Good post. I am very much following the Phoenix Motorcar SUT (Sport Utility Truck) that is supposed to enter CA fleets this year. I realize that you have to be suspect of press releases but it sounds like this vehicle has the battery pack GM states they are waiting for in order to proceed with the Volt. We'll see. I expect a lot of new developments on the EV front within the next year.
Tesla was big news when it broke. But basically they are taking 1000s of computer batteries and buying a Lotus frame,
That's true but so what? With personal electronic devices becoming more energy intensive the companies that make batteries for these devices are aggressively striving to improve their performance. Tesla seems to be piggy-backing on this R&D and spending their resources on packaging, overcoming the dangers of Li-ion. On the surface this seems like a prudent approach. Tesla actually now sells battery packs.
I like that SUT a lot. I would buy one if it is priced right. has anyone seen possible pricing. It looks like late next year for the little people to buy one. If you need to go further than 100 miles, pull the S600 out of the garage and hit the road.
Just seems like it is already a step behind the latest Altair technology which circomvents the dangers of li-ion, we are told. My conjecture is that it might not be the best way to configure power storage for an ev. But as you've no doubt gathered, I am not an engineer, electrical or otherwise. Buying batteries and chassis would seem a layer of added cost. But, in the qty's they are talking at present, it might be the most cost effective way to go.
Do you know how much they sell the battery packs for?
Interesting, thanks for posting about the Phoenix cars.
They seem "more like it".
I agree...Tesla is show-boating. I betcha in two years they'll be Chapter 11 and a year after that sold to a company in Malaysia and that's the last we'll ever hear from them.
BATTERIES-- until batteries that are commercially viable become smaller and lighter, we've still got this WEIGHT and SIZE problem.
But I know they're "working on it".
IMO, the EV will come of age when it goes 250 miles on a charge at 55-65 mph in cold climates, when it weighs about 2,500 lbs, has four doors, looks as normal as a Nissan Versa and sells for the price of a Prius.
I think those parameters are the "sweet spot"---anything else, you're dreaming about making money doing this or you're relying on venture capital or subsidies to prop you up.
No golf carts, no $125,000 two seaters, no ugly monstrosities, and no rushing home to charge up mid-day.
I don't see Tesla going chapter 11. Even though they won't be making a profit for some time they've got plenty of money. If you look at the people running this company it's some pretty savvy businesmen. I fully expect Tesla to be bought out by a major manufacturer within the next few years and the founders of this company will walk away being even more enormously wealthy.
I'll agree with you that the price of batteries needs to come down. However they don't ever need to be cheap. Afterall there are thousands of dollars worth of cost savings that will be achieved by driving an EV. So if the battery pack adds $10k to the price of a vehicle it will probably be recouped faster than the $3k premium that people are paying for the current hybrids.
Why is the size and weight of the battery pack such a big deal? For one thing a person doesn't drive batteries or gasoline. That's only the energy source and there are a lot of other components into making a functional vehicle. Once you get past the batteries there are plenty of other parts that are either lighter or non-existent on an EV, which offsets some of the battery weight penalty. Anyway, look around, people are buying and using trucks and SUVs as their daily driver. Do you really think the typical American cares all that much about size and weight? If anything the mentality is the bigger/heavier the better. Weight will always be the enemy of handling and performance but from the efficiency perspective EVs are a slam-dunk winner. You mention that a 2,500 lb, 4-door is the sweet spot. Really? How many 4-door, 2,500 lb. vehicles are currently on the market. Apparently the Camry and Accord are missing this sweet spot.
There is no one car that is perfect for everyone. An EV with even 100 mile range is perfect for a lot of people as a second car. The ONLY significant obstacle they face right now is price.
Just seems like it is already a step behind the latest Altair technology which circomvents the dangers of li-ion,
Yes and no. Altair's product is definitely superior in a lot of areas but it is actually deficient in terms of energy density. So if your goal is maximum range for a particularly sized battery pack then you wouldn't go with Altair. Which is why I believe that the Altair battery is perfectly suited for what the Chevy Volt is trying to accomplish. GM wants to achieve a 40 mile all electric range with this vehicle. 250 lbs of Altair batteries would accomplish this. They've been tested for 10,000 cycles so longevity wouldn't be an issue. They also have 4x the power density of traditional Li-ion. So this relatively small battery pack could still provide enough juice for a very powerful electric motor.
There is another company, A123 systems, that has a battery with almost identical characteristics to Altair's battery. GM has awarded them a contract for battery development. Maybe we'll see that in the Volt in a couple of years.
Tesla's "capital" is about one poker chip in the automobile business. It will never sustain them. You need hundreds of millions to compete.
And as we know, many a "savvy" businessman has gone belly up. We remember their successes, we don't remember their failures. Can you say Bricklin, Delorean, McLaren, Bugatti, Vector, Avanti....the list of disasters goes on and on....sure, GREAT cars *some* of them, but a lousy business venture nonetheless. Saleen is doing okay, but he makes money on his tuner market, pumping out "ordinary" Mustangs, partnering deals with the Big Boys, not on his fabulous hi-po S7. I don't see any money to be made on a Tesla. It's the wrong market for EVs IMO. Looks like an ego-trip and a venture capital "burn" to me....just my two cents.
RE: Sweet spot -- well I meant as a second car. I don't see EVs being a primary car that sells for under $30K for another 10 years, if ever. 2,500 lbs. is just a number I grabbed as a "substantial" vehicle. It can be 3,000, sure why not? Having the Camry as a goal for an EV would be a great idea.
Nothing wrong with an EV second car only going 100 miles on a charge, if it were dirt cheap to buy...like Kia or Rio territory.
How many people would have bought a $28K Prius that only went 100 miles?
if we look at the whole history of cars, it's true that at first, cars were VERY expensive and only sold to the rich. It took henry Ford to figure out how to make one cheap enough for everybody. The people who insisted on making "rich" cars all died, sooner or later.
Nothing wrong with an EV second car only going 100 miles on a charge, if it were dirt cheap to buy...like Kia or Rio territory.
Why would it have to be dirt cheap? Let's say that 95% of your driving involves trips less than 100 miles and you pretty much know before you embark how far you will be travelling. If its your typical day of going back and forth to work and maybe a couple errands who really cares whether your car can go 50 miles or 500 miles? Not having to go to gas stations will be appealing to some people.
Obviously you disagree with my assesment of EV's viability. I've been wrong before. One way or the other I think that within the next couple of years the picture will become a lot clearer.
A couple things. There is no reason for a big company to buy Tesla. They are using off the shelf technology. I doubt they have a single patent that would make them a good buy. Not like the NiMH patents that Toyota had to pay for after trying to steal them.
Second: I would like an EV also. I am still very practical when it comes to getting into my piggy bank. I am very skeptical of Li-ion technology. I would be more apt to buy an inexpensive lead acid or NiMH EV. I am not in need of high performance going to the mall. No freeways to contend with only surface streets. There is no way I could justify a $40k runabout with a 100-200 mile range.
Now if I had Tom Hank's money and wanted to put forth the greenest image in Hollywood, money would be no object. It is a game for these people to see who can look the greenest on the red carpet at the Oscars. No mention of the pollution they spew in their personal jet getting to Hollywood.
Well I think it would have to be "dirt cheap" if it were a second car because nobody wants such strict limitations on what they drive if they are paying $30,000 for it.
I'm being very cold-hearted about this---looking at it from a marketing point of view.
So a "100 mile range"----what does that mean? Is it like Sprint....100 "anytime miles" or "100 miles under ideal conditions".
If it's 100 "anytime" miles (that is, 65 mph, AC on), well that's pretty good. Many people would be happy with that as a 2nd car, and probably could plan not to run out of juice most days....but if it's "100 ideal miles" that's not so good. What if I live in San Francisco and have to climb lots of hills, and I want to go to Oakland and back, also lots of hills plus high speed freeway in between? Will I make it or will I end up stuck on the left lane of the Bay Bridge traveling at 15 mph?
If I have to "fret" about things like this, I want to pay $10,000, not $30,000 for this second car.
Gee-- think about it...a couple of stories in the media about electric cars getting stranded on the freeways. I mean, people run out of gas all the time, so I could see them running out of electrcity as well.
I'd have to look at a "100 ideal mile" EV as sort of a "cripple" that I bought because it was cheap and served limited needs.
I get it, you're not too enthusiastic about EVs. You know what, I'm not a big fan of SUVs yet there seems to be a decent market for them. With close to 20 million vehicles sold every year in this country you don't need a huge piece of the pie in order to amass decent sales figures. When EVs become available I'll buy one and you won't and we'll both consider ourselves to have made the right decision, and we'll both be right. Different people have different values.
What if I live in San Francisco and have to climb lots of hills,
I'm sure you realize that hybrids achieve their greatest advantage in city driving. Stop an go driving that involves hills will further emphasize the benefits of any car that can utilize regenerative technologies. San Franciscans will be early adopters of EVs.
Is that true? I always thought going up hills eats up electric power. An EV isn't a hybrid, it's pure battery.
No, I'm not against EVs at all. I'm just offering my opinion on what I think people will buy in the marketplace. What I personally think of EVs doesn't mater at all.
But.....If you would genuinely pay $30,000 for a car you have to plug in say every 65 to 100 miles, well then you are way more a believer than I am. I wonder though when it comes time to write the check, what your bottom line will REALLY be? What do you think, in terms of price + range under "real" conditions. Give us some idea what's in your head about that. If I could deliver a Corolla to you that got 40 mpg for $20,000, why would you buy an EV for $30K that went 100 miles? Or would you only want to pay $20K and refuse to spend $30K? Remember a 100 mile range doesn't mean you get to go to the last drop, that it goes to 100 and then stops. It slows down before that.
I'm betting you'll wish for the same range as a gas car with a ten gallon tank at least.
But you bring up a good point. People don't buy Priuses because of the gas mileage. Based only on the gas you save, it makes no sense to pay $28,000 for a Prius.
Is that true? I always thought going up hills eats up electric power
Yes going up a hill eats power. That's true regardless of what your source of power is. For every hill you go up you must also come down. The regenerative capabilities of an EV will allow you to get back some of the power you spent while climbing. Not the case in an ICE. So while hilly driving will adversely effect any vehicle's range it won't have as big an effect on an EV.
Remember a 100 mile range doesn't mean you get to go to the last drop, that it goes to 100 and then stops. It slows down before that.
While that is true for lead acid batteries it really isn't the case for NiMH and Li-ion. The level of power these put out is pretty constant until they are down below 10% level of charge.
I wouldn't buy a Corolla type vehicle regardless of how it was powered. I'd be interested in a car with better performance. I'd pay $30k for something like GM's EV1. Or if GM actually goes ahead and makes the Volt and prices it comparable to a Cobalt, which they state is their goal, then I'd be very interested in that. If I purchased an EV car with a range of only 100 miles it wouldn't be my only vehicle. However it would be my primary vehicle that would probably account for over 80% of the miles that I drove a year. That being the case I don't know why it would have to be cheap. Plugging it in at night might take all of 15 seconds. I'm not sure how this is more of an inconvenience than stopping for gas every week or two.
Well you're right if at the time of needing a recharge, you are done for the day. If you aren't done for the day, then you have to wait 3-5 hours and that is an inconvenience.
Remember, the reason gasoline defeated steam was primarily the inconvenience of having to wait for the steam pressure to build.
I guess I told you that I drove a full-size electric car for about a week. Its range was advertised at 65 miles. I found this totally inadequate as a primary vehicle, and barely adequate as a second car. The idea of having to get back before the charge ran out was always on my mind, especially when I ran into unforeseen terrain or delays or whatever.
I really enjoyed driving it though. Of course, it was a fairly conventional conversion, but thoroughly professionally done.
But yeah, I agree, if an EV could do an honest 100 miles a day no matter HOW you drove it, that would definitely serve most people as a second car.
Question is, what would they pay for it? I don't know. Maybe Prius money, that's possible, I could agree with that I think.
Do you really think regenerative charging is significant while going down hill in a hybrid or EV?
I like the idea of an EV. I kind of agree with our host that I do not think I would spend $30k on one. $20k would be tempting as a runabout. My main reason is to stick it to the oil companies. The other down side is the cost of batteries. I would like to see evidence that any battery technology has gone down in price over the last few years. Toyota seems to be getting around it with less capacity in their hybrids. My understanding is the battery in the Camry hybrid is smaller than in the Prius. It will be interesting if we ever see a PHEV. When someone comes up with a storage device that is adequate and inexpensive enough to make a reasonably priced vehicle, they will probably be EV not hybrid.
Making it practical is going to be the key. It's going to have to make sense financially and operationally. It's not necessarily going to have to be an EV "sports car", but it's going to have to fill the roll that my car fills now. Go where I want, when I want, more or less as far as I want to in a reasonable length of time.
Do you really think regenerative charging is significant while going down hill in a hybrid or EV?
It would be very significant in a vehicle driven solely by electric motors. The wheels are now turning the motor instead of the motor turning the wheels. This turns a motor into a generator. And it should be more efficient than the energy recaptured during braking. The reason being is that when you are braking you are probably generating energy faster than it can be loaded into a battery.
I think you are looking for a completely different type of EV than I am. If all you want is a little runabout for short errands than I agree you won't want to be spending much. I want a fully functional vehicle where the only sacrifice I'm making is reduced range, which won't be a sacrifice since I'll have another vehicle.
As far as PHEVs go I think they will be produced. Batteries are going to continue to be expensive for quite some time. I've read estimates that with a volume of 20,000 units you could produce Li-ion car batteries for around $400/kWh. That will work out to $800-1000 for every 10 miles of range you want. I rarely drive over 40 miles so the most practical battery pack for someone like myself would cost $4000. Adding an ICE generator as in a series hybrid will overcome the range issue for someone that will only have 1 vehicle. This will be a lot cheaper than spending another $1000 for every additional 10 miles. I still consider this to be an EV since it will be driven 100% by batteries powering the electric motor. The first 40 miles of charge came from the grid the rest comes from an onboard generator. It's a relatively simple set up compared to the hybrid system that Toyota employs. Ideally a vehicle like this would be somewhat configurable for the individual user. You could choose your battery pack size based upon your typical commute. It wouldn't make much sense to buy more batteries than you need. I believe that initially this will have broader appeal than a pure EV due to its lower price and unlimited range.
I agree that it would be nice to configure a car to your specific needs. For me 40 miles would be plenty. I just made a 35 mile round trip to get computer parts. That is about as far as I travel on errands. Those trips are rare. Mostly my 3 milers. Many on this board seem to think that batteries will drop in price like TV sets and computers. It just will not happen that way. We need a major breakthrough in storage batteries or cells. The material costs on current technologies are just too high for mainstream buyers to get interested. For me it is just having something different like that goofy Xebra. I can justify 10 grand for a toy to drive to the grocery store. I have not seen one yet in So. Cal. I would be happy with lead acid batteries for now.
This "drop in price" was what they said about solar heat, and that didn't happen either. The solar systems are much better than they ever were, but they sure aren't cheap.
I have no problem with limited range but the kicker is this:
We all "plan" to only drive 35 miles a day like we always do but then something comes up for greater range and we can't do it e.g. "you have to go to our other branch" or "hey, can you pick me up at work, my car broke down" or "detour, use route 1 bypass".
Then what do you do?
By the way, what happens when an electric car runs out of juice? I guess a flatbed, right?
This "drop in price" was what they said about solar heat, and that didn't happen either.
I don't understand that rational. Solar energy is still very expensive but the price has come down dramatically. 20 years ago the cost per watt was around 15x the cost of grid electricity. Its now about 3x the cost. Your statement implies that this predicted price drop didn't occur. It did occur and is ongoing. The same can be said about EVs and battery technology. They are progressing. Whether or not they're ready for the mainstream is debatable but they are certainly closer than they were.
Running out of juice in an EV would be a problem. Running out of gas would be a problem if not for the fact that gas stations are everywhere. That wasn't always the case. Its probably less expensive to erect well placed charging stations than it was to build gas stations.
Oh I meant that it is still expensive relative to conventional heating---which of course is the reason it isn't dominant as a heat source. And it's had 40 years to try. It's sort of catch-22. If people won't support the technology by buying it, it doesn't get developed, and if it doesn't get developed, people won't buy it.
People are very much buying solar energy right now, particularly in Japan and Germany. One of the reasons that prices haven't dropped further is the global demand for silicon is currently exceeding the supply. This is being driven by the photo-voltaic market, which now uses more silicon than the semi-conductor market. Silicon production capacity has increased significantly and manufactureres are developing panels that use less silicon or substitutes, so this bottleneck should be alleviated in the next couple years. As far as the price goes there are some very attractive tax incentives for businesses to adopt solar and they are making this investment primarily from a financial perspective. I'm sure they also get some positive PR for enhancing their "green" image.
Anyway solar energy is here to stay this time and will be an exploding industry over the next 20 years. It will eventually be cost competitive with grid electricity even without the tax breaks. The biggest hurdle again becomes energy storage, just like for EVs. People still need energy at night and on cloudy days. With grid tied systems this isn't a problem but eventually we'd like to get less reliant on the grid. At least that's my opinion of the direction we should be going in.
What happened was that the market evolved into "solar-assist", to boost conventional hot water systems. But direct solar heating is still elusive and expensive. This "boom" was supposed to happen 40 years ago and we're still waiting.
But the assist products are great, and coupled with sensible architecture, there is definitely a place for it. So in a way solar power became a "hybrid" kind of tech.
This "boom" was supposed to happen 40 years ago and we're still waiting.
I don't know how you define "boom". The solar panel manufacturers are currently selling as much as they can produce and are expanding capacity. The total amount of solar generated electricity increased by 39% in 2005. I can't find any figures for 2006. While still accounting for less than 1% of all energy that's significant when you consider not too long ago it was essentially zero percent.
well "boom" is like....BOOM....a huge hysterical economic stampede toward something....Internet boom...real estate boom...people tearing the doors of solar panel stores? Solar product manufacturers stock hitting $200 a share? I dunno 'bout that
....glad to hear though that things are picking up, but not sure we have that kind of stampede going on. I think in Europe that wind power is doing better actually...
Anyway, every new technology needs some kind of economic engine to drive it, doesn't it?... the old "invisible hand" I guess you'd call it.
What's interesting about the Prius/Hybrid market is that the engine isn't entirely economic....it's more about "feel good marketing", which was a phenomenon that surprised me....people bought these hybrids even though they didn't make much economic sense.
I don't think one can fuel a "boom" through feel-good marketing, but one could start a small boomlet.
I see EV's future as a small percentage of the car market in the next ten years, maybe 1% or something like that? I don't know, just guessing. That's still a substantial # of cars.
Actually storage for a home is not a big deal. Many people in Hawaii are off the power grid using lead acid batteries. If you buy them when they are pulled out of old telephone offices they are real inexpensive and store a lot of energy. Size and weight are not an issue in your home like in a car. I would prefer solar to wind. I will not live where it is windy enough to generate electricity. I like being in a sunny place.
I lived off the grid on a houseboat for a couple years.
it's not so easy but if you modify your lifestyle, you can be pretty comfortable. I had solar battery charging, kerosene heat, battery/ lamp oil lighting and propane refrigeration.
Of course most power tools, washing machines, heaters, etc. are out of the question with lead acid batteries and solar charging rates are pretty slow. Hawaii's a piece of cake being off the grid compared to the temperate climate I lived in. Besides, in Hawaii they might be off the grid but burning up fossil fuels nonetheless.
Also had a wind generator but man those things are noisy.
Actually storage for a home is not a big deal. Many people in Hawaii are off the power grid using lead acid batteries
I guess the main drawbacks to an off the grid system is additional cost and having to modify your lifestyle. Its not that difficult to accurately estimate your electricity usage for a year and install a system that will produce approximately that much over the course of a year. If its tied to the grid then there may be periods where you are using more electricity than you are generating (winter time) but you'll be covered and at the end of the year your electric bill will still end up around zero.
The problem with off the grid is you have to allow for the fluctuations in your energy usage and weather conditions. So you end up installing a system with the capacity to handle worst case scenarios, which will be larger so more expensive and typically generate more electricity than you can use or store. And even if the lead acid batteries are cheap it's still an extra expense.
Additionally, from an environmental perspective a grid tied system allows you to supplement the grid's power during peak demand, which allows them to delay building new powerplants. However, an off grid system does offer the appeal of being completely self sufficient.
I think persuing any kind of alternative energy source requires social support from neighbors or society...one the one hand I like being off the grid but it was hard when just down the block people are taking half-hour hot showers and using cappuccino machine. It's a lot better when everyone is in "all together" I think.
This is why I'm fond of social incentives rather than regulatory ones for EVs.
The idea is to compare ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, electricity, etc. energy costs to the cost of propelling a Honda Civic cross country by gasoline.
One thing that struck me is how lousy ethanol is.
Electric looks real good on all the numbers except if you think about having to burn a ton of coal.
I've seen that chart before. Coal is the worst way to generate electricity. The one thing it has going for it is that we have an adequate domestic supply.
Ethanol does suck. I wish we'd all come to that realization and scale back our production goals for ethanol. It may have some value as an oxygenation agent. All cars today can run on 10% ethanol. That should be the limit of our production and there's no reason to blend it in any higher percentages.
Well if electric cars suddenly proliferate in the marketplace, coal is going to power them, for the immediate future anyway, and then you have the whole issue of global warming, use of atomic power, etc. It could become a real market inhibitor, don't you think?
I do think that the advances in coal fired power plants are good. We do have a near limitless supply of coal. I remember the Sierra Club fighting against building Lake Powell. Their argument way back then was the fact that we were covering some 25k year supply of coal. Of course they would have fought tooth and nail if anyone tried to mine it. I do not believe we will see a big surge in EVs for many years. As much as I think it would be nice to have one, they just seem out of reach. It has been that way for a long time.
Hawaiian homes are near perfect for Solar. Most do not need heat or AC. If you get a Paloma type water heater using propane it is very efficient. Propane refrigerators are good but expensive. It still takes a while to pay off the system. My electric bills for my home in Hawaii average about $500 per month. That is with no air conditioner or heat. I did have a fellow check it out and is changing the hot water heater. That may be the culprit.
I'm surprised you don't have a solar water heater. My understanding is that these systems have a much quicker payback time than PV panels. I believe that it's either Japan or Australia that's passed legislation requiring all new homes to have a solar water heating system.
Powering EVs from a coal or gas fired powerplant will still result in a net CO2 reduction due to these plants being more efficient than an ICE. I do agree that from a global warming perspective it's less than ideal. However it is possible to produce electricity without producing CO2. So we need to be working on expanding that capability. In the meantime we are at least addressing the issue of foreign oil dependence.
I agree that it will be quite some time before EVs are prevalent on our roadways. I'd be ecstatic if in 10 years they made up even 1% of the fleet. At that point, I believe, a critical mass will have been reached and their presence will then grow tremendously.
News on the Phoenix Motorcar SUT. The significance of this is that in the very near future we will be getting real world results as to the capability and limitations of EVs with these new Li-ion batteries.
I thought of that and checked into the cost. It was about $5000 installed. I am getting a new energy efficient 50 gallon electric water heater installed for under $400. In a rental that I could trade off at anytime I do not see the savings. I am still skeptical on the solar water panels. My neighbor here in San Diego had them. They started leaking and caused all kinds of damage. Of course the company was already out of business. I ran into the same deal with my home in Lake Havasu AZ. Without a maximum 5 year payback Solar is not a good solution. If I could get a big tax credit for solar I would try it again.
$5000 is more than I would have expected. I've lived in a condominium for the past 6 years so I'm not in a good position to utilize or gain hands on experience with these technologies that I advocate. I do have all energy star appliances and flourescent lighting. There's a magazine I subscribe to called Home Power. They repeatedly state in articles that for someone with limited funds to spend that wants to go solar the best starting point, offering the most bang for the buck, is solar water heating. I think that they typically cite around a 6 year payback time compared to 11 years for PV panels. These figures are based on no tax breaks. Before spending $5k I'd want a 10 year comprehensive warranty and a measure of confidence this company would still be around then.
energy efficient 50 gallon electric water heater installed for under $400
I just did that too, and I get to write off $300 on my taxes this year (some wimpy 2 year energy efficiency upgrade program).
Solar is still too long a payback here since my all electric home utility bill only runs between $50 in the summer to $180 in January. Friends near Taos went off-grid a few months ago and they had a little trouble getting their Siemans panels timely because of demand elsewhere in the world.
Now if I had some electric vehicles to plug into a solar powered system, that could make a few panels feasible around the homestead.
Now if I had some electric vehicles to plug into a solar powered system, that could make a few panels feasible around the homestead.
I've had this discussion with people before. They use the dollar amount of gas savings to offset the price of the solar panels. By doing this the system appears to pay for itself pretty rapidly. While this rational makes sense if you're off grid it really doesn't if your connected to the grid. The price for charging EVs with solar panels should be compared to the price of charging EVs from the grid, not compared to the amount you were spending on fuel with an ICE. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate of this approach. I just question the accounting.
I don't think there is any tax credits that I can get from the Feds. Hawaii may offer something. I was tickled to get a water heater that cheap. Here in CA the same water heater installed was over $900 with permits and local fees. CA is a rip-off on so many fronts. I am sure CA legislators would figure out a way to tax anyone that has an EV. CA is totally under the control of elitist groups. Now they want us to believe our mere existence is causing global warming. Their attitude is please get off the planet and do not expel any CO2 in the process.
Solar hot water heaters don't work, that's the problem. You can use them to boost conventional systems but for most people in most climates there is no way you can have enough hot water from solar for a normal life style.
Electricity in Hawaii is outrageously expensive. Definitely a flash heater for hot water is the way to go I think if you aren't so remote for propane delivery and you can have a big tank.
But an EV in Hawaii would be great, since you can't really go anywhere far. Don't know how much it would cost to run one, though. Certainly more than on the mainland.
Here's a tax link for the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Tpe, we haven't made it over to NM to see the new house yet - it's in one of those "subdivisions" where all the homes are straw bale or earthships, and everyone is off grid. Our friends still drive gas cars though.
They haven't mentioned Angel's Nest but surely they know about it; they share the same zipcode for whatever that's worth.
where all the homes are straw bale or earthships, and everyone is off grid. Our friends still drive gas cars though
I like straw bale homes. I plan on quiting my job in the next year or two and building a home in the Southwest. In all likelihood it will be straw bale. It's not only energy efficient, environmentally friendly but its a cheap way to go if you don't mind putting in the labor. I don't mind. I suspect when EVs become more available your friends will be early adopters.
I have read some horror stories about straw bale homes and getting them approved in Arizona. I thought they were a great idea also. I also like adobe, cool in summer and hold the heat in winter. Both a hassle to get permitted. CA has regs against adobe in most counties. Does not fit the ticky tacky mold they want us all to fit in.
I have read some horror stories about straw bale homes and getting them approved in Arizona
I wonder why that is? My brother lives in Tucson and he was actually the one who told me about straw bale homes. Apparently there is a person that built one in that area and he is actively promoting the idea to the point that he will let people tour his home. In terms of aesthetics I'm not sure why anyone would mind. They typically look like any other southwestern style stucco home. I'm also considering Baja as a place to build.
As far as CA's regulations go I have mixed feelings on that. I've seen too many areas with no regulations where people through up trailers next to nice stick built homes. I'm sure this will come off sounding elitist but if I build a nice home I would like some assurance that I won't have a neighbor drive the value down.
Comments
That's true but so what? With personal electronic devices becoming more energy intensive the companies that make batteries for these devices are aggressively striving to improve their performance. Tesla seems to be piggy-backing on this R&D and spending their resources on packaging, overcoming the dangers of Li-ion. On the surface this seems like a prudent approach. Tesla actually now sells battery packs.
Just seems like it is already a step behind the latest Altair technology which circomvents the dangers of li-ion, we are told. My conjecture is that it might not be the best way to configure power storage for an ev. But as you've no doubt gathered, I am not an engineer, electrical or otherwise. Buying batteries and chassis would seem a layer of added cost. But, in the qty's they are talking at present, it might be the most cost effective way to go.
Do you know how much they sell the battery packs for?
They seem "more like it".
I agree...Tesla is show-boating. I betcha in two years they'll be Chapter 11 and a year after that sold to a company in Malaysia and that's the last we'll ever hear from them.
BATTERIES-- until batteries that are commercially viable become smaller and lighter, we've still got this WEIGHT and SIZE problem.
But I know they're "working on it".
IMO, the EV will come of age when it goes 250 miles on a charge at 55-65 mph in cold climates, when it weighs about 2,500 lbs, has four doors, looks as normal as a Nissan Versa and sells for the price of a Prius.
I think those parameters are the "sweet spot"---anything else, you're dreaming about making money doing this or you're relying on venture capital or subsidies to prop you up.
No golf carts, no $125,000 two seaters, no ugly monstrosities, and no rushing home to charge up mid-day.
You know, a "normal" car!
I'll agree with you that the price of batteries needs to come down. However they don't ever need to be cheap. Afterall there are thousands of dollars worth of cost savings that will be achieved by driving an EV. So if the battery pack adds $10k to the price of a vehicle it will probably be recouped faster than the $3k premium that people are paying for the current hybrids.
Why is the size and weight of the battery pack such a big deal? For one thing a person doesn't drive batteries or gasoline. That's only the energy source and there are a lot of other components into making a functional vehicle. Once you get past the batteries there are plenty of other parts that are either lighter or non-existent on an EV, which offsets some of the battery weight penalty. Anyway, look around, people are buying and using trucks and SUVs as their daily driver. Do you really think the typical American cares all that much about size and weight? If anything the mentality is the bigger/heavier the better. Weight will always be the enemy of handling and performance but from the efficiency perspective EVs are a slam-dunk winner. You mention that a 2,500 lb, 4-door is the sweet spot. Really? How many 4-door, 2,500 lb. vehicles are currently on the market. Apparently the Camry and Accord are missing this sweet spot.
There is no one car that is perfect for everyone. An EV with even 100 mile range is perfect for a lot of people as a second car. The ONLY significant obstacle they face right now is price.
Yes and no. Altair's product is definitely superior in a lot of areas but it is actually deficient in terms of energy density. So if your goal is maximum range for a particularly sized battery pack then you wouldn't go with Altair. Which is why I believe that the Altair battery is perfectly suited for what the Chevy Volt is trying to accomplish. GM wants to achieve a 40 mile all electric range with this vehicle. 250 lbs of Altair batteries would accomplish this. They've been tested for 10,000 cycles so longevity wouldn't be an issue. They also have 4x the power density of traditional Li-ion. So this relatively small battery pack could still provide enough juice for a very powerful electric motor.
There is another company, A123 systems, that has a battery with almost identical characteristics to Altair's battery. GM has awarded them a contract for battery development. Maybe we'll see that in the Volt in a couple of years.
And as we know, many a "savvy" businessman has gone belly up. We remember their successes, we don't remember their failures. Can you say Bricklin, Delorean, McLaren, Bugatti, Vector, Avanti....the list of disasters goes on and on....sure, GREAT cars *some* of them, but a lousy business venture nonetheless. Saleen is doing okay, but he makes money on his tuner market, pumping out "ordinary" Mustangs, partnering deals with the Big Boys, not on his fabulous hi-po S7. I don't see any money to be made on a Tesla. It's the wrong market for EVs IMO. Looks like an ego-trip and a venture capital "burn" to me....just my two cents.
RE: Sweet spot -- well I meant as a second car. I don't see EVs being a primary car that sells for under $30K for another 10 years, if ever. 2,500 lbs. is just a number I grabbed as a "substantial" vehicle. It can be 3,000, sure why not? Having the Camry as a goal for an EV would be a great idea.
Nothing wrong with an EV second car only going 100 miles on a charge, if it were dirt cheap to buy...like Kia or Rio territory.
How many people would have bought a $28K Prius that only went 100 miles?
if we look at the whole history of cars, it's true that at first, cars were VERY expensive and only sold to the rich. It took henry Ford to figure out how to make one cheap enough for everybody. The people who insisted on making "rich" cars all died, sooner or later.
Why would it have to be dirt cheap? Let's say that 95% of your driving involves trips less than 100 miles and you pretty much know before you embark how far you will be travelling. If its your typical day of going back and forth to work and maybe a couple errands who really cares whether your car can go 50 miles or 500 miles? Not having to go to gas stations will be appealing to some people.
Obviously you disagree with my assesment of EV's viability. I've been wrong before. One way or the other I think that within the next couple of years the picture will become a lot clearer.
Second: I would like an EV also. I am still very practical when it comes to getting into my piggy bank. I am very skeptical of Li-ion technology. I would be more apt to buy an inexpensive lead acid or NiMH EV. I am not in need of high performance going to the mall. No freeways to contend with only surface streets. There is no way I could justify a $40k runabout with a 100-200 mile range.
Now if I had Tom Hank's money and wanted to put forth the greenest image in Hollywood, money would be no object. It is a game for these people to see who can look the greenest on the red carpet at the Oscars. No mention of the pollution they spew in their personal jet getting to Hollywood.
I'm being very cold-hearted about this---looking at it from a marketing point of view.
So a "100 mile range"----what does that mean? Is it like Sprint....100 "anytime miles" or "100 miles under ideal conditions".
If it's 100 "anytime" miles (that is, 65 mph, AC on), well that's pretty good. Many people would be happy with that as a 2nd car, and probably could plan not to run out of juice most days....but if it's "100 ideal miles" that's not so good. What if I live in San Francisco and have to climb lots of hills, and I want to go to Oakland and back, also lots of hills plus high speed freeway in between? Will I make it or will I end up stuck on the left lane of the Bay Bridge traveling at 15 mph?
If I have to "fret" about things like this, I want to pay $10,000, not $30,000 for this second car.
Gee-- think about it...a couple of stories in the media about electric cars getting stranded on the freeways. I mean, people run out of gas all the time, so I could see them running out of electrcity as well.
I'd have to look at a "100 ideal mile" EV as sort of a "cripple" that I bought because it was cheap and served limited needs.
I'm sure you realize that hybrids achieve their greatest advantage in city driving. Stop an go driving that involves hills will further emphasize the benefits of any car that can utilize regenerative technologies. San Franciscans will be early adopters of EVs.
No, I'm not against EVs at all. I'm just offering my opinion on what I think people will buy in the marketplace. What I personally think of EVs doesn't mater at all.
But.....If you would genuinely pay $30,000 for a car you have to plug in say every 65 to 100 miles, well then you are way more a believer than I am. I wonder though when it comes time to write the check, what your bottom line will REALLY be? What do you think, in terms of price + range under "real" conditions. Give us some idea what's in your head about that. If I could deliver a Corolla to you that got 40 mpg for $20,000, why would you buy an EV for $30K that went 100 miles? Or would you only want to pay $20K and refuse to spend $30K? Remember a 100 mile range doesn't mean you get to go to the last drop, that it goes to 100 and then stops. It slows down before that.
I'm betting you'll wish for the same range as a gas car with a ten gallon tank at least.
But you bring up a good point. People don't buy Priuses because of the gas mileage. Based only on the gas you save, it makes no sense to pay $28,000 for a Prius.
Yes going up a hill eats power. That's true regardless of what your source of power is. For every hill you go up you must also come down. The regenerative capabilities of an EV will allow you to get back some of the power you spent while climbing. Not the case in an ICE. So while hilly driving will adversely effect any vehicle's range it won't have as big an effect on an EV.
Remember a 100 mile range doesn't mean you get to go to the last drop, that it goes to 100 and then stops. It slows down before that.
While that is true for lead acid batteries it really isn't the case for NiMH and Li-ion. The level of power these put out is pretty constant until they are down below 10% level of charge.
I wouldn't buy a Corolla type vehicle regardless of how it was powered. I'd be interested in a car with better performance. I'd pay $30k for something like GM's EV1. Or if GM actually goes ahead and makes the Volt and prices it comparable to a Cobalt, which they state is their goal, then I'd be very interested in that. If I purchased an EV car with a range of only 100 miles it wouldn't be my only vehicle. However it would be my primary vehicle that would probably account for over 80% of the miles that I drove a year. That being the case I don't know why it would have to be cheap. Plugging it in at night might take all of 15 seconds. I'm not sure how this is more of an inconvenience than stopping for gas every week or two.
Remember, the reason gasoline defeated steam was primarily the inconvenience of having to wait for the steam pressure to build.
I guess I told you that I drove a full-size electric car for about a week. Its range was advertised at 65 miles. I found this totally inadequate as a primary vehicle, and barely adequate as a second car. The idea of having to get back before the charge ran out was always on my mind, especially when I ran into unforeseen terrain or delays or whatever.
I really enjoyed driving it though. Of course, it was a fairly conventional conversion, but thoroughly professionally done.
But yeah, I agree, if an EV could do an honest 100 miles a day no matter HOW you drove it, that would definitely serve most people as a second car.
Question is, what would they pay for it? I don't know. Maybe Prius money, that's possible, I could agree with that I think.
I like the idea of an EV. I kind of agree with our host that I do not think I would spend $30k on one. $20k would be tempting as a runabout. My main reason is to stick it to the oil companies. The other down side is the cost of batteries. I would like to see evidence that any battery technology has gone down in price over the last few years. Toyota seems to be getting around it with less capacity in their hybrids. My understanding is the battery in the Camry hybrid is smaller than in the Prius. It will be interesting if we ever see a PHEV. When someone comes up with a storage device that is adequate and inexpensive enough to make a reasonably priced vehicle, they will probably be EV not hybrid.
It would be very significant in a vehicle driven solely by electric motors. The wheels are now turning the motor instead of the motor turning the wheels. This turns a motor into a generator. And it should be more efficient than the energy recaptured during braking. The reason being is that when you are braking you are probably generating energy faster than it can be loaded into a battery.
I think you are looking for a completely different type of EV than I am. If all you want is a little runabout for short errands than I agree you won't want to be spending much. I want a fully functional vehicle where the only sacrifice I'm making is reduced range, which won't be a sacrifice since I'll have another vehicle.
As far as PHEVs go I think they will be produced. Batteries are going to continue to be expensive for quite some time. I've read estimates that with a volume of 20,000 units you could produce Li-ion car batteries for around $400/kWh. That will work out to $800-1000 for every 10 miles of range you want. I rarely drive over 40 miles so the most practical battery pack for someone like myself would cost $4000. Adding an ICE generator as in a series hybrid will overcome the range issue for someone that will only have 1 vehicle. This will be a lot cheaper than spending another $1000 for every additional 10 miles. I still consider this to be an EV since it will be driven 100% by batteries powering the electric motor. The first 40 miles of charge came from the grid the rest comes from an onboard generator. It's a relatively simple set up compared to the hybrid system that Toyota employs. Ideally a vehicle like this would be somewhat configurable for the individual user. You could choose your battery pack size based upon your typical commute. It wouldn't make much sense to buy more batteries than you need. I believe that initially this will have broader appeal than a pure EV due to its lower price and unlimited range.
I have no problem with limited range but the kicker is this:
We all "plan" to only drive 35 miles a day like we always do but then something comes up for greater range and we can't do it e.g. "you have to go to our other branch" or "hey, can you pick me up at work, my car broke down" or "detour, use route 1 bypass".
Then what do you do?
By the way, what happens when an electric car runs out of juice? I guess a flatbed, right?
I don't understand that rational. Solar energy is still very expensive but the price has come down dramatically. 20 years ago the cost per watt was around 15x the cost of grid electricity. Its now about 3x the cost. Your statement implies that this predicted price drop didn't occur. It did occur and is ongoing. The same can be said about EVs and battery technology. They are progressing. Whether or not they're ready for the mainstream is debatable but they are certainly closer than they were.
Running out of juice in an EV would be a problem. Running out of gas would be a problem if not for the fact that gas stations are everywhere. That wasn't always the case. Its probably less expensive to erect well placed charging stations than it was to build gas stations.
Anyway solar energy is here to stay this time and will be an exploding industry over the next 20 years. It will eventually be cost competitive with grid electricity even without the tax breaks. The biggest hurdle again becomes energy storage, just like for EVs. People still need energy at night and on cloudy days. With grid tied systems this isn't a problem but eventually we'd like to get less reliant on the grid. At least that's my opinion of the direction we should be going in.
But the assist products are great, and coupled with sensible architecture, there is definitely a place for it. So in a way solar power became a "hybrid" kind of tech.
I don't know how you define "boom". The solar panel manufacturers are currently selling as much as they can produce and are expanding capacity. The total amount of solar generated electricity increased by 39% in 2005. I can't find any figures for 2006. While still accounting for less than 1% of all energy that's significant when you consider not too long ago it was essentially zero percent.
....glad to hear though that things are picking up, but not sure we have that kind of stampede going on. I think in Europe that wind power is doing better actually...
Anyway, every new technology needs some kind of economic engine to drive it, doesn't it?... the old "invisible hand" I guess you'd call it.
What's interesting about the Prius/Hybrid market is that the engine isn't entirely economic....it's more about "feel good marketing", which was a phenomenon that surprised me....people bought these hybrids even though they didn't make much economic sense.
I don't think one can fuel a "boom" through feel-good marketing, but one could start a small boomlet.
I see EV's future as a small percentage of the car market in the next ten years, maybe 1% or something like that? I don't know, just guessing. That's still a substantial # of cars.
it's not so easy but if you modify your lifestyle, you can be pretty comfortable. I had solar battery charging, kerosene heat, battery/ lamp oil lighting and propane refrigeration.
Of course most power tools, washing machines, heaters, etc. are out of the question with lead acid batteries and solar charging rates are pretty slow. Hawaii's a piece of cake being off the grid compared to the temperate climate I lived in. Besides, in Hawaii they might be off the grid but burning up fossil fuels nonetheless.
Also had a wind generator but man those things are noisy.
I guess the main drawbacks to an off the grid system is additional cost and having to modify your lifestyle. Its not that difficult to accurately estimate your electricity usage for a year and install a system that will produce approximately that much over the course of a year. If its tied to the grid then there may be periods where you are using more electricity than you are generating (winter time) but you'll be covered and at the end of the year your electric bill will still end up around zero.
The problem with off the grid is you have to allow for the fluctuations in your energy usage and weather conditions. So you end up installing a system with the capacity to handle worst case scenarios, which will be larger so more expensive and typically generate more electricity than you can use or store. And even if the lead acid batteries are cheap it's still an extra expense.
Additionally, from an environmental perspective a grid tied system allows you to supplement the grid's power during peak demand, which allows them to delay building new powerplants. However, an off grid system does offer the appeal of being completely self sufficient.
This is why I'm fond of social incentives rather than regulatory ones for EVs.
http://media.popularmechanics.com/documents/Fuel_of_the_Future-e852.pdf
The idea is to compare ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, electricity, etc. energy costs to the cost of propelling a Honda Civic cross country by gasoline.
One thing that struck me is how lousy ethanol is.
Electric looks real good on all the numbers except if you think about having to burn a ton of coal.
Ethanol does suck. I wish we'd all come to that realization and scale back our production goals for ethanol. It may have some value as an oxygenation agent. All cars today can run on 10% ethanol. That should be the limit of our production and there's no reason to blend it in any higher percentages.
Hawaiian homes are near perfect for Solar. Most do not need heat or AC. If you get a Paloma type water heater using propane it is very efficient. Propane refrigerators are good but expensive. It still takes a while to pay off the system. My electric bills for my home in Hawaii average about $500 per month. That is with no air conditioner or heat. I did have a fellow check it out and is changing the hot water heater. That may be the culprit.
I agree that it will be quite some time before EVs are prevalent on our roadways. I'd be ecstatic if in 10 years they made up even 1% of the fleet. At that point, I believe, a critical mass will have been reached and their presence will then grow tremendously.
News on the Phoenix Motorcar SUT. The significance of this is that in the very near future we will be getting real world results as to the capability and limitations of EVs with these new Li-ion batteries.
http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/marketwire/0221170.htm
I just did that too, and I get to write off $300 on my taxes this year (some wimpy 2 year energy efficiency upgrade program).
Solar is still too long a payback here since my all electric home utility bill only runs between $50 in the summer to $180 in January. Friends near Taos went off-grid a few months ago and they had a little trouble getting their Siemans panels timely because of demand elsewhere in the world.
Now if I had some electric vehicles to plug into a solar powered system, that could make a few panels feasible around the homestead.
I've had this discussion with people before. They use the dollar amount of gas savings to offset the price of the solar panels. By doing this the system appears to pay for itself pretty rapidly. While this rational makes sense if you're off grid it really doesn't if your connected to the grid. The price for charging EVs with solar panels should be compared to the price of charging EVs from the grid, not compared to the amount you were spending on fuel with an ICE. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate of this approach. I just question the accounting.
That is very popular in the Taos area. Do you know if that "Angel's Nest" habitat is still there?
That is very popular in the Taos area. Do you know if that "Angel's Nest" habitat is still there?
Electricity in Hawaii is outrageously expensive. Definitely a flash heater for hot water is the way to go I think if you aren't so remote for propane delivery and you can have a big tank.
But an EV in Hawaii would be great, since you can't really go anywhere far. Don't know how much it would cost to run one, though. Certainly more than on the mainland.
Tpe, we haven't made it over to NM to see the new house yet - it's in one of those "subdivisions" where all the homes are straw bale or earthships, and everyone is off grid. Our friends still drive gas cars though.
They haven't mentioned Angel's Nest but surely they know about it; they share the same zipcode for whatever that's worth.
I like straw bale homes. I plan on quiting my job in the next year or two and building a home in the Southwest. In all likelihood it will be straw bale. It's not only energy efficient, environmentally friendly but its a cheap way to go if you don't mind putting in the labor. I don't mind. I suspect when EVs become more available your friends will be early adopters.
I wonder why that is? My brother lives in Tucson and he was actually the one who told me about straw bale homes. Apparently there is a person that built one in that area and he is actively promoting the idea to the point that he will let people tour his home. In terms of aesthetics I'm not sure why anyone would mind. They typically look like any other southwestern style stucco home. I'm also considering Baja as a place to build.
As far as CA's regulations go I have mixed feelings on that. I've seen too many areas with no regulations where people through up trailers next to nice stick built homes. I'm sure this will come off sounding elitist but if I build a nice home I would like some assurance that I won't have a neighbor drive the value down.