Revenge of the Electric Car

[Heed]

Has anyone seen this movie? It's a documentary film by Chris Paine, who also directed 'Who Killed the Electric Car?'.

I've always been obsessed over the topic of gas prices. This is going to sound horrible, but I want to see gas prices go up (easy for me to say, I don't pay for gas or food). Today's national average is $3.84. By me, the nearest gas station in a Chicago suburb is $4.39. I wonder what's going to happen in the next 5 years.

Anyways, I'm a big fan of BoB Lutz. I wish I knew about this movie a long time ago. Can't believe this was released in '11 without me hearing about it. And now that Megavideo is down, well, yeah. Here's the trailer...

Link to original page on YouTube.

I'm pretty tempted to buy this.

[Scattcatt]

I do hope you only want to see prices go up to hopefully encourage a shift toward electric vehicles at a greater rate lol... That I can sort of see, but one could also argue that electricity is often generated from gasoline, which I suppose could be counter argued by the other various methods available, but you get my point I'm sure.

[FrugalNinja250]

Electricity is almost never generated from gasoline. Outside of nuclear, gasoline is probably one of the most expensive ways to generate electricity. The main advantage of EV is that except for nuclear (where we import half our fuel from the Russians) it is almost 100% in house generated using in-border sources of energy. We have an existing infrastructure that can be relatively easily expanded capacity-wise, and using electrons for motive power frees us up to use many different ways to make power. With internal combustion engines, you're pretty much limited to using oil or natural gas. With EV, you can use solar, wind, geothermal, hydro, thorium fission (which I'm a fan of since we have 400 years of in-border reserves) coal (sucks, but we have plenty, last choice before uranium fission IMHO), wave, down-hole Peltier, etc, etc, etc.

Other big advantage of EV is that it's easily more than double the efficiency. Internal combustion engines throw away two thirds of fuel's energy as waste heat out the tailpipe and out the radiator. What little does get used for motion is then wasted as brake heat. EV motors are well over 90% efficient and can use regeneration while braking to recover some energy, ultimately a lot of it as fast charge storage technologies are developed.

And ultimately it boils down to this: Either we develop the technology as the presumed world leader in engineering, or we abandon it to China and India and other countries and buy it from them later, paying royalties all the way to their bank. One or the other, there's no middle ground on this subject.

[Scattcatt]

On a large scale electrical production I could see this as true, I was thinking more along the lines of private electric generators, aren't most of those gasoline powered? Or are they propane?

[sombo]

My biggest problem is how the energy and automotive industries keep trying to lie to us about the electric car. Most people don't know that it's technology is actually older than gasoline powered cars. It's NOT a new tech and at one time was the primary drive of cars. They were even making speed and distance records back in the late 1800's (first car to break 62mph in 1899 was electric with a top speed of 65.79mph). One company even started a battery exchange program to make up for the lack of a recharging infrastructure between 1910 - 1924 and helped cover some 6 million miles of use in electric trucks.

Yet for the past 50-60 years we've been getting the same line from those industries: "that technology is about 50 years down the road."

They've been saying that for over 50 years now and still trying to say that. How long are we gonna keep believing the lies that let them stay in power just to gain profit when the technology that could set us free from them is in fact viable and doable?

Also, a lot of people make a big thing about the modern "flex-fuel" vehicles as if that's a new concept. The Ford Model t was designed to run on 3 different types of fuel including ethanol as it's primary source of fuel. Just another forgotten fact that the corporations like to keep quiet on to make it seem like their "new" technology was never thought of before and they are making efforts to reduce emissions and increase use of alternative fuel sources. At one time, petroleum was the alternative with ethanol and electricity being the primaries. Yay for profit being more important than pushing technology, ecology, and human well-being forward.

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Scattcatt

On a large scale electrical production I could see this as true, I was thinking more along the lines of private electric generators, aren't most of those gasoline powered? Or are they propane?

Temorary small generators are typically gasoline, fixed units and large portables (truck-mounted are either natural gas or diesel. Gasoline is the least-preferred method.

[Klondike1020]

The only electric car I will drive is maxxis lol

[Scattcatt]

Originally Posted by FrugalNinja250

Temorary small generators are typically gasoline, fixed units and large portables (truck-mounted are either natural gas or diesel. Gasoline is the least-preferred method.

Diesel is preferred to gasoline even with the considerably higher cost per amount? What's the payoff there? Higher amounts of energy gain per that same amount?

[FrugalNinja250]

Originally Posted by Scattcatt

Diesel is preferred to gasoline even with the considerably higher cost per amount? What's the payoff there? Higher amounts of energy gain per that same amount?

More electrons per unit of fuel consumed, far longer fuel stability combined with much safer fuel handling and storage. Common fuel for fleet infrastructure, i.e. big rigs and large portable gensets.

[Heed]

Originally Posted by Scattcatt

I do hope you only want to see prices go up to hopefully encourage a shift toward electric vehicles at a greater rate lol...

that's pretty much what i meant XD


Anyway, I bought the movie. Not too ashamed that I payed $12 for it. I liked it a lot.

Originally Posted by sombo

Yet for the past 50-60 years we've been getting the same line from those industries: "that technology is about 50 years down the road."

Well, the Leaf and Volt are great. The problem with the Volt is that nobody has $35k to spend on a new car. The Leaf is much more affordable even though nobody has $27k in their pocket eitehr. And of course, nobody can buy a used EV at this point. Resale is probably going to be an issue for EVs. I wonder if batteries are going to be an issue. It's just like an old RC car I had. Properly completely discharge the batteries before recharging them again if you really want to take care of it.

But I guess if you really wanted to take care of it you could possibly discharge your car's battery by powering your house's electricity. I even heard about it being possible that you can schedule your car so that it charges during peaks where electricity is the cheapest. And then let's say you're on vacation or something you can program it so that it buys electricity cheap and sells back to the grid lmao. Your car can make you money!

I wonder how long it takes to charge your car fully, b/c if it's out of juice, it's just dead weight and you can't carry a can of electricity with you if worse comes to worst.

I guess it's just a matter of popularity. Make an EV that is practical, affordable, attractive and get them on the road. So far, I think the Leaf is the best at those 3 cruxes. Of course there is Tesla and Fisker but they're so damn expensive that the people who are buying them probably aren't even hurting from the high gas prices anyway.

Tesla's Model S has an excellent design and looks practical as well but I'm sure it's going to cost at least as much as a Volt.

[Whiskey]

The big problems I see with electrics are the battery range Vs speed trade off & the charging time. Watch the Charge TTX-GP documentary, the trailer for it is below.

The bikes were unable to finish a single lap of the island if they went WOT the full way round, qualifying time was in the region of 50 minutes for the electric bikes ( the record for a lap is 17:12.30 on a fireblade)

Fix both problems & I'll be very happy with electric, they pull like a train

Link to original page on YouTube.

[FrugalNinja250]

So much misinformation, will post more when I get home. Posting from mobile is PITA.

[sombo]

See, that's just it. The technology has been around for over 100 years. However, when the corporations decided to focus on maximizing the profit of petroleum over pushing the technology of the other energy sources, we ended up losing much of that research and development.

Also consider this. The corporations that can control where the energy comes from and how we power things will continue to make the technologies that will generate the least amount of quick/easy profit for them as expensive as possible to get in order to make us not want them and show "proof" that it's not viable. Much of that technology that they charge massive premiums for could actually built at a much lower cost than we will ever be allowed to know about. As long as it is made to look more expensive than what they are selling, they can control the market and how we get our power.

[Alex]

Lack of scientific breakthroughs do not imply there is a conspiracy to prevent them. There's no man behind the curtain keeping us from developing a $399 car that goes 300 mph and runs on the energy provided by butterfly wings. Science gets in the way.

While electric technology has been around forever, the advances in storage capacity and density haven't progressed nearly as much as hoped, or even expected. Those electric bikes around the isle of mann have the equivalent of something like a 1/3 of a gallon of gas on board, in terms of the store electric energy. Of course they are going to be slow. Of course they are going to have limited range.

I think it's clear that the use of electric cars is going to continue to go up over time, but their inherent limitations aren't going to make them a viable alternative for many use cases for a long time to come.

I do think that the stat that is often shared is true; namely that 95% of trips a car owner takes can be done within the range of a current electric car. The problem is that every once in awhile, that car owner wants to take a trip that simply isn't within that range. A better stat would be something like 95% of people could handle their transportation needs with an electric car, but that's not saying the same thing. Nor is it nearly as feasible.

[sombo]

Well you can choose to believe that crap if you want. However, there have been literally hundreds of technologies developed over the past 100 years that would topple the current energy corporations that have simply vanished with the inventors just seeming to disappear. There are other forms of battery and storage containers that have been developed that totally destroy the currently used tech. However, they show up in the media maybe once or twice and then just simply vanish. If you wish to believe there is no conspiracy from the oil companies then I pity your ignorance and compliance to their will. As long as they are making billions in profits every quarter from giving us no other "viable" alternatives, you will never see the technology that could set us free come to light.

I've seen dozens of technologies from well known, reliable sources be shown and discussed in full detail broadcast nationally. They would show the full results of their research, how they did it, what they're doing now, and what their plans were for the future of it. But then in less than a year all mention of many of them is just simply gone and all searches for even what was shown nationally comes up empty. This has been going on for over 50 years. My parents and many other older people remember seeing many inventors come forth with carbs that could get 100mpg back in the 60's. Then they just simply vanished with not so much as a word as to what happened to them. So go ahead and believe that the oil/energy companies aren't making sure those technologies stay hidden or more expensive than they really are. It's all b/s in the name of profit, to build for greed instead of need.

[Alex]

You're a nut.

[sombo]

Nah, I just choose to not be blind and ignorant.

[Jono]

Originally Posted by Alex

You're a nut.

Yeah he is.... He also thought this was real.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYW5G2kbrKk

[alex.s]

[headshrink]

That is one expensive commercial.

[headshrink]

Originally Posted by Jono

Yeah he is.... He also thought this was real.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYW5G2kbrKk

Hehe, some tech shows I follow still haven't figured that out. *cough* cali lewis (she's pretty though).

[Whiskey]

Originally Posted by Alex

While electric technology has been around forever, the advances in storage capacity and density haven't progressed nearly as much as hoped, or even expected. Those electric bikes around the isle of mann have the equivalent of something like a 1/3 of a gallon of gas on board, in terms of the store electric energy. Of course they are going to be slow. Of course they are going to have limited range.

You slightly missed the point, they were able to max out over 150mph, but if held at WOT they were unable to complete a single 37 3/4 mile lap.

The racer still has to trade speed for distance to be able to complete a single lap, this year's winner will probably break the ton for average speed. The petrol bikes get 2 laps to a tank, but can be fuelled up again in seconds

[Alex]

I didn't miss the point, I was stating a fact. They have to make do with a tremendously small amount of energy compared to a traditional bike. That energy can be used to go faster, but if so it runs out quicker. As in less than a lap. Much of the electronic brainpower in these electric races is figuring out how to use all of the energy available while running out directly after the finish line. Not dissimilar to the GP bikes, with fuel rationing strategies that know how many laps there are to go and change the fueling to optimize power while running out as soon after the checkered flag as possible.

They've run an electric race here at the Laguna GP the past 2 years. First year was fun to watch, with the lead bike going so much quicker, but running out of juice on the last lap, allowing the Motoczyz bike to pass him right before the finish line. This past year's was a little less exciting, with the Mission Motors bike staying so far out ahead that they weren't catch able even if they had slowed a bit. It is a strange experience watching a motorcycle race that you can speak in normal tones, right next to the track.

[Jiggles]

Originally Posted by sombo

W
I've seen dozens of technologies from well known, reliable sources be shown and discussed in full detail broadcast nationally. They would show the full results of their research, how they did it, what they're doing now, and what their plans were for the future of it. But then in less than a year all mention of many of them is just simply gone and all searches for even what was shown nationally comes up empty.

I've seen this too. Do you ever remember hearing about Tony Starks arc reactor? The power it was able to put out was incredible, but where has this technology gone? I know for sure that 2 have existed but now you don't hear anything about it.

[Heed]

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoram...212439012.html

[Snake]

Check out Jaguar's concept EV which uses two small gas turbine generators to extend the vehicles range. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...osts-200K.html

[adouglas]

@sombio

Conspiracy theories aside, I think you're missing a fundamental point. You're confusing vehicle technology with energy storage technology. They are in no sense equivalent.

Current battery technology was definitely not in place 100 years ago. The fundamental issue is energy density. We are in fact working hard on that, but it takes a heck of a lot of energy to move a big mass around at reasonable speeds for reasonable distances compared to gasoline.

There's also the issue of infrastructure. You talk about battery-exchange programs as if they're a viable solution. Far from it. Consider the costs, both environmental and economic.

What worked 100 years ago cannot work today. Our requirements are fundamentally different. We must travel farther, faster. We need more energy. Also, what were those vehicles competing with? Horses and railroads. Today they're competing with inexpensive, reliable, very mature technology that performs better. Today an EV only makes sense if you're rich and acting out of conscience instead of self-interest.

EVs are coming along slowly because of money. As with any technology, once the economics tip in the right direction development will happen quickly. For the moment we're getting more economic benefit from fossil fuel development (exploration, exploitation and creating more efficient machines to use it) than we can from developing better batteries and EVs. Industrialists may not be driven by social welfare, but they are not stupid. They're not suppressing EVs, nor are they dragging their feet. They are simply investing where they're going to make the greatest return. Period. That's their job.

The idea that things get done because they're a good idea is just as much a fiction as the idea that there's some nefarious global conspiracy to suppress innovation. Things happen through the action of more powerful forces, like money, religion and politics. Mostly money. That is why automobiles supplanted horses so quickly. There was a lot of money to be made for the manufacturers, and a lot of money to be saved by the customers.

[billmi]

Originally Posted by Jiggles

I've seen this too. Do you ever remember hearing about Tony Starks arc reactor? The power it was able to put out was incredible, but where has this technology gone? I know for sure that 2 have existed but now you don't hear anything about it.

Make that 3, but the oil companies paid me off to keep quiet about it. :-)





That arc reactor is as real as carbs that let you use water for fuel.