Time For Electric Vehicles

Remember big auto doesn't want electric cars.

2009-07-02T18:21:00.000-07:00

The big auto companies in the world do not want the electric car to fully succeed.
Don't let the fact that they are all coming out with their models of electric cars.
There is too much being lost for them to give up so easily.
If they went full blast electric they would lose:
1) The seeming complexity of the internal combustion engine.
2) The high cost of parts.
3) Cost of oil,gas,belts, exhaust system, etc.
4) lucrative repair system.
The electric car needs none of this.
The only way to fight this is by raising prices of batteries and the cars themselves.
Watch for their stealth tactics.

Cold Fusion

2009-06-30T22:55:00.000-07:00

What ever happened to cold fusion? A few years ago it was all the rage. Now, we hear nothing about it. Where are these scientists that spent all that time perfecting it? Is this another case of money talking? How do we find out? Food for thought.

Hydrogen vs. Electric Vehicles

2009-01-30T17:22:00.000-08:00

Thursday, 29 January 2009

Hydrogen: Fuel or Bomb?
By Erik Sofge
There is a lot of debate over what fuel will propel our automobiles into the next century and beyond. Even though hydrogen is a front-runner in this race, many experts are still worried that it will fall short of expectations.
Compared to upgrading the country's electric grids to handle more hybrids or electric vehicles, the prospect of building a comprehensive network of hydrogen fueling pumps is frightening.
In 2003 President George W. Bush announced a billion-dollar plan to help usher in a new era of zero-emission, fossil-fuel-free driving. One of the more popular solutions to the looming crises of rising oil prices and climate change at that time was the hydrogen fuel-cell vehicle. These cars would be run on compressed hydrogen gas, which would be converted by a series of onboard fuel cells into electricity to power electric motors. Instead of releasing harmful greenhouse gases into the air, the byproduct of this process is water (hot water, to be specific), an almost comical puff of steam.
As soon as the money was available, the U.S. Department of Energy began doling out grants to universities, federal funds flowed into the research and development labs at the Detroit Three, and energy firms lined up for millions in subsidies to create newer, cleaner methods of squeezing hydrogen from coal and other existing energy sources.
Five years later, at the 2008 Los Angeles Auto Show, only one new hydrogen vehicle was unveiled — Honda's FC sport car concept, running on the same fuel-cell stack used by the company's existing FCX Clarity sedan. Meanwhile, a slew of new all-electric and hybrid-electric cars were on display, including an electric MINI Cooper and hybrid versions of previous models, such as the Ford Fusion. The electric vehicle, along with its less-ambitious hybrid electric-gas-powered cousin, has all but stolen hydrogen's thunder. So what happened?
Lack of InfrastructureJust last year, the Department of Energy began funding the development of plug-in hybrids. And despite billions in federal dollars, the only hydrogen car produced in significant numbers by a U.S. automaker is the Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell, which was distributed earlier this year to approximately 100 drivers in California, New York City and Washington, D.C., as part of a test program. The only commercially available new fuel-cell car on the road today is Honda's FCX Clarity, which is being leased to around 200 customers in Southern California. The catch: Applicants must live near one of three 24-hour hydrogen filling stations and be willing to pay for a 3-year, $600-per-month lease — roughly the same cost as leasing a new Porsche Cayman sports car or Mercedes-Benz E350 luxury sedan. The bigger catch: There are just 65 hydrogen refueling stations across the country, and little hope of major expansion in the near future.
"The technology is here; the car is ready," says Todd Mittleman, a spokesman for Honda. "Now, the infrastructure has to grow."
Compared with the more ambiguous goal of upgrading the country's electric grids to handle more hybrids or electric vehicles, the prospect of building a comprehensive network of hydrogen fueling pumps is daunting, to say the least. Hydrogen pipelines exist, but they tend to be relatively short, connecting oil refineries (the primary customer for hydrogen) with production plants that are either on-site or located nearby. And since the hydrogen is transported as compressed gas, existing oil and gas lines would have to be replaced, rather than retrofitted. In the short term, hydrogen could be shipped in trucks, which would raise the overall cost and carbon impact of the fuel.
Another hurdle — if the energy used to process the hydrogen comes from coal-fired plants or other emissions-producing sources, how do you build a hydrogen economy without an increase in airborne pollutants? After all, the clean-coal technology that many had hoped would clear the way for a hydrogen-powered future is still little more than a campaign promise (both John McCain and Barack Obama pledged to fund carbon-capture research).
Lack of Raw MaterialsMore bad news for hydrogen: the high price and potential scarcity of platinum, which is used as a catalyst in polymer electrolyte membrane (PEM) fuel cells. There are many different kinds of fuel cells, but with their relatively low operating temperatures (roughly 200 degrees Fahrenheit), PEM cells are the most compatible with vehicles.
Honda's Clarity, arguably the most efficient hydrogen vehicle on the road, uses a vertical stack of PEM cells. Hydrogen and oxygen flow into the cells, where a catalyst helps convert hydrogen ions into electricity. Currently, the best catalyst appears to be a thin coating of platinum. Honda President Takeo Fukui predicted that hydrogen cars could become commercially viable by 2018, if priced similarly to a new luxury car. For the technology to compete on a wider scale, researchers will have to find a new catalyst.
"There will be a platinum alternative," says Fritz Prinz, chairman of Stanford University's mechanical engineering department. "There are metal alternatives, some of which we're in the process of patenting now, and nonmetal alternatives. I would expect to see progress over the next five to 10 years." Another approach already showing results is platinum alloys, which incorporate less of the rare metal.
Can Hydrogen Become a Reality?Even so, Prinz believes that, despite all of their inherent challenges, hydrogen cars could become a reality due to raw necessity. "Hydrogen depends ultimately on what the larger energy infrastructure looks like. If it's solar, then storage will be big," Prinz says. Solar panels, like wind turbines, are intermittent power sources — their output spikes and plunges depending on the time of day and changing weather conditions.
Without an efficient way to store that energy, and then release it in measured, steady increments to meet the shifting hourly requirements of electric grids, solar-power providers risk either throwing away excess energy during low demand or coming up empty during peak hours.
While some experts believe that battery technology could eventually provide enough efficiency to store and release solar power, Prinz sees hydrogen as a more practical solution. "Solar can only become effective and feasible once you have a parallel of energy storage." The energy produced by photovoltaic panels could be used to extract hydrogen from another renewable resource: water. Strategic placement of solar farms could limit the length and number of hydrogen pipelines. This is a relationship that Honda is already exploring, with a demonstration home in Torrance, Calif., that uses rooftop solar panels to generate hydrogen, with a refueling station located in the garage.
Whether it's simply a marriage of convenience, or symbolic of the kind of cooperation many believe is necessary to reduce carbon emissions and dependence on oil, hydrogen's best hope for survival might be as the indispensable sidekick of another power source that's been stymied by the need for a long-term, large-scale infrastructure commitment. Still, the most optimistic estimates have hydrogen as a viable mainstream choice in a decade. Honda has no immediate plans to expand its pool of Clarity customers, and the FC Sport car it unveiled at the L.A. Auto Show is just a concept. Unless you're one of a few hundred early adopters, the hydrogen car is still miles down the road.
About The Author
Based out of the Boston area, Erik Sofge is frequent contributor to Popular Mechanics and Slate.com. He specializes in everything scientific and technical.

Wind And Solar Power

2009-01-19T15:50:00.000-08:00

Renewables: Solar power sees light at end of tunnelSource: Copyright 2008, Financial TimesDate: September 15, 2008Byline: Fiona HarveyOriginal URL
Wind power has long been the big beast of the renewable energy jungle. The technology to generate electricity from wind has been established for more than two decades, and in the past five years has been refined and expanded towards much larger and more powerful turbines including ones that can be used at sea, and towards very small turbines that can be fixed to office buildings or houses.
Last year, the US led the world in wind power installations for the third consecutive year, according to the American Wind Energy Association. Global wind capacity increased by more than 20 gigawatts last year, of which more than 5GW was in the US. Spain and China each built about 3.5GW of new capacity, and the rate of expansion in all these big markets is increasing.
Wind, however, is running into some problems. The massive expansion of wind generation capacity has outstripped the ability of manufacturers to keep up, leading to big order backlogs – which, along with rising raw material costs, have raised turbine prices by more than half.
Solar energy is the other main renewable contender. Solar power has lagged behind wind, partly because it has relied on expensive technologies such as silicon-based electronics, partly because solar installations have tended to produce less energy.
But this too is changing – silicon is falling in price, some massive solar installations are under construction, and new forms of solar energy have dispensed with the need for silicon altogether.
Both technologies face a bright future, however, says Simon Wannop, of the renewable energy team at consultancy Ernst & Young: “Constantly evolving technology and the increasing importance of renewables in the eyes of policy-makers makes this a particularly mouth-watering industry for investors.” Old objections to sun and wind power – that they are expensive and intermittent compared with fossil fuels – are falling away, he says.
Wind power is now becoming “cost-competitive” with fossil fuel electricity generation, says James Dehlsen, chief executive of Clipper Windpower, a US wind power specialist listed on the Alternative Investment Market in London.
Ivan Brems, chief executive of Hansen Transmissions, which supplies gearboxes for turbines and is owned by Suzlon of India, one of the world’s biggest turbine makers, says developing countries are catching up fast. According to the consultancy BTM, the European wind market will more than double between 2008 and 2012. But the Chinese wind market will nearly triple, and the Indian market will increase seven-fold, albeit from a smaller base.
According to Mr Wannop, “Capacity shortages, in terms of bottlenecks in parts of the wind turbine supply chain, are likely to remain in place for at least four to five years and perhaps longer until a global player emerges from China.”
Wind companies have traditionally been closely allied to conventional electricity companies. But Mr Dehlsen suggests that transport companies are the new natural allies of wind generators.
He predicts a massive expansion in the world’s electric vehicle fleet, which he says will play to wind’s strengths. Most wind energy is generated at night, when electricity demand is lower – but electricity is hard to store in quantity.
If more people use electric cars, and charge them up at night, that would solve this problem as the vehicle fleet will effectively act as a massive collective battery.
He says: “This presents a growth opportunity for wind technology perhaps unparalleled by other energy technologies in the history of electric power generation.”
Solar power is also taking off fast, with the world’s capacity to manufacture photovoltaic cells ramping up rapidly. A consequence is that the price of photovoltaic cells is dropping.
This is good news as it means that they are more affordable, and solar electricity will soon be comparable in cost to fossil fuel generation. However, it also means that solar companies will find their profit margins falling.
Dean Cooper, analyst at Ambrian, says the global capacity for solar module production is set to increase “dramatically”, from 3GW last year to 15 to 20GW of production in 2010.
Much of the growth is coming from China. This increase will mean that supply will outstrip demand for solar for the first time in many years – by the end of next year, according to several forecasts.
Copyright 2008, Financial Times

Why Buy An Electric Car?

2009-01-16T10:00:00.000-08:00

The electric car is coming.

Unlike most things in these days of economic turmoil, you can take that to the bank. But while many automakers have made some sort of commitment to offer some form of electric car, the major question is: Will we buy it?
Well, the promotion has begun. And here are 10 reasons why many pundits say that, Yes, we will be buying electric cars.
1. There is no engine. Think about the savings in gas and maintenance. And there are four electric motors that run the electric car so if one motor goes out, you still have the other three churning along. The now available space can be used by batteries that provide the vehicle with the longer range we all want. There is a new mini vehicle hybrid electric vehicle that has been said to have a range of 900 miles. Wow!2. Electric cars will be reliable. There is no doubt about that. And there is evidence of that already. There is an electric car that runs on solar power that has driven around the world. Double Wow!3. The electric car can actually save you money in the long run. They may be more expensive to buy initially, but you will no doubt save on the maintenance and fuel costs. 4. Solar roofs that can be used to provide energy to run the vehicles will provide free power from the sun. Solar panels have already been developed to achieve this and a Prius has been modified to include a solar roof which has been proven to extend its range and make driving even cheaper. 5. They are quiet. Walking on the streets of a large city could be almost a pleasure because it will be so quiet once the old gas engine cars make their way to the junkyard. 6. Samples like the Tesla Roadster already exist which show the benefits: 0 to 60 mph in 3.9 seconds; doesn’t burn oil; travels 244 miles per charge; costs pennies per mile.7. No infrastructure. The cars can be filled up so to speak by just plugging them into an electrical socket. 8. Besides being able to put solar panels on the roof of the vehicle, transparent solar panels have already been invented that can be put on the windshield providing more capability to turn sun light into energy and thus more range. 9. Believe it or not, there are companies that are developing “Solar Paint” -- paint that can generate electricity. So with solar panels on the roof and windshield and solar energy also coming from the paint on the surface of the vehicle, there is no chance that the car will be without power. Wow! Wow! Wow!10. Finally, it will end once and for all our dependence on foreign oil -- wait, it will eliminate our need for any oil.

via AboutMyPlanet

Mileage Tax Instead Of GasolineTax?

2009-01-04T23:19:00.000-08:00

US states look at taxing mileage instead of gas Sunday, January 04, 2009 United States of America USA Portland (Oregon): Oregon is among a growing number of US states exploring ways to tax drivers based on the number of miles they drive instead of how much gas they use, even going so far as to install GPS monitoring devices in 300 vehicles. The idea first emerged nearly 10 years ago as Oregon lawmakers worried that fuel-efficient cars such as gas-electric hybrids could pose a threat to road upkeep, which is paid for largely with gasoline taxes. “I’m glad we’re taking a look at it before the potholes get so big that we can’t even get out of them,” said Leroy Younglove, a Portland driver who participated in a recent pilot programme. The proposal is not without critics, including drivers who are concerned about privacy and others who fear the tax could eliminate the financial incentive for buying efficient vehicles. But Oregon is ahead of the nation in exploring the concept, even though it will probably be years before any mileage tax is adopted. Congress is talking about it, too. A congressional commission has envisioned a system similar to the prototype Oregon tested in 2006-2007. The National Commission on Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing is considering calling for higher gas taxes to keep highways, bridges and transit programmes in good shape. But over the long term, commission members say, the nation should consider taxing mileage rather than gasoline as drivers use more fuel-efficient and electric vehicles. Governor Ted Kulongoski has included development money for the tax in his budget proposal, and interest is growing in a number of other states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island have considered systems that would require drivers to report their mileage when they register vehicles. In North Carolina last month, a panel suggested charging motorists a quartercent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax. James Whitty, the Oregon Department of Transportation employee in charge of the state’s effort, said he’s also heard talk of mileage tax proposals in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Colorado and Minnesota. “There is kind of a coalition that’s naturally forming around this,” he said. AP

Worried that hybrid cars could threaten road upkeep, which is paid for with gas taxes, US states are mulling taxing mileage

Europe Is Not Run By Their Big Corpoations!!

2009-01-04T17:06:00.000-08:00

Will Valence’s European Bet Win It a Profit?
Written by Jennifer Kho
3 Comments
Posted January 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm in Automotive

Valence Technology has been working to bring phosphate-based lithium-ion batteries to large-format applications such as vehicles since 1989. In other words, it’s essentially been waiting for the electric-car market to take off for nearly two decades.
But the company thinks its waiting period is over. It says it has found a real – not potential – market for electric vehicles across the pond. And company officials are betting that Europe, not the U.S. or Asia, will be the ultimate winner in the race for the electric car.
Valence makes lithium-iron-phosphate and lithium-iron-magnesium-phosphate batteries for hybrid and electric commercial vehicles. It claims its batteries can fully charge and discharge more often than regular lithium-ion batteries, and also are less likely to catch fire (phosphate is a key ingredient in fire extinguishers).
Valence began to focus on Europe about two years ago, when it realized that automakers there already were launching electric delivery vans and hybrid buses, CEO Bob Kanode said. “We were looking for a market where we could sell and we found Europe, with its incredible designs and very strong government and public support,” he said. “[Europeans] are absolutely dedicated to alternative-energy solutions and view this [electric vehicles] as maybe their last opportunity to make a difference in the automotive sector.”
Among other customers, Valence this year signed sales deals with Smith Electric Vehicles, a UK maker of electric commercial vans and trucks; PVI, a French manufacturer of electric buses and other vehicles; and Oxygen SpA, an Italian company that makes an electric scooter called Cargoscooter. Companies such as Modec, a UK-based supplier of electric delivery vans, and Wrightbus, a UK Wright Group subsidiary that makes double-decker buses, also are testing Valence batteries. Through these relationships, Valence is building connections to large automakers, such as Renault, which is a PVI partner; Peugot, which is an Oxygen partner; Volvo, which is a Wrightbus partner; and Ford and Isuzu, which are Smith Electric partners.
The company has already grown large in size — it has the capacity to make 100 metric tons of cathode material per month and about $20 million worth of battery packs per quarter. Valence plans to eventually expand from commercial vehicles into consumer cars, and also is working with UK and Spanish utilities to bring backup batteries to the electrical grid, Kanode said.
Still, Valence’s success in Europe has yet to translate into a profit. The company in November posted a second-quarter net loss that grew 26.5 percent to $6.2 million, or 5 cents per share, from $4.9 million, or 4 cents per share, in the year-ago quarter. At the same time revenue rose 3.5 percent to $5.8 million from $5.6 million in the same quarter in 2007.
And the company faces several challenges. For one thing, battery limitations mean that electric vehicles have shorter ranges than their gasoline counterparts, and that could limit the market. For example, most of Valence’s partners get ranges of more than 100 miles, Kanode said. Automakers such as GM and DaimlerChrylser have previously said they are aiming for alternative vehicles that can travel at least 300 miles before refueling, to be comparable to gasoline cars. Drivers are accustomed to being able to drive long distances on a single tank, and range could be even more of an issue with electric cars, which can take hours to recharge.
Electric car advocates argue that most drivers don’t need long ranges. After all, most European commuters travel less than 60 kilometers (about 37 miles) daily, or less than 19 miles each way, with 80 percent of German car owners driving 50 kilometers (about 31 miles) or less each day, according to GM. “We often give people that are testing us surprisingly more range than they want,” Kanode said. “It’s not a problem.”
Also, Valence is developing more efficient lithium-vanadium-phosphate and lithium-vanadium-phosphate-fluoride batteries, he said. Higher efficiency could increase the batteries’ runtime (and the vehicles’ range).
Meanwhile, the economy could slow the hybrid- and electric-vehicle market. In November, U.S. hybrid sales fell 50 percent from the same month last year. Earlier this month, Norwegian electric-car maker Think Global halted production, and in October, Menlo Park, Calif.-based Tesla Motors announced layoffs and the delay of its next model.
The uncertain economy could make it more difficult for Valence to raise more money to expand and also could hinder some of Valence’s customers from attracting funding to buy its batteries, Kanode said. “Nobody knows what this market is going to do,” he said.
Nonetheless, Valence expects support for electric vehicles will stay strong in Europe, regardless of the economy. “People view it as an absolute necessity to reduce dependence on foreign oil and everyone is very concerned about the environment and determined to reduce their footprint,” Kanode said. “We don’t see any slow-up at all. It’s a very different environment from the United States.”
For additional Electric Vehice news visit http://www.time4evs.com

This Is Where The Bailout Money Should Have Gone!

2009-01-04T17:03:00.000-08:00

Myers Motors has just delivered the nation’s first all-electric (110 volt outlet charging), highway speed (76 mph), lithium battery powered, sub-$30,000 vehicle. [1]
The Myers Motors NmG-1 is a single passenger all electric vehicle. [2]
The first development was the concept that there are so many vehicles in America, and that so many households have more than one vehicle, that vehicles sized for the jobs they do makes practical sense. [...] The execution of this line of thinking was the single passenger vehicle which has large enough occupancy for 9 out of 10 commuters and almost 7 out of 10 miles driven in the US. [1]
The vehicles are so eye-catching that Hollywood star Mike Myers featured a group of them in the movie Austin Powers in Goldmember. [2]
The NmG, the former Corbin Sparrow, is a single-seat electric three-wheeler (one in the rear, two in front) that can go 70 mph. [3]
It is the most limited edition car ever manufactured. [2]
The latest development, the third key, is lithium battery technology that promises to last the lifetime of the vehicle (100,000 miles +), almost double the daily practical range to 50 miles (in the NmG) and enable you to drive 1000 miles on only $20 of fuel. [1]
The single-passenger, three-wheeled NmG has outstanding acceleration, can reach speeds of 70 mph and has a range of 30 miles between charges. [4]
The help needed is also for you to make your wishes known to your elected officials that you want Middle Class Americans the same access to the $7500 electric vehicle tax credit that the rich and famous now get but that is not available to most of us because we can’t afford a $100,000+ electric sports car. [1]
It is essentially the body of the original Corbin Sparrow with the entire transport system, electronics, and charging systems completely reengineered by the people at Myers Motors. [2]
The second development followed the first … the vehicle’s range only needed to meet how people were actually going to use that vehicle … and with 50% of the cars on the road travelling less than 30 miles per day, a 30 mile range was practical. [1]
In its small plant in Tallmadge, Ohio, Myers Motors devoted more than a year enhancing key components of a ground-breaking electric vehicle to create the NmG. [4]
The NmG has a range of 30 miles and takes six to eight hours to recharge. [3]
We are working to bring you practical, affordable, highway speed electric vehicles and our next step is to reduce the purchase price of our No more Gas electric vehicle … and to do it using US technology and US labor to create US jobs that put US citizens for work for products that are sold in the US. [1]
Sources:[1] Myers Motors[2] Myers Motors NMG 1 Electric Vehicle[3] New car preview - Myers Motors NmG[4] 2006 Myers Motors NMG
window.google_render_ad();

Electric Vehicle News

2008-12-25T22:02:00.000-08:00

ElectricVehicle News

Energy Options That Might Not Destroy Us.

Tesla Roadster Runs Quarter Mile In 12.7 Seconds

Current Electric Vehicle News

2008-12-23T17:52:00.000-08:00

Current Electric Vehicle News

12/22

China Set To Usurp The US Auto Industry?

Robert Llewellyn's rant about EVs

Electrical Energy Storage Ultra Capacitors

Zap Execs Say Bailout Money Should Go To Electric Startups

12/20

Money Should Go To Electric Start-ups

Zap Electric Cars (Zero Air Polution) Has Delivered More Than 100000 Electric Vehicles Since 1994

Coming Soon To Hawaii, Electric Car Battery Swapping Stations

How To Fix Global Warming

Active Wheel Affordable Electric Car.

The Auto Industry Can Be Saved

2008-11-25T19:09:00.000-08:00

November 25, 2008 by preplan

I just read yet another article stating that the American auto

industry is a decade or more away from being able to profitably

produce and market alternate energy vehicles. They have been saying

this for 30 years. The problem is, that compared to gasoline and

diesel powered cars, all electric and electric hybrid cars are

substantially more expensive. Some claim that Toyota loses money on

every Prius it sells. I’m not sure why that needs to be, but let’s

just accept the cost differential as fact. I’ve said it before, the

answer is simple, eliminate the competition - pass legislation

banning the production and import of gasoline and diesel powered

vehicles. Poof, problem solved, now all car companies will be

competing with each other to produce the most desirable next-gen

vehicles. All car companies will not be distracted developing and

marketing a dozen different lines of vehicles that compete with

next-gen vehicles. The rush will be on to design, develop, and tool

up, and as I also said before, if we can produce hundreds of

thousands of tanks, aircraft, jeeps, and heavy weapons in the span

of 4 years during World War II, with our robot driven highly

efficient production methods today, we certainly can do what it

takes to solve this problem.

The focus has been on the cost of the car when in reality the focus

should be on the cost of ownership. Cost of ownership includes the

purchase price, service, and all operating costs such as fuel and

oil. When we look at operating costs and if we come up with the

most cost effective means of fueling alternative vehicles, the

next-gen vehicles win hands down even if you need to replace a

$6,000 battery every 5 years!

Anyone that has been following my articles knows that I have been

pushing the PRE-Plan, a plan to allow every electricity consumer,

individual and business alike, to invest directly in large-scale

renewable energy and get their share of the electricity produced as

their return on investment. I won’t rehash the PRE-Plan, you can

read about it in my book or visit the web site. Lets take two

vehicles, a $30,000 gasoline powered car and a $45,000 all electric.

I’m going to add $5,000 to the all-electric vehicle to invest

(using the PRE-Plan) in large-scale renewable energy, enough to

eliminate my fuel expense for 20 to 30 years. So, I now have a

$30,000 gasoline powered car and a $50,000 all electric.

Let’s assume that gasoline remains relatively cheap for the next

10years ($3/gallon average) and that our cars last exactly 10 years.

An all electric vehicle doesn’t need much regular service, doesn’t

need the oil changed, has an all electric transmission, and is

basically significantly less mechanical than the gasoline powered

cars. We might expect to spend $500 per year on regular maintenance

for the gasoline powered car and perhaps $100 per year for the

all-electric. With current battery technology it is estimated that

we may need to replace the battery as often as every 5 years and

possibly only every 10 years, we’ll go with 5. Let’s assume we drive

15,000 miles a year and the gasoline powered car gets 30 miles to

the gallon.

Gasoline All Electric
Purchase Price $30,000 $45,000
Annual Service $5,000 $1,000
Battery Replacement $0 $6,000
Fuel $15,000 $5,000
Total $50,000 $56,000

The alternative fuel vehicle turns out to be $6,000 more expensive,

but that’s not the whole picture. I said before, the added $5,000 to

purchase electricity through the PRE-Plan covered 20 to 30 years,

yet we are assuming our vehicle only lasts 10 years. That implies

that we have an additional 10 to 20 years worth of pre-paid fuel for

our next vehicle(s), thus reducing the initial costs of those by at

the very least $5,000 each. We can also anticipate that gasoline and

even electricity prices ten years from now will be substantially

higher, substantially tilting the equation in favor of an

all-electric vehicle.

There are a number of advances in battery technology that may

already be nearing production, but even if they aren’t widely

available for ten years, such advances will further and further tilt

the cost advantage of all-electric. These new batteries promise to

receive a full charge in as little as 5 minutes, offer 15 or more

years of useful life, and be relatively cheap to produce and be

environmentally friendly. Assuming all other things remain equal and

the cost of these new battery technologies is the same as existing

batteries, we would end up eliminating the $6,000 battery

replacement cost from the table above and since we have already

pre-paid for the electricity, we eliminate the added $5,000 for fuel

and this holds true for not only our next car but our next two cars;

a total saving of $11,000 per purchase or $22,000.

As long as the auto industry is allowed to produce gasoline and

diesel powered vehicles they will be compelled to do so at the

expense of the environment while pitting their existing gasoline and

diesel marketing strategy against next-gen vehicles. The above

formulas won’t work as well if we assume that automakers can boost

the average gas mileage to 60 miles per gallon, yet that ignores the

reality of our need to eliminate out dependence on foreign oil and

to address climate change. Once again, we tend to lose focus when

we look at the window sticker price in isolation. We should not

allow the car companies to continue adding to the problems of oil

dependency and global warming and the car companies should be

begging the government to impose such legislation, thus eliminating

the fall-back on gasoline and diesel. If the vehicles end up

costing more in order to be profitable, fine, that’s the price we

pay.

One of the things we all know to be true but haven’t found a way to

quantify are the hidden costs of gasoline and diesel powered

vehicles. There are health costs, terrorism tied to our Middle East

dealings over oil, military expenditures, and on and on. We all

know that a gallon of gasoline should cost closer to $10/gallon, we

just can’t figure out how to get from the current $2 to the $10

figure, nor do any of us want that. What we want is for these

sticky problems to go away and for us to be able to drive as far and

fast as we wish and for it to cost little or nothing and cause no

pollution and no hardship.

If we don;t use the PRE-Plan to fund the electricity used to power

all-electric vehicles, we might be looking at electric costs of

around $100/month depending on where you live and the cost of

electricity. For people living in an area where electricity costs

$0.06/kWh, their cost might be less than $50, for people living in

Hawaii or Alaska, thier price might be over $200. With the

PRE-Plan, assuming that the cost to build the reneable energy

projects are essentially the same from one region to the other, the

cost of conventionally produced electricity is irellevant and our

$5,000 investment will purchase all the electricity needed

regardless of if you live in Hawaii or Spokane which have vastly

different costs for electricity. To really understand how we can

save the auto industry, the economy, and the environment all at the

same time, I suggest you read my book. The book was written before

the current financial meltdown but it is even more viable now that

our economy is teetering on the brink of disaster.

Study Confirms Future Of Electric Vehicles(UK)

2008-11-19T11:25:00.000-08:00

Electric vehicles recharged from the national grid could

potentially cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 40% compared

to vehicles powered by carbon-based fuels, new research has found.

The study by Arup and Cenex on behalf of the Department for Business

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport,

also found that contrary to common perception, the UK electricity

grid has sufficient generating capacity to cope with a greater

uptake of electrified vehicles.

"Beyond the long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions created

by switching to electric vehicles, it also makes sense to try to use

the surplus capacity in the grid during off-peak times,” said Arup's

director of advanced technology and research, Neil Ridley.
"And one of the keys to an improved uptake of electric and hybrid

cars will be the collaboration between stakeholders including

manufacturers, local authorities and energy providers to address

issues related to standards for charging, consumer education and the

development and deployment of new technologies."

The news follows confirmation of the largest public funding of any

initiative aimed at developing technology within the automotive

industry, with the government pledging £100 million to develop low

carbon vehicles in the UK and private companies pledging a further

£100 million.

A raft of major projects have since been announced, all aimed at

rapidly advancing low-carbon vehicle technology and developing a

mass market for these vehicles.

One such project will see 10 public sector fleets trial low-carbon

vans in real-world fleet conditions.
Adrian Vinsome, programme manager for the Low Carbon Vehicle

Procurement Programme, which is overseeing the project, said: “We

recognised the broad desire among local authorities to reduce carbon

emissions from their sizeable fleets and improve operational

efficiency.”

Alongside this, a new £10 million initiative has also been announced

that will see 100 low-carbon demonstration vehicles trialled by

fleets across the country.

It is expected that these vehicles will be on the road within 12

months.

To Bailout Or Not To Bailout?

2008-11-19T11:20:00.000-08:00

GoGreenSolar.com

Blog Roll

Monday, November 17, 2008
Support Electric Cars, Let the Big Three Fall

Did you know over 3 million jobs will be lost if the Big Three Fail?

As a clean energy supporter and free markets advocate I say SO WHAT!

Not because I am a heartless soul, I do understand the human impact

that will be caused by the collapse of these dysfunctional companies

but because I have an insider's view of the huge opportunity in

terms of vehicles that are very efficient and take advantage of

renewable energy, they're on the market today and getting better

everyday.

The Big Three automakers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) should not get

bailed out because their actions are the reasons why the automakers

are in the position they are in today. Some people don't know, but

GM released an electric car called the EV-1 back in 1996 which could

only be leased with a clause in the contract making it impossible

for the lessee to ever purchase the car! In 2003, GM decided to

cancel the electric vehicle project and destroyed their fleet of

electric vehicles. According to GM's CEO Rick Wagoner said the worst

decision of his tenure at GM was, "axing the EV1 electric-car

program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t

affect profitability, but it did affect image."

In 2007, GM R&D chief Larry Burns stated in a Newsweek article, "I

wish GM did not kill the electric vehicle project and If we could

turn back the hands of time we could have had the Chevy Volt 10

years earlier." The Chevy Volt is an prototype electric vehicle that

GM is rushing to complete, but does not know if the Volt will ever

hit the market due to GM's unstable position today.

It does not make sense..there was surging demand for the EV-1, long

waiting lists, customers begging GM to buy the cars, but the

automaker refused. Any savvy Business man would take the customer

feedback as a sign of moving forward with a project. So why are the

American automakers notorious for making fuel inefficient vehicles?

It's quite obvious the Oil Industry is in bed with the Big Three

Automakers.

The Toyota Prius Hybrid is the best selling fuel efficient car in

the US. Although full electric vehicles being manufactured by Tesla

Motors right here in the good ole USA are in high demand too. Fisker

Automotive is another company that is developing a sports Hybrid.

Electrorides is selling an Electric Mini Cooper and a very

interesting Utility Truck called the ZeroTruck, sweet an all

electric truck!

The point I'm trying to make is that there are entrepreneurial

companies out there that can create a better car, that people are

demanding today. If the Big Three fall, it would create a huge

opportunity in the automobile market in which many new jobs would be

formed, simulating the economy. People are already retrofitting

hybrids with solar panels and charging up electric vehicles from

solar electric systems. These new vehicles would also simulate the

"new energy economy". Should we bail the US auto industry out too?

Can we afford to?

Deny The Bailout

2008-11-17T11:38:00.000-08:00

Kicking Our Oil Addiction Back to Opinion

Denying Big Three a Bailout Can Be a Historic Opportunity to Get America off Oil and Save Detroit
Edwin Black November 17th 2008

The impulse to accede to political pressure and jobs blackmail from the Big Three for a $25 billion bailout offers America a historic turning-point opportunity. This is the country’s chance to both reform the auto industry and ignite a massive shift off of oil in one master stroke. How?

The $25 billion in lending should not go to the Big Three as a reward for consciously addicting this country to oil and subverting the alternatives. A better idea is to allocate the same $25 billion in lending—but not to the Big Three. Instead, offer loans at rates as low as student loans to any American citizen or fleet manager willing to buy an alternative fuel, flex-fuel, open fuel standard, or alternative propulsion vehicle--new or retrofitted. This would provide an immediate incentive for Detroit and Torrance, California to spend the approximate $100 per vehicle necessary to make every car and truck a multi-fuel or open-fuel vehicle.

When we say open-fuel or multi-fuel, we are not talking about the governmental cash cow currently going to the corn ethanol-big oil combine. We are talking about fuel systems that can function on all forms of combustibles from methanol (the Chinese use 50 million gallons a year while we use none) to second generation biofuel such as cellulosic ethanol. There is already pending legislation advocating the open-fuel standard and the multi-fuel approach. Why wait?

At the same time, legislation should immediately eliminate the $.54 per gallon penalty tax assessed to every gallon of sugar cane ethanol that Brazil struggles to export to America’s Southeast. In the process, we should cut the $8 billion in government subsidies annually handed to the corn ethanol-big oil combine and use that money to both fund 25 percent of the bailout money and open a string of multi-fuel service stations throughout the country offering everything from compressed natural gas (CNG) to methanol to hydrogen to electric charging.

Washington can also use a portion of that $25 billion to fund surge production of alternative fuels and propulsion from trash-to-gas to hydrogen to electric. Dozens of small companies are waiting to implement their ideas or expand beyond their mom-and-pop operations into regional or national purveyors.

A few billion dollars of that loan money should also go to fund any company that will retrofit America’s existing 250 million gas-consuming vehicles to alternative propulsion fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electric and multi-fuel. A vehicle can be converted to CNG for $4,000 to $10,000 depending on the particular vehicle. A company in California can convert any internal combustion vehicle to electric for $10,000 to 16,000. Naturally, there would have to be a temporary suspension of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations that prohibit retrofitting cars off gasoline without being subjected to onerous bureaucratic obstruction and $50,000 to $100,000 in processing fees. The Iranians are currently converting 20 percent of their automotive fleet annually from gasoline to CNG in an effort to circumvent anticipated sanctions against its importing of gasoline. The cost in Iran is about $50 per vehicle; the vehicles go in during the morning and come out in the afternoon.

Some of those billions can also fund Big Three transition to open-fuel or multi-fuel vehicles. The cost is about $100 per vehicle. About 1.5 million vehicles are produced monthly in the United States. Carmakers can be paid by the vehicle.

If Washington funds the purchase of alternative fuel and alternative propulsion vehicles and fuels, and mandates their use, the Big Three automakers will scrap their plans for sexed-up gas guzzlers and start producing and retrofitting the non-oil vehicles the entire nation needs.

Fund the public, not the problem. Help the country, not the corporations.

If all this sounds like a Manhattan Project, it should. The proposed Big Three bailout is $25 billion. The World War II Manhattan Project, in today’s money, only spent $22 billion.

Edwin Black is the author of The Plan: How to Rescue Society the Day the Oil Stops--or the Day Before (Dialog Press).

Copyright © 2007-2008 The Cutting Edge News

2008-11-13T17:57:00.000-08:00

The news today is full of Congress debating whether we should bail out
the auto industry. They didn't ask for help when they arbitrarily lowered
the average miles per gallon ratings by foisting the suvs and trucks on us.
They didn't ask for help when they pulled back the electric vehicles because
they were too good (no gas, no mantainance). They didn't ask for help when they okayed exorbinant pay and fringes for the workers (and execs). They didn't
ask for help when they were the largest seller of vehicles in the world
(they lost that distinction to Toyota recently).
But now, when all of the ineptness becomes apparent ,they ask for help.
Wow, we are one dumb country if they get it. They should wallow in their
own mess.
Let the new companies that are producing electric vehicles we need reap the benefits and assimilate the workers displaced.

2008-11-12T22:24:00.000-08:00

Electric vehicles on the move

We all know is that there is no panacea for our green transport problems. Solutions will come from a variety of different sources from use of lightweight materials, even better engineered internal combustion engines, more refined fuels, bio-fuels, hybrids, etc. And one option gaining increased favour is the electric vehicle. With fuel cell technology improving the possibility of wider take-up of this solution, we are hearing of more trials taking place.

The latest news is that Amey is trying out Smart electric cars in Birmingham, Oxford and Plymouth. This comes hot on the heels of an electric scooter being tested by Lothian and Borders Police in Edinburgh as a potential replacement for the patrol car.

One of the arguments against the electric vehicle is that you are replacing one kind of carbon footprint for another. If you charge an electric vehicle, you need to extract energy from the national grid, which means burning fossil fuels at local power stations.

Research conducted on behalf of the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport (DfT) has now placed a green cost on recharging electric vehicles. According to the study, greenhouse gasses could be cut by as much as 40 per cent even though there is reliance on burning fossil fuels to charge the electric vehicles.

The study by Arup and Cenex also indicates that the national grid has sufficient capacity to handle the extra demand placed on it despite denials today by government that in ten years time the lights could go out at regular intervals.

Furthermore, as charging would take place mostly overnight, drivers of electric vehicles would be taking advantage of off-peak electricity.

Last month, the Technology Strategy Board unveiled a £10m project, co-funded by the DfT, to pilot up to 100 low-carbon demonstration vehicles across the UK to promote electric and hybrid vehicles in real-life situations. The Board is also to invest a further £10m on the ‘electrification’ of road transport.

It would appear that fresh impetus has been given to promoting the take-up of electric vehicles, which undoubtedly are a good solution in urban areas. The only major drawback I see is one of silence. How will pedestrians avoid stepping out into the path of electric vehicles when for years now they have not had the familiarity of listening out for the local milk float? Technology will have to be deployed to make such vehicles better heard on the road.

One thing’s for sure, the rise in popularity of the electric vehicle will give new meaning to the ‘Plug and Go’ slogan!

2008-10-22T21:38:00.000-07:00

The “E”: Mini’s New Electric Car
Written by Adam Shake

Sunday, October 19, 2008

The BMW Group is about to become the first manufacturer of premium automobiles to deploy a fleet of nearly 500 all electric vehicles for private use in daily traffic. Powered by a 150 kW (204 hp) electric motor and fed by a high-performance rechargeable lithium-ion battery, the vehicle will be nearly silent and emissions free.
The Mini E will have a range of about 150 miles and will initially be offered to select private and corporate customers in California, New York and New Jersey, but will first be given its world premiere at the LA Auto Show on November 19th and 20th, 2008.

As for its speed, BMW claims that it will offer acceleration to 62 mph in 8.5 seconds with a top speed that is electronically limited to 95 mph.

BMW Group says that putting 500 cars on the road under real daily traffic conditions will make it possible to gain widely applicable hand-on experience. Evaluating these finding will generate valuable know-how, which will be factored into the engineering of mass-produced vehicles.

Based on the current Mini model, the car will initially be available as a two-seater. (The space in the back seat will initially be taken up by the lithium-ion battery.) The battery can be plugged into all standard power outlets and its charge time is strongly dependent on the voltage and amperage of the electricity flowing through the grid. That’s why, in the USA, buyers will receive a wall-box that will ship with every Mini E. The wall-box will be installed in the customer’s garage, enabling higher amperage. Wall-boxes will fully recharge the batteries after two-and-a-half hours.

The Mini E’s styling is a bit different. A specially designed logo in Yellow, depicting a power plug in the shape of an “E” is set against a silver backdrop. It will be applied to the roof, the front and back, and the charger port lid.

Production of the approximately 500 cars will take place at the company’s Oxford and Munich sites and is scheduled for completion before the end of 2008.

If you’re like me, you’ll be eagerly anticipating seeing these new cars on the road.

Toyota Too

2008-09-25T00:22:00.000-07:00

Toyota will provided four electric vehicles
Posted by admin | Toyota Prius hybrid car | Wednesday 24 September 2008 4:58 pm
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. on Wednesday said it will provided four electric vehicles for use in Portland as a shuttle from mass-transit stops.

The automaker, speaking at a Sustainable Mobility Seminar in Portland, said it would put four of its RAV4 electric vehicles into operation in Portland. Portland State University will develop a program to use the vehicles to shuttle people from transit terminals to downtown and suburban locations, Toyota said in a news release.

The news comes as Portland General Electric Co. continues to roll out a series of electric car-charging stations across the metro area where the cars can refuel.

“It’s obvious that the next several years will see a growing number of low-emission and no-emission vehicle options, particularly electric and hybrid vehicles,” George Beard of PSU’s Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, said in the news release. “Our region’s position in renewable energy and its leadership reputation in urban sustainability make this partnership a natural for all involved.”

Toyota also announced a series of other announcements at the event Wednesday, including its plans to display a Camry hybrid powered by compressed natural gas at the Los Angeles Auto Show, and that the company is studying the business case for remanufacturing hybrid vehicle batters in North America as a way of lowering replacement costs.

Toyota is taking a fresh look at compressed natural gas as a power source for U.S. automobiles, and plans to unveil a Camry Hybrid concept car powered by the fuel at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November.

Toyota officials made the announcement Tuesday at a sustainability forum in Portland, where they said the abundance, pricing and clean-burning properties of natural gas could make it an attractive fuel in an era of tightening oil supplies and increased regulation of automotive emissions.

Irv Miller, a Toyota Motor Sales group vice president, said compressed natural gas could become a “prime energy source for the future.”

Back in 1999, Toyota marketed a CNG-powered four-cylinder Camry as a fleet vehicle to some California customers. But the program — at a time of much lower oil prices — did not catch on and was discontinued later.

The United States now has about 1,000 CNG refueling stations, with about half of them open to the public, according to Toyota officials.

The new concept car will mix the Toyota’s electric hybrid technology with the CNG technology, but no details of the range of the vehicle were released Tuesday.

In Portland, Toyota officials discussed other research efforts as well, including work to increase the efficiency of the electric-gasoline hybrids that propel the popular Prius and other models.

Toyota also is planning a limited rollout in 2009 of a plug-in Prius that would operate on a lithium ion battery rather than the nickel-metal hydride batteries used in the current Prius. The plug-in could operate for a limited distance solely on the battery, and then could be plugged in to an outlet to be recharged.

Toyota also is researching all-electric cars, and on Tuesday announced it would place four of these vehicles — a version of the RAV4 — in Portland. Those cars, with a range of about 80 miles between charges, are intended to help the city and Oregon develop an electric-charging infrastructure, and will be used by Portland State University to carry people from mass-transit terminals to downtown and suburban locations.

Chump Change

2008-09-21T21:48:00.000-07:00

DIY Forum

I believe that's what "they" (most in congress) consider a person or corporation who would promote electric vehicles, a chump, whose interest would it serve to promote or even more absurdly mandate such a thing,? Where is the money to be made and who could they collect it from" Certainly not through a gasoline tax. If the electric vehicle industry took off it would in effect cripple if not decimate the existing business/tax platform enjoyed by auto makers and the federal government alike, why would they allow a change? These so called elected representatives of the people by the people, obviously through their inaction have failed miserably to promote and enact legislation that would revolutionalize the transportation industry as we know it. Infrastructures and transportation industry platforms must and will change, these corporate puppets know this they are not stupid people. Their actions and inactions have shown them to have been serving a different master and he or should I say they are not you and I. As for batteries I am waiting for A123 systems to provide a $5,000 battery not $10,000 to replace my current nine 8volt Enegizer golf cart batteries which provide a paltry 15 miles of range. I'll probably be waiting in vain to collect my social security benefits by the time that reality is recognized. I hope I'm wrong.

The New Ebox

2008-09-21T21:32:00.000-07:00

from DIY forum

The eBox is a new electric car from AC Propulsion. We designed it to meet the needs of urban and suburban drivers who want smooth, quiet, powerful, efficient, clean, convenient, and fun-to-drive transportation. The eBox will satisfy those drivers because it is powered by AC Propulsion’s patented drive system technology that delivers an unprecedented combination of both power, at freeway speeds, and efficiency, when the going gets slow. The eBox’s unique lithium ion battery, made from 5,088 small cells, stores more energy with less weight than other EV batteries so the eBox is light, responsive, and well-balanced even though the interior offers space for five comfortable people or for the many other items that people need to move around town. Well-built and fully-equipped, the eBox creates a serenity for its passengers, a serenity borne of the many virtues of electric transportation. At AC Propulsion, we can’t take credit for those virtues, but we can take credit for putting them on the road in the eBox. We are proud of the eBox. Since our founding in 1992, it is the best EV we’ve built.

We build the eBox by converting a Scion xB 5-speed to electric power. We chose the xB after looking at every small car on the market. The gasoline Scion xB costs less than $15,000 well-equipped and weighs less than 2400 pounds. The xB is huge inside so it meets the needs of a lot of people and it appeals to fleets. Scion is a Toyota brand and the Scion xB is built with Toyota quality. Not everyone likes the looks of the xB, but as the basis for a great EV conversion, the xB has the look of a winner.

Planning for what would become the eBox started in 2003 after the AC Propulsion tzero demonstrated the potential of Li Ion batteries by winning the 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum. In 2005, we made the decision to go into limited production. The eBox is built to order, starting with a customer-owned xB, and we are now starting to build the first cars for customers. We are also planning to display and demonstrate the eBox all around California as opportunities arise. Please watch this space for more information about the AC Propulsion eBox.

As a final note, in an unintended irony, the first eBox prototype was driven for the first time on June 24, 2006. That was the opening day for Chris Paine’s must-see documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?

Money

2008-09-21T13:15:00.000-07:00

MONEY.

Auto makers say fuel cell cars are clean an environmentally friendly. But so are EVs, which are even cleaner, considering charging from solar, hydro or wind sources. Auto makers sure are pro environment, but as long as you keep buying fuel and keep servicing overly complex vehicles. Doesn't matter what type of fuel, as long as they are in control of your pocket, they're happy. Are you happy too? Not to mention who exactly gets the money for all that imported oil...

Have you questioned anyone how much energy is needed to produce a hydrogen you're going to pay for? You need electricity to run the equipment reforming hydrogen to the useable for FC form. And then, the hydrogen is going to be used to get back electricity to run a vehicle propulsion motor. What's wrong with this picture? Isn't it simpler, cheaper, more efficient and just plain makes more sense to just store initial electricity directly in a car's battery in the first place?

Hydrogen is an extremely clever scam. When you step back and ask, "Where will the hydrogen come from?" the house of cards falls apart. You will get hydrogen from fossil fuels. The most economic way to get hydrogen is to catalyze natural gas. When you do this, you throw away 50% of the fuel value. If you were to put that hydrogen into a fuel-cell car, it would only go 50% the distance (at best) that a hybrid car would, if fueled from the natural gas directly. The oil company loves it. They get to sell twice as much per mile driven. It is also twice as much CO2 per mile driven. (G.W. = Global Warming)

If you choose to make hydrogen for your fuel cell car from electricity, an EV using that electricity directly will go at least twice as far.

Many of the foaming advocates of hydrogen say, "But we can figure out a way to make hydrogen more efficiently if we hurl big research dollars at the problem." Unfortunately, there are only so many hydrogen atoms in each methane molecule. Also, until we unlock the secret of photosynthesis, there will be no efficient way to make hydrogen. Batteries will always be more efficient at storing electricity than hydrogen gas.

Think of all the money we have spent on fusion power and it will give you just a peek of how much we would have to spend on electrolysis to make it more efficient. There are many many other areas in alternative fuels that will reap greater rewards on a faster timetable for far less money. (Like biodiesel) Of course, the oil companies really wouldn't like that, would they.

Finally, please read this independed report to be better informed about reality.

Can an EV run far? Well, if an EV could run more than 340 miles on a single charge 10 years ago, you'd think that today technology can be only better, especially if part of the money going into FC research would be spent advancing EV batteries. Can it run fast? Is about 300 mph fast enough for you? Can it be quick? How does 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds sound? Can you own an electric car for every day use? Yes! If you're fed up with Big three, motivated enough and have a handy man skills or can get help, you can convert a conventional vehicle to an EV yourself. Or you can buy a conversion made by other EVers. Thousands have done it. You too can make a difference. If you are thinking about doing EV conversion yourself, I'll show you how I did it.

Startup Converting Ford F-150s Into 41 MPG Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles

Written by Clayton B. Cornell

Published on July 28th, 20085 CommentsPosted in Car hacks / Mods, Hybrid-electric EVs

welcome

2008-08-29T16:48:00.000-07:00

Welcome to my blog.

Sam McWilliam

Visit my website at
http://www.thenutsinmarketing.com

Fuel Cell vs Plug in Electric Vehicles

2008-08-29T15:44:00.000-07:00

A Cost Comparison of Fuel-Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles

Stephen Eaves*, James Eaves

Eaves Devices, Charlestown, RI, Arizona State University-East, Mesa, AZ
Abstract

This paper compares the manufacturing and refueling costs of a Fuel-Cell Vehicle (FCV)

and a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) using an automobile model reflecting the largest

segment of light-duty vehicles. We use results from widely-cited government studies to

compare the manufacturing and refueling costs of a BEV and a FCV capable of delivering

135 horsepower and driving approximately 300 miles. Our results show that a BEV

performs far more favorably in terms of cost, energy efficiency, weight, and volume. The

differences are particularly dramatic when we assume that energy is derived from

renewable resources.

Keywords: Battery-Electric Vehicle; Fuel-Cell Vehicle; Well-to-Wheel; Energy Pathway

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 401-315-0547; E-mail: stepheneaves@eavesdevices.com

1. Introduction

Both the federal and state governments have enacted legislation designed to promote

the eventual widespread adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. For instance, California

enacted the Zero-Emissions-Vehicle (ZEV) program mandating automakers to claim

ZEV credits for a small percentage of total vehicle sales starting in 2003.

Further, the last version of the 2003 energy bill included over a billion dollars

in incentives for automakers to develop technology related to Fuel-Cell Vehicles.

Currently, the Fuel-Cell Vehicle (FCV) and the Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)

are the only potential ZEV replacements of the internal combustion engine,

however, no studies have directly compared the two technologies in terms of performance

and cost when considering the most recent advances in battery and fuel-cell technology.

Below, we compare BEV and FCV technologies based on a vehicle model that is capable

of delivering 100 kW of peak power, and 60 kWh total energy to the wheels.1 This translates

into a vehicle that is capable of delivering 135 horsepower and driving

approximately 300 miles. The vehicle characteristics are comparable to a small

to midsize car, such as a Honda Civic, representing the largest segment of the

light-duty vehicle class [1]. We first compare the relative efficiency of the vehicles

well-to-wheel pathways. This allows us to calculate the amount of energy a power plant

must produce in order to deliver a unit of energy to the wheels of a FCV and a

BEV. Next, we compute the volume, weight, and refueling costs associated

with each vehicle. We make these calculations first assuming that the

hydrogen for the FCVs and the electricity for the BEVs are generated using nonfossil

fuel sources. After, we relax this assumption to consider the case where

hydrogen is reformed from natural gas and the electricity for BEVs is generated

using a mix of fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel sources, such as wind and

hydroelectric, as is the norm today.

2. Analysis and Discussion
2.1. Energy Efficiency Comparison assuming energy is derived from renewable resources

A vehicle?s well-to-wheel pathway is the pathway between the original source

of energy (e.g. a wind farm) and the wheels of the car. The pathway?s

components are the energy conversion, distribution, and storage stages required

to transport and convert the energy that eventually moves the automobile. Thus,

analyzing the efficiency of each vehicle?s well-to-wheel pathway allows us to

determine the total amount of energy required to move each vehicle.

Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 illustrate the pathways for BEVs and FCVs, respectively. The first

stage of both pathways is the generation of electricity. Since presumably we are

concerned with the long-run development of a sustainable transportation infrastructure,

we first assume that the electricity is generated by a non-fossil fuel resource

like hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, or a combination. All of

these sources are used to generate energy in the form of electricity. The only

established method to convert electricity to hydrogen is through a process known

as electrolysis, which electrically separates water into its components of

hydrogen and oxygen.

For BEVs, the electricity is delivered over power lines to a battery charger.

The battery charger then charges a Lithium-ion battery that stores the energy

on-board the vehicle to power the vehicle?s drivetrain. In addition to one

storage and two distribution stages, the BEV pathway consists of two conversion

stages (the conversion of, say, wind to electricity in stage 1 and the conversion

of electricity to mechanical energy in stage 2). The figure shows that the entire

pathway is 77% efficient; approximately 79 kWh of energy must be generated in

order to deliver the necessary 60 kWh of electricity to the wheels of the car.

The FCV?s well-to-wheel pathway, illustrated in Fig. 2, is believed by experts

to be the most likely scenario, with some exceptions that are addressed below [2].

In this case, the energy from the electric plant is used for the electrolysis process

that separates hydrogen gas from water. The hydrogen gas is then compressed

and distributed to fueling stations where it can be pumped into and stored aboard

individual fuel-cell vehicles. The onboard hydrogen gas is then combined

with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce the electricity that powers the

vehicle?s drivetrain.

In addition to one distribution and one storage stage, the FCV pathway consists

of four conversion stages (the conversion of, say, wind to electricity in stage 1, the

conversion of electricity to hydrogen in stage 2, the conversion of hydrogen back

to electricity in stage 3, and finally, the conversion of electricity to mechanical

energy in stage 4). Due largely to the fact that there are two additional

conversion stages relative to the BEV and the fact that the onboard conversion

stage is only 54% efficient, the FCV pathway is only approximately 30%

efficient.3 The result is that the pathway requires the production of 202 kWh of

electricity at the plant, to deliver the necessary 60 kWh to the vehicle, or 2.6

times the requirements of the BEV pathway [3]. Obviously, this means that

there would need to be 2.6 times as many wind farms or solar panels to power the

FCVs versus the BEVs. Arguably, a more efficient FCV pathway would be based on-board

fossil fuel reforming or liquid hydrogen storage. However, attempts at these

alternative methods have proven uncompetitive compared to a system based on compressed

hydrogen gas. As a consequence, the pathway illustrated in Fig. 2 is considered by the

DOE and industrial experts to be the most feasible

[2]. However, contrary to our present assumption, the DOE?s support for the

distribution pipeline of Fig. 2 is based on the assumption of initially using fossil

fuels as the source of hydrogen. In the case of renewable energy, it would be

more cost effective to transport the electricity over power lines and perform

the electrolysis at local ?gas stations?, thus eliminating the need for the

expensive and less efficient hydrogen pipeline [4]. Elimination of the hydrogen

pipeline stage significantly increases the overall efficiency of the

pathway, however, 188 kWh is still necessary to deliver 60 kWh to the

FCV?s wheels, or 2.4 times the energy required to power a BEV.

The results of the non-fossil fuel analysis are impacted by the fact that we

do not consider the cost of constructing and maintaining a hydrogen

infrastructure. A renewable hydrogen infrastructure would consist of a network

of electrolysis plants, supported by an intra-national pipeline, which, in turn,

would supply a myriad of hydrogen refueling stations. The cost of hydrogen

production from electrolysis is already well characterized from existing

installations, but accurately projecting the downstream costs of a massive

transportation and distribution infrastructure is much more difficult.

The practical implication of only considering the production costs is that

our estimate of the FCV?s refueling cost is lower than it would be if we

considered infrastructure costs. For instance, the cost of building the

hydrogen refueling stations alone is estimated between $100 billion and $600

billion.[5] The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the costs of the

hydrogen trunk pipelines and distribution lines to be $1.4 million and $0.6 million

per mile, respectively[6]. A BEV infrastructure would be largely based on

the current power grid, making its construction vastly less costly.2

The inefficiency of the FCV pathway combined with the high capital and

maintenance costs of the distribution system results in significant differences in

the refueling cost between a FCV and BEV, particularly if the source is

5 renewable. For example, Pedro and Putsche [7] estimate that using wind

energy, hydrogen production costs alone will amount to $20.76 per tank to drive

our FCV 300 miles compared to $4.28 per tank (or per charge) for the BEV.4

2.2. Comparison of Weight, Volume and Cost Maintaining the same performance

assumptions, we next compare the projected relative weight, volume, and

unit costs of each vehicles propulsion system. The results are reported in Table

1 and Table 2. When interpreting the tables it is important to note that the

limiting factor in FCV performance is the amount of power that can be delivered,

which affects vehicle acceleration and hill climbing. For BEVs, the limiting factor

is the amount of energy that can be delivered, which affects total vehicle

range. This means that the scaling factors for weight, volume, and cost for

the FCV are based on how many Watts (of power) that can be delivered per unit

of weight, volume, or cost. For the BEV it is the amount of Watt·hours (of

energy) that can be delivered per unit of weight, volume, or cost.

Table 1

Estimated weight, on-board space, and mass-production cost requirements of the FCV

propulsion system.

Component Weight Volume Cost Reference
Fuel-Cell 617 kg 1182 liters $23,033 ADL(2001)
3.2 kg storage tank 51 kg 215 liters $2,288 Padro and Putsch(1999)
Drivetrain 53 kg 68 liters $3,826 AC Propulsion,
Inc.(2001),
Total 721 kg 1465 liters $29,147 SolectriaCorp (2001)

Table 2

Estimated weight, on-board space, and mass-production cost requirements of a BEV

propulsion systems

Component Weight Volume Cost Reference
Li-ion Battery 451 kg 401 liters $16,125 Gaines and Cuenca(2000)
Drivetrain 53 kg 68 liters $3,826 Cuenca and Gains
Total 504 kg 469 liters $19,951

2.3. Weight Comparison

According to the DOE report on the status of fuel-cells conducted by Arthur

D. Little [8], a modern fuel cell is presently capable of delivering 182 Watts

of power per kg of fuel-cell. Including the required FCV drivetrain components

and their losses [9,10] and the weight of the storage tank5, a fuel-cell propulsion

system capable of meeting our performance constraint must weigh

approximately 721 kg. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory

(NREL) working group report on advanced battery readiness [11], a

Lithium-ion battery is capable of delivering 143 Watts·hours of energy per

kg of battery. Considering an equivalent drivetrain to the one assumed for the

FCV, the battery system must weigh 504 kg to satisfy our performance constraint.6

2.4. Volume Comparison

The Arthur D. Little study reports that the fuel-cell delivers 95 Watts per

liter of fuel-cell, which combined with the volume of the hydrogen storage tank

[12] and the volume of the electric drivetrain components produces a total

volume of 1465 liters.7 A Lithium-ion battery delivers 161 Watt·hours per liter

of battery.8 When combined with the electric drivetrain volume, this results in

a total volume of 469 liters. 2.5. Cost Comparison Finally, The Arthur D. Little

study reports a cost of $205 per kW for a 100kW fuel-cell.9 Adding to this the cost

of the electric motor, control electronics and hydrogen-storage tank implies that

the total cost of $29,147 for the fuel-cell propulsion system(The electric drivetrain

components are $3,826 for the BEV and FCV.) [13]. For the BEV, the cost of a

Lithium-ion battery is estimated to be $250/kWh [14]. Considering the electric

drivetrain, this implies a total cost of $19,951 for the BEV?s propulsion system.

2.6. Energy Efficiency Comparison assuming energy is derived from Fossil Fuels

Most experts are imagining that for many years to come, fossil fuels will be

the main source of the hydrogen or the electricity that powers zero emission

vehicles. In light of this, one should consider the near term case where the

electricity for BEVs is generated using a mix of fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel

sources and the FCV?s hydrogen is reformed from natural gas, as is the norm today.

A 2001 study conducted for the California Air Resources Board found

that when electricity for BEVs is generated using a mix of fossil fuel and

non-fossil fuel and hydrogen is created from natural gas, a BEV pathway is

about 8% more efficient than a FCV pathway. The study also concluded that

the BEV pathway would generate lower greenhouse gas emissions. Although the

efficiency comparison of the two vehicles is much closer than for the non-fossil fuel

case, if the substantial cost of building and maintaining the hydrogen

infrastructure necessary to support the FCV is considered, then the BEV would

clearly be more attractive than the FCV. Further, if renewable energy sources will

eventually replace fossil fuels, then the hydrogen pipeline would at best be

inefficient, and at worst be obsolete. This is because hydrogen producers

would find it more economical to make hydrogen locally by using renewable

electricity to hydrolyze water, rather than purchasing hydrogen transported via

pipeline. Since the nation?s electricity is already generated using an array of fossil

and non-fossil fuel resources, the optimal design of the BEV infrastructure would

not change in the conversion to a nonfossil fuel economy. Lastly, when the non-fossil

fuel assumption is relaxed, the refueling costof a BEV is still far less than that

of the FCV. Pedro and Putsch estimate the retail cost of hydrogen from fossil fuel to

be $2.42 per kg [7]. Given the 3.2 kg of hydrogen necessary to meet our rangeperformance

constraint, this results in a fill-up cost of $7.77 for the FCV.

Accounting for efficiency losses between a BEV?s battery and its wheels,

64.5kWh of energy must be delivered to the BEV battery to assure that 60 kWh is

delivered to its wheels. Considering a 0.89 charger efficiency and a 0.94 battery

efficiency, this implies that 77 kWh of energy must be purchased from the utility

company. Since BEVs will typically be charged at night, an off-peak cost of

$0.06/kWh is applied for the electricity generated from a mix of fossil and nonfossil

fuels. This implies a ?fill-up? cost of $4.63 for the BEV, which is about

40% lower than that of the FCV.

3. Conclusion

We use widely-cited government studies to directly compare the costs

associated with producing and refueling FCVs and BEVs. The analysis is based

on an automobile model (similar to a Honda Civic) that is representative of the

largest segment of the automobile market. A comparison is important since

the government and industry are devoting increasing amounts of resources

to the goal of developing a marketable ZEV and the BEV and the FCV are

currently the only feasible alternatives. We find that government studies

indicate that it would be far cheaper, in terms of production and refueling costs,

to develop a BEV, even if we do not consider the substantial cost of building

and maintaining the hydrogen infrastructure on which the FCV would

depend. Specifically, the results show that in an economy based on renewable

energy, the FCV requires production of between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy

than a comparable BEV. The FCV propulsion system weighs 43% more,

consumes nearly three-times more space onboard the vehicle for the same power

output, and costs approximately 46% more than the BEV system. Further, the

refueling cost of a FCV is nearly threetimes greater. Finally, when we relax the

renewable energy assumption, the BEV is still more efficient, cleaner, and vastly

less expensive in terms of manufacturing, refueling, and infrastructure investment.

REFERENCES

1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel

Economy Trends 1975-2001, 2001.

2 Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium (under contract to Defense Advanced Research

Projects Agency), Interviews with 44 Global Experts on the Future of Transportation and

Fuel Cell Infrastructure and a Fuel Cell Primer, Agreement No. NAVC1099-PG030044,

2000.
3 General Motors, Argonne National Laboratory, BPAmoco, Exxon Mobile, and Shell,

Well-to-Wheels Energy use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle

Systems, 2001.

4 CA Energy Commission and the Air Resource Board, A Fuel Cycle Energy Conversion

Efficiency Analysis, 2000.

5 CA Energy Commission and the Air Resource Board, A Fuel Cycle Energy Conversion

Efficiency Analysis, 2000.

6 U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Progress Report, 2003.

7 Padro, C., V. Putsche, Survey of Economics of Hydrogen Technologies, National

Renewable Energy Laboratory Study NREL/TP-570-27079, 1999.

8 Arthur D. Little, Inc. report to Department of Energy, Cost Analysis of Fuel Cell System

for Transportation, Ref. No. 49739, SFAA No. DESC02-98EE50526, 2001.

9 AC Propulsion Inc., AC150 GEN-2 EV Power System Specification Document, 2001.

10 Solectria Corp., DMC0645 AC Motor Controller Specification, 2001.

11 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Advanced Battery Readiness Ad Hoc Working

Group Meeting Report 2000.

12 Padro, C., V. Putsche, Survey of Economics of Hydrogen Technologies, National

Renewable Energy Laboratory Study NREL/TP-570-27079, 1999.

13 Cuenca, R., L. Gaines, A. V., Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Production and Operating

Costs, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, 1999.

14 Gaines, L., R. Cuenca, Costs of Lithium Ion Batteries, Center for Transportation

Research, Argonne National Laboratory, 2000.
Copyright 2008. Sam McWilliam. All rights reserved.

Time For Evs

2008-08-29T15:34:00.000-07:00

*The Problem
Something must be done. I'll bet you have said these very words about the HIGH price of gasoline?
Well, it seems that there are a lot of people doing something. Those are the people converting their cars to plug in electric. The big auto manufacturers are talking up hybrids. They are a step in the right direction but not the ultimate answer. Electric vehicles are the answer. If Joe Blow can do it in his garage, why can't GM? Fuel cells require a whole new infrastructure. Electric is there now! Oil companies shudder when electric is mentioned.No need for their product. Too bad
our Government is so beholden to these leaches. Parasites flock together( just like birds). Do you realize that every time the price of gas rises they get more of our money to squander on themselves! The "war" also puts lots of money in the pockets of the military and the oil companies. Why isn't the rebuilding of Iraq paid for with their oil? They had a 50 billion dollar surplus while we Had a 400 billion deficit!
*What can be done
Get the word out that elctric vehicles can be as user friendly , need less repairs ,and cost less to run than internal combustion vehicles. Continue to retrofit our own cars with plug in electric.
*Why hasn't this been done
1 Not in big oil's interest (obvious)
2 politicians want their bribes from big oil and taxes on fuel. It keeps them in office and pays the high salary
and perks.
3 big auto companies make more money on the ICE engine and all the repairs necessary. Not to mention the price
to you and I (think Suv's and Hummers).
* What is being done
People like you and I all over the world are taking it into their own hands and not waiting for the big auto
companies to make electric cars. They are doing it themselves.