Electric cars

[Jim Yanik]

Yep. Real products... tanks, weapons, aircraft, ships... not "make
work". "Make work" has no multiplier from trickle down... it just
pays enough to make little commies out of every leftist weenie.

...Jim Thompson

and the knowledge gained from making those REAL products was converted to
making consumer products (in the US!) after the war.

 

[Jim Yanik]

Of course, if the units did have the pathetic MTBF of just two years,
in that time you would statistically have replaced only half of them.
If you have a single monolithic pack, then you just would have
steadily declining capability until you did that replacement...

Charlie

you neglect that the remaining original modular packs will have a reduced
capacity and short lifetime,despite your replacing individual failed packs.
Worse,they could fail and leave you stranded,potentially in the worse
possible place.

 

[Nobody]

But he's obviously right when he says that cutting 'm' in half
saves half of (1/2) m * v^2, and doubles a = F/m.

For the same acceleration, a half-weight car needs half the
gas.

Although that falls down if you have regenerative braking. Or if you're
cruising on a level road. Or if the mass of the car is small compared to
that of the occupants.

 

[Jeroen Belleman]

[...]
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each -
not too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for on
hour [...]
Do we have an infrastructure to support it?

On average, a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW
should do fine.

That's as idiotic as 200hp ! 0 - 60 in one minute maybe ?

ON AVERAGE, dear Sir. On average. I've said nothing about peak power.
Now that we're at it, to get a 1000kg car to, say, 100km/h in 10
seconds would require about 45kW, neglecting friction losses.
Round that up to 50kW. But it would still consume some 10
to 15kW _on average_.

Jeroen Belleman

 

[Martin Brown]

I don't think there is or ever will be at least not without a massive
breakthrough in battery technology and a recharging infrastructure based
on nuclear power. The battery weight is something of a menace in cars
and cycling them hard is tough. Liquid fuels pack a lot more energy
density since you get to use oxygen from the air without having to carry
it. Fuel cell technology might eventually be cost effective.

A really good aerodynamic design with an internal combustion engine can
get 40+mpg with relative ease. My own car has an lifetime average of
54mpg. US cars are typically clustered around the 20mpg mark. I
generally find I need twice the engine capacity in a US hire car to make
it go compared to in Europe or Japan.It isn't but we will let that pass.

Hooey or no, conservation's still in the national interest.

Unfortunately the Bush oilmen and the pig ugly neocons of the rileegious
right think they must use up all the oil before the time of the rapture
comes. And some of them think it is now 8 years overdue. 2012 seems to
be their latest favourite date for TEOTW (Mayan calendar rollover).

It doesn't make economic sense to send boatloads of cash
out of country for something we could live equally well using
a lot less of.

Even less sense when part of it is going to fund your enemies like Al
Qaeda. Unfortunately, profligate waste is the American way.

Slowly increasing the tax on fuel is a simple way to encourage increased
energy efficiency. But you do have to look after vulnerable groups.
The UK Labour (left wing) government didn't have the balls to persue
this policy originally introduced in 1993 by the Conservatives (right
wing) although they did try for a while with the fuel escalator tax.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/vote2001/hi/english/main_issues/sections/facts/newsid_1180000/1180919.stm

It is quite interesting reading 8 year old news with the benefit of
hindsight.

Conservation's really bad for oil exporters like Canada and
Mexico, but good for us.

It is also bad for OPEC. Look at the passports of the 9/11 terrorists to
see which country you should be really keeping an eye on.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

Europe is surrendering to the Islamics.
By population and by allowing sharia law,kowtowing to Islamic complaints
of
lack of respect for Islam.

Jim Yanik in his right-wing cloud-cuckoo-land again.

None of the Muslim immigrant communities in Europe are all big

http://www.islamicpopulation.com/europe_islam.html

France, with 10% has pretty much the highest proportion of immigrants, while
the places with higher proportions of Muslims have been that way since they
were part of the Turkish empire.

At the moment Muslim immigrnts do have more children than the rest of the
population, but it would take many generations before they became a
majority, and long before that happens female education will have reduced
their birthrate down to the European norm.

Nobody allows them to use or enforce sharia law, and "respect for Islam"
is pretty much limited to gagging right-wing nitwits who try to attract
attention by saying silly things about Muslims and the Muslim community,
much as Jim Yanik is doing here.

Europeans remember the kind a lot of trouble this kind of right-wing nitwit
can create - Hitler, France and Mussolini come to mind - and suppress
them because they are obnoxious in their own right, rather than from any
exaggerated sensitivity to Muslim opinion.

Jim looks very like this kind of right-wing nitwit, as do his heros
Bush and Cheney, who didn't hesitate to use anti-Muslim rhetoric to
exploit rational anxieities about the Muslin fundamentlists in Al Qaeda to
justiify the invasion of Irak despie the fact that it was run by
Saddam Hussein who was a very secular Muslim, who found Al Qaeda
as unattractive as they found him.

It isn't all that surprising that he doesn't like the European approach, but
his opinion is neither impartial nor all that rational.

 

[Bill Sloman]

WHO wants to have to replace and PAY for a MAJOR expensive
component(battery pack) on a **2 yr old** auto?
It sure isn't going to be a warranty replacement.

That's a deal-breaker right there.There'd be NO savings in having an
electric auto.

And that "global warming" hooey IS hooey.

Jim Yanik is making a play to replace Jim Thompson as the most
out-of-touch-with-reality right-wing nitwit regular on
sci.electronics.design.

His doubts about anthropogenic global warming are not unexpected -
he has never processed data that doesn't agree with his point of view -
and in fact it is a little surprising that he has bothered to identify
himself
as a denialist.

 

[Raveninghorde]

Jim Yanik in his right-wing cloud-cuckoo-land again.

None of the Muslim immigrant communities in Europe are all big

http://www.islamicpopulation.com/europe_islam.html

France, with 10% has pretty much the highest proportion of immigrants, while
the places with higher proportions of Muslims have been that way since they
were part of the Turkish empire.

And France has had serious rioting from its muslim community. The UK
has had some problems with riots and of course several bombings. And
the UK allows the most extreme muslims to hide here rather deporting
back to Egypt etc.

The UK won't deport these trouble makers because Egypt, Algeria etc
might infringe their human rights, well tough scum like Abu Hamza
deserve to be treated by the standards they preach.

At the moment Muslim immigrnts do have more children than the rest of the
population, but it would take many generations before they became a
majority, and long before that happens female education will have reduced
their birthrate down to the European norm.

There is an ongoing problem with girls being sent from UK to Pakistan
for forced marriages to cousins. Certainly the ethincally challenged
are outbreading the native population and the UK health service is
struggling to cope with the baby boom.

Nobody allows them to use or enforce sharia law, and "respect for Islam"
is pretty much limited to gagging right-wing nitwits who try to attract
attention by saying silly things about Muslims and the Muslim community,
much as Jim Yanik is doing here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...to-live-under-Sharia-law,-says-top-judge.html

The UK does kowtow to the muslim predjudices. All they have to say its
Islam and they get preety well their own way.

Veils in court for example:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6134804.stm

Note this may have changed since the news item but it illustrates the
continous pressure to accomadate.

Also the muslims make repeated attempts to have girls go to school in
veils.



SNIP

 

[Bill Sloman]

Yes,BUT,Obama's idea is to not use oil,and thinks to replace it with other
"alternate fuels" or wind/solar/geothermal(which aren't going to power any
current autos).

But it could replace a lot of coal,oil and gas-fired power stations, which
could help. Natural gas is an entirely practical fuel for cars.

Instead,we should be drilling new US oil sources(ANWR,coastal),WHILE
pressing for more economical autos,and reducing the number of gashog SUVs
and light trucks that people wrongly use for daily transpo.

But Obama and his envirowackjobs are not going to do that.

He's probably not going to open up any new US oil sources - Dubbya has
already opened up everything he thought he could get away with, and
the people who elected Obama would get very upset if Obama tried to go
further.

But he has already okayed the state-based regulations demanding more
economical cars and trucks - which Dubbya had been blocking - and he
could well follow up with federal regulations.

His real goal is to move people into mass transit,and lower our standard
of
living.(and freedom)

Better mass transit contributes to a better standard of living - driving a
car
into the centre of big city involves spending quite a while sitting in
traffic
jams, and paying through the nose to park the car when you get there,
neither of which are freedoms that I much enjoy.

Los Angles made a sincere - if stupid - attempt to become a car based city,
and gave up when 68% of the city centre was taken up with roads and
parking, and there still wasn't anything like enough of either.

The car companies that bought up the original mass transit network and
replaced it with buses made the city a lot less attractive as a place to
live
and work, even before you take the smog into account.

 

[Bill Sloman]

in Orlando,Fl,Orlando Utilities(OUC) is raising electric rates because
consumers cut back on their electric usage,and OUC is now "losing money".
So,conservation is now costing the consumers MORE money.

Only in the short term. In the long term global warming is going to raise
both the sea level and the intensity of hurricanes, and allow the hurricanes
to grow further away from the equator, so Florida real estate is going to
get progressively less valuable. Anything that slows down this progression
is saving money for Florida consumers and their kids.

Jim doesn't beleive in global warming, but that's all right. All global
warming
warming needs is supporters who are willing to make burnt offering of fossil
carbon - it likes coal better than oil, and prefers oil to natural gas, but
every
ton of carbon dioxide injected into the atmosphere is welcome.

At the moment about half of the carbon dioxide inected into the atmosphere
dissolves in the ocean and doesn't contribute to global warming, but as the
oceans get warmer this proportion is going to fall.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2009 16:56:02 +0100, Jeroen Belleman

Michael wrote:
[...]
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each -
not too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for
on
hour [...]
Do we have an infrastructure to support it?

On average, a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW
should do fine. Even so, you are right to believe that the
current infrastructure wouldn't suffice if everyone used
electric cars.

Jeroen Belleman


But, of course, not everyone will buy an electric car immediately when
they become available. As more and more cars come on line, then the
electric company will be doing some dancing to put in all the
additional service throughout all the towns and cities to support the
additional demand

Either that, or solar chargers of some sort will become extremely
popular...

Charlie


how do you charge by solar at NIGHT? The vehicles will be at work during
the day.

Obama will require you to work at night, and sleep during the day ;-)

How is he going to expect people to work after he bankrupts all the
businesses?

Obama's home free there - as any Democrat will tell you, it was Dubbya who
bankrupted all the businesses (apart from those few that Obama was able to
save).

And don't forget all the New Deal investment in infra-structure - like
repairing
all the bridges that were under-maintained under Republican administrations.
Those that were under-maintained under Democratic administrations will need
the services of a creative accountant. Happily, Margaret Thatcher trained up
an enormous squad of these useful people in the U.K. and the UK would be
delighted to to send them over (though they may be less enthusiastic about
taking them back after the job is done).

 

[Martin Brown]

I could not agree more. We do have significant common ground.

There's a simple way to reduce fuel consumption: more taxes on fuel.
But the pols would need guts to enact that, and they have none.

John

Actually you have to give the UK Conservative government of John Major
credit he did introduce such a measure called the Fuel Price Escalator
Tax in 1993 to encourage better fleet fuel economy. At the time UK fuel
was among the cheapest in Europe. Labour, the nominal "tax and spend"
party lost their bottle and abandonned FPE in 1999 two years after
taking office after a series of fuel protests which made international news.

The Japanese also through having no fossil fuel resources also price oil
and coal high tax to encourage energy efficiency. Higher proportion of
nuclear electricity generation in Japan than most countries too.

Regards,
Martin Brown

 

[Bill Sloman]

Answer, NO. We do NOT have an infrastructure to support electric cars.
Keep
in mind that an auto engine or motor, electric or gas uses a small
fraction
of its available power most of the time. Therefore the problem is not as
bad
as you propose.

Another issue is that 1/2 of the electricity generated in the US comes
from
burning COAL. What is the point of eliminating convenient liquid fuels and
replacing them with the dirtiest fuel available and hooking up to that
fuel
with expensive 400 mile long extension cords?

Electric cars make little sense until the electricity itself is green or
nuclear, non polluting.

Since you aren't going to electrify all your cars overnight, nor instantly
build a mass of wind and solar power plants, it might be worth thinking
about tackling both projects in parallel.

Thomas L. Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded"
(ISBN 978-1-846-14129-4) does talk about this at length, and even
on to talk about economies of scale, and the way battery development
may be encouraged by the prospect of the establishment of a huge new
market.

He does hammer away at the prospect of using car batteries linked to
grid to soak the extra power being generated when the sun is shining
and the wind is blowing. Pumped storage may make more sense.

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

Michael wrote:
[...]
Imagine a family with two electric cars. 100HP (75kW) engine each -
not too big, is it? On an average workday each driver commutes for on
hour [...]
Do we have an infrastructure to support it?
On average, a car needs nowhere near 75kW. Some 10 to 15kW
should do fine. Even so, you are right to believe that the
current infrastructure wouldn't suffice if everyone used
electric cars.

Jeroen Belleman

There might be a hidden benefit to having large numbers of electric
cars. Nuclear plants run best @100% and storage of energy is a
potentially huge cost. Other generation methods have similar
limitations (eg. solar is only available when the sun is shining)
unless they involve burning of fossil fuels. Having millions of high-
capacity batteries paid for by consumers might not be such a bad
thing. Those willing to load- level the grid (including the option to
supply energy back into the grid) could get big discounts on the net
cost of the energy they use. Most cars sit in a parking lot 90% or
more of the time, so they'd be available for such duty.

So the premise is Joe Average burns 13kWHr driving to work,
the grid taps him for another 15kWHr while at work, he burns
12kWHr driving home, then refills 40kWHr overnight.

But plug-in hybrids' premise/promise is to use most or all of
their charge on the way to work, recharge, then drive home.

GM's 'Volt' goes up to 40 miles on its 16kWHr pack before
cranking up its ICE. And that costs $40k.

So when he gets to work, Joe's battery is empty, thirsty for
juice.


As a first step to ultraefficiency, superlight, streamlined cars
make sense. Add serial hybrid drivetrains if you want to go the
extra mile.

(Amory Lovins says 2/3rds fuel savings is possible for
about $0.15/liter.)


Better to use less energy to start with than to figure out
better bleeding edge new ways to juggle and keep using
the same amount.

Ideally we could use less energy for current tasks, yet generate and
consume vastly *more* energy in total to increase the standard of
living of everyone on the earth to far better than current Western
levels-- and do it in a long-term-sustainable manner (sustainable for
thousands of years, not just decades).




Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

 

[krw]

Why did the war finally end the depression??? Massive federal spending
causing full employment, that's why. Week spending, tax cuts and other
gimmicks will NOT do it.

Built businesses, not welfare. Not all spending is equal. Perhaps
you borrow as much money for a vacation as you do for a home?

 

[Michael]

Zipcars seem to be popular around here among the single/no car
urbanites:

http://www.zipcar.com/

Of course it won't fly in the 'burbs where you need a car to get the
convenience store.

Also Home Despot has what looks like a low hassle 'local only' truck
rental for a reasonable price.


If you have a couple of kids who play hockey and/or baseball it fills
up a moderately large vehicle pretty quickly. Even faster if one or
more of them is a goalie or catcher.

.... it fills up a moderately large vehicle pretty quickly.

I do not see how....
I send this reply earlier.
I have gone to 4-5 days ski trips (quite a bit of gear and clothing)
with two high school (adult size) kids in Toyota Corolla. I did not
even have to use roof rack.
I used Accord coupe to go for 5 days kayaking trip (two adults, 17'
kayak, all gear...).
How is that one may need Excursion (Escalade, H2, ets) except to
compensate for something?

 

[James Arthur]

except in REALITY,you have to pass safety and crash tests.
Cars USED to be a lot lighter than they are today,and that is because of
crash standards and added equipment.

That's one of my gripes--I don't want a nanny car. I stop faster
manually than with antilock brakes, I fasten my own seatbelt, and
I don't mind rolling up my own windows. Oh, and I check my tire
pressure too. I'd rather save the weight, complexity, and expense,
but Congress won't let me.

Their goal is safety, but the best safety comes from learning to
drive well, practicing maneuvers occasionally, then being careful
on the road. Making a crashproof car is great, but not crashing
is even safer.

Many people today are still stuck on big heavy cars/SUV/trucks because they
think it makes them safer(at the expense of other's safety...).
They simply DONT WANT small cars,fuel efficient or not.

Me,I LIKE small cars;they're easier to drive,more maneuverable(safer),more
fun,and better on gas.I've only owned ONE big car,the rest have all been
small cars.Mostly Hondas,1 Triumph Herald,1 English Ford Cortina GT!)


yeah,and WHY hasn't anyone else used this "simple" technology?
If it's that good,and simple.....

You mean those famed innovators at the Big 3? If they already meet
standards, where's the incentive? And even Japanese car makers are
slow to change: ultra-conservative.

Technically it's pretty easy--hanging sheet metal on light, stamped
frame supports just doesn't absorb much energy, or provide much
protection.

Steel is soft; a side impact will sag it like a suspension bridge
between supports, no matter how strong. And it has to be very,
strong to resist much at all.

Lovins' deal is to deploy internal crush cones pointing outward
inside the structures. Like the highway crash barriers. They're
stiff, light, and absorb a huge amount of energy as they collapse,
protecting you.

I have dialup,so I'm not going to watch any video.
But,I suspect it's all Utopian dreaming;
not PRACTICAL for manufacturing in any volume at prices people could
afford.

Could be. Lovins is selling, but he's a physicist, knows his numbers,
and makes a decent pitch.

Even if he's a little fast and loose, he rightly points out that
streamlining and saving weight is _the_ way, and makes a number of
good suggestions in that direction.

Oh, and hybrids? Lovins was pushing that ages ago.

Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

Yes,BUT,Obama's idea is to not use oil,and thinks to replace it with other
"alternate fuels" or wind/solar/geothermal(which aren't going to power any
current autos).

Instead,we should be drilling new US oil sources(ANWR,coastal),WHILE
pressing for more economical autos,and reducing the number of gashog SUVs
and light trucks that people wrongly use for daily transpo.

But Obama and his envirowackjobs are not going to do that.

His real goal is to move people into mass transit,and lower our standard of
living.(and freedom)

Comrade Jim, I think he's been pretty frank about his real goal,
which is redistribution of wealth.

The theory is that those without means have been cheated,
and those with means got it unfairly.

As for freedom, taxes are necessary, but must be applied wisely, for
there is no more certain abridgment of freedom than a government which
requires its citizens to spend half their lives in its service.

Cheers,
James Arthur
~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Democracy is two foxes and a chicken voting on
what's for dinner." -various

 

[James Arthur]

in Orlando,Fl,Orlando Utilities(OUC) is raising electric rates because
consumers cut back on their electric usage,and OUC is now "losing money".
So,conservation is now costing the consumers MORE money.

More per kWhr might be less $$ overall. But the price is whatever
it is, and that's what it should be.

I was looking at some schedules from California--the rates are
like progressive taxation, ranging from zip if you're poor, to
$0.14/kWhr for a basic quota, to $0.33/kWhr for business. I
think. It was damn hard to decode. Thanks to bureaucrats.

As usual, part of the problem is energy costs are so hidden
and distorted by subsidy, that it's hard to tell the real market
price.

James Arthur

 

[James Arthur]

can't be repaired easily,not practical for mass manufacturing.
Old cars would not be recyclable,either.

Lovins touts exactly the opposite--the technology is xxxx-fiber
thermoplastic composite.

http://www.fiberforge.com/thermoplastic-composites/thermoplastic-composite-materials.php
"Recyclable for other processes"

I'm not in a position to judge whether it's true.

Cheers,
James Arthur