Electric car sets new distance record - 600km on a single charge

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Yeah, because all Americans are too... to make use of a small car. Right?
They had the heating on, which should be a similar drain on the batteries as the aircon.
Nope. Thanks to quartz heating technology, it's not. An electric heater can be as much as 86% effective at converting electricity directly to heat. The electric Peltier-type coolers don't actually work all that well, so the only current practical vehicle refrigeration system is using power (mechanical or electric) to turn a gas compressor, a far less efficient method.

In addition, the A2 is too small to do well in the market over here. Cars of that size class do not generally do well here, other than as fads (see what's happened to Smart).

All major powerstations using fossil fuels are massively more efficient than running an ICE in a car.
Except fossil fuel burning stations release lots of that 'evil' CO2 gas... and, oh, yeah, RADIOACTIVES. Ooops.

On top of which, nobody has the infrastructure at current or even in the works to support the additional power grid loads of adding many electric cars to the grid. Well, except Texas, and we only started that plan this year. Right now, most of Europe often can't provide enough power to keep countries going when you get a particularly hot summer or a cold winter day. Texas tends to overbuild our infrastructure (unlike the rest of the US) but we're looking at the future and building like mad - and nobody else is doing so. Going to be a real shock to the rest of the world if the electric car catches on - hope you like rolling brownouts and blackouts.

You could fit lots of guns in an A2.
My long barrel FAL will not properly fit in the larger A3 with four people in it. How, exactly, is it supposed to fit in an A2? Neither will my Saiga-12. My Rem 700 barely fits, but you can forget about my 24" AR-15.

Edit:
Every technological achievement is a failure as long as it did not solve all problems in one go? Great attitude.
Did you use a pre-iPhone-4 (or whatever modern phone you like) phone? Those were all failures because they could not do all the things a modern phone can.
Did you use a pre-Core-i7 computer? Those were slower than today's computers, hence failures.
I could go on and on.
This makes NO sense. Those are past technologies that have been succeeded by better ones, that did the same tasks as their forebears, just better. Electric cars currently aren't even as good as their gas or diesel counterparts, so the analogy doesn't hold up

By the way, the specs I've listed aren't for a modern car. They're for my nearly twenty-four year old XJ6. And this electric A2 still can't match it. That's pretty sad.
 
Last edited:

Crazyjeeper

NickGyver
DONOR
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
7,973
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
F150, CJ7, Mustang GT, Tenere, Griso
Every technological achievement is a failure as long as it did not solve all problems in one go? Great attitude.
Did you use a pre-iPhone-4 (or whatever modern phone you like) phone? Those were all failures because they could not do all the things a modern phone can.
Did you use a pre-Core-i7 computer? Those were slower than today's computers, hence failures.
I could go on and on.
Yes, but to fully use that analogy, that would be like if we all had core i7's, and went back to 486's to save the planet and then had to slowly and painfully work our way back to the performance of the i7.
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,362
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Nope. Thanks to quartz heating technology, it's not. An electric heater can be as much as 86% effective at converting electricity directly to heat. The electric Peltier-type coolers don't actually work all that well, so the only current practical vehicle refrigeration system is using power (mechanical or electric) to turn a gas compressor, a far less efficient method.
In the end 100% of the electricity is converted to heat. That's not the point though, putting a kWh into heating will leave you with roughly a kWh put towards increasing the temperature. Putting a kWh into an aircon will take more than a kWh of heat out of your car. A modern, large A/C may even drain heat at a rate of 4kW while only draining 1.1kW of electrical power. That's roughly four times as efficient as heating by burning electricity.

Except fossil fuel burning stations release lots of that 'evil' CO2 gas.
Burning oil in your car releases more CO2.

November 5th, 2006 was no cold winter day.



On the oh-no-we-don't-have-the-grid-to-provide-for-electric-cars... Boohoo. Back in the 1900s we didn't have any grid of petrol stations either.
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Yes, but to fully use that analogy, that would be like if we all had core i7's, and went back to 486's to save the planet and then had to slowly and painfully work our way back to the performance of the i7.
Exactly - though I would say 'for no good reason', really.

In the end 100% of the electricity is converted to heat. That's not the point though, putting a kWh into heating will leave you with roughly a kWh put towards increasing the temperature. Putting a kWh into an aircon will take more than a kWh of heat out of your car. A modern, large A/C may even drain heat at a rate of 4kW while only draining 1.1kW of electrical power. That's roughly four times as efficient as heating by burning electricity.
100% is not converted to usable heat. Also, the power loads are not quite as comparable as your figures would have it. To heat my apartment 10 degrees using a modern heater does not take as much power as cooling it 10 degrees using a modern AC, for example.

Burning oil in your car releases more CO2.
Perhaps, but it also releases less radioactives. CO2 is plant food. Radioactives don't like anyone.

November 5th, 2006 was no cold winter day.

So now you have power shortages for no reason? That's even better - thanks for proving my point.

On the oh-no-we-don't-have-the-grid-to-provide-for-electric-cars... Boohoo. Back in the 1900s we didn't have any grid of petrol stations either.
Uh.... we had fuel stations and an infrastructure that could provide petroleum from the late 1890s forward. Where did you think Daimler was getting fuel for his cars? Oil heating in this country began back in the 1860s and initially the early cars were actually fuelled at the relatively plentiful heating oil dealers. Standard Oil, that behemoth we know today as Chevron (the Texaco in ChevronTexaco is silent :p) cranked up in 1870, for another example.

And the difference between then and now is that it doesn't take long to build fuel stations. It takes years and years to rebuild an electrical grid, let alone new power stations - and in the interim, you're looking at blackouts and brownouts as the demand exceeds the supply available. Hope you like being miserable, cold in the winter and hot in the summer...
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,362
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
To heat my apartment 10 degrees using a modern heater does not take as much power as cooling it 10 degrees using a modern AC, for example.
I doubt that. Heating uses electric energy to create heat energy. Cooling uses electric energy to move heat energy. Moving it is easier than creating it.
Sadly Wikipedia only gives a proper book on thermodynamics as a source for "It is typical for air conditioners to operate at "efficiencies" of significantly greater than 100%.[14]", so I can't quote the source for you without buying the book first :cry:
In fact, this quotes ratios of up to ten to one for heat removed compared to electric energy put in.

Perhaps, but it also releases less radioactives. CO2 is plant food. Radioactives don't like anyone.
While CO2 is indeed plant food, plants can live well enough without our additional food. Adding more food to the system does not make the system necessarily better.
Everything is radioactive. Even you, even your guns.

So now you have power shortages for no reason? That's even better - thanks for proving my point.
There was a reason, you would know it if you had read the article you posted.
They powered down a line going over a river to allow a ship safe passage. However, they did not coordinate this with the surrounding operators. As a result they were surprised by the loss of power, outage ensues.

Uh.... we had fuel stations and an infrastructure that could provide petroleum from the late 1890s forward. Where did you think Daimler was getting fuel for his cars? Oil heating in this country began back in the 1860s and initially the early cars were actually fuelled at the relatively plentiful heating oil dealers. Standard Oil, that behemoth we know today as Chevron (the Texaco in ChevronTexaco is silent :p) cranked up in 1870, for another example.
There was oil, yes. There was no filling station capable of fueling your car to your specifications listed earlier every mile.

Hope you like being miserable, cold in the winter and hot in the summer...
Don't worry about me, I live in a place that neither gets excessively cold in the winter nor excessively hot in the summer. Heck, having A/C in a building is fairly rare out here. Why? Not necessary.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I doubt that. Heating uses electric energy to create heat energy. Cooling uses electric energy to move heat energy. Moving it is easier than creating it.
Sadly Wikipedia only gives a proper book on thermodynamics as a source for "It is typical for air conditioners to operate at "efficiencies" of significantly greater than 100%.[14]", so I can't quote the source for you without buying the book first :cry:
In fact, this quotes ratios of up to ten to one for heat removed compared to electric energy put in.
Strangely, my electric bills don't match this theory. Yes, there is a 'smart meter' on my building and I have a static kw/h price. Empirically, heating this place takes less power than cooling it.

While CO2 is indeed plant food, plants can live well enough without our additional food. Adding more food to the system does not make the system necessarily better. Everything is radioactive. Even you, even your guns.
Not significantly above the post-WW2 background count, though. The emissions from a fossil-fueled plant? Oh, hell, yes, they're way way above background.

There was a reason, you would know it if you had read the article you posted.
They powered down a line going over a river to allow a ship safe passage. However, they did not coordinate this with the surrounding operators. As a result they were surprised by the loss of power, outage ensues.
The grid should have been able to compensate for the loss of one or two lines. It wasn't. Here's a couple more examples.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Europe_suffers_widespread_power_cuts

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Massive_blackout_in_France

There was oil, yes. There was no filling station capable of fueling your car to your specifications listed earlier every mile.
No, but you could get fuel delivered to your rural location, and you could get fuel in cities.

Given how close to 100% capacity some grids are running at, charging electrical vehicles will have to be at the expense of lighting, climate control, and electronics uses for other users.

Don't worry about me, I live in a place that neither gets excessively cold in the winter nor excessively hot in the summer. Heck, having A/C in a building is fairly rare out here. Why? Not necessary.
Wait, isn't "global warming" supposed to change that? :p
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,362
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
Strangely, my electric bills don't match this theory. Yes, there is a 'smart meter' on my building and I have a static kw/h price. Empirically, heating this place takes less power than cooling it.
I've never been to Texas, but from what I hear it's not exactly a cold place. Going by that I'd assume you cool your house more often than heat your house? If that is the case then saying "heating this place takes less power than cooling it" is quite pointless.
How are you priced by kw/h? If your power drain is constant (0 kW/h) you pay nothing, but if it rises by some kW per hour you pay through your nose? :tease:

The grid should have been able to compensate for the loss of one or two lines. It wasn't.
It would be able to compensate if surrounding operators got the notice and compensated for it.
I do agree though that we need to strengthen our grid - which is exactly what Germany is doing, partially to let wind energy flow from here to the South.

No, but you could get fuel delivered to your rural location, and you could get fuel in cities.
By your specifications (drive 960km, refill in 5-10 minutes, drive another 960km) that's useless then.

Given how close to 100% capacity some grids are running at, charging electrical vehicles will have to be at the expense of lighting, climate control, and electronics uses for other users.
Use more efficient lighting and electronics then. And extend the grid, see above.

Wait, isn't "global warming" supposed to change that? :p
Guess why I'd prefer less global warming over more global warming. Would make it much less nice to live here.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
I've never been to Texas, but from what I hear it's not exactly a cold place. Going by that I'd assume you cool your house more often than heat your house? If that is the case then saying "heating this place takes less power than cooling it" is quite pointless.
How are you priced by kw/h? If your power drain is constant (0 kW/h) you pay nothing, but if it rises by some kW per hour you pay through your nose? :tease:
No, it's metered by kw/h used. Also, North Texas does get quite cold - this year it was sometimes colder in Dallas than it was in Michigan, for example. We get both ends of the temperature spectrum here; in fact, it was only 3C here night before last. 'Winter' hasn't really started in here yet, either.

Days when it is bitterly cold here result in lower power usage (in my case) than when it is blazingly hot.

It would be able to compensate if surrounding operators got the notice and compensated for it.
I do agree though that we need to strengthen our grid - which is exactly what Germany is doing, partially to let wind energy flow from here to the South.
From what I've read, it won't be enough to compensate for the load of cars that Merkel & Co want to see. Still insufficient generation and infrastructure.

By your specifications (drive 960km, refill in 5-10 minutes, drive another 960km) that's useless then.
Not quite. Reason being that this was actually better than or equal to the existing technology, I.E., horses. No place to graze horses in a city, so you had to have the horse feed sent in, or go to a feed dealer. Pretty much the same.

I'm not even holding BEVs to the standards of a current production car. I'm holding it to the standards of the oldest-tech vehicle in my fleet. And it can't even equal that.

Use more efficient lighting and electronics then. And extend the grid, see above.
Market forces are already making people use more efficient devices, so that problem is solved, but most grids are still not able to meet current demands as is. And most grids won't take the load of, say, 250,000 electric vehicles suddenly added in.

Guess why I'd prefer less global warming over more global warming. Would make it much less nice to live here.
According to the global warming pundits, it's already too late, the earth is already going to warm. The most we can do is affect it by maybe one degree.

Of course, reality does not appear to be conforming to their religio- er, claims. What does that tell you? :p
 
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,362
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
No, it's metered by kw/h used.
kW/h is a unit measuring change of power over time. For example, a nuclear power station with 20MW/h will take 50 hours to get up to its full capacity of 1GW. When it is there it will put out 1GWh per hour, or 1GW :tease:
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Last edited:

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,362
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
I type corrected then, but my point still stands.
What point would that be? Science is wrong, my electric bill is right?
See http://home.howstuffworks.com/ac4.htm for more signs of A/C units with an efficiency of ten to one or 1000% existing. In other words, for every kWh of energy consumed by the A/C it removes 10kWh of heat from the building. A heater could not create more than 1kWh of heat for every 1kWh of electricity consumed.
 

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
Only thing is, by that theory, it should take the exact same amount of energy to cool the place 20 degrees F as it does to warm it 20 degrees F. And it doesn't. In fact, it takes quite a bit more.

I am deliberately waiting to see if you can figure out what the difference is. :D Much like with the trucks that you erroneously stated that top speeds would be equal on in avanti's thread, you're missing an element. :D This element also applies to cars, so I want to see if you can figure out why this is the case.
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,362
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'19 BMW M240i
You're so clever :clap:


Is this like the time when you deliberately withheld information regarding some cyclist/pedestrian accident, only to never divulge said information later?
 
Last edited:

Spectre

The Deported
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
36,871
Location
Dallas, Texas
Car(s)
00 4Runner | 02 919 | 87 XJ6 | 86 CB700SC
You're so clever :clap:


Is this like the time when you deliberately withheld information regarding some cyclist/pedestrian accident, only to never divulge said information later?
Nope. :D I completely forgot that thread, actually.
 

Hbriz

Ballroom Blitz
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
5,653
Location
Wollongong, Australia
Car(s)
'07 Megane dCi
Wait... your XJ6 goes 960km on a tank? How big is the bloody fuel tank? :blink:

Anyway, it is my opinion that electric cars need only be useful for commuting. I believe hydrogen will be the fuel that will eventually replace petrol, however electric cars will co-exist alongside them, as an alternative that can be used just for getting to work and back, or to the shops or whatever. Short trips, therefore the short range and long charge times are less of a problem. For me, its more important that they are significantly cheaper (an iMiev costs around $70,000 here, roughly the same as a basic A6 or 520d) than being able to travel the same distances as a normal ICE car.
 
Last edited:

Hbriz

Ballroom Blitz
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
5,653
Location
Wollongong, Australia
Car(s)
'07 Megane dCi
It's got two, I remember seeing some image with two gas pumps filling it up simultaneously...
Actually yes, from memory they both add up to 100 litres. So that adds up to around 10.4l/100km, which makes sense (for extra-urban driving anyway).

I think a decent range for a long-range electric car would be 400-500km, if it is to take only 5-10 minutes to recharge. Thats the same as many cars with normal sized fuel tanks :p
 
Last edited:
Top