News: Unlimited range in my electric car? It's more likely than you think.

ViperVX said:
No, because the price at consumer's end will be much higher.
Click to expand...

The consumer can install a hydrocracker and gas compressor in their home for about the same price as the old EV1's charger. At that point, all they need is water and electricity to make their own fuel.

By the way, if batteries have gotten "so much better" in the last decade, why is it that this 2009 electric Focus is limited to the same 150 miles as the 1999 GM EV1?
 
Last edited:
I suppose you could make an argument for a car with both. Charge it up when/if you can, but when you run out of range the fuel cells kick in.
 
thevictor390 said:
I suppose you could make an argument for a car with both. Charge it up when/if you can, but when you run out of range the fuel cells kick in.
Click to expand...

They're not mutually exclusive, no. And if you have a hydrogen fuel cell car now and five years from now the mythical superbattery appears on the market (remember, the superbattery is always just 'five or ten years away' - though they've been saying that for over 100 years now...), you simply swap out the fuel cell for a battery stack.
 
Spectre said:
The consumer can install a hydrocracker and gas compressor in their home for about the same price as the old EV1's charger. At that point, all they need is water and electricity to make their own fuel.

By the way, if batteries have gotten "so much better" in the last decade, why is it that this 2009 electric Focus is limited to the same 150 miles as the 1999 GM EV1?
Click to expand...

Yeah, and everybody will be doing that instead of spending the extra 3 minutes refueling at the station on the way home from the mall. I know you're a independent frontiers man, but it just won't work for the public.

With hydrogen we'll end up with petrol-alike industry, with every single flaw we have now except pollution, plus it has to be developed first, electric cars worked in 1905 so they will be in 2015.

Here's what's going to happen:

1. Hydrogen prices: Start high, gradually become lower as it becomes more popular, but still will be more expensive than gas now.
2. A slow gradual increase to 200-300% of the current price in about 10-15 years, still making it twice as cheap as petrol cars usage of today.

...and yes, there will be fusion, will be much more efficient, batteries, just as computers, become 10-20% more efficient every year (remember when your cell with b/w screen only could've idled for 2 days? That was 12 years ago).
 
Last edited:
ViperVX said:
No, because the price at consumer's end will be much higher.

Also, less parts for the car, - less production/utilization pollution so you'll compensate whatever you do disposing of old batteries.
Click to expand...

The only significant difference in parts between a hydrogen fuel cell car and a battery-only car is the power supply unit, battery pack versus fuel cell. The rest is the same. No parts count differences.

You also seem to forget that with hydrogen, you won't get cartels controlling it like you do with petrol or diesel. You can convert a gas station to MAKE H2 gas on the premises using their existing water and power feeds. There would be lots of independents at that point.

Also, even with limited distribution in SoCal, Hydrogen is roughly the same price as gasoline at current.

As for fusion... well, Lerner and the Wiffleball guys have been making progress... but we've been promised fusion is 'just around the corner' for fifty years now, too. There is no telling when we will have actual production reactors out there.

12 years ago, my cell phone could idle for a week.
 
Last edited:
You do know that it takes more energy to make a solar cell than it will produce in it's operational lifetime, right? You are still putting more energy into the system than you can get out with that one component. After that it's all downhill.
 
Blind, they're working on that - check out the Nanosolar outfit. They came up with a way to cheaply and quickly "print" solar cells.
 
Blind_Io said:
You do know that it takes more energy to make a solar cell than it will produce in it's operational lifetime, right? You are still putting more energy into the system than you can get out with that one component. After that it's all downhill.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell#Solar_cells_and_energy_payback
In the 1990s, when silicon cells were twice as thick, efficiencies were much lower than today and lifetimes were shorter, it may well have cost more energy to make a cell than it could generate in a lifetime. In the meantime, the technology has progressed significantly, and the energy payback time, defined as the recovery time required for generating the energy spent for manufacturing of the respective technical energy systems, of a modern photovoltaic module is typically from 1 to 4 years[8][29] depending on the module type and location. Generally, thin film technologies - despite having comparatively low conversion efficiencies - achieve significantly shorter energy payback times than conventional systems (often < 1 year).[30] With a typical lifetime of 20 to 30 years, this means that modern solar cells are net energy producers, i.e. they generate significantly more energy over their lifetime than the energy expended in producing them.[8][31][32]
Click to expand...
 
high up-front energy costs.. hmm.. where have I heard that before? Right. Batteries.

*points at Jeremy's rant about the Prius with the immense shipping distances*
 
Spectre said:
The consumer can install a hydrocracker and gas compressor in their home for about the same price as the old EV1's charger. At that point, all they need is water and electricity to make their own fuel.

By the way, if batteries have gotten "so much better" in the last decade, why is it that this 2009 electric Focus is limited to the same 150 miles as the 1999 GM EV1?
Click to expand...

Put modern batteries and electrics in one of those EV1's and I bet you'll get more than 150 miles for a range.
 
Speaking of cost to the consumer, what's the average lifespan of a lithium-ion battery under constant use? 2 years with continuously decreasing capacity?
 
If we are having funny magnet roads I demand that my car also levitates
 
thevictor390 said:
Speaking of cost to the consumer, what's the average lifespan of a lithium-ion battery under constant use? 2 years with continuously decreasing capacity?
Click to expand...

That is only with full charge/full discharge. Hybrids have been getting more than that because the battery never get's to 100% charge or 0 charge. Of course with EVs we will be back to the old cycle of 100% charge and all the problems that go with it.
 
thevictor390 said:
2 years with continuously decreasing capacity?
Click to expand...

Old(er) LiIon batteries had lifespan issues, mostly unrelated to the number of charge cycles. They'd be unusable after 2-3 years.

New(er) ones have a longer lifespan, 5 years according to Apple.
Those figures improve in car usage, because car batteries never (dis)charge fully, for example they may be operated in a 30%-80% charge window. That way you get a longer lifespan at decreased energy density (kWh/kg).
 
Narf, that is true of Hybrid systems. A full-electric system may get much closer to the 100%-0% charge that we see in electronic devices.
 
Spectre said:
By the way, if batteries have gotten "so much better" in the last decade, why is it that this 2009 electric Focus is limited to the same 150 miles as the 1999 GM EV1?
Click to expand...

Because it's way heavier and isn't shaped like a bar of half-worn Lever 2000?
 
"Conceptually, roads would be fitted with electrical conductors "

Isent that kinda been done ? :mrgreen::mrgreen:

PICT7153.jpg
 
smib said:
Put modern batteries and electrics in one of those EV1's and I bet you'll get more than 150 miles for a range.
Click to expand...

The 1999 EV1 used the same NiMH battery cells that the current 2010 Prius does.

thevictor390 said:
Speaking of cost to the consumer, what's the average lifespan of a lithium-ion battery under constant use? 2 years with continuously decreasing capacity?
Click to expand...

narf said:
Old(er) LiIon batteries had lifespan issues, mostly unrelated to the number of charge cycles. They'd be unusable after 2-3 years.

New(er) ones have a longer lifespan, 5 years according to Apple.
Those figures improve in car usage, because car batteries never (dis)charge fully, for example they may be operated in a 30%-80% charge window. That way you get a longer lifespan at decreased energy density (kWh/kg).
Click to expand...

Lithium Ions are still limited to a charge window of 500 or so full cycles, after which they rapidly decay and die. Apple's "life extension" is nothing but a smart charging system to increase the life of the Lithium Polymer batteries (which start out with a shorter charge window - about 350 or so cycles) commonly laptops. This tech extends the charge window to 1000 charges. Even assuming this tech could be applied to cars (it may not scale up well), battery-only cars running LiIon would still only get 1500 or so charges. This would be an issue (as Blind said) in battery-only vehicles, which have a greater chance of pulling full cycles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top