I agree that mass is always an issue but not just battery mass. For the person that doesn't need a range of more than 100 miles this would require around a 400 lb battery pack. Replacing the ICE with an electric motor would save around 250lbs. I'm sure there are at least another 150 lbs of ICE required components that could be shed by going EV. So for a vehicle of this range the mass issue is a wash. However that's not the only issue. Engine efficiency is also an important issue. So you now have two vehicles of comparable mass but one is powered by a motor that is 3X as efficient. Which system seems to have the Achilles heel now?
As far as the Tesla Roadster is concerned the batteries that they are using might not be the limiting factor in terms of performance. But the vehicle certainly wouldn't accelerate slower with the Altairnano battery as was suggested by an earlier post.
but the limitations of the ICE vehicle are political, not technical whereas EV technology is unable to produce an evquivalent vehicle, even though it has enjoyed considerable political advantage and public subsidy for decades.
The Altairnano technology is definitely an improvement (if true) for EV applications yet at 90wh/kg it is only 1/47 the energy density of gasoline AFTER allowance for a 3/1 difference in drive efficiency.
but the limitations of the ICE vehicle are political, not technical whereas EV technology is unable to produce an evquivalent vehicle, even though it has enjoyed considerable political advantage and public subsidy for decades
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. What political limitations do ICEs face? Are you refering to emissions standards and CAFE? What exactly would the ICE be able to accomplish without these obstacles? I'm not sure why you fixate on this concept of "equivalent vehicle". Even just talking about the ICE realm vehicles are not equivalent. They are different and best suited for different applications and drivers. There are enough drivers out there who's vehicle needs would result an an EV being not only equivalent but a superior vehicle.
The Altairnano technology is definitely an improvement (if true) for EV applications yet at 90wh/kg it is only 1/47 the energy density of gasoline AFTER allowance for a 3/1 difference in drive efficiency.
Wishing won't make it so.
Most people use their vehicles to get them from point A to point B. If their car accomplishes this they spend very little time thinking about the energy density of gasoline compared to batteries.
"Most people use their vehicles to get them from point A to point B. If their car accomplishes this they spend very little time thinking about the energy density of gasoline compared to batteries."
I can agree with that, TPE.
Just so long as they have the MP3's, AC, Navigation, leather, seat messagers & heaters, and all the other crap that makes owning a car fun for the majority.
EV applications yet at 90wh/kg it is only 1/47 the energy density of gasoline AFTER allowance for a 3/1 difference in drive efficiency.
1/47 doesn't seem right to me. A 30 mpg car can travel 10 miles on a kg or gasoline. An EV comparable in size to a 30 mpg car will be able to travel about 1/2 mile on a kg of Altairnano batteries. So the ratio is closer to 1/20 and that's just looking at the energy source. The energy source in itself is worthless as a mode of transportation. You need to connect it to a conversion device and other components before you have a vehicle. To make a relevent comparison the weight of these other, necessary components need to be factored into the equation. If all you cared about was mass I think a 100 mile range EV would be comparable/equivalent to its ICE counterpart. As range increased the EV would be at an increasing disadvantage in terms of mass. Something to keep in mind. Most people are more concerned with the price of their fuel than the weight of their fuel. Electricity is considerably cheaper than gas. Wishing won't change that.
Seems like either of your interpretations of the estimates on extra poundage for power would make this the class of todays batteries...if they can pull it off and make it cost competitive. The longevity, lack of heat problems and quick charging outweigh the loss of power density to my mind. An extra 222 LBs? Doesn't seem that much to me.
that may well be the winner for most. perhaps a mix of both modes of vehicles will be popular. 50-70 a day would bring my gas usage down by...I'll guess.... 90%+. Your mileage may vary. A large part of me doesn't want to mess with the added complication and expense of the hybrid though.
I agree and understand a reluctance for having the complexity that a plug-in hybrid brings, however I'm willing to admit that we need something in the near term and that if the plug-in works until we have an affordable EV solution, then I'm willing to support it.
It doesn't keep me from having high hopes regarding the EEStor potential! I feel like I'm turning blue in the face from holding my breath though and wondering whether it will be all for nought.
Simply getting from "A" to "B" Is not a sufficient specification for a vehicle in 2006. Even the EVs of 100 years past could accomplish that, provided A & B were not too far apart. For EV's, that range limitation still exists while ICE vehicles simply don't NEED to cary more fuel. Few people have bladders that can outlast their vehicle range as it is and ICE vehicles can be refueled in-route. Over the last century, ICE proliferation has established expectations of performance/utility/price that are the market benchmarks against which EV's are measured. Sure, different vehicles are optimized for different uses, but nearly all cover a range of applications that no EV has matched, nor is likely to until the energy density hurdle is surmounted.
There is usually some market for most anything offered for sale (remember pet rocks?), but that won't support a product long term where there is already fierce competition in an established market. The only reasons that EV's are even considered are the geopolitical implications of the ICE re oil supply and environment (discounting the well entrenched economic interests of the electric utility industry), otherwise they have little reason for being since they offer no prospect of economic advantage or invreased utility.
As I se it, the biggest advantage of the Altairnano may be to make it possible to recharge an EV in-route due to its claimed ability to accept high charge rates. But this would require substantial infrastructure changes to provide such capacity in the utility distribution system. Unless an EV can be refueled in the time it takes to empty that bladder, it will still be handicapped.
The Altairnano may be a big improvement, but it is not THE solution.
if they can pull it off and make it cost competitive. The longevity, lack of heat problems and quick charging outweigh the loss of power density to my mind. An extra 222 LBs? Doesn't seem that much to me.
The battery cost issue is the primary obstacle facing EVs. I have several friends that own two or more vehicles. They typical use their truck as their daily driver. I've asked them why they don't use one of their smaller more efficient vehicles when they have no intention of hauling anything? Their response is that they simply like driving a truck. The point is that a lot of people could care less about what their vehicle weighs and that would apply to the extra weight of the batteries. Now most people do care about how much they pay for gas and with electricity comparable to about 60 cents a gallon gas that would be very appealing.
There are a lot of people in this country with more than 1 car. Most people know where they are going and approximately how far the trip is before embarking. If the distance is less than the range of an EV the fact that the ICE could have gone farther is totally irrelevant. Now being able to re-charge at home for a fraction of the cost is relevant.
The only reasons that EV's are even considered are the geopolitical implications of the ICE re oil supply and environment
Do you consider these to be invalid reasons for pursuing EVs? If not then that is a ridiculous comment. You might as well say that the only reason people are considering EVs is because they offer some advantages.
they offer no prospect of economic advantage or invreased utility.
Really? Wow, I would consider fuel costs of around 2 cents a mile to be an economic advantage. Granted that is offset by the battery costs but are you saying there is no prospect of battery costs coming down? The fact that an 80 lb electric motor can generate the torque of a 300+ lb ICE and do it over a broad rpm range would be considered increased utility by some. The convenience of re-charging at home would be considered utility. And since you used the term prospect that implies future potential. EVs have the potential to be re-charged with renewable, home produced energy from solar or wind. If you are looking towards the future the prospects for EVs is far greater than for ICEs
My point is that no matter WHY one wants EV's to succeed, they are not a rational TECHNICAL choice. I'm discussing the technical viability of an EV vs ICE vehicle re their comparitive merits as vehicles, not whether we need to reduce oil consumption (which we do).
It doesn't matter what someone "could" do based on their predominant usage patterns, it matters what the larger market is likely (or is reasonable) to do based on established expectations at a particular price point. If someone is to buy a differnet product than what they currently use for a particular application it must either do more, do it better and/or cost less than their accustomed choices. As, vehicles, EVs do none of those .
It is relevant because there are many posts here talking about how Hybrids will soon be abandoned, sales are low, etc.
The fact that they are expanding their line impacts EV development, at least where it concerns a major player, and shows the industry is investing more money in Hybrids and not in EV's.
for a particular application it must either do more, do it better and/or cost less than their accustomed choices. As, vehicles, EVs do none of those .
EVs pollute less than any other car. The individual can assign a dollar value to this benefit. That value would range anywhere from $0 to a considerable amount depending on the person's level of environmental concern. Electric motors have better performance characteristics than ICEs. Look at the Tesla Roadster's performance specs. That motor weighs only 70 lbs. Batteries may have less energy density than gasoline but ICEs generate less power per mass than electric motors. Over the course of 100,000 miles a typical EV owner will save around $8,000 in fuel and maintenance costs. If a battery pack can be made that costs less than that then the EV now also costs less.
The point is that you shouldn't use absolute terms like "none" when talking about the advantages that an EV offers. There are clearly some advantages. Its just a matter of trade-offs based on an individual's set of priorities. As EVs mature the trade-off equation will undoubtably change in favor of EVs.
and shows the industry is investing more money in Hybrids and not in EV's.
Investing money in hybrids means you are investing in batteries, electric motors, regenerative technologies, among other things. EVs will benefit from any advances made here. The two paths are not incompatible.
The answers are simple. Toyota will not be able to compete with the Chinese building EVs. Toyota likes the complexity of hybrids, as it keeps them in control of the car after sale. Without tax incentives hybrids will not be able to command the big bucks. I for one would buy a specific use EV over a hybrid. I don't see an EV as a one car solution for a long time. I like the direction of a $10k EV runabout for my errands and shopping.
PS I keep the GL320 CDI in the garage for trips of longer duration.
Has anyone seen a story on this electric vehicle from Daihatsu? The one blurb I read was an add-on about the new Toyota Supra hybrid. It said the EV would have a 155 mile range and a top speed of 75 MPH.
a gleaming, yellow, lithium-powered L-PT Cruiser that will be used in two months’ time as the first all-electric New York City taxicab. “They say if you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere,” Griffiths said as the car was revealed to the assembled crowd. “That vehicle represents a lot of doubts that people had and I think we squashed them all by getting this on the road.”
"equippedwith Ballard Power Systems’ 312-volt, 67-MS electric drive system, the vehicle is able to reach speeds of more than 80 mph with a range of more than 120 milesper six- to eight-hour charge – all with zero emissions. The announcement and the joint ribbon-cutting ceremony for the company’s new facility – which at 50,000 square feet is more than five times larger than the company’s first location a little over a year ago – is just the latest in Hybrid Technologies’accomplishments."
Nice to see signs of real progress. I have no idea how many miles a NYC Taxi logs around just the Manhattan area in a day, but 120 miles or so seems about "right". Half their fleet there should be electric.
It took the guy with the Hybrid Escape almost a year to get permission to use it as a taxi. The commission felt it was not roomy enough. Probably why there are no Prius as taxi cabs in NYC. They have some tough rules in NYC for taxi cabs.
The article states that there is a 6-9 month waiting list for their cars. I can believe that. It will be interesting to see if this company can be profitable. If so you'd have to ask the question, "why couldn't GM, Toyota, Ford, et al do this"?
He has some pretty optimistic projections for the pace of battery advancement. I hope he's right. According to chemical and material engineers Li-ion batteries have the theoretical potential to produce 1 kWh per kg. In practice the best that is being achieved is only about 100-150 Wh per kg. So there is tremendous room for improvement. If his prediction of batteries energy density possibly tripling in 5 years is correct at that point an EV with a 300 mile range would weigh less than ICEs. That might still be a problem for the person who's daily commute is over 300 miles.
might still be a problem for the person who's daily commute is over 300 miles
If a person commutes over 300 miles a day in a car, they do not need an EV. They need a razor blade to slit their wrists.
If they can scale these down by miles for the individual needs, that would be great. You need 100 mile car that will cost so much etc. Batteries will always be a cost factor. If all else is the same. A car with a 100 mile range should accelerate a lot faster than the same car with a 300 mile range.
If they can scale these down by miles for the individual needs, that would be great.
I think that if EVs catch on this scalable battery capacity will definitely be an option. Why pay for more battery than you need?
A car with a 100 mile range should accelerate a lot faster than the same car with a 300 mile range.
One of the nice things about EVs is that you don't sacrifice economy for performance. In fact more powerful electric motors typically have slightly better efficiency. Acceleration will be a strong point for EVs in general.
Since (at least) the "oil crisis" of 1974, I have heard proclamations of imminent success of the EV. I even recall an article in the IEEE Spectrum projecting that by the year 2000, ALL cars might be EV. In the 70s, I was inclined to view the claims with cautious optimism that perhaps a breakthrough storage medium or energy source would emerge to make it so. In the 32 years since, huge amounts of public & private resources have been lavished on the effort and CA even had the timerity to think that they could make it happen by the stroke of a pen, yet no viable EV exists today.
Much of the resources were wasted on those who squandered grant money to produce pb-acid conversions of existing vehicles while contributing little or nothing to EV innovation. Few have acknowledged the obvious: that the battery mass of an EV requires a low mass/high strength structure optimized for that application. Such a structure typically involves exotic materials and results in high cost, the Tesla being one such example. The inescapable conclusion is that EV cost/benefit does not seem likely to to emerge from the twilight zone in the foreseeable future, optimistic projections of commercial operation near theoretical limits notwithstanding.
Don't be a spoil sport. It does seem like a quantum leap from golf carts to the Tesla. Little sits in between.
I do agree the mandate in CA probably set EV development back several years. I would not pay $50k+ for an EV-1 or a RAV4 EV. I would more likely buy a 40 MPH Xebra for $10k as a local runabout. I like the one from India better. As soon as you add Li-Ion batteries the price doubles or triples.
I'm not trying to "spoil" anything, I just don't see much change in 32 years.
As for a "local runabout" like the Xebra, I'm sure that some may have a use for such a vehicle, but I can't imagine spending $10k for such limited use when the same money would buy an ICE vehicle that can be used anywhere that there are roads. An if the ICE were limited to the uses of the Xebra, it's fuel and maintenance would be inconsequential. Nor would it need battery replacement as would the Xebra if a significant portion of its limited range were explored frequently.
For my part, I would have difficulty using even the limited range of the Xebra, since I cannot leave my subdivision without traveling at more than 40mph.
Few have acknowledged the obvious: that the battery mass of an EV requires a low mass/high strength structure optimized for that application. Such a structure typically involves exotic materials and results in high cost, the Tesla being one such example.
I think the reason that few are acknowledging this is because it isn't true. The RAV4 EV cost $42k with a $26k battery pack. I've never heard any mention of an exotic, expensive containment structure that drove up the price. Regardless, maybe engineers could use the same materials that hold a heavy engine in place on an ICE vehicle.
The people at Tesla Motors are far less pessimistic about the future of EVs than you are. Are you aware of some limitations that they might not be familiar with?
Not for someone in the market for an exotic sportscar, which is what this car is. I doubt there are many people cross-shopping this car with a Toyota Camry, maybe a Dodge Viper or Ford GT.
It is interesting that you choose the RAV4EV to refute my contention that EVs are at an energy density disadvantage. The RAV4EV was >700lbm more than its ICE counterpart while producing only 45% of its power (consistent with its glacial 0-60 time of 18s) and with a claimed range of but 80-100mi all at a price of $42k! The RAV4EV was not a viable product as its withdrawal from the market (and Toyota's statements) attest.
I agree that not many are cross shopping the Tesla to a Camry. The point is there are basic costs to overcome. A $26k battery pack is the biggest obstacle I see for EVs. It looks like the EVs are headed the same direction the hybrids are going. High performance to get the high dollar buyers. The promise from companies like Toyota was cutting the cost of hybrids. It just has not happened at the buyers end. Maybe at the manufacturing end which means nothing to the buyer.
It looks like the EVs are headed the same direction the hybrids are going. High performance to get the high dollar buyers
I think that's going to be the nature of EV development. For the people who can afford them it will have the benefit of offering both performance and efficiency. Not that someone spending this kind of money is concerned all that much with saving on gas but its good for their image. The price should come down dramatically. Tesla states they will produce a 4 door performance sedan in a couple years for about $50k and then a basic people mover a couple years later that is affordable for the masses. We'll see.
A RAV4 EV sold on ebay last month for $46k. Apparently that is the low end for what they've been going for with some being bid up to $60k. An automanufacturer doesn't need to concern himself with whether or not an EV is a rational buying decision. They just need to realize there is a market out there. How big I don't know but at these prices you don't have to sell high volume.
if "these prices" exceed Toyota's unit cost to produce. They apparenty didn't see it as profitable.
I suspect that those who bid up the price are driven by the "collector" mentality and are attracted to it BECAUSE it is no longer produced. In any case it does not suggest a market value for EVs in any menaingful sense.
Even if it is profitable to build and sell. Is it profitable to warrant for the prescribed years and mileage. 10 years and 150k miles would be a real stretch for a battery that will get fully charged and discharged a lot. Unless one of these new batteries come to fruition.
"Enova to Provide Power Control Units for Th!nk Electric Vehicles
The aim is to prepare for the production and introduction of the new TH!NK City model which Ford Motor Company and Think developed while Ford Motor Company owned Think.
The vehicle is a unique product that was never fully produced by under Ford into a production market. A primary reason that Ford withdrew from producing the vehicles was that the battery technology had not evolved enough such that the range of the vehicle was compromised. The new investor group has access to new and advanced technology which will be further developed and utilized to improve the vehicle, with particular emphasis on performance and driving range. The driving range is expected to be 180km, with a top speed of 100 - 110kph and a 0-50kph acceleration of seven (7) seconds. "
"GM's work on fuel cell vehicles may first bear fruit as a "series hybrid" vehicle, he says.
A series hybrid could run primarily on electricity from lithium-ion batteries, with an engine as backup to replenish batteries, Lutz says. The backup engine could be a diesel or gasoline internal combustion engine. Backup energy also could come from a fuel cell.
But, he said, for GM, "what started as a fuel cell project is now an electric vehicle project." "
Excellent! Toyota is looking at plug in hybrids and now this.
I could get used to that car. Simple is better. I liked their little EV that is due out in a year or so. Mitsubishi could go from the edge of bankruptcy to being a major player if they can produce a good EV at a decent price.
I wonder if they'll stick with the 4 motors in the wheel design. I know that they originally planned this for the electric mini but abandoned that in favor of one motor driving the rear wheels. For a performance car 4 wheel drive would be nice but it seems there would be some cost and weight benefits by going with only 2 motors, 1 driving the front wheels and 1 driving the rear. On Tesla's blog there was a comment that putting motors in the wheels has an adverse impact on performance. If that's true then just another reason to abandon this 4 motor approach.
"Mitsubishi could go from the edge of bankruptcy to being a major player if they can produce a good EV at a decent price."
ANYBODY could become "a major player" and amass great wealth in the process if they could accomplish THAT profitably. But to do so was the 20th century equivalent of alchemy. So far, the 21st century doesn't look all that different.
Comments
As far as the Tesla Roadster is concerned the batteries that they are using might not be the limiting factor in terms of performance. But the vehicle certainly wouldn't accelerate slower with the Altairnano battery as was suggested by an earlier post.
The Altairnano technology is definitely an improvement (if true) for EV applications yet at 90wh/kg it is only 1/47 the energy density of gasoline AFTER allowance for a 3/1 difference in drive efficiency.
Wishing won't make it so.
I'm not sure what you are talking about here. What political limitations do ICEs face? Are you refering to emissions standards and CAFE? What exactly would the ICE be able to accomplish without these obstacles? I'm not sure why you fixate on this concept of "equivalent vehicle". Even just talking about the ICE realm vehicles are not equivalent. They are different and best suited for different applications and drivers. There are enough drivers out there who's vehicle needs would result an an EV being not only equivalent but a superior vehicle.
The Altairnano technology is definitely an improvement (if true) for EV applications yet at 90wh/kg it is only 1/47 the energy density of gasoline AFTER allowance for a 3/1 difference in drive efficiency.
Wishing won't make it so.
Most people use their vehicles to get them from point A to point B. If their car accomplishes this they spend very little time thinking about the energy density of gasoline compared to batteries.
I can agree with that, TPE.
Just so long as they have the MP3's, AC, Navigation, leather, seat messagers & heaters, and all the other crap that makes owning a car fun for the majority.
1/47 doesn't seem right to me. A 30 mpg car can travel 10 miles on a kg or gasoline. An EV comparable in size to a 30 mpg car will be able to travel about 1/2 mile on a kg of Altairnano batteries. So the ratio is closer to 1/20 and that's just looking at the energy source. The energy source in itself is worthless as a mode of transportation. You need to connect it to a conversion device and other components before you have a vehicle. To make a relevent comparison the weight of these other, necessary components need to be factored into the equation. If all you cared about was mass I think a 100 mile range EV would be comparable/equivalent to its ICE counterpart. As range increased the EV would be at an increasing disadvantage in terms of mass. Something to keep in mind. Most people are more concerned with the price of their fuel than the weight of their fuel. Electricity is considerably cheaper than gas. Wishing won't change that.
It doesn't keep me from having high hopes regarding the EEStor potential! I feel like I'm turning blue in the face from holding my breath though and wondering whether it will be all for nought.
There is usually some market for most anything offered for sale (remember pet rocks?), but that won't support a product long term where there is already fierce competition in an established market. The only reasons that EV's are even considered are the geopolitical implications of the ICE re oil supply and environment (discounting the well entrenched economic interests of the electric utility industry), otherwise they have little reason for being since they offer no prospect of economic advantage or invreased utility.
As I se it, the biggest advantage of the Altairnano may be to make it possible to recharge an EV in-route due to its claimed ability to accept high charge rates. But this would require substantial infrastructure changes to provide such capacity in the utility distribution system. Unless an EV can be refueled in the time it takes to empty that bladder, it will still be handicapped.
The Altairnano may be a big improvement, but it is not THE solution.
The battery cost issue is the primary obstacle facing EVs. I have several friends that own two or more vehicles. They typical use their truck as their daily driver. I've asked them why they don't use one of their smaller more efficient vehicles when they have no intention of hauling anything? Their response is that they simply like driving a truck. The point is that a lot of people could care less about what their vehicle weighs and that would apply to the extra weight of the batteries. Now most people do care about how much they pay for gas and with electricity comparable to about 60 cents a gallon gas that would be very appealing.
The only reasons that EV's are even considered are the geopolitical implications of the ICE re oil supply and environment
Do you consider these to be invalid reasons for pursuing EVs? If not then that is a ridiculous comment. You might as well say that the only reason people are considering EVs is because they offer some advantages.
they offer no prospect of economic advantage or invreased utility.
Really? Wow, I would consider fuel costs of around 2 cents a mile to be an economic advantage. Granted that is offset by the battery costs but are you saying there is no prospect of battery costs coming down? The fact that an 80 lb electric motor can generate the torque of a 300+ lb ICE and do it over a broad rpm range would be considered increased utility by some. The convenience of re-charging at home would be considered utility. And since you used the term prospect that implies future potential. EVs have the potential to be re-charged with renewable, home produced energy from solar or wind. If you are looking towards the future the prospects for EVs is far greater than for ICEs
It doesn't matter what someone "could" do based on their predominant usage patterns, it matters what the larger market is likely (or is reasonable) to do based on established expectations at a particular price point. If someone is to buy a differnet product than what they currently use for a particular application it must either do more, do it better and/or cost less than their accustomed choices. As, vehicles, EVs do none of those .
It is relevant because there are many posts here talking about how Hybrids will soon be abandoned, sales are low, etc.
The fact that they are expanding their line impacts EV development, at least where it concerns a major player, and shows the industry is investing more money in Hybrids and not in EV's.
EVs pollute less than any other car. The individual can assign a dollar value to this benefit. That value would range anywhere from $0 to a considerable amount depending on the person's level of environmental concern. Electric motors have better performance characteristics than ICEs. Look at the Tesla Roadster's performance specs. That motor weighs only 70 lbs. Batteries may have less energy density than gasoline but ICEs generate less power per mass than electric motors. Over the course of 100,000 miles a typical EV owner will save around $8,000 in fuel and maintenance costs. If a battery pack can be made that costs less than that then the EV now also costs less.
The point is that you shouldn't use absolute terms like "none" when talking about the advantages that an EV offers. There are clearly some advantages. Its just a matter of trade-offs based on an individual's set of priorities. As EVs mature the trade-off equation will undoubtably change in favor of EVs.
Investing money in hybrids means you are investing in batteries, electric motors, regenerative technologies, among other things. EVs will benefit from any advances made here. The two paths are not incompatible.
PS
I keep the GL320 CDI in the garage for trips of longer duration.
EV Taxi Cab
All electric
Nice to see signs of real progress.
He has some pretty optimistic projections for the pace of battery advancement. I hope he's right. According to chemical and material engineers Li-ion batteries have the theoretical potential to produce 1 kWh per kg. In practice the best that is being achieved is only about 100-150 Wh per kg. So there is tremendous room for improvement. If his prediction of batteries energy density possibly tripling in 5 years is correct at that point an EV with a 300 mile range would weigh less than ICEs. That might still be a problem for the person who's daily commute is over 300 miles.
If a person commutes over 300 miles a day in a car, they do not need an EV. They need a razor blade to slit their wrists.
If they can scale these down by miles for the individual needs, that would be great. You need 100 mile car that will cost so much etc. Batteries will always be a cost factor. If all else is the same. A car with a 100 mile range should accelerate a lot faster than the same car with a 300 mile range.
I think that if EVs catch on this scalable battery capacity will definitely be an option. Why pay for more battery than you need?
A car with a 100 mile range should accelerate a lot faster than the same car with a 300 mile range.
One of the nice things about EVs is that you don't sacrifice economy for performance. In fact more powerful electric motors typically have slightly better efficiency. Acceleration will be a strong point for EVs in general.
Since (at least) the "oil crisis" of 1974, I have heard proclamations of imminent success of the EV. I even recall an article in the IEEE Spectrum projecting that by the year 2000, ALL cars might be EV. In the 70s, I was inclined to view the claims with cautious optimism that perhaps a breakthrough storage medium or energy source would emerge to make it so. In the 32 years since, huge amounts of public & private resources have been lavished on the effort and CA even had the timerity to think that they could make it happen by the stroke of a pen, yet no viable EV exists today.
Much of the resources were wasted on those who squandered grant money to produce pb-acid conversions of existing vehicles while contributing little or nothing to EV innovation. Few have acknowledged the obvious: that the battery mass of an EV requires a low mass/high strength structure optimized for that application. Such a structure typically involves exotic materials and results in high cost, the Tesla being one such example. The inescapable conclusion is that EV cost/benefit does not seem likely to to emerge from the twilight zone in the foreseeable future, optimistic projections of commercial operation near theoretical limits notwithstanding.
I do agree the mandate in CA probably set EV development back several years. I would not pay $50k+ for an EV-1 or a RAV4 EV. I would more likely buy a 40 MPH Xebra for $10k as a local runabout. I like the one from India better. As soon as you add Li-Ion batteries the price doubles or triples.
As for a "local runabout" like the Xebra, I'm sure that some may have a use for such a vehicle, but I can't imagine spending $10k for such limited use when the same money would buy an ICE vehicle that can be used anywhere that there are roads. An if the ICE were limited to the uses of the Xebra, it's fuel and maintenance would be inconsequential. Nor would it need battery replacement as would the Xebra if a significant portion of its limited range were explored frequently.
For my part, I would have difficulty using even the limited range of the Xebra, since I cannot leave my subdivision without traveling at more than 40mph.
I think the reason that few are acknowledging this is because it isn't true. The RAV4 EV cost $42k with a $26k battery pack. I've never heard any mention of an exotic, expensive containment structure that drove up the price. Regardless, maybe engineers could use the same materials that hold a heavy engine in place on an ICE vehicle.
The people at Tesla Motors are far less pessimistic about the future of EVs than you are. Are you aware of some limitations that they might not be familiar with?
Not for someone in the market for an exotic sportscar, which is what this car is. I doubt there are many people cross-shopping this car with a Toyota Camry, maybe a Dodge Viper or Ford GT.
I think that's going to be the nature of EV development. For the people who can afford them it will have the benefit of offering both performance and efficiency. Not that someone spending this kind of money is concerned all that much with saving on gas but its good for their image. The price should come down dramatically. Tesla states they will produce a 4 door performance sedan in a couple years for about $50k and then a basic people mover a couple years later that is affordable for the masses. We'll see.
A RAV4 EV sold on ebay last month for $46k. Apparently that is the low end for what they've been going for with some being bid up to $60k. An automanufacturer doesn't need to concern himself with whether or not an EV is a rational buying decision. They just need to realize there is a market out there. How big I don't know but at these prices you don't have to sell high volume.
I suspect that those who bid up the price are driven by the "collector" mentality and are attracted to it BECAUSE it is no longer produced. In any case it does not suggest a market value for EVs in any menaingful sense.
"Enova to Provide Power Control Units for Th!nk Electric Vehicles
The aim is to prepare for the production and introduction of the new TH!NK City model which Ford Motor Company and Think developed while Ford Motor Company owned Think.
The vehicle is a unique product that was never fully produced by under Ford into a production market. A primary reason that Ford withdrew from producing the vehicles was that the battery technology had not evolved enough such that the range of the vehicle was compromised. The new investor group has access to new and advanced technology which will be further developed and utilized to improve the vehicle, with particular emphasis on performance and driving range. The driving range is expected to be 180km, with a top speed of 100 - 110kph and a 0-50kph acceleration of seven (7) seconds. "
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/11/07/027771.html
http://www.think.no/
"GM's work on fuel cell vehicles may first bear fruit as a "series hybrid" vehicle, he says.
A series hybrid could run primarily on electricity from lithium-ion batteries, with an engine as backup to replenish batteries, Lutz says. The backup engine could be a diesel or gasoline internal combustion engine. Backup energy also could come from a fuel cell.
But, he said, for GM, "what started as a fuel cell project is now an electric vehicle project." "
Excellent! Toyota is looking at plug in hybrids and now this.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4201003.html
From this page:
Coming before the end of the decade
ANYBODY could become "a major player" and amass great wealth in the process if they could accomplish THAT profitably. But to do so was the 20th century equivalent of alchemy. So far, the 21st century doesn't look all that different.
That seems a curious statement since all fuel cell vehicle projects of which I am aware ARE electric vehicles.