|Electric carsPage 1 of 9 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)|
|I had an electric car years ago but people kept running over my extension cord causing it to stop... |
Posted: 6/2/2007 2:53:30 PM
|the problem with electric cars is that they are not infact "zero emmissions" vehicles, and never will be while coal fired energy sources are still over-used. Skip the middle man and make a coal-fired car.|
Hydro-electric power, wind, possibly solar and positively nuclear energy sources make electric cars more reasonable, even hydrogen cell if the efficience can be improved enough to become a feasible option.
In North America deisel vehicles make up about 2-3% of all on the roads yet account for upto 70% of the pollution, but you don't see any politicians jumping up and down insisting those fume spewing machines be banned.
Posted: 6/2/2007 3:25:51 PM
|electric car is impratical at this time. Be cheeky with technology and use bio nano cells to make the car run. It can sit outside generate power a person bump the bumper it can generate power those nickel and dime ideas shoud be explored more to create a car that can generate enengy. Plugging a car in is impratical, and hydrogen technology would be good a option in the long term because modifications to a car are kept to a minimum compared to other sources.|
Posted: 6/2/2007 5:01:55 PM
|Batteries are big heavy and expencive. And to top it off they only go so far and take a long time to recharge.|
Hydrogen + fuel cell is better but you get to carry rocket fuel around with you instead. They should name the first ones Pintos.
Oh and you get to replace the fuel cell every so often.
Either way the cost etc of redigning the car to work around a new powerplant is nothing unless ou try to retofit it to an existing car which is cost prohibitive.
Posted: 6/2/2007 8:36:23 PM
I don't have my original source so the numbers seem to vary. But either way diesel accounts for far more pollution and toxicity than it should.
"For the same load and engine conditions, diesel engines spew out 100 times more sooty particles than gasoline engines. As a result, diesel engines account for an estimated 26 percent of the total hazardous particulate pollution (PM10) from fuel combustion sources in our air, and 66 percent of the particulate pollution from on-road sources. Diesel engines also produce nearly 20 percent of the total nitrogen oxides (NOx) in outdoor air and 26 percent of the total NOx from on-road sources. Nitrogen oxides are a major contributor to ozone production and smog."
Global warming becomes a moot point if all of the other toxins reduce the population due to severe asthma cancer etc. It is a filthy fuel, as you will find "greenhouse gases" are far from the only hazard to our environment and health.
"The California Air Resources Board has concluded that diesel soot is responsible for 70% of the state's risk of cancer from airborne toxics. In the population as a whole, studies have shown a 26% increase in mortality in people living in soot-polluted cities.
Posted: 6/2/2007 10:07:29 PM
|Not to mention alcohol delivers more power AND burns much cleaner.|
Burns cleaner, not more power. Gas has more.
· Benzol…………….17,500 BTU/lb.
· TNT (trinitrotulene)..6,500 BTU/lb.
· Ethyl Alcohol………11,500 BTU/lb.
· Methanol…………..9,500 BTU/lb.
· Nitromethane………5000 BTU/lb.
This is why we use gas.........Eazy.
Posted: 6/2/2007 10:07:55 PM
Not hardly. Electric cars are not ready for prime time until batteries get substantially better, figures I've heard are that if you drove the EV-1 (GM electric) on a snowy day with heater, lights & wipers on, it would get you less than 10 (??) miles down the road.
Steam is an alternative that few are exploring, but it's pretty efficient, and as the poster above mentioned, since we have to Generate electrcity, or hydrogen for fuel cells, why not burn say... powdered coal for steam. No reason this should be more poluting than gasoline..and at this point, what come out of a well maintained tailpipe is *almost* clean enough to breath - CO2 level excepted.
Fusion for electric power, and /or development of MHD generators (magneto-hydro-dynamic generation which involves the direct conversion of kinetic energy of a flowing fluid into electricity) would make a lot of things possible.
Posted: 6/2/2007 10:14:10 PM
|Bob follow those links you will find the E85 car actually delivers more horsepower than the straight gasoline car (it actually surpasses the Bugatti Veyron).|
Also I notice the values you have are based on weight? I'd have to check the specific gravity of each but you might find a difference when measured by volume, and our tanks don't hold 60 pound or kilos of fuel they hold 60 litres or X gallons .
Posted: 6/2/2007 11:06:16 PM
|The power advantage with e85 is gain because of the emmission motors higher temps and better fuel management. The fuel acts as a coolant, turbo, supercharged, Higher compression ratio . More power. E85 works best at a much leaner mix (7 to 1)-. Gasoline works best rich(12-1). With an emmission or lean burn the advantage goes to e85.|
Open up the E85 and put a chip in it.....GAS .
Amount of fuel in the tank wont change the BTU per lb.
Posted: 6/3/2007 2:21:39 AM
|The only real problem with electric cars is battery life.|
How far the battery will take the car between recharging.
Now, maby I'm not an engineer and maby I'm missing an important detail.
Perhaps some smart engineers out there can set me straight.
Why can't an electric car be designed with a small gasoline powered electric generator which constantly keeps the battery recharged ?
Sure, it wouldn't be totally gasoline free, but that seems to me a much better way to go than the current, insanely complex hybrid cars we see today.
It seems to me, that sort of design could get literally the equivalent of hundreds of miles to a gallon of gas.
Posted: 6/3/2007 9:46:43 AM
|In light of the conversations about ethanol 85, we need to dispell a few myths, ethanol is only used to the 15%, while the gasoline is used in the 85%. Alcohol IS less polluting, but this is where the advantages stop unless of course you consider the fact that using it makes us independant from foreign oil. It is a myth to think alcohol is more effieceint, it isn't. It takes twice as much alcohol to accomplish the same thing as gasoline (btu wise). So if you think that because straight alcohol that now costs $2.39 a gallon is cost effective, try looking at the long term, it actually works out to $4.78 a gallon, not only that but think about the energy needed to distill it....still not cost effective. Maybe in the future it might work, if technology comes up with a cheap way to process it, but until then it remains a "patch".|
Posted: 6/3/2007 9:49:01 AM
|Oh Nipolean, they already do make them, they are called "hybrids"|
Posted: 6/3/2007 3:20:08 PM
|It is a myth to think alcohol is more effieceint, it isn't. It takes twice as much alcohol to accomplish the same thing as gasoline (btu wise). So if you think that because straight alcohol that now costs $2.39 a gallon is cost effective, try looking at the long term, it actually works out to $4.78 a gallon, not only that but think about the energy needed to distill it....still not cost effective. Maybe in the future it might work, if technology comes up with a cheap way to process it, but until then it remains a "patch".|
You dont know what it cost.......
We are owned by every lobby ......You have no voice
Sugar cane killed sugar beets....you have miles of farmland.......Why Lobbist
France uses beets.....best preformer per Ero.
It is no Myth that we could grow our fuel........Hemp....best.....Sugar beets......??????
Posted: 6/3/2007 3:44:29 PM
|Bob that is a fallacy, alcohol is less efficient in FFV's ONLY (flex-fuel vehicles).|
But yes corn is far from the best source of alcohol, sugar cane was replaced as a crop in the US due to imported cane and cane products being cheaper than locally produced. Sugar beets and algae for northern climates alos product more alcohol by land use /crop yield than corn.
One nuke plant or hydro plant can provide plenty of power to distill alot of alcohol. Hybrid passenger vehicles running turbo chaged alcohol engines to charge the batteries is a completely feasible application of a very low pertoleum based form of locomotion. The price will skyrocket though as the corporations and governments will still want the same revenue whether we use 10 gallons of the stuff a day or a month.
Posted: 6/3/2007 6:37:48 PM
Hybrids don't work by being electric cars with generators to keep the batteries charged, they work by shutting off the gas engine when they can (at idle) and relying on electric power in low demand situations (crawling along in traffic). Once you hit hard acceleration the car acts the same as any other gar powered car dependent on the usual sources and infrastructure for oil.
That's close, but not the complete story. My prius also generates electricity when coasting or braking, and during hard acceleration it uses BOTH the gas and electric motors. Ultimately, thoughg, it is indeed just an extremely efficient gasoline powered vehicle. It can only go a few miles on pure electric energy, and all of that electricity was the result of gasoline usage, since I can't plug it in.
I do agree that electric cars make a lot of sense, and that one of the nice aspects is that we can introduce electric cars independent of cleaning up our means of generating electricity, rather than having to develop an entirely new infrastructure system as we would need to do for hydrogen and to a lesser extent natural gas.
Lithium ion batteries do seem to hold great promise, although it's worth noting that Toyota just recently pushed back their projected date to introduce them into their hybrids, and they still haven't committed to a date for introduction of pluggable hybrids even though they have said they're working hard on producing just that.
Finally, Tesla has recently started construction on a plant to build a sedan version of their electric cars that will sell for something in the $30,000 range. Still not within the grasp of many drivers, but a whole lot closer than their $89,000 sportser is.
Electric cars are going to hit mainstream production soon, I predict. They're simply the most easily available alternative to gasoline powered vehicles, and when oil supply falls far enough behind demand there will be a big push to introduce the best practical alternative.
Posted: 6/3/2007 10:04:59 PM
My prius also generates electricity when coasting or braking, and during hard acceleration it uses BOTH the gas and electric motors. Ultimately, thoughg, it is indeed just an extremely efficient gasoline powered vehicle. It can only go a few miles on pure electric energy, and all of that electricity was the result of gasoline usage, since I can't plug it in.
I just returned from a 350+ mile round trip in my 1993 Geo Metro convertible. It returned 46 MPG at an average speed of 65-70 MPH. I used less than 8 gallons of gasoline. That is fairly typical of these cars. I usually average anywhere between 42-48 MPG.
THAT is an "extremely efficient gasoline powered vehicle", not a Teutonic over-engineered hybrid. Its waaay more fun, too, with the ragtop down!
I still dont understand why someone would bother with the expense of a Prius, for example, when it falls short of the afore-mentioned 15 year old technology. I also dont understand how owning a hybrid makes a "statement, but owning a Metro doesnt. And I really dont understand how the most fuel-efficient of the current fleet of sub-compact autos get 10 MPG LESS than my 15 year old vehicle.
Unfortunately, a hybrid is the only choice for those who cant or wont stoop to owning a practically efficient used vehicle. There are a ton of used Metros for sale on EBAY. Its your choice.
Posted: 6/4/2007 12:05:04 AM
|But what is the AVERAGE mileage of most hybrid owners???? that 60 MPG number sure sounds good theoretically, but i doubt that most hybrid owners spend 100% of their driving in those very narrow conditions. I would bet their AVERAGE is similar to mine. . 50MPG is my best.....40 MPG is my worst. They may get 60MPG in the city, but far less on the highway. Which scenario do drivers put more miles on their vehicles?? The interstate I bet. I wouldnt be surprised if their average is 40MPG.|
A Prius owner MAY get a few more MPG than me overall, but is it worth the extra $20,000??? not to me it isnt.
I beg to differ about cargo room. I just sold my 1990 Geo Metro 4 DOOR hatchback. I could fit a 26" bicycle in the back with the rear seats folded down. . You cant do that with a Prius. There is almost 5 feet between the front seats & the back hatch. With the seats up, it seats 5 people. It also averaged the same MPG as my convertible....45MPG overall.
As far as emissions, yes, there are zero emissions WHEN the electric motor is running, but it still gets basically the same mileage as my Metro overall, hence the same spewing of the same pollution as my Metro at the end of that tank of gasoline. My 45 MPG spews a certain amount of crap. Their 60 mpg spews a tad less.
Yes I agree the American people consider the 3 cylinder Metro a joke. At the same time I consider $4/gallon gasoline a joke because it doesnt concern me in the least. I get the last laugh from that joke!!
Posted: 6/4/2007 12:29:08 AM
EPA Lowers Prius Mileage Estimate
Feds' Findings Confirm Consumer Complaints
By Joe Benton
December 19, 2006
• EPA Lowers Prius Mileage Estimate
Prius owners concerned about poor mileage in their hybrids have been belittled, ridiculed and misled as they searched for some reason why their little cars continually came up short in fuel mileage.
Prius consumers have listened while dealers and technicians offered sometimes outlandish explanations of why their own fuel mileage calculations were wrong and why Toyota claims for the Prius were correct.
Other Prius owners even accused the complainers of disloyalty to the hybrid movement.
Toyota claimed the little hybrid would get 60 miles per gallon in city traffic, not just the 45 many consumers were experiencing.
One Prius owner told ConsumerAffairs.Com that her Toyota technician went so far as to explain how the onboard computer in the Prius took into account of head winds along with other sophisticated calculations.
Now it turns out that most of the hybrid owners questioning Toyota's mileage claims for the Prius were right on target while Toyota was wrong, at least according to the Environmental Protection Agency's new mileage estimates.
The facts seem to be that the Prius gets 45 miles to a gallon on average in the city. That is the new word according to the EPA.
The government fuel economy estimate also confirms ConsumerAffairs.Com's road test of the Prius in July. That test drive concluded that the Prius got 45.2 miles per gallon in vigorous city driving.
Just this last October, the very same EPA that now says the Prius gets roughly 45 miles to a gallon praised the little car for topping the government mileage list with 60 miles per gallon in the city and 51 miles per gallon on the highway despite protests from many Prius owners saying that just wasn't so.
The Prius did not come close to 60 miles per gallon in the ConsumerAffairs.Com test either.
So now the troubling question for Toyota is this: Will the Prius with its new and more reliable mileage rating still be a hit with consumers? Will the little car that is now rated at 45 miles per gallon in the city be as popular as the same car that was believed to get 60 miles per gallon around town?
A Toyota spokeswoman said her company expects customers to understand that the technology in the Prius hasn't changed, and company marketing for the popular hybrid will not be revised.
Posted: 6/4/2007 8:16:27 PM
|Hozo, first off, kudos to you for choosing a fuel efficient vehicle. I'm not really into getting into a pissing contest over whose fuel efficient car is the best. I'd much rather convince a hummer driver or two to switch to either your choice or mine.|
But to answer you question:
I've tracked every drop of gas that I've put into my Prius. My lifetime average after 103,000 miles in every driving condition including driving blizzards, high winds, toting my kayak, raft and yes, my bike in the back, is 54.2 mpg. I've had four tanks over 70 mpg, and my all time worst tank was 39.9 mpg, most of which was driven through several inches of slush in the middle of the winter. At the moment I'm over two hundred miles into my present tank and showing 62 mpg. In past summers I'd be up around 70 mpg during these warmer months, but my current job is only ten minutes drive from where I sleep, so my mpg suffers a bit from the shorter drives, even as I overall use less gas because I'm driving less miles.
One point to keep in mind about the great Prius city mpg figures - they only apply to a warmed up car. The prius is first and foremost designed to minimize emissions, secondarily to get great fuel economy, so the gas engine runs continuously until the catalytic converters warm up. The first five minutes mpg suffers as a result.
Your car gets great mpg. Mine gets a little better. Is the difference worth it? Depends on what matters to the person buying the vehicle. I routinely fold my seats flat and sleep in mine. I honestly don't know - can you do that comfortably in yours? Would my nine foot kayak fit inside your Geo?
From an emissions perspective, the Prius wins not only because it shuts down when stopped, coasting, or only using electric power, but it also has two catalytic converters, a fuel bladder to prevent any evaporative emissions from the gas tank, and a number of other emission controls that give it the highest emissions rating of any gas powered vehicle on the road.
Still, your metro is a great choice for those who don't have 20 grand to spend on a new prius, or don't want to buy a used one. From a fuel economy and emission perspective you outshine almost any other vehicle outside of the Prius. If everyone drove what you and I drive, the U.S. would be an oil export country and we'd all be breathing a lot cleaner air.
Posted: 6/4/2007 8:36:28 PM
EPA Lowers Prius Mileage Estimate
Feds' Findings Confirm Consumer Complaints
A little explanation is in order to account for the discrepancy between my mpg numbers in my prius and the ones that prompted the EPA to lower their mpg estimates for the Prius. What the EPA did, unfortunately, was refigure their mpg numbers for all cars based on the way that most people drive, rather than keep the bar high to reflect what all vehicles are capable of IF the drivers choose to drive using more fuel efficient methods. I've topped EPA figures on every car I've ever owned, because I don't race up to stop signs and then slam on the brakes, don't use jack-rabbit starts, anticipate the need to slow, and drive at or below the speed limit, at least most of the time. There's more to fuel efficient driving, but it has become clear to me that few have any interest in learning that skill.
There are tricks that Prius drivers can use to maximize their fuel economy, many of which also apply to any other vehicle. As always when I mention this, I'd be glad to elaborate if ANYONE showed any interest. This is about the fifth time I've made that offer and NOT ONE soul here has ever inquired about how to improve their fuel efficiency. I can only assume that everyone is perfectly satisfied with whatever mpg they're getting in whatever they drive, and don't mind whatever they pay to fill their tank.
Sure, prius drivers who ignore the extensive instrumentation in the car and drive just like they always have typically get somewhere in the mid forties for mpg, a little higher in the summer, a little lower in the winter. But five of us teamed up to use every trick in the book a couple of years ago to see how far we could go on a single tank of gas in a prius and went 1400 miles getting 110 mpg on one tank of gas, all driven on a 30 mile back and forth route on a public road near pittsburgh. Google "prius marathon" if you'd like to learn more. No, we weren't driving 'normally', but we weren't far enough outside the norm to get honked at or receive one fingered salutes either.
A car is a tool. Like any tool, how well it performs depends on who is using the tool and what techniques they use.
Posted: 6/4/2007 9:36:10 PM
|Yes Dave, Im with you. as far as trying (TRYING, NOT SUCCEEDING) into convincing Hummer drivers, and the like, to switch. They just dont get it. Personally Im thrilled at gas prices because now they are paying for their selfish stupidity and it makes me very happy.|
Its nothing personal, but I still have an issue with the whole hybrid craze, as I believe it is distracting the momentem of development of a pure electric car. Too much research & emphasis is being put on it instead of total electric.
In 2007, you should have a choice of a Prius-sized ELECTRIC vehicle for the same cost as the Pruis. That is my whole issue - misplaced priorities. The more Priuses sold, the less urgency there is to develop an electric alternative.
I have no desire to be part or parcel to the "craze" since I have had the ability to be far more fuel efficient than 95% of North American drivers for the past 30+ years. I was driving a 1971 Toyota Corona way back when nobody owned them and most locals laughed at me for driving one.
In the meantime, I hope the focus on a total electric doesnt get sidetracked with these "Plan B" hybrids. I will continue to take advantage of far less costly 1990s technology. To me its not worth the upgrade, in many more ways than one.
Posted: 6/4/2007 10:04:08 PM
|I just heard China has added a 20% surcharge on SUV's and next years model's will be looking sat 37 mpg.........|
I woulder if we could increase our standard?........JA
I think it was Carter that wanted around 30mpg by 2000.........
Posted: 6/4/2007 11:36:40 PM
Sure, prius drivers who ignore the extensive instrumentation in the car and drive just like they always have typically get somewhere in the mid forties for mpg, a little higher in the summer, a little lower in the winter.
Well kudos to YOU for having the wherewithal to maximise the "essence" of your Prius...I am with impressed with your killer MPG. Your minimums are basically the same as me...39-40MPG, but your maximums are to die for!
I believe if I owned one I would do the same as you in order to gain the intended benefit. Thats how I maximise my Metro MPG....in many ways you do with your Prius. Fir example, I boasted 46MPG on I-70 going 65-70mph. If I slowed down to 60mph I would have gotten 50MPG. But I have the wiggle room to sacrifice a few MPG and still be quite happy.
BUT...You have confirmed my sneaking suspicion that the vast majority of Prius owners are getting the same MPG as I am in my Geo Metro...so whats the justification for these owners?? That is the sad part of it all to me...what a waste. Nothing is gained from from the Teutonic overkill.
I have been keeping an eye on the Smart car since it is supposed to be available here by 2008. At around $12,000 and 60MPG its the practical solution for someone like me. My philosophy is....if I'm going to plunk down $20,000+ for an automobile in the 21st century, it should not have a gasoline tank!!
Posted: 6/5/2007 8:11:50 AM
|The US doesn't have smart cars yet?|
Up north, we've had them for several years, Europe even longer.
City: 4.6 L/100 km (61 mpg Imperial)
Hwy: 3.8 L/100 km (74 mpg Imperial)
More stats here... http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jm/05_4-2_cab.htm
Easy Park (a parking lot company) in Vancouver offers a 50% discount for "smart" drivers.
Funny thing....the largest supplier of parts and accessories is in South Carolina!
More info here....http://www.smartcar.ca/go/home.asp
Posted: 6/5/2007 8:40:12 AM
|No...no Smart cars yet. I hear its a ton of red tape in order to qualify for the US market, but it will happen in 2008. I cant wait! |
A deal is being worked out with a third party to retrofit them so they can pass the myriad of qualifications....nothing major, just many small adjustments, which of course will add to the price no doubt. Also there must be a sales, distribution, parts and repair network in place I suppose BEFORE any are sold.
What a kool car. I read that theres also a deisel verson that gets far more MPG than the gasoline model....and they are working on an electric version too. THAT would be a practical entry level EV as far as I am concerned....no need for overkill....just a simple small affordable commuter EV to start out with that would have a nationwide dealer support network. THAT may be the key to acceptance of an EV.
Also since there is a deisel version in place, and an E version is in the works, how difficult would it be to tweak it into a hybrid E/biodeisel??? Mr. Ender's dream may come true after all with this car. Every faction could be satisfied. The possibilities are endless to me.
Ironically, the latest article I read suggests that they may only import the SUV model, since that is what is attractive to the American public. Their studies show that sales of the other models wouldnt meet projections in order to justify their import, right away at least. Kinda like the Yugo Syndrome. Seems Americans DONT want maximum fuel economy??? I cant win..LOL.