Electric Vehicle Pros & Cons

Mr_Shiftright

Here's a good reason to examine the safety features of any electric car we might think of buying. This is a UK car.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NGjvt8tqRYc

RE: Henry Ford -- I think building cars for rich people was the very last thing Henry was interested in. The investors who bet against him lost.

apeweek

A car will not fail crash testing simply by virtue of being electric. The criticism would apply to any car you may wish to buy.

Here in the US, cars must pass safety standards to be approved for highway use.

I don't doubt that Henry Ford wasn't much interested in cars for the rich. He did them anyway, for a while, didn't he? Why do you suppose this was?

Mr_Shiftright

My recollection of Ford history is that what he really wanted to do was go racing, and used his initial investors' money mostly for that. When his investors insisted he devote his energies to building the big Ford model (I think it was called a "K") Ford pulled out and sought new investors who believed in his vision of the car for "everyman". His initial investors continued to make expensive cars and went broke. Kind of a classic case of venture capital getting impatient.

Of course, some builders of expensive cars continued to prosper, but most went broke during the Great Depression or "downgraded" their product line.

RE: CAR CRASHES--the point was that some EVs, if not conversions of regular production cars, may not be up to snuff. Buyer beware.

RE: Other EVs

Here's an interesting EV/Hybrid:

http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

No mention of price, but it should crash-test well.

tpe

Interesting factoid is that the high fuel taxes in Europe originated as a luxury tax. The idea was only rich people could afford cars so only rich people were buying gasoline.

apeweek

...what he really wanted to do was go racing, and used his initial investors' money mostly for that.

So he didn't need any money from investors to build cars?

...When his investors insisted he devote his energies to building the big Ford model (I think it was called a "K")...

How about models a, b, c, and f? Were they priced for middle-class Americans or for the more well-to-do?

Would Henry have been able to launch the affordable Model T without the money he earned from models A through K?

Mr_Shiftright

"Would Henry have been able to launch the affordable Model T without the money he earned from models A through K?"

I'd have to say that he learned what not to build....so in that sense, he did need to do the wrong thing to get to the right thing.

Given the radical design of the Model T, and the radical approach to building it, it seems that very little carried over from the past....but really, who can say. He was an eccentric genius.

As for building ground-up, unique cars for the rich, I can't think of one start-up company that has succeeded in this since Mr. Ferrari in 1949.

History is overhwelmingly against companies like Tesla surviving as a car manufacturer and aside from magical thinking speculations, I think history is correct in this case. But as for developing technology to sell to the big boys, Tesla may be in a good position to sell out and cash in. I suspect that the shrewder investors are well aware of where the money is, in this venture.

apeweek

...he did need to do the wrong thing to get to the right thing...

So henry did build cars for the wealthy. From your perspective, this was a mistake.

Well, I don't see Henry as a stumbling bumpkin. I think he knew exactly what he was doing. The money to do what he wanted had to come from somewhere.

He couldn't build the Model T without a substantial investment in factory infrastructure.

Before he could do this - and buy the company for himself, he needed money. To get money, he needed investors. Go get investors, he needed a business plan to make the investors happy.

This is along the lines of what Tesla is doing. It's faster and less risky to hand-build cars with large markups that to tool up a big factory. In the process they get some cash and some PR. Their next vehicle will be a more affordable car. There's no guarantee it will work out. But it's a history-tested plan.

Henry went bankrupt twice before Ford Motor company worked.

toyolla2

I see no substantial difference between the EV-1 and Chrysler's Turbine Car Experiments. Nobody made a film called 'Who killed the Turbine Car", did they?

Yeah but, Chrysler didn't lease them to the public in droves either Shifty.
In the case of the EV-1 people who experienced the EV-1 wanted to keep the vehicle at lease end even. I followed the progress of these cars for more than ten years - still have a copy of the video supplied to the media in 1990. If GM wanted to terminate their liability, then as the financial sophisticates they are, all they needed to do was to form a sunset company to take over the EV-1 assets. A battery manufacturer might have been prepared to assume liabilities since these vehicles had by that time generated substantial operational data. No one could now say they didn't know what they were getting into. Risk assessment should be of high accuracy. Either way this would have given GM the tax writedown they wanted. In the event I feel sure that all the cars would have secured a $100k buyout.
The major problem is not so much the NiMH battery as gagrice pointed out but the ongoing availability of specialised equipment and trained personnel. Who will be paying for that with a total population of just 300 cars ?
And how many of those will be requiring full support in order to make the service viable. "onstar" and "roadside assistance" don't have good renewal rate after the freebie period times out I'm guessing.

Whichever battery type is concerned battery changeout requires the use of a custom scissor jack that removes the 840lb battery tray in one shot from underneath the vehicle. Vehicles that need this service must be shipped in to wherever this equipment resides. Soon we'll hear how Tesla will be handling this delicate problem also.
T2

apeweek

...The major problem is not so much the NiMH battery as gagrice pointed out but the ongoing availability of specialised equipment and trained personnel. Who will be paying for that with a total population of just 300 cars ?

Again, we just have to look at how Ford and Toyota handled this with the EVs they allowed to be sold. But I don't know why we have to assume that ongoing service would even be addressed. Why would the seller be obligated to do this, if the buyers are forewarned that they are getting 'as-is' cars, and presumably made to sign disclaimers?

Those of us in the EV owner community are quite used to the idea of driving orphan cars.

daysailer

Forewarnings and disclaimers hold no sway in the fickle court of public opinion. GM had to weigh whether the bad PR from would-be purchasers would be worse than the bad PR from purchasers of an experimental product who had no manufacturer support. I think that the variables and risks are greater in the latter case and apparently, so did GM. Owners of orphaned cars cannot hurt a defunct company, but GM provides a big target.

tpe

GM had to weigh whether the bad PR from would-be purchasers would be worse than the bad PR from purchasers of an experimental product who had no manufacturer support. I think that the variables and risks are greater in the latter case and apparently, so did GM.

Yes and apparently Toyota felt differently. In retrospect I think from a PR perspective Toyota made the correct decision.

apeweek

CAR CRASHES... some EVs, if not conversions of regular production cars, may not be up to snuff...

Hey, here's a gasoline powered car shredding itself in a crash test - the dummy had to be removed in PIECES! Clearly, this proves that all gasoline-powered cars, if they are not major brand-name cars, may not be up to snuff.

Chery crash test

It's a cheaply made Chinese car. But the important thing is that it's gasoline powered. Yes, of course, that's obviously the real reason it's shoddy.

jeffyscott

Wow...that makes you realize just how well built even cars that get ratings other than "good" in the similar IIHS crash test here are.

hudsonthedog

"Henry Ford made cars for the rich solely to please his investors. He did not believe in that business model and broke away as soon as he could find new investors. He became rich, his "rich man's car company" went broke."

Actually, his first "rich man's car company" became Cadillac. His second evolved into the Ford we have today.

jeffyscott

did this become the history of Henry Ford forum?...just wonderin' .

larsb

Just give me one of these and a few AA chargers, and I'm good to go !!!

192 AA batteries and 75 MPH here we come !!

Kirstie_H

Well worth the $35/year Sams Club membership fee - they sell AA batteries in megapacks. You can get them in packs of 144 here for $46, so let's assume it will cost you about $60 to "fuel up." Wonder how far it would go before needing a re-fuel? :confuse:

Very funny, though.

PF_Flyer

Sure you can fill up at Sam's, but if you're carrying more than a baloney sandwich you might have some cargo capacity issues...LOL

apeweek

Hmmm...

Alkaline batteries can be recharged (though it's against the manufacturer's recommendations.)

I wonder how many charges a $60 set of alkaline AA cells could take?

plekto

With a proper recharging circuit(monitoring so it doesn't overcharge is a must - not optional at all), 15-20 cycles is about what most manage.

You can buy rechargeable alkaline batteries as well, which are great in remotes and other devices that won't work very well(if at all) on NiMh or other rechargeables.

http://store.sundancesolar.com/rayrecalaaab.html?productid=rayrecalaaab&channeli- d=FROOG
Roughly 1.25 each - they *claim* 500 cycles. 15-20 is more common if you recharge when they get drained(as opposed to topping off after an hour or so/daily use).

Most people don't know about them and it's a shame. (in theory, alkaline and dry cell batteries never go bad, but 1V isn't usually going to run a device. ie - they still hold a charge, but not enough of one - the same with most old car batteries, which is why it's usually better to keep old ones around for other projects, since 9-10V is still useable(just not for starting a car)

reddroverr

ok, I bought the charger and battery set. Are you saying the regular alkalines will recharge for 15-20 cycles?

Does a recharged battery standard alk battery.,.say on the first or second recharge have a charge close to a new battery?

I guess I should have asked before I got the set. :surprise:

plekto

They lose about 2-3% per charge if you let them run down fully. I've had them last for a few months in radios and other high drain devices, but I have one 6 year old set in a remote that still keeps working. I recharge it and it has maybe enough power to last 1-2 weeks, but that's fine for a remote. (ie when it's not good for high drain uses, it'll work for a remote or clock almost forever)

Try them - you'll be a believer.

reddroverr

Thanks for the clues. I bought the set with charger + 4 AA and 4 AAAs.

larsb

This is a well-thought-out and well-done story:

YOU (yes YOU, don't look around curiously) killed the Electric Car

perspective Who really killed the electric car?

You did. You and the periodic table of the elements, with a little help from physics. Don't feel bad. Any individual responsibility seems to be spread pretty thin, but I figured it was about time to speak on the issue.

In the past few years, a theory has developed hinging on the notion that oil producers, in cahoots with auto manufacturers, conspired with each other in the mid-'90s to throttle the electric car in its crib. As a result, we've all been consigned to environmental doom.

The doom part actually seems to be on track, but the rest of the theory doesn't hold up that well upon closer inspection. Don't get me wrong: I think electric transportation (along with clean diesel) will become more prevalent over the next 20 years. And automakers have worked to keep emissions standards low.

plekto

The article is unfortunately, little more than his armchair blathering and opinions.

The fact is that every time they make EVs available, it's lease only. Then when the lease is up, THEY CRUSH THEM. There are no resales, no certified programs... It met the government's CAFE and legislation requirements and nothing more. People plead, beg, and yet they still crush them. GM's EV1 - the dealers would literally drive them off to the crusher when the owners would come in for repairs or an oil change. No warning, no anything - just drive them off and tell them that the car is gone - tough luck.

Currently, only the few in museums exist. 0 are on the road today.

Toyota also did this, as did all of the rest, without exception(Zap and tiny companies aside)

At one time there were thousands of electric RAV-4s running around. Now, the only ones are a few dozen that Toyota actually sold in the first month or so to a few lucky people(then they changed their plan and made it lease-only)

Without a used market and the cars being driven/seen, it's like having to start over to gain recognition and a viable market every time they offer one.

apeweek

Okay, some good points in the article, but it seriously biased and contains numerous inaccuracies. Apologies for the length of my post.

I'll respond to each of his points:

Points 1 and 2: He harps on 'conspiracy theory' repeatedly. This straw-man term is invoked by opponents of electric cars, not supporters. I do not personally believe that any conspiring between oil producers and car makers was necessary to kill the electric cars of the 90's. These two entities did not need to conspire simply because they shared the same goal. So all the points he makes showing how unlikely a conspiracy would be, are just silly.

Points 2 and 3: Toyota's electric car disappeared from the market because the batteries did. The patents for the NIMH batteries used in the EV1 and Toyota RAV4 EV were obtained by GM and sold to Chevron/Texaco. Toyota was then sued by the oil company (through Cobasys, the company they formed to manage the patents.) Toyota was forced to stop making EV sized NIMH batteries, and signed an agreement specifying exactly what they could use NIMHs for.

Incidentally, why did Cobasys stop the manufacture of all EV-sized NIMH batteries? There are other markets for large capacity batteries, too (golf carts, boats, power leveling, etc.) Why did they give up all those markets for large batteries? (Cobasys is beginning to relent now that there's competition in the EV battery business. But just a little.)

'
Point 4: '...Sales weren't great and neither were the cars. There was a lot of customer curiosity, but few walked out of the showroom with a sales contract...'
Why do the EV history revisionists continue to pretend that these cars were for sale? Only leases were allowed, and for most of the RAV4 EVs life, only fleet leases were allowed. Only a few RAV4 EVs were ever permitted to be sold, at the conclusion of California's program. Those few used RAV4 EVs sell for record prices on eBay now, usually for double or better their original selling price. What does that say about potential demand?

The EV1 had a waiting list with at least 5,000 people on it - just to lease the car. If the car had been marketed, and was actually for sale, then conclusions could be drawn. You certainly can't comment of the sales of cars that weren't for sale.

Point 5: '...The battery still only had a five-year life. It didn't last the life of the car, so how do you handle that issue?'
The Toyota RAV4 EVs from that period that are still on the road today have well over 100,000 miles on the original NIMH batteries. Newer EV batteries, like Altairnanos, promise lifetimes 2 or 3 times that. Ditto supercapacitors, if we ever get that technology. But even lead-acid batteries aren't so bad. My own EV has a $800 battery pack that lasts about 20,000 miles. That's 4 cents per mile - add that to my electricity cost of 1 cent per mile - and that's 5 cents, which handily beats the 10 to 30 cents/mile that gasoline costs.

Point 6: '...There is no Moore's Law for batteries that allows them to get cheaper, faster and better at a steady rate over time.'
That statement would have been true 20 years ago, but not now. It's no coincidence that there has been little progress in batteries until recently. That's because it's not autos that drive battery innovation (car makers couldn't care less), it's cellphones and notebook computers that are spurring research. So the pace of battery research is suddenly lurching forward. There's lots of exciting battery technology evolving now, like Altairnano, EESTOR, Firefly, NIMH, and A123, just to name the better known ones.

Point 7: '...Batteries are expensive too.'
EV battery expense is mostly a function of low sales volume. But even with expensive batteries, if the cost is amortized over the miles driven, as I did in point 5 above, battery costs can be offset by low operating and fuel costs.

Point 8: '...consumers are cheap and don't want to be inconvenienced by a car that will die on the freeway'
I'm cheap, too, and it is exactly why I drive an electric car (an inexpensive conversion - EVs can be made inexpensively.) As I pointed out above, my cost per mile is only about 5 cents, several times cheaper than my gas vehicle. I don't like cars that die on the freeway either. My EV, built in 1981, has never stranded me, or had motor trouble of any kind - electric motors are extremely reliable. I don't run out of juice on the highway for the same reason I don't run out of gas on the highway - I'm not stupid!

reddroverr

I thought someone should acknowledge your excellent post.

Well done!

reddroverr

Like the frog in the slowly heating water...they are going to exchange one part after another until one day...Daysailer will wake up and be driving an EV.

But I kid..does say something about the purported problem of using electric for climate functions, et al.

DETROIT - Beneath your car's hood, there are belts hooked to the engine, running the power steering, air conditioning and other items that drag on the engine and cut gas mileage. But as fuel efficiency becomes paramount with high gas prices and pending government regulations, automakers across the world are trying to get rid of as many belts as they can, switching them to electric motors.


The power steering pump is likely to be the first casualty. Toyota Motor Corp., General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. already have electric power steering on some models, with more in the works, and they report fuel efficiency gains of up to 8 percent.

Other manufacturers and parts suppliers also are using or developing the motors, which could spread to air conditioning and power brake assist devices run by belts that suck power from the engine

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070906/ap_on_bi_ge/autos_electric_motors_5

daysailer

I have no qualms with electric drives and when they are provided with an energy source having equivalent energy/power density and utility of gasoline at a competitive price, I will be driving an EV.

jeffyscott

An Austin-based startup called EEStor promised "technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries," meaning a motorist could plug in a car for five minutes and drive 500 miles roundtrip between Dallas and Houston without gasoline.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5injP_H-HkCkxCFHZ0ryEBSrvGgWQ

Apparently they have a relationship with Zenn.

reddroverr

There are apparent drawbacks...assuming what is hyped is even possible.

Can't slow charge at home with current electrical service.

I know standard capacitors don't hold their charges nearly as long as batteries. Having to visit a station every day or two isn't appealing to me.

reddroverr

how about talking in terms of function?

Say a 250 mile range.

Ability to start each day with a full tank via home charging.

Charging facilities available at parking structures, street meters, restaurants, motels, etc. Giving you the ability to top off the tank conveniently.

Limited fast charge stations where you can fully charge in 15 minutes when needed.

Would that work for you?

apeweek

EESTOR has been quietly working on this for a few years. They demoed two prototype EVs to investors last year, and are supposedly just working out production problems now.

Colin Powell's involvement has sparked rumors that EESTOR is a front for releasing military tech into the marketplace. Of course, if the military doesn't have this already, they will be wanting it (can't beat fast charging ultracaps for energy weapons.)

You will indeed be able to charge at home - overnight. The fast charges will be limited to service stations. Capacitors do lose charge (batteries do too, albeit less so), so it's a good idea to plug in every night. Frankly, fast charges are just for emergencies or long trips. Charging at home will probably be lots cheaper and more convenient for most people.

daysailer

Like most things, it depends. An adequate range must be achieved with minimal mass (no more than an equivalent ICE vehicle) yet must not reduce storage system life or capacity. Similarly, fast charging must be a rate similar to pumping fuel while not diminishing storage life or capacity.

The "function" that must be served is that of the vehicle that an EV will replace.

tpe

There has been a flurry of articles in the last week regarding EEStor's ultra-capacitors. I didn't see any information that hasn't been previously released. While I want to believe this technology is for real I am skeptical. I think one of the things that really seems out of whack is that their major investors have put up only a few million dollars. If this really is a product that will make batteries obsolete then I've got to believe we are talking about something worth 100's of millions of dollars if not billions. They are still saying that there will be ZENN neighborhood vehicles available with this storage device by the end of the year. So we don't have long to wait.

tpe

An EV does not have to match or exceed an ICE in every single regard in order to be comparable or superior. Batteries will probably never have the energy density of gasoline. If that is your number one, overriding priority then an EV will never be acceptable. Most EV enthusiasts look at the whole package and weigh all the pros and cons against each other. For instance it might take 20 minutes to recharge as opposed to 5 minutes to fill up with gas. But that re-charge might only cost $5 as opposed to $40. I get the sense that you look only at that 20 minutes vs. 5 minutes and conclude ICE superiority. Some people could look only at the $5 vs. $40 and conclude EV superiority. While others consider all the trade-offs before drawing a conclusion.

plekto

And eventually, when supercapacitors are cost effective enough, you'll be able to recharge your car as quickly as filling with gasoline. (in theory only limited by the amount of amps you can dump into per minute at the station)

reddroverr

Well, I thought I read you could not slow charge. I've seen now that you will reportedly be able to. My bad. Zenn is reporting a 500 mile range? That for the most part makes fast charging a seldom, if ever, needed option. Really going to have to make sure you have a foolproof system with that much juice flowing. Though, if it will only keep a charge for a limited time, power outages come more into play.

apeweek

ZENN is planning freeway-capable cars for the ultracapacitor packs, not just NEVs.

I wish there was more new information coming out as well - EESTOR has been trying to stay under the radar, which could be a good sign. I.E., if it were an investor scam, there would be more noisy press conferences, specious claims, and showy demos. None of the PR so far has come from EESTOR itself.

The fact that they are not trying to raise more than a few million is a good sign, as well. As you pointed out, from the claims they are making, they could be running a much larger operation (scamming lots of investors) if they wanted to.

daysailer

Of course, the relative merits of alternatives must be weighed, but one must do so realistically and objectively. Some EV enthusiasts seem to believe that the most wildly optimistic EV promises are reality while assuming that those promises will be realized with all other current conditions remaining static. Consider "fuel" cost, which is but one variable. While the EV enthusiast uses the current cost of residential electric power as his basis for comparison, gasoline bears a high tax burden necessary for public infrastructure. We won't convert the country to EVs without providing for that infrastructure cost in some manner. WE MUST STILL PAY FOR IT, we can't escape it by driving EVs. Moreover, EVs will require additional infrastructure that will either be reflected in the cost of energy or through taxation. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!

tpe

Moreover, EVs will require additional infrastructure that will either be reflected in the cost of energy or through taxation. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!

I agree that if everyone started driving EVs and stopped purchasing fuel then there would need to be an adjustment of the tax system in order to compensate for lost revenue. However when you are talking about electricity there really exists the potential for maybe not a free lunch but a very cheap one. Electricity can be produced from a lot of sources that are free. Solar, wind, geothermal and tidal are some examples. The only cost is the conversion and storage devices, which are not ongoing costs like paying for gasoline.

tpe

While EEStor is not a publicly traded company ZENN is. So someone interested in investing in this technology could indirectly do so by investing in ZENN. They are listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) under ZNN. I don't know if it is a result of their relationship with EEStor but ZENN's stock price has almost tripled in the last 18 months. It is still a low cap stock at around $4.10 (Canadian)

daysailer

It is not an all-or-nothing situation. To whatever extent revenue is reduced by diminished gasoline sales, it must be recovered by some other means. We WILL pay for it.

And the alternative energy sources that you cite are hardly free, they require tremendous capital investment, O&M and distribution costs. Wish as you may, there is NO free lunch!

michael2003

I understand that it should be possible to power your home from an electric vehicle, but I can't find any information anywhere to provide to the electrician on how to set it up so that the same receptacle that recharges the vehicle can be used to provide power back to the home. Can anyone point me to where I could get this info?

Thanks.

apeweek

I agree that somebody has to pay taxes. The tax system, however, is a big game. While I drive my current electric vehicle, I am avoiding these taxes completely. This situation will likely remain true as long as EV drivers are a small minority.

The minute electricity prices or attached taxes get prohibitive, I will install an EV-sized solar panel or windmill (a couple thousand dollars for either option.) If they decide to tax these things, I can build my own windmill (plans are available on the internet.)

Meanwhile, the remaining petro-powered drivers are being taxed into the next century. I'm not saying this is fair. But I aim to win this game.

apeweek

...I understand that it should be possible to power your home from an electric vehicle...

You wouldn't do this from the same outlet you charge your vehicle from. First of all, unless the EV you buy has the necessary circuitry already, you need a power inverter to turn the DC from your car into home AC. If you want to power your whole house, it needs to be a very large inverter. This is not an off-the-shelf item right now; it would need to be engineered.

An approach that had occurred to me (I drive an old electric car) would be to take several small 12-volt inverters (readily available at low prices) and connect them across each battery in my pack. This would provide me with (in my case) 9 ac outlets to power various items from, using long extension cords.

Not as ideal as patching into my house's electrical wiring, but OK in an emergency.

daysailer

The behavior of a fringe market has little influence on the larger reality and for those willing to suffer the severe limitations of present EV technology, what you say is true. But if EV's are ever to become a practical reality and a significant portion of the market, they must conform to the larger economics.

apeweek

...if EV's are ever to become a practical reality and a significant portion of the market, they must conform to the larger economics.

Yes, of course you are correct. My point is that the tax 'loopholes' will likely be with us for quite a while, as it will be decades before EVs are widely adopted. Even if all the EV 'kinks' were worked out - people are slow to adapt and change. Gasoline consumers, meanwhile, are an easy target - and so will be taxed more and more heavily to compensate for EV defectors.

Even if EVs were the norm, and fairly taxed, most people wouldn't go to the trouble to build backyard windmills. So I believe there will always be a way to escape high energy prices and taxes for sufficiently motivated EV drivers.

Something else that just occurred to me - how would electricity be taxed? A blanket tax on electricity affects all consumers, not just EV drivers. If my EV charging socket was metered for charging extra taxes, what would stop me from plugging it in somewhere else? An EV electricity tax would be a hard one to enforce. How would this be done?

jeffyscott

The minute electricity prices or attached taxes get prohibitive, I will install an EV-sized solar panel or windmill (a couple thousand dollars for either option.) If they decide to tax these things, I can build my own windmill (plans are available on the internet.)

And if the sun don't shine or the wind don't blow, you don't drive???

reddroverr

some added mass distributed in a superior way should not be a big problem.

How often do you drive more than 200 miles in a day? If it is a regular thing, you are most certainly an exception. Most of us would only rarely have to deal with fast charges.