Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
According to this: http://www.efcf.com/reports/E14.pdf a 300 L (that is about 80 gallons) tank of compressed air contains only 51 MJ of energy. For comparison a single gallon of gas contains 121 MJ. So even if it is more efficient, how far am I going to get with even 80 gallons of air in a real car?
Note - the air car is also several hundred lbs lighter than the IC design as most of what's under a typical car's hood is gone.
So:
Two tanks, 50-60MJ total useable. More if you have any sort of regenerative system or solar panels or whatnot to run the on-board compressor. So figuring in those factors, the efficiency may be closer to 50%.
Gasoline, 121MJ per gallon, about 30MJ useable.
So roughly the range of 2 gallons of gas. Maybe 90-100 miles in actual driving. Not great for long-distance, but good enough for daily commuting and whatnot. Certainly a viable alternative to electric vehicles, as there would be no costly batteries to replace.
People complain that it moves the pollution elsewhere, and that the compressors are not efficient, but when you add in the cost of making the batteries or obtaining and refining the oil, it's a clear win-win situation for this technology. We will eventually run out of oil and can't make enough biofuel anyways, so eventually it's going to be either steam, air, or electric.(SteamPunk fans rejoice!)
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/air-car1.htm
Note the three minute high pressure charge. This is comparable to gasoline. Filling stations can easily add a large air tank and a compressor. Much easier than silly fuel cell or battery swapping proposals.
They claim 120 miles range as well, which is moderately close considering typical manufacturer hype, to my napkin-math. :P It's a short-range city commuter. And you'd just plug it in once you get home to fill it up for the next day.
Much safer as well than CNG, which requires an expensive filling device and an inspection from the utility company. And a garage. Since the compressor is on the vehicle, you would plug it in at work, even, or in a typical parking garage/space.
Pop Mech sums it up..."We'll believe it when we drive it"
Zero Pollution Motors (ZPM) confirmed to PopularMechanics.com on Thursday that it expects to produce the world’s first air-powered car for the United States by late 2009 or early 2010. As the U.S. licensee for Luxembourg-based MDI, which developed the Air Car as a compression-based alternative to the internal combustion engine, ZPM has attained rights to build the first of several modular plants, which are likely to begin manufacturing in the Northeast and grow for regional production around the country, at a clip of up to 10,000 Air Cars per year.
And while ZPM is also licensed to build MDI’s two-seater OneCAT economy model (the one headed for India) and three-seat MiniCAT (like a SmartForTwo without the gas), the New Paltz, N.Y., startup is aiming bigger: Company officials want to make the first air-powered car to hit U.S. roads a $17,800, 75-hp equivalent, six-seat modified version of MDI’s CityCAT (pictured above) that, thanks to an even more radical engine, is said to travel as far as 1000 miles at up to 96 mph with each tiny fill-up.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4251491.html?series=19
I agree that this battery swapping idea doesn't make much sense. However there are batteries being developed that will allow an 85% charge in under 10 minutes with a special charging station. Given the early reviews on Honda's FCX Clarity I do believe that fuel cell vehicles have some potential, albeit in the distant future.
It would be interesting to see them crash test one of these compressed air vehicles and see what happens should a full tank rupture. Obviously it wouldn't catch on fire but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be an explosion.
But MDI really is trying to make this work. They already sell the vehicles in France. They actually have the cars on the road, unlike Zap and the rest. The technology is simple, straightforward, and 100% off the shelf/ready to go.
I'd consider them to be more akin to Tesla Motors. Small, but a real company. Of course, their design is far from optimal. That goes to the rotary air engine that guy in Australia made. Why he can't put that in a car I just don't know.
Good point. That is just about the epitome of hypocrisy. Don't build that coal fired plant in my back yard. But if you build one we will buy the electricity. We are governed by possibly the worst legislature and governor the USA has ever witnessed. What can we expect when our attorney general is named Moonbeam?
The coal industry is obviously opposed to CA's mandate and has even questioned the legality of it. Saying that it might be a violation of interstate commerce laws.
They won't sell it in CARB states if that is the requirement. The technology just isn't there for LiIon batteries to last anywhere near that long.
That may have been a sticking point with the EV-1 in CA. The way I read the law on AT-PZEV is the car must maintain that level of emissions for 10 years or 150k miles. With an EV it becomes less of an emissions and more of it just won't go issue. So maybe they will let the buyer beware. It would be good to have some assurance that you will not have to replace $20,000 worth of batteries every 3 years.
"Dyson (yes, that Dyson) could be looking to play a role in the next great electric automobile. Just let your brain simmer on that a moment, and see if you can stifle any forthcoming laughter. Believe it or not, the British inventor famous for his iconic vacuum designs is actually developing a "powerful lightweight motor that could enable electric cars to zoom along for hundreds of miles without causing pollution." In theory, the eventual vehicle would scoot about much quicker than the majority of sluggish electric vehicles and solar panels would be tacked on the roof for regeneration in sunlight."
http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/25/dyson-looking-to-motor-into-the-electric-car-- arena/
Posted Jul 9th 2008 at 12:39PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski
Although there may be a very small number of BMW's Mini on American roads that have already been converted by individuals or aftermarket folks to run on electricity, now the factory is going to get in the game itself. Five-hundred Minis will come off the line in Oxford, England sans drivetrain. The powerless shells will be sent to Germany painted silver with contrasting yellow roofs... what, no green motif? Workers in Munich will convert the vehicles into battery electrics, and the cars will then be shipped to California where they will be offered for sale. Unofficially, that is, as BMW has yet to confirm these plans, though that just seems like a formality at this point. Therefore, we don't have any specifications or pricing information to share just yet.
BMW could be making more electric vehicle plans as we speak, as the German automakers claims it is considering a line of zero emissions vehicles. What's more, rumblings have been heard of an Isetta revival as well, and those rumors also indicate a possible electric version of the smart competitor.
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/07/09/500-electric-minis-coming-to-california/-
Now that Mini EV may be an exception for me. Probably not though.
You've only got those two legs; using more slots on the breaker box won't give you any more voltage. You'll need a step-up transformer or an electronic voltage multiplier to get voltages higher than 240 volts. Transformers at that power level are going to be heavy, bulky, and expensive, and a voltage multiplier with that current level would require some pretty hefty capacitors.
Other methods are possible such as chopping into high frequency AC, say 40 Khz or something, and then using a transformer operating at that higher frequency. The higher the frequency, the less copper is required, but then you start getting higher hysteresis losses in the core so it's a trade-off.
(Besides, we've been focused on non-automotive stuff for far too long and we need to get back to talking about the automotive future! :shades: )
Not that it can't be done, but it's not going to be like flipping a switch! (pun intended)
If we are smart we will continue pushing for them because gas will go up again. Better to get a head start on the solution than to be caught with our pants down.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Thanks,
Jonathan Wahl
Corporate Communications
Edmunds Inc.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
Thanks,
Jonathan Wahl
Corporate Communications
Edmunds Inc.
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Need help navigating? kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
Share your vehicle reviews
My bigger concern is if the current political structure is going to make it far more difficult to generate the electricity in a cost efficient manner to power a large fleet of EV's. The incoming administration has made some comments that would make it nearly impossible to create more electric power plants.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
PS
Collectively I would say we are dumber than a box of rocks, given the results of the last election.
We have wind farms going up all over Northern IL.
Solar not much good for charging vehicles overnight.
I would think that it would be a great ideal to have some sort of solar system that would charge some sort of battery or capacitor system that you plug your EV into at night that will power up your car at night.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Excess solar captured during the day could be sold to the utilities to reduce daytime peak need and then purchased back when needed at night to charge up our EV's. I would think that this would greatly help in reducing our need for further central generation capacity.
The only time that local power storage would be needed would be as a back up in case of a utility outage.
PS Collectively the population is finally starting to wise up considering the last election.
The only thing I can find on that technology is the Curnutt Solar Furnace. I do not see any practical application of that 30+ year old technology. It was given lots of press in 1978 and nothing came of it. I am sure if it was practical someone like SDG&E would be on it. The electric companies are mandated to have a certain percentage of alternative energy by 2012. They run into environmental roadblocks with everything they do. The only viable alternative currently working is wind generation provided by one of the Indian tribes. They are not bogged down with state and Federal regulations. SDG&E signed an agreement for a solar generator in 2005. To be completed in 2008. It is still being held up by environmentalist. Not the current Republican administration. I think we voted ourselves into a deeper bog of environmental regulations. No two green weanies agree on anything. Here is just one of many eco roadblocks to alternative energy.
Many environmentalists who oppose Sunrise are also sharply critical of Stirling's solar energy project. They argue that Stirling's technology is commercially unproven and say the project will take years longer to build and cost four or five times more than Stirling has estimated.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080701-9999-1b1solar.html
I would say collectively the population has their head where the sun don't shine. :shades:
So much for solar energy.
At some point perhaps humans get back to the list top of species we need to ensure the survival of.
My favorite is in Hawaii where they have blocked further geo-thermal because it is an affront to Pele.
Pele is a living deity fundamental to Hawaiian spiritual belief. She is the eruption, with its heat, lava and steam. Her family takes the form of forest plants, animals and other natural forces. But geothermal development interests see Pele as simply a source of electricity.
http://www.namaka.com/catalog/spirit/pele.html
So if it ain't Ted Kennedy keeping the Wind farms from blocking his view it is some other group wanting to stop US from drilling for oil. I do not think there is any form of alternative energy that is universally acceptable.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10111091-54.html
http://www.opb.org/programs/ofg/videos/view/56-Electric-Drag-Racing
EV charging posts with billing capability - charge up and get charged...:)
No thanks, I will charge my EV overnight in my driveway. Don't hold your breath on seeing any for a good long while. The EPA and CARB and the Tax collectors will all have a say on when they are sold in the USA.
There are at least 10 EVs built world wide capable of highway speeds. NONE are allowed in the USA, except the $100k Tesla. Political talk is cheap. Politicians are not cheap.
The ride was "sporty" in nature. I guessed in response to the heavier battery load on the suspension. My old bones like a softer ride. My '98 K1500 rode smoother. Perhaps a different spring-rate.
Still, a lot of dollars for the privilege to embarrass the hot-rodders like my '62 Comet with a 351 stuffed in it. That was a different time and a different topic...
On your point: "I think the CEO of PG&E is better qualified to answer the questions on load."
I don't assume that at all. I have driven an electric car, and I drive a GEM car almost daily in my job. I follow electric car news and technology almost daily. I'm sure his job keeps him occupied with other issues. I'd take him on in a "who knows the most" debate ANY DAY.
On your point: "Not everyone is going to be satisfied with an 8 hour charge time."
That's correct - but you can't please all the people all the time. If you want an electric car, and you can only fit into your budget the one which only uses 110V for charging and takes 8 hours, then you will settle for that car. Like any gasoline car decision - the car that meets your needs and your budget is what you will buy.
On your point: "Many of the PHEV kits for the Prius are 220 Volt."
True, but the technology that Toyota uses for their first USA-available PHEV will be far superior to those add-on kits.
On your point: "The bragging points many have made including yourself is quick charging in as little as 10 minutes. The shorter the time the bigger the load. Charging a 16KWH battery in 3 hours equal to running about 3 large AC units at the same time."
Quick charging will be an OPTIONAL component on SOME of the cars. Probably a costly one. The owners who use it will be willing to pay for the cost to get the convenience. Like anything else in our economy, convenience will cost more. Nothing wrong with that. You want more functionality and faster charging? Pony up the Greenbacks, Amigo.
On your point: "EVs are not going to be practical in my area unless a person installs a large solar array and charges during the day."
You meant to say: "People who want fast charging and who want to charge during the day in the San Diego area are going to have to pay more for their electricity" and that's true. That does not make it "impractical" it just makes it "more costly." Like I stated before, most "early adopters" have the cash to fork out on this technology, just like the early adopters of Hybrid cars were people with more "disposable income" than the average Joe.
As much as I would like to go EV, I don't see it as practical in my lifetime. They will have to come up with better storage than Li-ioN batteries that are currently being tested. And I think you are wishful in your thinking on the PHEV Prius from Toyota. That could still be a decade off for the consumer. It depends on the trials with fleet owners. Notice how the Honda FCX has just fizzled out. I think they placed 5 units of the 100 or more they promised. Hydrogen is still many decades away if ever.
I did not put a time table on it. I just meant to point out that WHEN they do it, it will be done the RIGHT way.
Thus the current delay - they are getting it RIGHT, just like the got the Prius RIGHT before they introduced it.
Toyota was not even close to having even the 2nd model Prius offered here "right". There were hundreds of them stranded with the death triangle. They would stall cruising down the highway at freeway speeds. Even a few caused accidents. The first couple years the buyers were guinea pigs that bought the Prius. I would think they are a bit gun shy now with all the runaway acceleration cases coming to light.
Are you ignoring the tens of thousands of owners who had no problems?
They got it right.
A lot of cars have a glitch now and then causing a recall.
The point is, no automaker wants the bad publicity that a failed electric car would give them.
No one will put one out there until it's RIGHT. Nissan, GM, Toyota, Mitsubishi, none of them.
But remember: No car in pre-release testing can be 100% fault-free. The real-world test of thousands of actual owners cannot be replicated in pre-release testing. A glitch here and there is inevitable.
Chief Engineer: "We know we have an issue that will STRAND DRIVERS AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS. I say "release the hounds !!!"
That's total and complete ridiculosity to think that anyone would willingly do that.
Here are the highlights of the memo on the altar worshipping the Almighty Buck:
1. With expected unit sales of 11 million Pintos, and a total cost per unit to modify the fuel tank of $11, a recall would have cost Ford $121 million.
2. But, using mathematical formulations of a probable 2,100 accidents that might result in 180 burn deaths, 180 seriously burned victims, and 2,100 burned-out vehicles, the "unit cost" per accident, assuming an out-of-court settlement, came to a probable $200,000 per death, $67,000 per serious injury, and $700 per burned-out vehicle, leaving a grand total of $49.53 million.
3. Allowing the accidents to occur represented a net savings of nearly $70 million.
4. Therefore, a human life was mathematically proven to be worth less than an $11 part.
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/true-conspiracy-the-ford-pinto-memorandum.- html
Chrysler did it with the Mini Van doors popping open. My guess is Toyota is doing it right now with the runaway acceleration in 3.8 million vehicles they have sold. Including all the Prius from 2004 -09. I agree that nothing is perfect. Where I get upset is when the manufacturer knows they have a problem and try to cover it up. And Toyota did just that until there were too many cases of the Prius Stalling at high speed. And they did it until this high profile case of the Lexus runaway that killed 4 people including a cop. Cop killers are usually targeted heavily by other cops.
Or that preventing 180 deaths (and osme other stuff) was not worth spending $121 million, which is $672,222 per death, or 61,111 of the $11 parts.
Or they decided that a judge and jury would value the average life at $200,000.
Not saying that Ford was right or wrong to do this, but the statement that "a human life was mathematically proven to be worth less than an $11 part" is simply incorrect hyperbole.
Discovery of Thinnest Material Ever Nabs Nobel Physics Prize
MiEV averages 60.2 miles per charge in 3.5 months of testing
The perky and friendly Mitsubishi PR professional came to the office on Wednesday and drove off in my beloved i-MiEV after three and a half months of electric driving. It was a sad, sad day.
This is not to say I don't appreciate the Toyota Plug-In Prius that I have now and about which I will blog for six weeks. It's just that I will miss the magnificent efficiency of the goofy little transport pod from Japan.
The i-MiEV was extremely efficient. It could carry four adults with lots of headroom, shoulder room and no whining, there was room for luggage and groceries in the back, and it could go an average of 60.2 miles on a charge.
Yes, the average figure for projected range after more than three months of living with and driving this blop of a commuter dream was 60.2 miles. That's right on the Mitsubishi claim of 50 to 70 miles. My figure was derived using data from the 23 recharges I measured with a separate Kill-A-Watt meter that gave me what I assume was a more precise figure than what the dashboard state-of-charge gauge provided. The Kill-A-Watt meter measured kilowatt-hours to the hundredth of a kilowatt-hour. After each charge I would reset it and measure the next electric refill. Thus I could take the miles I traveled on the kilowatt-hours used and, knowing that the battery held 16 kilowatt-hours, I could calculate how far the i-MiEV would have gone at that rate of discharge.
The little state-of-charge gauge on the dash was far less precise. It looked like a conventional gasoline gauge, with 16 bars, one for each kilowatt-hour of juice in the 16-kilowatt-hour battery pack. I found this gauge to be overly optimistic in its upper half. The first few bars on the gauge would take as much as 20 miles to blip out. Since I usually recharged after using only four or five indicated bars, after 22 or 23 miles to or from work, the little gauge couldn't be trusted to extrapolate a total range for the battery pack. Using the 45 recharges measured with this dash-mounted gauge, I got an average of extrapolated range--the distance the car could go at the rate of discharge indicated--of 71.64 miles.
The differences between the dash gauge and the bar graph never agreed and were often way apart, by as much as 50 percent. So my official range calculation for the i-MiEV will be 60.2 miles.
I never ran the thing to empty, and even if I had you couldn't say that however far I got was its range, since range varied. Running the air conditioning and the audio didn't make too big a difference in range. I would say less than 10 percent on average with the A/C and the audio on. Even running with the heater, the headlights and the audio on only decreased range by about 20 percent to 25 percent, though given that I never performed precise measurements under controlled scientific conditions, those are just my best estimates. I never ran a full recharge with just the heater on or just the A/C or anything like that. I was always using one or the other part of the time.
So what did I learn from driving a full electric vehicle for three months? The biggest thing I learned was that these things really work. If you have a commute that is within the range of your EV, you can drive an EV and save money while polluting less. If you have to drive 71 miles and your range is 60, don't try it. Or at least figure out where you can recharge on the way.
Another thing that impressed me was that this car recharged almost the entire time on a regular 120-volt, three-pronged wall plug overnight. I used a 240-volt outlet a couple times and once, when I visited Aerovironment in Monrovia, Calif., I got a jolt of 480-volt Level III charging that took less than 15 minutes to get the car up to 80 percent charge. In general, I had no range anxiety once I learned to do the math before heading out.
Nor did I have any trouble merging onto freeways or keeping up with the flow of traffic.
In all I used 441 kilowatt-hours of electricity in 1,853 miles of driving. Electricity costs 13 cents per kilowatt-hours at my house and, if I assume it's the same cost at my office (they were never able to tell me how much it cost them), that's 4.2 kilowatt-hours per mile. Three months of daily commuting and weekend driving cost me $57.33. It costs me about that much to fill up our 15-mpg Volkswagen Eurovan with gasoline.
Now there surely will be those who say that all you're doing with an EV is transferring the emissions from the tailpipe to a remote, coal-fired powerplant. But as I've said before here, according to the EPA, the electricity provided by Southern California Edison and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power is only 11.9 percent coal-fired. Of the rest, 42.3 percent comes from natural gas, 1.2 percent from oil, 16.5 percent from nuclear, 17.7 percent from hydro and 9.4 percent from nonhydro renewables.
Your numbers will vary. In Detroit, it's 66.9 percent coal. In Chicago, it's 72.8 percent coal. Consolidated Edison in New York lists 0.0 percent coal, Seattle is 34.4 percent and the Potomac Edison Company of West Virginia gets 72.8 percent of its electricity from coal.
But even recharging an EV from coal-fired plants in the United States is still cleaner than burning gasoline in a car.
An electric car is not for everybody, but I have to believe that for more than 90 percent of my fellow Angelenos, an EV would meet their needs more than 90 percent of the time.
Would I buy one? Yes. If it comes in priced at less than $30,000, as Mitsubishi has said. Given the $7,500 federal credit and the $5,000 from the state, the final cost would be $17,500. If there's some South Coast Air Quality Management District money out there I'm not aware of, it would be even lower.
For a typical family of four, the perfect setup would be to have one of these for commuting and shorter trips and a minivan for anything longer or carrying more than four people. (And a race car, a motorcycle, an airplane and a boat.)
There was no ceremony when the i-MiEV left. Since it was only 35 miles from my office in Los Angeles to Mitsubishi's headquarters in Cypress, the PR professional from Mitsubishi got a ride up here and simply drove the i-MiEV down La Cienega, onto the freeway and out of sight.
Good-bye, Mitsubishi. My electric car is gone but the future is going to be full of them.