absorption process as being the cause to warming... and if the capacity is already at 100% absorption, than adding to it makes no difference... Also you bring up the significance of water vapor... Sure water vapor may be present in the highest concentration... but how is it related to the subject at hand? Its like bringing up O2 or N2 in a case involving carbon monoxide poisoning..

Greenhouse gases are GOOD... they are an essential part of our environment... the concentration levels of one versus another do not play a part in how significant they are... The problem comes when we artificially manipulate them and increase them UNNATURALLY... then we have accelerated/inceased warming of the environment... at least thats how i've come to know how it all works... and of course i'm abreviating something that is a little more complex and better explained by individuals whose lives revolve around the atmospheric system above....

We have a fundamental difference in our understanding of the process... and I stand by my version... that the key to global warming is the increased reflection of IR heat by the greenhouse gases in our upper atmosphere (triatomic molecules) and to increase their concentrations would also increase the capacity to reflect heat back to the Earth...

Now as far as the politics involved, and the questionable models and methods used to conclude this correlation between greenhouse gases and global warming.... well... thats a whole other can O' worms that i'd love to tackle someday...

and yes... I've gone nuts over the BOLD text feature... my bad...

When you look at a surface that is red, it means that the material absorbs other visible wavelengths and reflects red. Now, it doesn't just absorb and store the energy from the Blue and Yellow parts of the spectrum... rather, it gets converted to something else (usually heat) and radiated. In a way, this is a type of reflection also. This is the type of absorption and reflection that greenhouse gasses use to trap energy and keep it in the atmosphere (you simply see an arrow bounce off the planet's surface then bounce off the sky in a diagram about the greenhouse effect). It has been said that CO2 is largely ineffective as a greenhouse gas in our climate despite it's known and proven capabilities due to the spectrum it absorbs already being fully covered ("100%") by more prevalent greenhouse gasses, leaving nothing more in its spectrum for it to absorb. As to whether this is actually what is happening or not is a subject climate scientists will be debating for years to come, but CO2 has been shown to be driven by temperature in the past and not the other way around. If it truly drove atmospheric temperatures as some claim, we never would have escaped the viscous cycle to be at our current concentrations. Basically, the "hockey stick" graph that shows ice core samples correlated with global temps have been shown to be 600 years off with the CO2 rising 600 years after the equivalent rise in temperature, meaning the graphs have to be shifted for them to align. The delay is due to the lag before oceans warm up over centuries and, just like a carbonated beverage, begin releasing all the dissolved CO2. That isn't to say that artificially raising it can't have an effect, but it does cast a lot of doubt and does show that the jury is still out on climate science despite the supposed "consensus."

Money taints results no matter the source, so one must consider this even when reading official IPCC scientific reports.

[FrugalNinja250]

Swappable batteries are good for long distance trips, but I gotta wonder something. Why delay the implementation of a technology until all the engineering is worked out on the worst-case usage scenarios? Most people spend most of their miles commuting to work most of the time. Most often that distance is 30 miles or less. What that means is that EVs meet the needs of most of the non-commercial miles driven/ridden in this country right now. Drive/ride to work and home, charge at home and/or work, no need for complicated battery swapping schemes that are impractical.

The fact is that an EV will probably not ever have the flexibility of a gasoline-powered vehicle. It will likely never be as general purpose as, say, a Suburban, or the performance of a Corvette, or the range of a Prius. Part of moving to EVs will require us to let that paradigm go. That way of looking at things came about as a result of fossil fuels being plentiful and cheap; That's over now, has been for a while. The sooner we move on, the less expensive it will be in the long run and the lesser the societal and economic disruption will be.

We can either do this in a progressive manner, or have it done to us by hostile third parties.

[Alex]

I dunno Frugal, gasoline remains plentiful and cheap, and will be so for many, many years to come. There is a whole bunch of FUD out there to make it seem as if the gas pumps are shutting off next week, but that wasn't true in the 70's, wasn't true in the 80's, and still isn't true here in 2010. Will it be the primary fuel for transportation 100 years from now? Perhaps not, but there's a difference between planning for the future and stating that we are already at the future right now.

In terms of being beholden to hostile interests, it may also be helpful to bring into the discussion about where the world gets its Lithium, and what happens when the global need jumps 5 fold. Or 20 fold. Or 100 fold. Sources of energy along with related natural resources have always involved competing global interests, and holding up EV's as the solution to make the US (or any other country) much more self-sufficient just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Alex

I dunno Frugal, gasoline remains plentiful and cheap, and will be so for many, many years to come.

It's more than 100% more expensive than just a handful of years ago, and takes up a greater percentage of household income than ever, especially when it was over $4. I remember when T. Boone Pickens said oil would hit $100 a barrel and everyone said he was a loon spewing crazy talk. People who said gas would get to $3 were were decried as uninformed idiots with Chicken Little Complex.

Sucks being right...

Originally Posted by Alex

In terms of being beholden to hostile interests, it may also be helpful to bring into the discussion about where the world gets its Lithium

Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, are all friendlier than anyone in the middle east. China is a major production location only by virtue of the fact that most Li technology batteries are produced there. Li is a common as Nickel and Lead. Nickel is mostly used for stainless steel production, and Lead is mainly used for car battery production and bullets.

IMHO, the greatest short, mid, and long-term threat to this nation's survival, much less growth, is China, or more specifically, being leveraged to the hilt to China. A close second is our dependence on fossil fuels and the resultant ties to the middle east. If it wasn't for oil we wouldn't have to give a rat's fart about Iraq, Iran, etc. The terrorists wouldn't have the huge river of money to dip into to finance their religious fanatic schemes, they'd be nothing.

In my view, my honest opinion, anything we do that increases imports of oil is bad. Anything we do to reduce it is good. Simple. Succinct. Basic. EV fulfills that. Me getting a 250 Ninja and modifying it to get over 65mpg fulfills that. Every mile I ride instead of drive I'm thumbing my nose at a bunch of religious zealots in the middle east, and that brings a real smile to my face.

[Alex]

Saying that gas is more expensive than it used to be is correct. Saying that it is no longer plentiful or cheap is incorrect. It remains cheaper than bottled water or milk, any one of us can drive up to any of the 110,000+ stations across the country and buy as much of it as we'd want on a moment's notice. Not to mention that it remains cheaper here in the US to the consumer than almost anywhere else on the planet. That's plentiful, and that's cheap. Saying that it won't be that way forever and ever is also likely correct, but then it comes down to the whole "when" question that has been miscalculated and misunderstood for decades.

Conservation, good. Less reliance on imports, good. Exploring alternative energy sources, good. Believing that a large portion of the people who are now happily using gas to commute need to switch to EV's in the next handful of years or the world will cave in, isn't as accurate. Any individual consumer making the choice today in 2010 about what is the cheapest way for them personally to satisfy their transportation needs = cheap car that runs on gasoline. Believing that a significant portion of the public is going to change their expectations about what their transportation needs are in the very near future due to fuel pricing, it's just not likely.