Aero, if you've been reading me, my contention is that the electrics that are coming out very soon actually will meet my needs, at least. Money being available, I intend my next car to be electric.
What I'm saying is that for Joe Average American, who is even less rational than I, the "commuter car" will have limited appeal, and sales. I think the market will open up, just a little. And that, eventually the predicted improvements in the next decade will make it a slam dunk.
That is, I'm a lot more optimistic about the meeting of market forces and technology than is MSimon. Our projections really aren't that different, it's just that I think that demand will pick up a lot sooner. This may be wishful thinking on my part, but I sense a change in the American consumer caused by lots of recent market action.
As for "infrastructure" costs, the nice thing about this technology is that it's going to do away with the need for trips to the refueling station on those days that you don't do anything but commute (which is most of them). Basically you plug in at home when you get there, and are ready to go the next morning. What infrastructure do we need to support this? As for manufacturing, most of that already exists.
I'm not seeing it as that costly a change-over, and one that will happen relatively soon as it becomes naturally economical to do so. The incentives being offered really aren't all that needed at this point, and are, in fact, just reinforcing what I see as a natural trend.
Why should I give up my lifestyle for five years, when in five years, technology will have solved the problem? OK, ten maybe.
Mike
How did we convert from horse and buggy to automobiles
I'm reading your posts, maybe not "reading" you accurately though. There is no good reason for you to give up your lifestyle, as it relates to driving, in the next 5 to 10 years. There won't be enough electric vehicles to go around so a lot of people will have to wait with their name on a list. There could be enough, but the attitude of waiting for advanced technology seems to be prevalent so the cars are not being built in volume. That is, the major manufacturers are dragging their heals instead of performing in the best interest of the country. If it weren't for the pain it would cause the workers, I would let GM go belly up as a reward for what they did to the EV1.Mike Holmes wrote:Aero, if you've been reading me, my contention is that the electrics that are coming out very soon actually will meet my needs, at least. Money being available, I intend my next car to be electric.
....................
Why should I give up my lifestyle for five years, when in five years, technology will have solved the problem? OK, ten maybe.
Mike
If we as a nation ever come to understand the economic boom we will inherit once we start saving a significant part of that $400 million daily of Oil import money, then the demand for electrics will become insatiable and all of the electric makes and models we desire will be made available. And the thing is, we will be able to afford to buy them.
Aero
> So why haven't they? Electric cars are available, and always
> have been.
A very good question.
20 years ago Sinclair tried with his C5, and whilst it sold 1,000 a month, he really wanted to sell 50,000 a month, so the product was shelved.
Back then, petrol wasn't too expensive, the bus was cheap, and electric cars expensive to buy..
20 years later, petrol is expensive, cars are expensive too! the bus is expensive and full.. and electric cars still expensive...
Ok, since the G-Wiz has come along the price has dropped, and those are selling a little, but its still a bit pricey, and not everyone can easily afford a place to park it to charge it! (Your not allowed to just drape your charging cable across the pavement to your house overnight..)
But.. how about electric cycles/bikes/scooters, sales of those is healthy, demand there.
But compared with a bus, not so good in bad weather (Of which we have a fair amount of..), hard to get shopping home in one unless you eat less than your dog..
Since travel become more expensive around here in London, more people are cycling, because they cannot afford the really high insurance rates on their cars, and/or the petrol, and/or the repair costs
So I think the Velomobiles time might be with us, and maybe even solar powered too, being how expensive electricity is getting nowdays!
Virtually everytime I see a new electric vehicle announced in the UK, its way too expensive for poor folk to afford, its why we ended up buying Sinclair Spectrums instead of Atari 800's..
> What I'm saying is that for Joe Average American, who is even less
> rational than I, the "commuter car" will have limited appeal, and sales.
> I think the market will open up, just a little. And that, eventually the
> predicted improvements in the next decade will make it a slam dunk.
I'd agree with that view also. (But I reckon that limited sales is enough to design a decent product and make a profit.)
> I'm not seeing it as that costly a change-over, and one that will
> happen relatively soon as it becomes naturally economical to do so.
Agreed.
But I do wonder, why don't car manufactors make really cheap cars ? (Apart from Tata Nano type folk..)
> That is, the major manufacturers are dragging their heals instead
> of performing in the best interest of the country.
Isn't that always the case though, profit first..
Now if it was a technocratic run country, things might be different.
> have been.
A very good question.
20 years ago Sinclair tried with his C5, and whilst it sold 1,000 a month, he really wanted to sell 50,000 a month, so the product was shelved.
Back then, petrol wasn't too expensive, the bus was cheap, and electric cars expensive to buy..
20 years later, petrol is expensive, cars are expensive too! the bus is expensive and full.. and electric cars still expensive...
Ok, since the G-Wiz has come along the price has dropped, and those are selling a little, but its still a bit pricey, and not everyone can easily afford a place to park it to charge it! (Your not allowed to just drape your charging cable across the pavement to your house overnight..)
But.. how about electric cycles/bikes/scooters, sales of those is healthy, demand there.
But compared with a bus, not so good in bad weather (Of which we have a fair amount of..), hard to get shopping home in one unless you eat less than your dog..
Since travel become more expensive around here in London, more people are cycling, because they cannot afford the really high insurance rates on their cars, and/or the petrol, and/or the repair costs
So I think the Velomobiles time might be with us, and maybe even solar powered too, being how expensive electricity is getting nowdays!
Virtually everytime I see a new electric vehicle announced in the UK, its way too expensive for poor folk to afford, its why we ended up buying Sinclair Spectrums instead of Atari 800's..
> What I'm saying is that for Joe Average American, who is even less
> rational than I, the "commuter car" will have limited appeal, and sales.
> I think the market will open up, just a little. And that, eventually the
> predicted improvements in the next decade will make it a slam dunk.
I'd agree with that view also. (But I reckon that limited sales is enough to design a decent product and make a profit.)
> I'm not seeing it as that costly a change-over, and one that will
> happen relatively soon as it becomes naturally economical to do so.
Agreed.
But I do wonder, why don't car manufactors make really cheap cars ? (Apart from Tata Nano type folk..)
> That is, the major manufacturers are dragging their heals instead
> of performing in the best interest of the country.
Isn't that always the case though, profit first..
Now if it was a technocratic run country, things might be different.
A year away from a $20,000 electric/ICE dual mode car. Sixty miles on batteries with a gas engine backup.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... 9363.story
Global warming is not the issue, the issue is $400,000,000 a day sent overseas for oil. Its economics, get it?
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-c ... 9363.story
Global warming is not the issue, the issue is $400,000,000 a day sent overseas for oil. Its economics, get it?
Aero
Actually no. Unless you are talking pre-production rate or hand crafted stuff.As for manufacturing, most of that already exists.
For instance the battery packs are a devilish problem. Cell voltage matching. Equal cooling for all cells. etc.
If everything you want is available off the shelf in small quantities (it isn't) then it takes 3 to 5 years to get rates up to 100,000 per year.
You start looking at things like motor in wheel and development to manufacturing might take 5 to 7 years.
We should proceed expeditiously but not at a panic rate. If $400 mn a day bothers you then get Congress to lift drilling restrictions. We are going to need oil for quite some time.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Simon, that might have been true 10 years ago, but the EV1 solved that problem for lead-acid batteries, and with modern digital electronics, cells can be maintained to matched sets in battery packs with minimal cost of control electronics. Not so practical for 40,000 cells in a battery pack but most technologies don't use such a large number of cells.
Yes, we will need oil for a long time. It will take a very long time to get the currently 250,000,000 cars off the road and replaced with electric. That is why we need to start now, and work fast. The Chinese, see my previous post, will be exporting electrics within 2 years, but that doesn't solve our $400,000,000 a day money export problem. Just changes it from buying oil to buying cars.
Here are a couple more links addressing the current market demand, the conclusion is that America will be buying those Chinese electrics. We need to make the cars ourselves and keep the money at home.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11220800
http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/colu ... 38055.html
Yes, we will need oil for a long time. It will take a very long time to get the currently 250,000,000 cars off the road and replaced with electric. That is why we need to start now, and work fast. The Chinese, see my previous post, will be exporting electrics within 2 years, but that doesn't solve our $400,000,000 a day money export problem. Just changes it from buying oil to buying cars.
Here are a couple more links addressing the current market demand, the conclusion is that America will be buying those Chinese electrics. We need to make the cars ourselves and keep the money at home.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11220800
http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/colu ... 38055.html
Aero
EV1 was a technical success and an economic failure. And lead acid is no good for the Mid-West. It is a Southern California technology due to its temperature sensitivity.Aero wrote:Simon, that might have been true 10 years ago, but the EV1 solved that problem for lead-acid batteries, and with modern digital electronics, cells can be maintained to matched sets in battery packs with minimal cost of control electronics. Not so practical for 40,000 cells in a battery pack but most technologies don't use such a large number of cells.
Yes, we will need oil for a long time. It will take a very long time to get the currently 250,000,000 cars off the road and replaced with electric. That is why we need to start now, and work fast. The Chinese, see my previous post, will be exporting electrics within 2 years, but that doesn't solve our $400,000,000 a day money export problem. Just changes it from buying oil to buying cars.
Here are a couple more links addressing the current market demand, the conclusion is that America will be buying those Chinese electrics. We need to make the cars ourselves and keep the money at home.
http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_11220800
http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/colu ... 38055.html
The engineering problems are daunting. No one knows how to make large capacity multi-cell Li Ion batteries in volume. In addition GM expects to sell the Volts at a loss from the time they come out and for at least 3 to 5 years.That is, the major manufacturers are dragging their heals instead of performing in the best interest of the country.
In addition you have to get 10s of thousands on the road for a few years in order to work out the bugs not found in design and testing. There is no point in doing that with a million vehicles all at once.
Car companies are not dragging their heels. But you know - if you have a better idea why not start your own car company?
People have exaggerated expectations of what is possible - physically, technologically, and economically.
It is the same with military science - the amateurs dabble in battles. The pros are into logistics.
And I have to tell you that the same is true of technology. Amateurs look at demonstration vehicles. Pros study the logistics of making 100,000 at an acceptable cost and reliability. Not to mention profit.
If I had a working lab Pollywell tomorrow it would take 5 to 7 years to start producing them in any kind of volume and on the order of another 5 to 10 years before they would be making a significant contribution to grid power. And I don't have a working Polywell. I have another 5 to 7 years of experiments ahead. Unless I get a few billion to play with. Then I might be able to reduce the time frame to 3 to 5 years.
The rule of thumb in any endeavor of this kind is throw the first one away. The second go around will be so much better. That puts a 2-3 year delay in from the first working power delivering prototype.
Which is why engineers get paid bigger bucks than scientists. They have to deal with hard reality. Scientists only have to do lab work.
If you want to blame anyone for our over reliance on foreign oil blame Congress.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/21/gm-voltco ... akthrough/
lifepo4 Says:
December 22nd, 2007 at 5:12 am
Thanks, finally someone else with battery knowledge posted his opinion here.comment="21019" - On lifespan (cycles) and 10x improvement, one should be careful.
As you pointed out, the whole rationale behind this is to reduce the thickness of the anode and free the volume for more cathode, thus improving the cell capacity. If a new anode material has a capacity >3000 mAh/g with similar tap density, the derived anode will be very thin and you probably will get a boost of capacity about 50-80%, that’s it. Those who do not know the battery design can remember this: Even if the anode capacity is increased by a factor of 100 or 1000 times, it does NOT mean the battery capacity will increase that much because of the limitation by the cathode and other ingredients in the battery, the theoretical increase can only be about 100-150%, no more.
Now let’s check the reality. The supplementary info accompanied the paper shows anode thickness to be about 60 nm (NANO meter) and I estimate the loading (weight of anode material per square centimeter) to be only 0.1% (OR even less, I assumed a density of 1g/cc for the nano-wire, which is probably an overestimate). It is WELL know when you decrease the loading from a commercial value to a small value, the prototype half cell performs very well, but when you MUST increase that by a factor of several hundred to build a commercial cell, you will definitely lose the performance cited in the paper, that phenomenon is an unfortunate issue virtually can’t be addressed. The declaration of being revolutionary is ridiculous unless he also tried much thicker electrode and still preserve the performance and HE should have tried that and published the result. The reason for the good performance published in the paper is because lithium cation diffusion distance is only 60nm while in reality that distance is about 50-80 micrometer, which is about 1000 times longer. This is like a young guy can carry a 2 lb steel rod and run, he won’t be able to run if he carries a 2000 lb steel bar. You could argue that he can put the steel bar in a heavy truck and drive, but there is no similar mechanism in a battery design.
Other issues: The nano wire is inherently fluffy and has a low density compare to graphite. Because silicon reacts with lithium to have a theoretical volume increase about 300-500% (do not remember the exact value, but something like that range). If the electrode is not compressed during manufacturing, the advantage of capacity increase (per unit weight) is severely compromised, if the anode is compressed (standard process in any commercial cell), the volume expansion can severely damage the cell. One possible solution is to dissipate graphite into the void space of the anode to mitigate the problem, this strategy is used by SONY in their camcorder batteries ( Sn-Co-C anode), but implemented differently.
Still more issues (which I believe potentially can be solved.)
1) Good control of the nano-wire growth, it has to be uniformly coated onto Copper foil and has to be on both sides, not single side. Any spot with lower amount of nano-wire can potentially become a spot where lithium dendrite forms, thus causing safety issues.
2) Cost issues, I am not familiar with nano-wire growth and can’t comment too much on that.
3) Possible side reactions between Silicon nano wire and other ingredients of the battery, SEI formation.
4) Cycle life, it is not clear from the paper, initial results looks interesting, though.
The author should try this with much thicker nano wire deposition on the substrate, from the published data, it is highly unlikely he can achieve even a moderate performance.
As for the battery made by A123, their m1 266520 are hand-made using multiple tabs to boost performance. Yes, they are by far the best LiFePO4 cells made by any company. Now they make the big EV cells, I hope they do not use tools to scratch the electrodes in order to put more tabs (scratching can introduce particles which shorts batteries, like SONY), because the battery consistency will suffer and affect battery life, even though a single cell can perform beautifully. However, considering they were selling m1 in 2006/2007, it will be difficult to switch to automatic product line to weld tabs using a Japanese machine, this kind of transition usually take long time and I hope someone from GM asked them this question. I know there are lots of bashing against Toyota on this forum, but Toyota has far stronger expertise in battery R&D (JV with Panasonic) and still Panasonic had battery recall, I find it funny for Bob Lutz to laugh at Toyota when some small companies provide the Li cells. I am wondering if the PHEV package can last long enough in real tests.
To clarify those issues brought by me, please ask the following battery scientists:
1) Dr. Khali Amine phone: (630) 252-3838
2) Dr. Michael Thackeray: (630) 252-9184
3) Dr. John Goodenough: (512) 471-1646
4) Dr. Yet-ming Chiang: (617) 253-6471
5) Dr. Jai Prakash: (312) 567-3639
6) Dr. Glen Amatucci: (732) 932-6856
PS: It’s good to be modest to other people and be aggressive inside, well, Bob Lutz and GM do not, that may explains why GM’s fortune fluctuates like the currency of poor African country while Toyota has NEVER lost money in the past 50 years. DO NOT underestimate Toyota, they had problems (even fire), but they are highly competent and will NOT let GM take the lead!
lifepo4 Says:
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
I am someone who is actually designing Li batteries and have actual experiences in watching how batteries are made, so please do not say st***d things like that.
One thing I feel about GM (based on my expertise) is that they underestimate the difficulty. Yes, A123 battery performs very well, if you check their data, it has something called BSF, which means they test a single cell, but simply magnify the data by a factor of several hundred and show the test, this is fine in discussion, but when you put 200 cells together, ensuring the uniformity is paramountly difficult, and any small inconsistency over extended period may lead to premature aging for one particular cell over another. Since A123 USED manual process to make m1, I hope they DO not make 32 series in the same way. Even one company can make the cell 99.99% consistent, when you put the 200 into a pack, you must ensure that their thermal environment is the same. Put it this way, if you put 3 cells like ABC, B will always be 2-3C higher than the other two, after several years, difference starts to show up and BMS has to work hard to ensure consistent SOC, this is because when one particular cell has low SOC, it may go to charge reversal and fail or even explode. This is a less issue for HEV, but serious challenge for PHEV due to much higher SOC swing range. To tell you the truth, first generation of Prius is not particularly good in this respect, but fortunately NiMH is a little less sensitive to temperature than Li-ion. One reason why A123 performs well is they have more tabs. The Japanese do not use multiple tabs because the machine can’t be designed to do this, so they choose single tab and reduce the coating thickness to achieve performance (energy density compromised). With recent recalls, they will be even more careful. The battery coating room in Japan is like clean-room in semiconductor industry, virtually power-free, and occasionally problem still shows up. I do not know what it look like in A123 facilities. One thing funny is A123 has a Canadian division to make battery packs, yet they choose to work with Continental on battery pack. As for the CPI/LG, they use LiMn2O4/graphite, this battery is also safer, but performance degrades a lot under higher temperature and PHEV battery will often experience higher-than-normal temperature.
Toyota is working aggressively on their development, they are not testing Li ion on a vehicle simply because the cell reliability does not meet their demand, AND in fact, I believe there is a small chance that graphite based Li battery may never will. GM has no real battery experts in battery manufacturing and engineering. You know that American CEOs often boast about certain thiings due to short-term pressure by media and Wall-street, but they often under-deliver.
Battery in EV/PHEV is far more complicated and difficult than you might think. Americans have a tendency to be optimistic about everything, but I advise you to be a little cautious on this front. When it comes to some quick business (youtube, google, Apple iPhone), they are doing good, but certain things need dedication and long-term planning and mouth shut-up, and the Japanese excels on this. GM might get Volt out earlier, but who knows. If both GM and toyota have their PHEV out, who will have a better reliability? Remember, when 1 out of one million fail (DELL), SONY recalled battery. You need to ensure 10000 better reliability on PHEV battery, because if Toyota have one milion PHEVs, they will need 200 million cells. If one of them fails and blows up, it will be headline on CNN. Three-mile island incident does not kill a single person, but kills the nuclear power business in this country. For something like PHEV, it is better to be cautious than sorry later. And Tesla will learn this hard way in the future!
lifepo4 Says:
December 25th, 2007 at 1:23 am
Thanks, AES. I’m glad A123 uses prismatic instead of cylindrical cells, it’s better in terms of spacial efficiency. I hope the cell is not too thick because of potential heating issues. I am aware A123 used some type of “coating” technique. Because they switched from cylidrical to prismatic, I am curious how fast they can improve the process in order to make high quality cells, this kind of switch takes lots of time to perfect.
Now to AES and Estero: In order to explain it, one need to understand how Li battery is made. Both the anode and cathode are made by spreading active material (with polymer binder, etc) onto copper and aluminum foils, respectively(both sides), then both of them need to be pressed by using a rolling machine to make the materials stick to the foil. To get higher energy (more range for the EV), it is important to ensure the coating is relatively thin while the weight per square centimeter(called loading) is relatively high. Depends on the chemistry (what material is used) and cell design (high power or high energy?). There are certain ranges for both the thickness and loading values that are usually determined by lots of experiments. Of course there are other issues such as uniformity of thickness& loading, etc which determine the product quality, I will neglect the uniformity issue to simplify the explanation. It is also well established that when you reduce the amount of loading, the battery’s performance is much MUCH better, at the expenses of energy. Because the published result is less than 1% of the loading required (here the higher capacity of Si is taken into consideration, the actual weight/cm2 of Dr. Cui’s anode is only 0.1% of commercial value) to make commercial cell. When I look at his data, the performance is barely OK. When you MUST increase the amount of Si per square cm by a factor of several hundred, it will be nearly useless.
Another issue I mentioned earlier is the shape of the material. It is tubular and have lots of space between the tubes. This is NOT good. When you design the battery using this material, you HAVE two options: 1) Increase the anode thickness. 2) Decrease the loading of cathode accordingly (If you do not, battery will fail). Either way will decrease battery capacity. This is why: For a specific battery size, the volume is fixed, both 1) and 2) dictates that you MUST put more aluminum and coper foil, thus reducing energy. You may ask this, can we decrease the thickness of copper and aluminum? answer is NO, both are already close to the minimum and CAN’t be REDUCED further.
I am sorry that my explanation is not good enough, because it is really difficult to explaain a complicated thing. This is like this: If I punch your nose with my fist, how can I convince you that the force on your nose and my fist are equal? You will never believe SO unless you have physics background.
Oh, I forgot one thing here: A123’s active material is also called nano material (I do not consider it nano, but its size is smaller than usual), why is that? Because they CAN’T make the material to perform without making the particle size that small (Their loading is within normal range, not 0.1% of regular value). I can assure you that if A123 can make their battery to perform w/o making their battery material particles very small, they will absolutely do it. A123’s material is LiFePO4, which is horrible to make good and consistent coating, personally I am not sure if they completely solved the coating problem.
Here is an interesting story about Toyota.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... IE6DK1.DTL
Based on my knowledge, I must say that Toyota is extremely aggressive in product development and have a strong self-respect, but they rarely show it, especially when Detroit three is in trouble. Both A123 and LG/CPI have never shown the battery pack’s life. I do not know what Toyota is doing now, but I am sure they are aggressively working on it. With personal uses of both LG and A123 cells, their manufacuring is sloppy even compare to SONY who has a big recall (I never see Toyota’s battery, presumably similar or even better than SONY) I am curious to know what will happen next year, does the battery maintain the performance under aggressive testing at GM or they degrade relatively fast. Bob Lutz’s boasting here make me sick. I’m not saying Toyota is surely to lead this time, but with my battery expertise and knowledge (I rarely sleep before 12:30AM, and I am learning as much as I can), I would rather bet Toyota will lead again, and of course, only time will tell.
To Lyle: Please consult with the following experts in batteries, Dr. Spotnitz is well known in battery design and Dr. Anderman is the formost battery expert in automotive applications.:
1) Dr. Robert M. Spotnitz, rspotnitz@batdesign.com
2) Dr. Menachem Anderman, info@advancedautobat.com
Look at Bob Lutz:
http://www.reuters.com/article/Autos07/ ... 0720071121
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Nanos, your observation that they had to close down on 1000 cars per period sales because it was far less than 50,000 is exactly my point. The EV1 sold out, but wouldn't have sold enough to make it profitable.
The problem with car production is that, since Henry Ford, the only way to make production of a line profitable is to mass-produce the cars. Basically they're big, expensive things that are only affordable when economies of scale are applied. The only other alternative is to charge what Ferrari charges.
This is why you don't see production of a new car line until they can be relatively assured of a certain threshold of sales. And, basically, you don't get that until the American car market adopts purchasing them. This has been true in Japan for a long time now. They have a car market there, but they don't have many cars that are made specifically for Japanese. Those that are, or for the European market, are always, always, always either subcompact cars, or expensive sports cars.
And, lo, this is what you can purchase right now in terms of an electric. That market is up and running everywhere to some extent. But these are inherently limited markets. If you have kids, a two-seater is just impractical. If you aren't rich, you can't afford a sportscar.
So, again, it's going to take a little while before we get mass-adoption of electric cars. Five to ten years, again, IMO. For instance, the Chevy Volt which looks good on paper turns out to be requiring a higher price-tag than previously thought. Probably puts it right out of my price-range, even accounting for fuel cost savings.
But there will be others, and ones that will have the right specs/price-tag. And soon. Because, yeah, there IS a huge potential market for the winner who manages to come up with the right combination of technologies.
Mike
P.S. Open source car? http://www.theoscarproject.org/
I think this is just one of a few out there.
The problem with car production is that, since Henry Ford, the only way to make production of a line profitable is to mass-produce the cars. Basically they're big, expensive things that are only affordable when economies of scale are applied. The only other alternative is to charge what Ferrari charges.
This is why you don't see production of a new car line until they can be relatively assured of a certain threshold of sales. And, basically, you don't get that until the American car market adopts purchasing them. This has been true in Japan for a long time now. They have a car market there, but they don't have many cars that are made specifically for Japanese. Those that are, or for the European market, are always, always, always either subcompact cars, or expensive sports cars.
And, lo, this is what you can purchase right now in terms of an electric. That market is up and running everywhere to some extent. But these are inherently limited markets. If you have kids, a two-seater is just impractical. If you aren't rich, you can't afford a sportscar.
So, again, it's going to take a little while before we get mass-adoption of electric cars. Five to ten years, again, IMO. For instance, the Chevy Volt which looks good on paper turns out to be requiring a higher price-tag than previously thought. Probably puts it right out of my price-range, even accounting for fuel cost savings.
But there will be others, and ones that will have the right specs/price-tag. And soon. Because, yeah, there IS a huge potential market for the winner who manages to come up with the right combination of technologies.
Mike
P.S. Open source car? http://www.theoscarproject.org/
I think this is just one of a few out there.
I think something which would help is to lower the requirements for mass production before it becomes profitable, so even if you build only a few, you still make a profit.
In the old days when labour was cheap, and machines expensive, we moved towards machines, now that machines are quite expensive, perhaps we need to move back towards cheap labour..
But in all seriousness, what production/manufactoring technologies can be employed to lower costs for building cars on a limited number basis ?
In the old days when labour was cheap, and machines expensive, we moved towards machines, now that machines are quite expensive, perhaps we need to move back towards cheap labour..
But in all seriousness, what production/manufactoring technologies can be employed to lower costs for building cars on a limited number basis ?
Why do you say that? I lived in the middle of the eastern Iowa economic region, but it was only 20 miles in any of four directions to a Walmart supercenter and the population hence economic centers that support them. That's a 40 mile round trip which is well within the range of lead acid battery powered electric vehicles.Simon wrote: And lead acid is no good for the Mid-West.
Aero
-
Mike Holmes
- Posts: 308
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2008 1:15 pm
Well, if the normal performance is 40 miles total, and you lose half of that to cold temperatures, there had better be a recharging station at Walmart, or you're not getting home in winter.
It's definitely an issue. Today it was 2 degrees F here when I drove in to work (wind chill -16F). While I'd like to adopt some certain technologies, I have to live with the fact that current electric tech, and solar, and such really aren't yet great options for here. We might have to wait longer than those in SoCal and other such warm, sunny places.
A windmill makes a lot more sense if you live in the Oklahoma wind tunnel.
That's OK, I live adjacent to the world's largest source of fresh water (the Great Lakes), and so have that as a cheap natural resource. The water out of the tap here is delicious. I'm drinking some now. I wonder how many heavy water molecules I'm getting?
You make the most out of what's at hand. Iceland is a net exporter of geothermal energy. That's great for them, until their island explodes again some day.
Mike
It's definitely an issue. Today it was 2 degrees F here when I drove in to work (wind chill -16F). While I'd like to adopt some certain technologies, I have to live with the fact that current electric tech, and solar, and such really aren't yet great options for here. We might have to wait longer than those in SoCal and other such warm, sunny places.
A windmill makes a lot more sense if you live in the Oklahoma wind tunnel.
That's OK, I live adjacent to the world's largest source of fresh water (the Great Lakes), and so have that as a cheap natural resource. The water out of the tap here is delicious. I'm drinking some now. I wonder how many heavy water molecules I'm getting?
You make the most out of what's at hand. Iceland is a net exporter of geothermal energy. That's great for them, until their island explodes again some day.
Mike