Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

A Question of efficiency?

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.
Post a reply

A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby michaelc888 » Mon 04 Jul 2005, 08:50:27

Two Questions I have...

1) Do we need to worry about oil... wont we just use less? We could just switched to new ways for working which require us to use less fuel.

2) Has our worlds economy become so efficient that we now become economically acustom to working to using all 82 million barrels a day. i.e. operating margins for businesses are so razor thin that if we try to use 10% less we would have global colapse?
User avatar
michaelc888
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun 05 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby julianj » Mon 04 Jul 2005, 09:41:46

I would advise you read one of the Heinberg books, Powerdown or The Party's Over.

Your lifestyle, job, pension, mortgage, depend on cheap oil (and other fossil fuel.) Depletion spells the end of that.

So my short answer to your questions is: Be afraid, Be Very Afraid.

I'm not joking.
julianj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 913
Joined: Thu 30 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: On one of the blades of the fan
Top

Unread postby aahala » Mon 04 Jul 2005, 10:40:18

1) Of course we can't use more than is available for long periods of
time, so less oil means less consumption of it.

2)Industry is more efficient relative to oil/energy than in the past and
the trend of greater financial output compared to units of energy input
has been increasing for years.

Remaining energy inefficiencies for industry is likely to be small compared
to consumers -- industry will produce goods by the cheapest means
possible and is not concerned with how -- consumers however consume
based upon cost AND upon life style, so for any given level of energy
saving technology, more is implimented by industry and relatively more
is still left to be implimented by consumers and this is likely to always
be the case.
User avatar
aahala
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 944
Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby MonteQuest » Mon 04 Jul 2005, 11:59:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('michaelc888', 'T')wo Questions I have...

1) Do we need to worry about oil... wont we just use less? We could just switched to new ways for working which require us to use less fuel.

2) Has our worlds economy become so efficient that we now become economically acustom to working to using all 82 million barrels a day. i.e. operating margins for businesses are so razor thin that if we try to use 10% less we would have global colapse?


Sorry, but we are growing as well. Conservation and increases in efficiency won't both meet the current demands and the future demands for a growing economy and population.

A 25% reduction in currrent consumption, world-wide, would be consumed in a few years by growth alone.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Tue 05 Jul 2005, 22:25:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')o we need to worry about oil...


Yes. Everything you do is directly related to it as things are today.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'w')ont we just use less? We could just switched to new ways for working which require us to use less fuel.


The problem with this is that our economic growth requires increased consumption. Lets take the car you drive, for instance. It uses oil by burning gasoline in its engine. It also uses oil in its manufacture of parts both in energy and in materials. Not only in manufacture and usage of vehicle does it use oil either. The parts have to be shipped, and so does the car itself. The fuel also has to be shipped. The raw materials for the fuel and parts take oil to process, and they also take oil in the machines used to mine the raw materials. Then the roads the car drives on takes oil in the form of asphalt which uses oil as one of its key materials. Plus the asphalt and the machinary used to make is have all the same processes associated with creating that car along with it such as shipment and energy used in manufacture.

All of this generates profit. When you buy gasoline, you generate profit for the oil industry. The auto industry makes some money off of selling you the car and most off of servicing/maintenance and parts. The petrochemical industry makes money off of using oil to produce the plastics for the car.

Can we use less fuel? You bet your ass we can. But we aren't. Electric cars, for instance, don't need gasoline. The auto industry won't make money off of servicing/maintenance and parts because electric motors don't need tune ups, oil changes, or any of that BS. Electric motors have one moving part if they are DC, or zero moving parts if AC. Electric cars don't need transmissions due to the characteristics of the electric motor. Gas cars have engines with thousands of parts and need transmissions due to the narrow powerbands of the engine, in contrast. Plastics can be made from hemp just as well as oil, but petrochemical companies like DuPont lobbied against its because hemp posed a threat to the profits of the oil industry and thus the U.S. government refuses to allow hemp-growing permits.

In short, reducing consumption is possible without killing our living standard, but by doing so, certain industries won't make as much money as they do today, and the economy won't grow as much because you will be consuming less. We have the technology, but it's not being implemented due to politics.

Further, if we were to reduce our consumption, that doesn't mean the rest of the world would reduce theirs. Any gains made by reducing consumption in one nation would be offset if another nation increased its consumption to grow its economy.

Peak oil is thus a political problem, and it is a very scary one at that. The food you eat, roads you drive on, fuel you burn in your car, all the plastics you consume and throw away, could be severely threatened due to this problem. Peak oil is the global midpoint of oil production, in which half of all the oil ever in the Earth is consumed. The other half will be harder to get to, and much more expensive. The first half of all oil sold went for < $30/barrel on average in today's dollars, sometimes lower, sometimes higher. The second half of all oil that will ever be sold will be > $100/barrel in today's dollars. Demand is beginning to be higher than supply, and thus proces rise accordingly. The oil industry, having sucessfully supressed alternatives, will make a lot more money from the second half of all the oil that will be consumed.

If peak oil becomes a significant enough problem, there won't be fuel to ship food to the grocery stores. There won't be fuel for tractors to grow your food with. There won't be oil for fertilizers. There won't be oil for new asphalt. Everything will simply be much more expensive. Instead of $2/gallon a gas, if you can get gas at all, it could be $10/gallon. Food might quadruple in price due to increased costs of oil and the fact that we don't have an adequate biofuel infrastructure in place to grow it with instead.

You damn well bet it's a problem. Given that the oil will be sold to the highest bidder instead of distributed on a needs basis and conserved for agriculture and other necessities until the alternatives viable today become adopted, a lot of people in the second and third world will starve. America could face another Great Depression, or worse(as in economic and governmental collapse). The oil industry doesn't care: short term profits are on their mind. Peak oil will make them a lot more money on each barrel sold than they make today due to far higher demand.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')as our worlds economy become so efficient that we now become economically acustom to working to using all 82 million barrels a day. i.e. operating margins for businesses are so razor thin that if we try to use 10% less we would have global colapse?


It depends on which industries you're referring to. We could cut consumption by more than half. In America, cars alone consume 45% of the oil America uses just as fuel. A lot of industries will see significantly reduced profit margins and will start laying people off to keep them preserved in an effort to maximize profits.

The entire system being for maximizing profits needs to be thrown out the window if our society and current way of life is to have any chance of partial survival in the future. Sadly, that isn't happening with the current political climate. The current status quo is to let the poor die off if it comes to it.

I'm no fortune teller, I don't know how hard or soft the peak oil event will be. But it could mean a very big dieoff. Or it could mean a never-ending recession and a drastic change in lifestyle. It's looking more and more like society is taking one path, and damned be a more sensible approach. We have the resources and technological advancements to prevent peak oil from having such a drastic effect. The real question then becomes, are human beings civilized enough to cooperate, work with each other, implement solutions to the problem before it gets out of hand, are concerned enough to become educated about the problem, and willing to make sacrifices where and if they are required? We'll find out in a few years starting today.

When will peak occur? Don't know. The data I could find suggests this year, give or take 5 years(Meaning we may have passed it already). If we have any time at all to prevent a disaster, we don't have much at all. As much as we can prevent this disaster with the technology we have and have had for a while, I don't think we will. I'm hoping humanity will impress me this once, but I'm not betting money on it.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby nth » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 05:07:18

1) Do we need to worry about oil... wont we just use less? We could just switched to new ways for working which require us to use less fuel.

Yes, we need to worry because we need more oil to grow our economy, especially developing worlds. We will be using less if we are pumping less and we will find ways around it. But, Peak Oil is not just about decline in Oil production, it is about the idea that our current lifestyle is supported by cheap oil. Since price of oil will go up, it will cause problems. The problems that it can cause are debatable and unpredictable. Some say a population crash. Others say world war. And many more....

Optimists believe we will find alternative energy and live on without major issues.

Since we are talking about an unpredictable future, it is all a guess.


2) Has our worlds economy become so efficient that we now become economically acustom to working to using all 82 million barrels a day. i.e. operating margins for businesses are so razor thin that if we try to use 10% less we would have global colapse?

It depends on what you mean by global collapse. Many people believe that US and EU equals the world. If these countries don't have drastic population declines, then we don't have major issues. If you believe in that, then there is a good chance that with 10% less oil, nothing major will happen. But if you think global including developing countries, then all you have to do is simply look at the high oil prices and how they are influencing the developing world today.

Developing world are suffering tremendously and have taken the full brunt of high oil prices. Governments are becoming less stable with fuel protests. Governments are forced to subsidize oil for its people. ETC....
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Sun 14 Aug 2005, 05:28:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ptimists believe we will find alternative energy and live on without major issues.


Optimists, as you define them, don't have things right. We don't need more time to find alternative energy, it's here and it's cost competitive with conventional sources. The real matter is adressing the politics perpetuated by the current power elite before the shit really hits the fan. It may very well have already. 8O
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby nth » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 11:20:15

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')ptimists believe we will find alternative energy and live on without major issues.


Optimists, as you define them, don't have things right. We don't need more time to find alternative energy, it's here and it's cost competitive with conventional sources. The real matter is adressing the politics perpetuated by the current power elite before the shit really hits the fan. It may very well have already. 8O


What alternative energy is cost competitive right now without subsidies?

The cheapest alternative fuel that I know of is ethanol produced by Brazil and costs about $1.50. This is not really cost competitive with oil, unless you levy taxes on oil that doesn't apply to ethanol.

As for electricity, hydro-power is more competitive, but do we really have enough sites to create enough energy for all of our needs?
Yes, environmentalists block hydro dam projects.

Wind and solar are not competitive right now without subsidies to be used to create significant amounts. Yes, environmentalists block setup of certain areas, but again those areas will only produce a few hundred megawatts at the most at each site.

I would love to know what alternatives are competitive.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 17:25:54

Actually, without subsidy, wind is nhow competitive. This wasn't the case 10 years ago, but cost per kWh without subsidy is below 5 cents. On top of that, 20% of our electricity in America comes from outdated nuclear plants, which if their subsidies were to be removed and waste disposal costs accounted for, solar would be competitive with them($.16-.22/kWh for solar).

A great way to stifle oil consumption would be adressing our cars, check the energy technology forum on the various electric vehicle topics for more: the battery electric car has been capable of ranges greater than 200 miles per charge, and in mass production could cost as much to purchase as conventional cars and offer the consumer great savings with reduced maintenance and extended life(Motors last 500,000+ miles, need no tune ups, servicing, maintenance, and have 1 moving part), for nearly 10 years. Just America's cars consume 45% of the oil the country uses for fuel. we could also displace air travwel with high speed electric rail, but the air travel industry has on numerous occassions lobbied to block such projects in America. Industrial hemp has been competitive with petroleum for things such as plastics, fertilizers, petrochemical replacements, and diesels since petroleum was used for these things, but companies like DuPont and individuals like William Randolph Hearst successfully lobbied the government to prevent american farmers from growing it, and this lobbying also worked elsewhere(Europe, ect. although they're beginning to use this plant again). On top of that, we can simply cut consumption of resources, which while doable to maintain our living standard, the capitalists cry foul. Waste means profit and growth because it adds more things the consumer has to pay for.

Lets say we cut the fuel for America's cars, and you cut America's oil consumption 45%. Add in industrial hemp for plastics, fertilizers, medicines, ect. to displace another 10% of America's oil use from industrial processes. Add in lots of wind energy to power those electric cars and some left over to displace the small amount of oil used in electricity production. On top of that, take the airline industry largely out of the equation using high speed electric rail and end all subsidies to the airlines since if the market were really free, they'd be bankrupt. There's another 15% of America's oil consumption. More reductions in consumption could be made by putting an end to factory farming and all the waste and hazards it entails.

America consumes 25% of the world's oil produced. Just by following the above steps, you could cut America's oil consumption significantly, make it to where it no longer relied upon foreign oil, and free up about 15% of the world's oil simply by changing America's policy. If other countries would do the same thing? Peak oil's horriffic implications could be largely averted.

The problem herin lies in the fact that if this were to be done, consumption, and thus profits of certain industries, would plummit. On top of that, the oil industry has been looking forward to PO because it would allow them to make more profits for every barrel sold due to increased demand. This is not sustainable: unlimited growth in a world of limited resources is a contradiction. Drastic reductions to oil consumption while oil is still relatively cheap would cause the oil industry to lose out on the post PO profits they are planning on, and the industry doesn't want that.

Either we change our consumption habits while we still can(if we still can...), or nature will do it for us by reducing our living standard and also perhaps causing massive starvation.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby nth » Mon 15 Aug 2005, 19:05:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('The_Toecutter', 'A')ctually, without subsidy, wind is nhow competitive. This wasn't the case 10 years ago, but cost per kWh without subsidy is below 5 cents. On top of that, 20% of our electricity in America comes from outdated nuclear plants, which if their subsidies were to be removed and waste disposal costs accounted for, solar would be competitive with them($.16-.22/kWh for solar).


No, this is wrong.
Wind to get 5 cents requires tax breaks. Non-incentive winds cost more than 5 cents. Also, each wind farm has different costs. You cannot just go and build wind mills and expect 5 cents cost. New England in US- wind mills there costs 20-30% more than one in Iowa.

I don't even need to use an objective website to show you the proof.
Pro-wind website


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')A great way to stifle oil consumption would be adressing our cars, check the energy technology forum on the various electric vehicle topics for more: the battery electric car has been capable of ranges greater than 200 miles per charge, and in mass production could cost as much to purchase as conventional cars and offer the consumer great savings with reduced maintenance and extended life(Motors last 500,000+ miles, need no tune ups, servicing, maintenance, and have 1 moving part), for nearly 10 years. Just America's cars consume 45% of the oil the country uses for fuel.


Yes, cars are bad. I tried not to drive and always carpool or public transportation whenever possible.

But the facts are that electric cars are not convenient yet. AND it does costs more. But, as Toyota and Honda found out, people are willing to pay a few thousand dollars more. I guess it is not significantly more, but car makers didn't know that until now. Car makers margin can be as low as $2,000.00 If a car costs $4-6k more, they don't think people will buy it.

Electric cars need more maintenance. I guess you never driven one. I have for two years. And my electric vehicle had transmission. There are not many passenger car electric vehicles with absolutely no transmission. Actually, never saw one myself. These transmissions are not equivalent to regular car transmissions, but they do require moving parts. Don't ask me why they need transmissions. My guess probably so that I can go reverse.

Maintenance costs are related to batteries and they are expensive.
Recharge times are insanely long, so not practical for long trips.
Great for city driving.
Weak for highway driving.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') we could also displace air travwel with high speed electric rail, but the air travel industry has on numerous occassions lobbied to block such projects in America.


That requires a major change in lifestyle. Rail is so much slower- a couple hundred miles slower at the least.
But it will be great if we can tax airfares to subsidize rail.
Airlines block it by preventing subsidies. They claim they pay for airports and air traffic controllers and etc....
It is hard to say they don't get subsidies, though.
Rail requires tremendous amounts of subsidy. They are very expensive and take decades to recover costs.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Industrial hemp has been competitive with petroleum for things such as plastics, fertilizers, petrochemical replacements, and diesels since petroleum was used for these things, but companies like DuPont and individuals like William Randolph Hearst successfully lobbied the government to prevent american farmers from growing it, and this lobbying also worked elsewhere(Europe, ect. although they're beginning to use this plant again). On top of that, we can simply cut consumption of resources, which while doable to maintain our living standard, the capitalists cry foul. Waste means profit and growth because it adds more things the consumer has to pay for.


Plastics can be replaced easily.
Fertilizers cannot- reason is that before petro fertilizers, farmers were running low on fertilizers.

I disagree with Hemp banned. I was told it was because one couldn't distinguish hemp with drug plants very easily, so will cause law enforcements headaches. I still think drug issue is a demand issue and not supply.
I just see kids getting high on flowers and glue and other everyday products or wild plants. Stopping drugs from being grown or imported is only going to slow down, but never reduce it significantly.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Lets say we cut the fuel for America's cars, and you cut America's oil consumption 45%. Add in industrial hemp for plastics, fertilizers, medicines, ect. to displace another 10% of America's oil use from industrial processes.


Fertilizers are mostly natural gas based.
Plastics used about 200mb per year at the most in US.
I think the main one is heating oil and transportation fuel.
Remember we are using heating oil because we ran out of natural gas. Now, natural gas is our future! :P

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Add in lots of wind energy to power those electric cars and some left over to displace the small amount of oil used in electricity production. On top of that, take the airline industry largely out of the equation using high speed electric rail and end all subsidies to the airlines since if the market were really free, they'd be bankrupt. There's another 15% of America's oil consumption. More reductions in consumption could be made by putting an end to factory farming and all the waste and hazards it entails.

America consumes 25% of the world's oil produced. Just by following the above steps, you could cut America's oil consumption significantly, make it to where it no longer relied upon foreign oil, and free up about 15% of the world's oil simply by changing America's policy. If other countries would do the same thing? Peak oil's horriffic implications could be largely averted.

The problem herin lies in the fact that if this were to be done, consumption, and thus profits of certain industries, would plummit. On top of that, the oil industry has been looking forward to PO because it would allow them to make more profits for every barrel sold due to increased demand. This is not sustainable: unlimited growth in a world of limited resources is a contradiction. Drastic reductions to oil consumption while oil is still relatively cheap would cause the oil industry to lose out on the post PO profits they are planning on, and the industry doesn't want that.

Either we change our consumption habits while we still can(if we still can...), or nature will do it for us by reducing our living standard and also perhaps causing massive starvation.

Dupont successfully reduced energy consumption to 1990 level and yet grew tremendously. US can definitely conserve a lot. It will be forced conservation as natural Americans are just plain wasteful.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Tue 16 Aug 2005, 00:31:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, this is wrong.
Wind to get 5 cents requires tax breaks. Non-incentive winds cost more than 5 cents. Also, each wind farm has different costs. You cannot just go and build wind mills and expect 5 cents cost. New England in US- wind mills there costs 20-30% more than one in Iowa.

I don't even need to use an objective website to show you the proof.
Pro-wind website


From that same website:

http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/Eco ... ch2002.pdf

Check page 2. WITH the tax credit, large scale wind farms produce electricity at 3.6 cents per kWh. Remove the 1.5 cent per kWh tax credit and you're at 5.1 cents.

Further, page 10 of the following source lists wind at $.04-.06/kWh without the production tax credit. With the tax credit, wind is quoted at 3.3-5.3c/kWh.

http://www.agecon.ucdavis.edu/uploads/g ... energy.pdf

Plus you have to add in the fact that lenders are not so willing to grant loans to produce wind farms, and they suffer from higher interest rates than someone looking to make a coal or natural gas plant. Page 9 of that link notes:

The most important of those reasons is the fact that the wind energy is still conceived as unreliable although it has steadily progressed to a point where its costs are comparable to those of other energy sourcs. Lenders still are not willing to offer loans as favorable as the ones they offer to conventional sources of energy.

A study in the Lawrence Berkely Laboratory found that a 50 MW wind farm delivering power at less than 5 c/kWh would generate electricity at 3.69c/kWh if it could enjoy the typical natural-gas project financing terms.

Stanford's Civil Engineering Department concluded that in 2001 wind had become cheaper than coal once you count in the social costs associated with generating electricity from coal.

http://ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2001/2001-08-24-07.asp

Add to that the fact that wind turbines have an EROI in excess of 25 and it's looking pretty good. But wind doesn't need to be mined, extracted, processed, transported, and stored, all processes which create waste and all processes of which the industry passes the cost of profit margins in each step to the consumer. Can't do that with wind, and thus profits go down.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut the facts are that electric cars are not convenient yet. AND it does costs more. But, as Toyota and Honda found out, people are willing to pay a few thousand dollars more. I guess it is not significantly more, but car makers didn't know that until now. Car makers margin can be as low as $2,000.00 If a car costs $4-6k more, they don't think people will buy it.


You're thinking of hybrids. An electric car has never been mass produced and sold to the American public by any major automaker.

Small automakers like UEV, Commuter Cars, and AC Propulsion do sell electric cars, but current regulations limit them to about 300 cars per year(if they got the capability to produce that much) and thus they cannot mass produce them and the cars are pretty much hand made. Even still, the cars successfully sell for $40k or more from these small manufacturers, and they're hand-made!

Honda and Toyota found out that a car that never needs to be serviced and has a motor that lasts 500,000 miles is not in their best interests. Hybrids, on the other hand, use both electric AND IC propulsion systems, increasing the maintenance, so they were cool with that.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')lectric cars need more maintenance. I guess you never driven one.


Never had the chance to drive one as none exist in my area. I am building one, on the other hand and I have talked with hundreds of people around the country that have successfully built them, to get an idea of the operating costs and generally how to go about building the car itself.

www.evdl.org

Overall, the general consensus among the senior members on the list is that a properly built and cared for EV using flooded lead acid batteries costs about 1/3 to 1/2 per mile to operate as a comparable gas car, counting in the battery cost. I'll be using sealed lead acid batteries which are more expensive but will still see plenty of savings.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') have for two years. And my electric vehicle had transmission. There are not many passenger car electric vehicles with absolutely no transmission. Actually, never saw one myself. These transmissions are not equivalent to regular car transmissions, but they do require moving parts. Don't ask me why they need transmissions. My guess probably so that I can go reverse.


Most every EV I've seen needs some sort of reduction, but most I've looked at are hobbyist conversions that keep the full transmission.

Transmissions are used to multiply torque to aid in acceleration. At 60 mph, your wheels may be making 2,000 revolutions per minute, while your electric motor may be making 4,000 or 5,000 revolutions per minute. Instead of allowing you to top out at say 180 mph, the reduction ratio is used to allow you to hit 80 mph but drastically boost your acceleration.

The only way you could really have a true direct drive setup is if you had one motor and controller on each drive wheel. Otherwise your acceleration would be horrible and the motor torque requirements to achieve a certain level of acceleration become horrendous, and the more amps going through an electric motor, the less efficient if becomes.

Factory EVs like GM's EV1, Honda's EV+, Nissan's Altra, all used reduction ratios, which are still referred to as direct drive, but aren't true direct drive setups.

Reduction ratios have far less parts and maintenance than a normal transmission though. Simply going in reverse requires reversing the motor and nothing more.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')aintenance costs are related to batteries and they are expensive.

That's what happens if the batteries you use don't have a proper management system, or even worse, if you're using expensive hand-made battery packs.

A pack of sealed lead acid batteries like Exide Orbitals or Optima D750 Yellowtops could last you over 60,000 miles if its sized properly for the car and your average discharge is kept around 30-40%.

Commuter cars lists the cycles for the Optima as follows:

10% DoD- 4,600 cycles
20%- 4,250
30%- 3,400
40%- 2,100
50%- 1,200
60%- 600
70%- 400
80%- 250
100%- 200

http://www.commutercars.com/downloads/b ... Optima.pdf

Lets take the car I am building for instance. On these forums I have done a breakdown of the cost of what will be a high performance sports car running on electricity with a cheap, slow as hell, gas-powered Honda Civic from the 90s.

With my planned car, 90,000 miles battery pack life or more could be had in theory, as Optimas are rated at over 3,000 cycles to 30% discharge. The shelf life is the limiting factor, which will be about 5-6 years, so 90,000+ mile life won't be a reality. Depending on how much use the batteries see within the 5-6 year period that they will be usable, I'll get between 50,000 and 70,000 miles use from them.

Here's a cost breakdown of all the parts, simulated performance results, a simulated power curve, and finally a cost per mile breakdown comparing it with a Honda Civic:

Parts list

-WarP 9'' series DC motor x1 $1,395
-Optima D750 YT battery x25 $2,500
-Godzilla Controller(72-300V DC, 1,000 amp max) x1 $2,495
-PFC 20 Charger x1 $1,500
-Todd DC-DC converter x1 $400
-Steel for battery racks $50
-Battery Cable $50
-EV200AAANA contactors x1 $75
-Feraz Shawmut A50QS400-4 fuse x2 $109
-Curtis Potbox(To control acceleration) x1 $75
-E-Meter x1 $235
-Solid-State Ceramic Heater Core x1 $75
-Adaptor Plate x1 $1000(I will be machining myself, so don't count cost)
-Miscallaneous components(Heat shrink tubing, tools, ect.) $500
-Leaf springs from Renegade Hybrids $300 (increase GVWR)
-Rudman Battery Regulators x25(Unassembled) $250
-x1 1969 Triumph GT6 Sports Car and some restoration = $1,200

-restoration and components costs, what will be spent later: $1,500 (half for restoration, half for fiberglass parts)

Total = $12,709. My own labor is free, so not tallied.

Simulated Performance

0-60 mph is simulated to be about 6 seconds.

Top speed simulated in excess 140 mph, more if the tire size is changed which changes the overall gearing.

Energy consumption from the battery pack simulated at 130 wh/mile at 65 mph. However, for the cost per mile breakdown 150 wh/mile will be used.

Range per charge is simulated to be 80-100 miles depending upon outside wind speed, pressure, and temperature, at 65 mph.

This is if weight is 2,600 pounds, drag coefficient is cut to .25, frontal area at 14.9 square feet, and Invitica GLR low rolling resistance tires are used(Which have a coefficient rolling resistance value of .006).

Simulated Power Curve

Image

This is a performance simulation of the WarP 9'' motor with 192 max motor volts and 1,000 max motor amps. Increase the motor voltage to 216 and the horsepower increases to about 200, although that will void the warranty on the motor.

Cost per mile breakdown and comparison

$2500 for 60,000 miles life is a battery pack cost of $.0417 per mile. At $.08 per kWh achieivng 150 wh/mile efficiency with a 92% charger efficiency and 70% battery efficiency, with $.005 per mile maintenance, total cost to operate comes out to $.0653 per mile, which combined is less than the gasoline cost for a gasoline powered Honda Civic getting 30 miles per gallon with gas at $2 a gallon. Plus the Civic also needs oil changes, tune ups, servicing, emissions tests, and other engine maintenance, while the electric car has no such issues other than tires/brakes and stuff like that. The electric car? Replace the batteries when they wear out, and change the motor brushes every 20,000-150,000 miles(Depending on how you abuse them in racing), which is a $15 dollar 20 minute operation you can do yourself in your own garage. The electric motor will last over 500,000 miles according to both those I have conversed with that drive these cars and according to the electric auto association.

So, with my 100 miles range, assuming I drive 30 miles each day(my daily commute in both directions, 15 miles each way), would yield a 30% discharge, or a battery pack life of 60,000 miles before the battery pack has about 80% of its original rated capacity. A smaller battery pack of the same chemistry would mean for that same trip a deeper discharge is had, the cost per mile goes up. Too deep a discharge could kill your battery pack(although you can use computer software to prevent the operator of the vehicle from being able to do this). At shallow discharges like 20-40%, shelf life becomes the limiting factor, instead of cycle life, and Optimas have a shelf life of 6 years or so.

With a sealed lead acid battery like an Optima, you will see 2,500 cycles to 20% discharge, 2,000 cycles to 30% discharge, 800 cycles to 50% dicharge, 250 cycles to 80% discharge, and only 100 cycles to 100% discharge if properly cared for. After specified number of cycles, the battery is not 'dead', but will only deliver about 80% of its rated capacity, so it could last longer even.


AC Propulsion when it made lead acid powered EVs repeatedly tested Optimas to over 40,000 miles, before selling the cars that used them. Apparently the batteries continued to work just fine after the cars were snatched up by enthusiasts.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'R')echarge times are insanely long, so not practical for long trips.

Recharge times are a function of the electrical outlet the car is being charged with more often than the charger itself.

Mitsubishi has fast-charged 200 mile range battery packs in under 30 minutes. Their FTO EV ended up travelling over 1,250 miles within a 24 hour period, including stopping to charge. Including stopping to charge, this average speed is 51 mph.

Drag racers repeatedly use a bank of batteries stored in another vehicle to charge their electric sports cars and dragsters at the track. They have no problem topping their pack off in mere minutes since their chargers can output 50 kW of power or more into their battery pack and the pack they dump charge for can also discharge at that rate.

Aerovironment has repeatedly demonstrated chargsers that can charge a 40-60 mile range lead acid battery pack in 7-15 minutes depending on pack size.

What's holding the electric car from being practical for long trips is infrastructure suited to long distance travel. With the amount we spent on the Iraq war, this would be no problem to install quick charge stations to charge a Lithium or NiMH battery pack in < 40 minutes for another 150+ miles range. It may not be as fast as going to a gas station, but it's far from not being workable.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')reat for city driving.
Weak for highway driving.

Try telling that to those on the EV list who drive their EVs to work and back using the highways. Or to those even daring enough to race on them!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hat requires a major change in lifestyle. Rail is so much slower- a couple hundred miles slower at the least.

Unlike air travel, rail travel doesn't have all of the waiting and planning associated with air travel. Europe's high speed rail systems routinely exceed 120 mph average speed, which is plenty fast enough to get Americans back and forth quickly. Only instead of going cost to cost in 8 hours, you might go cost to cost in 16 hours staying on the train overnight. Certainly much better than letting nature reduce oil consumption for us!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut it will be great if we can tax airfares to subsidize rail.
Airlines block it by preventing subsidies. They claim they pay for airports and air traffic controllers and etc....
It is hard to say they don't get subsidies, though.
Rail requires tremendous amounts of subsidy. They are very expensive and take decades to recover costs.

Airlines are even more expensive to run than rail due to the price of fuel, along with the maintenance associated with the planes themselves. But airlines also account for high amounts of consumption and are slightly faster, thus preferred in the states. But airlines can't even stand on their own and are needing government to stay around. Its time to cut the subsidies, the niche for high speed travel would be filled with high speed rail in a true free market society.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')ertilizers cannot- reason is that before petro fertilizers, farmers were running low on fertilizers.

Sure they can, hemp can also help alleviate their need by acting as an erosion prevention device to preserve topsoil. When grown, hemp will actually restore the soil over a period of a few years making it suitable for other crops.

But there are also plenty of methods to make fertilizers, even using human wastes, aside from plant-based fertilizers.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') disagree with Hemp banned. I was told it was because one couldn't distinguish hemp with drug plants very easily, so will cause law enforcements headaches. I still think drug issue is a demand issue and not supply.

It's quite distinguishable. Hemp plants grow inches from each other, in order to produce tall stalks, while marijuana itself is grown spaced apart so as to produce brushy plants loaded with the leaves and flowers rich in THC. Two images to compare:

http://www.prairie.mb.ca/images/hemp3.jpg
http://www.marijuanaaddiction.info/img/cannabis%20field%20small.jpg

Quite easy to discern which is which. If you pack a marijuana field as tightly as an industrial hemp field, the marijuana plants won't sprout the desired flowers in the quantity wanted.
Last edited by The_Toecutter on Thu 18 Aug 2005, 20:16:34, edited 1 time in total.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Tue 16 Aug 2005, 00:32:52

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') think the main one is heating oil and transportation fuel.
Remember we are using heating oil because we ran out of natural gas. Now, natural gas is our future!


Transportation fuel is the most significant, specifically for cars. That can be displaced, with electric vehicles, biodiesel from hemp(EROI > 3), making cars achieve on average > 60 mpg if they use a liquid fuel(like biodiesel), and by implementing mass transit to displace car use.

Heating oil can be partially displaced with use of solar water heaters, and properly constructed housing and businesses so that they take maximum advantage of the geography to conserve energy. Better insulating in homes will also cut consumption drastically. Ceramic heaters also work with great sucess, but are run using electricity.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')upont successfully reduced energy consumption to 1990 level and yet grew tremendously. US can definitely conserve a lot. It will be forced conservation as natural Americans are just plain wasteful.


That's because DuPont reducing their consumption benefitted their bottom line.

Try convincing them that Americans need to reduce consumption of DuPont's products in order to conserve scarce resources. That certainly won't fly well with DuPont.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby nth » Tue 16 Aug 2005, 14:07:58

Awesome to see you built a EV. You got a pic on the model?
My EV was a ford escort converted. I just lease it for 2 years for $20k plus expenses. I think they now used Honda Civics.
By the way, I should have told you that this was back in 1993-95. Maybe things are different now.

Your battery costs $2500?
Mine costs $8000. WTF that caused mine to be so damn expensive. I was told it was conventional lead-acid battery just likes ones that start cars.
For my two years driving, I went back for maintenance 4 times. I was charged $350 per time.
My car has a 75mph speed limit set, so no way to drive faster that. Using two electic motors to give me like 60hp.
It takes me about 8hrs to recharge the batteries using 220v plug in my house.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')You're thinking of hybrids. An electric car has never been mass produced and sold to the American public by any major automaker.


No, I am not talking about hybrids. Major automakers have explored making EV. All majors have EV leasing programs at one point in their recent history. So the costs have some reality based in it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Small automakers like UEV, Commuter Cars, and AC Propulsion do sell electric cars, but current regulations limit them to about 300 cars per year(if they got the capability to produce that much) and thus they cannot mass produce them and the cars are pretty much hand made. Even still, the cars successfully sell for $40k or more from these small manufacturers, and they're hand-made!


If there is a market for 100k of these cars, they can make these cheaply. Typical car analysts don't think Americans want dinky cars like these. But if Prius success and high gas prices, Americans may want these cars.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Honda and Toyota found out that a car that never needs to be serviced and has a motor that lasts 500,000 miles is not in their best interests.

You are just talking. That is simply not true. If they don't care about EV, they wouldn't invest billions in it and have EV demo lease programs.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Hybrids, on the other hand, use both electric AND IC propulsion systems, increasing the maintenance, so they were cool with that.


Not really. All majors didn't like hybrids. It was expensive with little environmental returns, but because EV pilot programs were getting feedbacks that hybrids will solve, Toyota and Honda decided to launch a pilot program for hybrids.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Never had the chance to drive one ....


But you will very soon! Good luck on it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')verall, the general consensus among the senior members on the list is that a properly built and cared for EV using flooded lead acid batteries costs about 1/3 to 1/2 per mile to operate as a comparable gas car, counting in the battery cost. I'll be using sealed lead acid batteries which are more expensive but will still see plenty of savings.

Again, your battery costs are way lower than what I experienced.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '0')-60 mph is simulated to be about 6 seconds.

Top speed simulated in excess 140 mph, more if the tire size is changed which changes the overall gearing.

Energy consumption from the battery pack simulated at 130 wh/mile at 65 mph. However, for the cost per mile breakdown 150 wh/mile will be used.

Range per charge is simulated to be 80-100 miles depending upon outside wind speed, pressure, and temperature, at 65 mph.

This is if weight is 2,600 pounds, drag coefficient is cut to .25, frontal area at 14.9 square feet, and Invitica GLR low rolling resistance tires are used(Which have a coefficient rolling resistance value of .006).


This is a much sweeter setup than what I had.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Unlike air travel, rail travel doesn't have all of the waiting and planning associated with air travel. Europe's high speed rail systems routinely exceed 120 mph average speed, which is plenty fast enough to get Americans back and forth quickly. Only instead of going cost to cost in 8 hours, you might go cost to cost in 16 hours staying on the train overnight. Certainly much better than letting nature reduce oil consumption for us!


Okay, I had this conversation before with others.
Here is an example:
SFO to LAX takes 45minutes by air.
Factor in 1hr before to get to airport and half hour after to get out.
2hrs and 15minutes total travel time.

Train:
Let's say it can average 120mph. (Which will be very expensive to built if you want it this fast.)
SFO to LAX is about 380+ miles.
3hrs and 10 minutes or so.
It will take you 5 minutes to get in to SF train station and out of LA train station. Of course, in reality, this will be different.
So we can optimisticly state 3hrs and 15 minutes.
1 hour longer compare to regional air commute.

The longer the commute- the worse off train will be.
As you pointed out, EU and Asia use trains way more than planes. Americans should learn to use trains, too.
But again, it requires a change of lifestyle and some cost in time.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')irlines are even more expensive to run than rail...


Airlines have lower initial costs and less legal regulations to overcome.
Trains, you have to get land to built rail and it takes longer.
Air only need land for airport and fewer committees or legislative bodies to approve.

As for ability to survive, airlines are in this bad financial condition due to their own inability to compete against each other. Companies rather go bankrupt than shutdown.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')But there are also plenty of methods to make fertilizers, even using human wastes, aside from plant-based fertilizers.


Of course, there are several ways. But look up the tonnage of fertilizers required by American farmers. You need to be able to produce similar quantities.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t's quite distinguishable. Hemp plants grow inches from each other, in order to produce tall stalks, while marijuana itself is grown spaced apart so as to produce brushy plants loaded with the leaves and flowers rich in THC. Two images to compare:

Image
Image


Wow, cool pics. I cannot discerne the two. Yes, I can see how you say the spacing can differentiate the two, but coming from enforcement perspective, this is an added burden.
As I said, I don't agree with current regulations.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Tue 16 Aug 2005, 21:03:02

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')wesome to see you built a EV. You got a pic on the model?


The correct term is 'am building', and not 'have built', but yes, here are pictures of the car when it had an ICE in it before I stripped it down:

Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

1969 Triumph GT6. This is the little bitch that's being converted to an electric, and it will be a very fun car for which to make the public highways into my own personal racetrack.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y EV was a ford escort converted. I just lease it for 2 years for $20k plus expenses. I think they now used Honda Civics.
By the way, I should have told you that this was back in 1993-95. Maybe things are different now.


Soleq EVcort, perhaps? What was the company you got the car from?

$20k+ for a 2 year lease? You may have got ripped off!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')our battery costs $2500?


That is what the pack will cost, yes. And my battery pack will be very expensive compared to the batteries most hobbyists use. $2,500 for a lead acid battery pack is considered quite expensive for an EV.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')ine costs $8000. WTF that caused mine to be so damn expensive. I was told it was conventional lead-acid battery just likes ones that start cars.


What kind of batteries did you use? Delphi brand lead acid batteries are what were used in the GM EV1 and they were scarily expensive and offer only marginal improvements over off the shelf batteries like Trojans or Optimas.

Most hobbyists use either Trojan or Inerstate brand flooded lead acid batteries, or Oprima or Exide brand sealed lead acid batteries.

One could buy a 120V pack of Trojan T105 6-volt batteries for about $1,200(retail around $60/each). They are rated to 700 cycles to 80% discharge. It would last 40,000 miles or so if properly cared for, and such a 120V pack of 20 batteries in series would weigh about 1,300 pounds. Such a battery pack could give a car like a Fiat X1/9 100+ miles range and 80 mph top speed with the proper aerodynamic modifications. They're simple golf cart batteries, nothing more, and they work wonderfully. They aren't good for high power applications, and 1,300 pounds of flooded lead acid batteries like this will give you no more than 60 horsepower, and will require monthy watering with distilled water and cleaning just as often.

Another battery, Exide Orbitals, go for $98/each straight from the company. These are awesome for high horsepower applications. Each battery weighs 41 pounds, and a 240V, 820 pound battery pack is common among electric racecars, which is suitable for a 30-40 mile range per charge in an efficient car, and such a pack would allow you well over 400 horsepower with the proper motor and controller to implement it. You can check out the battery specs here:

http://www.exideworld.com/products/automotive/orbital_xcd_specs.html

The following electric Porsche 914 in this video runs on Exide Orbital batteries:

http://www.nedra.com/movies/pso04/CAPOPE_vs_Silver_Bullet.mov

Commuter Cars Tango also runs on Exide Orbital batteries. 80 mile range per charge, 0-60 mph in 4 seconds, and 150 mph top speed.

http://www.commutercars.com

One excellent place to look at the batteries people often use in EV's is Uve's battery page:

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/8679/battery.html

Some of the numbers are suspect and vary from reality, but the numbers for the Trojan T105s, Optima D750s, Concordes, and Exide batteries are accurate, confirmed by those hobbyists who have repeatedly verified their functionality in their own vehicles. The prices are indeed accurate, although some have changed small amounts.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')or my two years driving, I went back for maintenance 4 times. I was charged $350 per time.

What was the maintenance for? I know very many EV drivers who after completing their EVs and working all the bugs out, only had maintenance such as watering the batteries and cleaning battery terminals for about 10 minutes each month if they used flooded batteries, and those that use sealed batteries had no maintenance. Battery pack replacement was an operation that took a few hours once every 3-4 years that one could do on their own. John Bryan, off of the EV list, has a VW Kharmen Ghia which has never needed any maintenance at all, not even a battery change, for over 7 years. Many more examples like this abound; they aren't flukes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'M')y car has a 75mph speed limit set, so no way to drive faster that. Using two electic motors to give me like 60hp.
It takes me about 8hrs to recharge the batteries using 220v plug in my house.

Ahh. Your house plug was probably the limiting factor, but it would help to know what kind of charger you had.

A PFC50 charger, is given a 110V 20 amp outlet, will still take 12 hours to charge a 110V single string of Trojan T105 batteries, but give it a 220V 50 amp outlet like what you'd find on some camp grounds, and the charge time would drop to about 2 hours. The PFC50 is capable of delivering over 20 kW of power to a battery pack, but if the outlet only supplies 2 kW of power, the outlet will be the limiting factor in charge speed. Likewise, if the PFC charger that can handle about 20 kW is charging the car from an outlet that can deliver 40 kW of power, it will only deliver 20 kW to the battery pack because the charger would become the limiting factor.

Today, chargers have been made that can place over 100 kW of power into a battery pack. At 70% efficiency, this would charge a 30 kWh, 150 mile range battery pack in 25 minutes if it's able to make full use of its power transfer capability and if the battery can handle it! But from a 110V outlet you'd find in your garage, it would still take 12 hours or more to charge such a large pack, making the outlet the limiting factor.

This is where better infrastructure comes into play. Quick charge stations are viable today.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')o, I am not talking about hybrids. Major automakers have explored making EV. All majors have EV leasing programs at one point in their recent history. So the costs have some reality based in it.

Actually, the costs were often distorted. GM, for instance, kept saying the EV1 would cost over $60k in mass production. The catch was, they weren't using the same stats they used to price other cars. GM, for the EV1, was using the immediate recovery costs of development so that all sales would cause the car to break even the first year of sales. Yes, this would make the EV1 cost $60k. It would also make ANY car cost that much. You see, cars sold today are sold at a loss the first 2-3 years or so of the production run and the cost of development is amortized over the entire production run of the vehicle. After those first 2-3 years or so, the model begins pulling in a profit. GM used the immediate recovery costs, which did not reflect what the vehicle would truly go for if it were to be a production run over a period of 4-5 years or so. Toyota also used this flawed method to measure costs and claim EVs were more expensive than they really were, as did Honda, as did Ford.

If anything, their pricing scheme was distorted and did not reflect reality.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f there is a market for 100k of these cars, they can make these cheaply.

Not if these small businesses don't have $400+ million to undergo America's stringent crash tests. A small business with a revenue of $1 million a year is not going to have this option, no matter how much the public may want their product. Commutercars has this very problem with their Tango EV.

Hand made, the Tango will cost $80k, but if they could mass produce it, it could sell for under $20k. The problem is, they don't have these many hundreds of millions of dollars for the expensive tests required to see if they meet America's regulations.

This legislation was lobbied in the 70s due to growing public demand for safety, but $400 million crash tests weren't needed to satisfy the public or safety advocates like Nader. It was the auto industry that lobbied for the most expensive solution so they could keep out the competition, yet the ignorant rednecks blame Nader. The public didn't care either way, they simply wanted safer cars.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')gain, your battery costs are way lower than what I experienced.

You obviously were using a very expensive battery that offered no meaningful gain for its price premium!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')ypical car analysts don't think Americans want dinky cars like these. But if Prius success and high gas prices, Americans may want these cars.

They are correct in that Americans don't want dinky cars, but these same analysts are also dead wrong when they claim Americans don't want EVs. EVs don't have to be dinky, small citypod things, they can perfectly fit the role of full size cars, minivans, or even trucks.

The Wall street Journal reported on a study a few years back of California and discovered the market for EVs in the state of California alone was over 150,000 cars per year. Nearly 12% of the market. This was assuming an EV comparably priced with a typical gas car, and had between 60-100 miles range.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'Y')ou are just talking. That is simply not true. If they don't care about EV, they wouldn't invest billions in it and have EV demo lease programs.

They didn't invest on their own free will. California was pushing an EV mandate. Once the mandate was ended, most of the electric cars were crushed instead of sold, even when the prospective buyers offered to release any and all liability for the cars including safety or parts AND pay full price for the vehicles after they had already leased them.

It was only after most cars were crushed and large protests were held that Ford and Toyota offered a few of the uncrushed cars for sale to their leaseholders. General Motors and Honda destroyed all their electrics. They had no rational reason to do this if the propective buywers were even willing to waive all liability: the automakers didn't even want these cars on the road so as to make people forget about them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'N')ot really. All majors didn't like hybrids. It was expensive with little environmental returns, but because EV pilot programs were getting feedbacks that hybrids will solve, Toyota and Honda decided to launch a pilot program for hybrids.

But they weren't so opposed to them like they were EVs. Honda and Toyota offered them on their own free will since they saw comparable profit potential to ICE cars. EVs can be profitable too, just not anywhere near as much, thus they are looked down upon in the industry.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ut you will very soon! Good luck on it.

Thanks. I hope to have it done by the time I'm a senior in college(1-2 years from now).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his is a much sweeter setup than what I had.

Hoping it will work, but so many others have has sucess with very similar setups so I have no reason to expect mine won't work other than the fact that it's my first conversion of an actual car(and not a bicycle or a scooter).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')kay, I had this conversation before with others.
Here is an example:
SFO to LAX takes 45minutes by air.
Factor in 1hr before to get to airport and half hour after to get out.
2hrs and 15minutes total travel time.

Train:
Let's say it can average 120mph. (Which will be very expensive to built if you want it this fast.)
SFO to LAX is about 380+ miles.
3hrs and 10 minutes or so.
It will take you 5 minutes to get in to SF train station and out of LA train station. Of course, in reality, this will be different.
So we can optimisticly state 3hrs and 15 minutes.
1 hour longer compare to regional air commute.

The longer the commute- the worse off train will be.
As you pointed out, EU and Asia use trains way more than planes. Americans should learn to use trains, too.
But again, it requires a change of lifestyle and some cost in time.

The cost in time is still insignificant, compared to say, going by car. Both of the methods, train or plane, could net you the same result, getting you from coast to coast rapidly, it's just that the plane may take 8 hours, while the train could do it in 16. Both would mean you'll likely be spending the day travelling. The lifestyle adjustment is really quite insignificant since yiou only need to plan for that day you're travelling, and not for a week of travelling.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')irlines have lower initial costs and less legal regulations to overcome.
Trains, you have to get land to built rail and it takes longer.
Air only need land for airport and fewer committees or legislative bodies to approve.

As for ability to survive, airlines are in this bad financial condition due to their own inability to compete against each other. Companies rather go bankrupt than shutdown.

The rails are mostly built, however. It's a matter of slightly expanding upon them to accomodate both transport of goods at low speeds and passengers at high speeds and getting more use out of what's currently built.

Airlines are so unsucessful that if the government were to not have subsidized them after 911, they'd have gone bankrupt based on their own merits, just as they should have been left to do.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')f course, there are several ways. But look up the tonnage of fertilizers required by American farmers. You need to be able to produce similar quantities.

We can get by with using less, but that would mean the soil has to be restored so as to increase its viability. Hemp is a great plant for which to prevent soil erosion and to allow a layer of topsoil to be restored due to the structure of the plants roots. Rotate the fields using hemp and the nutrient-rich topsoil will start increasing, reducing the need for fertilizers.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ow, cool pics. I cannot discerne the two. Yes, I can see how you say the spacing can differentiate the two, but coming from enforcement perspective, this is an added burden.

Isn't that what enforcement is about? There is absolutely nothing wrong with training law enforcement to differentiate the two, and if it comes down to it, maybve the drug war should be ended outright due to the benefits the plants in question could have for society as a whole(Industrial hemp for petroleum replacement, marijuana as a form of medicine, ect.).
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby nth » Wed 17 Aug 2005, 14:34:29

The_Toecutter,

Thanks for sharing the pictures.
Yes, this car will be very fun to drive.

I didn't get my car from Soleq EVcort. It is a small shop. The car costs $6k or so and then was stripped down and converted. As I said, the batteries alone costs $8k, but maybe I am wrong. I went and looked for the lease papers and couldn't find them. I know I definitely spend 20k on the lease though. So yes, I might have been ripped off. It was repainted and new interiors. It had brakes that recharged the batteries. It included insurance, too. Not liability. Just for the car. The lease had a mileage component and I drove over 30k. Also, the car had about 100mile range.

I have no idea what batteries I have. I just remember it was lead acid. It was awhile ago and I didn't buy the batteris or put it together or service it. Maintenance was replacing some part that broke and batteries.
Did battery prices go down?
As for recharging, yes, it might be my outlet.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Actually, the costs were often distorted. GM, for instance, kept saying the EV1 would cost over $60k in mass production. The catch was, they weren't using the same stats they used to price other cars. GM, for the EV1, was using the immediate recovery costs of development so that all sales would cause the car to break even the first year of sales. Yes, this would make the EV1 cost $60k. It would also make ANY car cost that much. You see, cars sold today are sold at a loss the first 2-3 years or so of the production run and the cost of development is amortized over the entire production run of the vehicle. After those first 2-3 years or so, the model begins pulling in a profit. GM used the immediate recovery costs, which did not reflect what the vehicle would truly go for if it were to be a production run over a period of 4-5 years or so. Toyota also used this flawed method to measure costs and claim EVs were more expensive than they really were, as did Honda, as did Ford.


Where did you find this info?
Or more like how you get that opinion?
GM EV1 was priced $35k and if they made a lot of them, they would have turned a profit! This is from GM.
Did you know GM, Ford, Toyota, and Honda have publicly stated if they can sell 100,000 vehicles for a given model that the EV prices will be a few thousand dollars more than comparable gasoline car?

The problem is that no one was buying these cars. GM EV1 only has 800+ customers. Only a few hundred people signed the lease after 3000+ people in the first year who visited their showrooms and said they were interested in EV1. I think we need $3 gas prices and higher in order to drive demand. At $1-1.50 gas, no one wants EV.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Not if these small businesses don't have $400+ million to undergo America's stringent crash tests. A small business with a revenue of $1 million a year is not going to have this option, no matter how much the public may want their product. Commutercars has this very problem with their Tango EV.


It does not cost $400m to pass federal and state regulations.
There are several small productions cars that meet all federal and state regulations and they only sell a few thousand. Take it that they cost a quarter of a million dollars, but it shows you that it only costs a few million, unless you failed the tests.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Wed 17 Aug 2005, 18:31:30

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') didn't get my car from Soleq EVcort. It is a small shop. The car costs $6k or so and then was stripped down and converted. As I said, the batteries alone costs $8k, but maybe I am wrong. I went and looked for the lease papers and couldn't find them. I know I definitely spend 20k on the lease though. So yes, I might have been ripped off. It was repainted and new interiors. It had brakes that recharged the batteries. It included insurance, too. Not liability. Just for the car. The lease had a mileage component and I drove over 30k. Also, the car had about 100mile range.


Regenerative braking means it was using AC drive. No wonder it was so expensive! The inverters for AC motors are ridiculously complex and very expensive when produced in small numbers.

There are lead acid battery packs that cost $8 back then and even today, *but* these batteries are the top of the line lead acid batteries you'll find, and their range improvement may only be 5-10% over batteries that cost 1/3 as much. The conversion you describe was obviously state of the art for its time, hence its price. A less sophisticated version that had about 90 miles range, no regenerative braking, but slightly higher performance could have actually been built back then for $10k in parts plus the cost of the donor car. The battery pack, if it were, say, Optima D750s, would have cost about $3k.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')id battery prices go down?


Not much. You simply paid a huge premium for the most sophisticated lead acid batteries available at the time. A cheaper battery could have probably suited the car just fine.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')here did you find this info?
Or more like how you get that opinion?


The figures have generally ranged from $65k-$130k+, depending on what hearing was being held at the time involving the automakers.

Taken For a Ride: Detroits Big Three and the Politics of Pollution by Jack Doyle covers this issue in brief:

John Dabels, former director of market development for GM's EV program, says GM purposely distorted its cost accounting on the Impact to make electric cars appear much more expensive than they would be under more realistic market conditions. GM intentionally piled cost upon cost solely on the Impact. Yet traditionally, in other auto development programs, such costs would be shared with a broader base of products and other parts of the company. This was intentional, according to Dabels, to make the Impact appear very expensive and unprofitable--which the automakers needed to show CARB to discredit and undermine the mandate. All of the R&D costs for the Impact, as well as the Impact's plant production costs in Lansing, Michigan, were attributed solely to that one car, contrary to traditional auto accounting.

Others in the electric vehicle industry saw through this as well, calling the industry's high-cost game a myth. "When smaller EV manufacturers like Solectria, US Eliectricar, Solar Car Corporation, and Renaissance Cars can produce and sell wel-equipped limited production EVs in the $15,000-45,000 range," charged the Electric Vehicle Industry Association in 1994, "there is no justification for Detroit to charge $100,000-$135,000. These are artificial figures, based upon the immeddiate recovery of prototype development costs. Using the same accounting methods, any new car would cost $100,000 or more. Instead, Detroit spreads the cost over hundreds of thousands of cars to be produced. ~Chapter 15, page 316

Look for the following if you want an in-depth look at what went on:

Electric Vehicle Industry Association, Memorandum to Subcommittee on
mobile Source Emissions and Air Quality in the Northeast States, Response to the Disinformation Campaign against Electric and Hybrid Vehicles 9/24/1994

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')M EV1 was priced $35k


Not initially.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')nd if they made a lot of them, they would have turned a profit!

True. Because people would have bought them.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'D')id you know GM, Ford, Toyota, and Honda have publicly stated if they can sell 100,000 vehicles for a given model that the EV prices will be a few thousand dollars more than comparable gasoline car?

Got a link? I'm betting it was individuals from these companies, and not the company line itself. The GM Impact(later the EV1) was claimed to at first cost $100k.

Mens Journal had an article in 1994 called Hot Wiring the Electric Autopia in which GM claimed the Impact had a production cost $500,000, even!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he problem is that no one was buying these cars.

Because they weren't for sale. Not only were the cars very limited in availability, they were lease only, and the only people GM would sell to had to meet a strict criteria checked by the company involving annual income, location of home, and even educational background. This was a hassel for many potential lesees who may have been able to afford the car, but didn't meet GM's criteria. There was also a mandatory 6-week long waiting period. On top of that, dealerships on many occassions have been caught trying to dissuade prospective lesees, telling them they didn't want the car, and even that it was not going to leave the lot, despite it being up for lease.

Even after all that, every car made was leased.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'G')M EV1 only has 800+ customers.

That's because only 800+ cars were made.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nly a few hundred people signed the lease after 3000+ people in the first year who visited their showrooms and said they were interested in EV1. I think we need $3 gas prices and higher in order to drive demand. At $1-1.50 gas, no one wants EV.

Gas would need to be down to like $.85 in today's dollars for my electric to be more expensive to run once I get it going. $1.10 per gallon in today's dollars is about the threshold point for most on road electrics to where gas and electric are about even in cost, this counting battery cost.

On top of that, no one knows what the technology can do. People wrongly think of electric cars as slow golfcarts. If they knew they could produce their peak torque at 0 motor rpm, had instant throttle response, and that electric cars can easily be 200+ horsepower monsters, more people would pay attention.

Even despite this, guess what the demand for EVs in California alone was? 12% of the entire market in that state, according to The Wall Street Journal.

The poll, conducted in July and designed and funded by California environmental groups, concludes consumers in the state would buy between 151,200 and 226,800 electric vehicles annually if they were "available at reasonable prices." That market would amount to between 12% and 18% of all new cars and light trucks sold each year in the state.

~The Wall Street Journal, “Californians Show Potential Demand for Electric Cars”, by Jeffrey Ball, 09/05/2000, page B12

Further, there was a poll by the Green Car Journal claiming that over 30% of prospective new car buyers would purchase an electric vehicle if one was comparably priced to the current crop of cars being sold.

http://greencars.com/newsreleases/sept7.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')t does not cost $400m to pass federal and state regulations.

Actually, that is how much the crash tests and analysis of all the dynamics cost. To meet the actual standards technically costs nothing, and many have actually exceeded the standards demanded of race cars, but unless it is actually tested with the government's own tests, the government won't have it approved unless it's for something like a 'special construction vehicle' like a kit car or handbuilt, or a motorcycle. AC Propulsion had this problem with the TZero, and thus got it registered as a 'special construction vehicle'. This designation limits the amount of vehicles of its type that may be produced.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')here are several small productions cars that meet all federal and state regulations and they only sell a few thousand. Take it that they cost a quarter of a million dollars, but it shows you that it only costs a few million, unless you failed the tests.

Failures are also quite frequent. And expensive.
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby medicvet » Thu 18 Aug 2005, 02:40:57

I hate to say this, but reading that gave me a headache because I had to keep scrolling back and forth...so I just skimmed over it..is there a way to reduce the pic so it isn't that large?

or is that just me not knowing how to have it show up any other way?
User avatar
medicvet
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Hicktown OK
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby skyemoor » Thu 18 Aug 2005, 10:06:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')Wind to get 5 cents requires tax breaks. Non-incentive winds cost more than 5 cents.


You are correct, though you are glossing over the subsidies given to coal and nuclear plants, especially in the new "Energy Bill".

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')Yes, cars are bad. I tried not to drive and always carpool or public transportation whenever possible. But the facts are that electric cars are not convenient yet.


I'm not sure what you mean by "not convenient". One can charge their car at home, and with 200 mile batteries, 95+% of car trips never need extra charging on the road.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')AND it does costs more.
Electric cars need more maintenance. I guess you never driven one. I have for two years. And my electric vehicle had transmission. There are not many passenger car electric vehicles with absolutely no transmission. Actually, never saw one myself.


Small production runs of any vehicle are always going to cost more. High production runs are needed to bring costs down.

Most purpose-built EVs are transmission-free;
GM EV-1, Honda EV+, Maya 100, etc.
http://www.timescommunity.com/site/tab1 ... 6047&rfi=6
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/05 ... v_to_.html
http://www.hondaev.org/acarl.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nth', '
')Maintenance costs are related to batteries and they are expensive.
Recharge times are insanely long, so not practical for long trips.
Great for city driving.
Weak for highway driving.


Again, there are 200+ mile EVs, some which reach 80 mph and could go faster if they were not governed. The EV-1 reached 187 mph on a racetrack.

You may be referring to converted cars (i.e., regular cars with the engines removed and replaced by electric motor with batteries)

Will
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby nth » Thu 18 Aug 2005, 13:11:59

The_toecutter,

Yeah, if gas stays high, then we will probably see more of these types of cars.

Will,

Honda link you gave show 17.7 to 14 seconds 0-60.
Damn... so slow.

I want the EV1. That is a sports car.
User avatar
nth
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1978
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: A Question of efficiency?

Unread postby The_Toecutter » Thu 18 Aug 2005, 20:22:57

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') hate to say this, but reading that gave me a headache because I had to keep scrolling back and forth...so I just skimmed over it..is there a way to reduce the pic so it isn't that large?

or is that just me not knowing how to have it show up any other way?


Copy and paste it into Microsoft word, or adjust your computer's resolution.

I edited the image to be a clickable link instead, but since nth quoted the image in one of his posts, it still shows up. Maybe he could edit it?
The unnecessary felling of a tree, perhaps the old growth of centuries, seems to me a crime little short of murder. ~Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
The_Toecutter
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sat 18 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top
Next
Post a reply

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron