6 Major Pre-Production Electric Vehicles Compared 486
rbgrn writes with a review of six major pre-production electric vehicles. The review offers an easy side-by-side comparison of these six cars with projected release dates of either 2008 or 2010. "With all of the hype surrounding hybrid vehicles today, I thought I'd do some research and post my findings on the next generation of fully electric and plug-in hybrids. The fully-electric EV has had a bad name in the past, mostly due to insufficient battery technology, politics, lack of performance models and other factors. Starting this year with the Tesla Roadster, the EV is going to take on a new form in the eyes of John Q Public. Quiet, efficient EVs will start to become commonplace in the next few years as major manufacturers go into production with the newest generation of vehicle sporting more powerful motors, efficient generators and the latest battery technology."
Mirror (Score:3, Informative)
By Robert Green on November 19, 2007 1:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)
With all of the hype surrounding hybrid vehicles today, I thought I'd do some research and post my findings on the next generation of fully electric and plug-in hybrids. The fully-electric EV has had a bad name in the past, mostly due to insufficient battery technology, politics, lack of performance models and other factors. Starting this year with the Tesla Roadster, the EV is going to take on a new form in the eyes of John Q Public. Quiet, efficient EVs will start to become commonplace in the next few years as major manufacturers go into production with the newest generation of vehicle sporting more powerful motors, efficient generators and the latest battery technology.
The big change will be the introduction of full EVs and plug-in hybrids. Full EVs are as one would expect: A fully electric vehicle that uses no other fuels. A plug-in hybrid is a vehicle that uses electricity as its primary power source and is equipped with a generator that supplements electricity as-needed. Many of the plug-in hybrids have an electric-only range of 30-60 miles with an extended range of 400-700 miles. The difference to the consumer is the way in which the vehicle is charged. Traditional hybrids are powered primarily by gas and thus need to be refueled regularly. Plug-in hybrids plug in at home and to most people that means they park the car at home, plug it in overnight and it's ready to go the next morning. This means that if you're driving less than your EV range each day, you'll never need to put a drop of gas into the car. How nice does that sound?
The following table is a consolidation of data collected from many different sources, cited at the bottom of this article. It has many key points that the average person may be interested in. Much of the data is still not readily available due to the pre-production and concept status of some of the models. I will do my best to keep this chart up-to-date.
(Copy of the chart) [flickr.com]
As you can see from the production dates, four out of six of the vehicles are scheduled to be in production in 2010 but the other two, the Tesla Roadster and Aptera are scheduled for production in 2008. Both companies are currently taking pre-orders. Estimated production numbers are difficult to find but Chevy has claimed 60,000 in the first year.
Performance is a hot issue with EVs and this generation is no doubt going to address that. I calculated a figure where applicable which divides the vehicles weight in pounds into its peak power rating. The resulting number gives an indication for how well the vehicle should be able to accelerate. While numbers are only available for a few cars, the Tesla Roadster easily takes the lead with a a 0-60 of 4 seconds and a 68.5 Watt/Pound ratio. This should prove to many that EVs are now capable of being mainstream performance cars.
Most of these plug-in hybrids are expected to have a 3-cylinder turbo diesel or gasoline generator which usually produces slightly more than the continuous power rating of the car. Translation: You can drive as far as you want with this car only refueling and not having to recharge. This alone should resolve many people's fears of range with EVs.
The Aptera is one of the most interesting vehicles here with its very aerodynamic, futuristic design and high range specifications. It comes in two models: Fully EV and Hybrid. The Full EV model is estimated to be $26,900 and the Hybrid at $29,900.
The Mitsubishi MiEV Sport is supposed to compete with the Tesla Roadster but currentl
Re:Cost? (Score:2, Informative)
Google cache (Score:4, Informative)
Where do you get the Hydrogen? (Score:4, Informative)
So where do you plan on getting the hydrogen? It doesn't exist naturally on earth.
Steam reformation (currently the most economic method)? Releases CO2 as one of the resulting products from the process.
Electrolysis? Where do you get electricity for this? Coal? CO2 emissions. Solar? Inefficient (as of now). Wind? "costly and unsightly" Nuclear?
The only advantage hydrogen offers is that it can be ultimately converted into mechanical energy through both internal combustion engines and fuel cells producing electricity to power electric motors(read: ELECTRIC CARS).
Just remember, with hydrogen, "the power has to come from somewhere," too.
Vectrix is a real vehicle, in production (Score:2, Informative)
And, at $11,000 or so, are not ridiculously expensive. I am seriously considering buying one when they open their LA showroom, supposedly within the next month or so.
Re:Vectrix is a real vehicle, in production (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cost? energy 1/10th gas cost (Score:3, Informative)
If so, Of what kind of range?
And you can get Honda or Toyaota to do plug in conversions here in the US??
Chevy Volt (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, having the means to charge your vehicle in the garage (with a net savings for $35-$75 a fill-up times x number of fill-ups per year) alters the value of solar cell roofing.
Those uber-expensive solar panels on your roof that cost you an extra $200/month for the next 10 yrs, all of a sudden are not quite as costly in your budget when they eliminate $100 or more in expenditures on gasoline.
These vehicles will likely spur major growth in solar cell production.
Re:Let's black this bitch out! (Score:2, Informative)
Check out this Wired piece: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.02/wind.html [wired.com]
No we don't (Score:2, Informative)
If you click that link, you'll see that there is no way in hell "large portions" of the US use hydro.
Which calls the veracity of your entire post into question, and seeing as another poster debunked your cost numbers, I'd say you're just making things up.
Re:Cost? energy 1/10th gas cost (Score:4, Informative)
The problem with hydro which is often overlooked is the fixed capacity of the system. Many are under the illusion that all you need to do is dam a river with a new dam and wow, free power. Often overlooked is that hydro is gravity power from falling water. That is water moving from one elevation to another. Many people have no clue as to why there is no major (or minor) hydro plants on the mighty Mississippi River. The sad fact is Chicago Illinois is at an elevation of only 700 feet. Just how many 80 foot drop dams are you going to put between the gulf and Iowa? If you put in a dam and let the water back-up.. how much land would be under water? The river is over 2,000 miles long, but most of the elevation is below 1,000 feet. There isn't much falling water in there.
http://www.42explore2.com/missriv.htm [42explore2.com]
The river does have a system of Dams and Locks, but they are for Navigation, not power generation
"Twenty-nine locks and dams on the Mississippi and eight on the Illinois replaced rapids and falls with a stairway of water for commercial and recreational traffic."
They connected it to one of the Great lakes with a canal.
"The history of navigation on the Upper Mississippi River System goes back to the 1820's, when Congress authorized construction of a canal connecting Lake Michigan and the Illinois River and also authorized removal of snags and other obstructions in several reaches of the Mississippi River."
Remember that water flows downhill. Lake Michigan is at elevation 577 feet above sea level. The canal connects to the Illinois river which than empties into the Mississippi river. Let's face it, there just isn't a lot of elevation drop in the river to supoort power generation. There is barely enough elevation drop to drain a heavy rain.
Here is some stats on a couple of the dams. Both of them have a drop of less than 20 feet. These are not suited for commercial power generation.
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA105334 [dtic.mil]
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA104703 [dtic.mil]
Move on to the mighty Columbia, known for it's hydro. There are many dams in Oregon.
The Columbia River has the water from most of Montana, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. It enters Oregon near the Idaho border. One of the major dams is the McNary dam near Hermiston Oregon. The dam has a nominal pool level of 340 feet above sea level. That dam dumps right into the pool of the next dam which has a pool elevation of 265 feet. This stair step drop from pool to pool continues all the way down to the Boniville dam near Hood river. From there the river has very little drop all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Any more dams along there would simply flood out the powerhouse of the next dam upstream. The last dam the bonivile dam has a pool elevation of 74 feet. It discharges into the lower river near Portland Oregon. The river in Portland is at a nominal elevation of about 9 feet above sea level. That is why there are no dams on the Columbia between Portland and Astoria on the coast 80 miles away. If you put in a dam and allowed the pool to fill, all of downtown Portland would be under water.
Hydro power is cheap to produce, but there just isn't any more places with a good head of water to feed the demand for hydro power. There are a few creeks which can support some small hydro, but these are backyard projects. The environmentalists and outdoors men also resist the damming of every little stream. The lower Deschutes river is known for it's white water rafting. Damming that up would be a major legal battle.
electric engines 90% efficient (Score:1, Informative)
do you enjoy spreading FUD?
http://www.energyexperts.org/energy_solutions/res_details.cfm?resourceID=3823&keyword=cheap§or=All [energyexperts.org]
"A 250 hp standard efficiency motor has a pretty good efficiency--on the order of 94.2%"
Telsa Roadster Compred to my 2006 F250 (Score:2, Informative)
In my estimates, I am not counting Insurance, Maintenance, Taxes or Cost of Financing. I am also making the assumption, that I will never go to Home Depot, haul something or plan anything with my family.
I am also assuming that both vehicles will last forever.
My truck cost me about $32,500 and gets about 13.8 MPG.
The Tesla Roadster cost $100,000 and gets about 50 miles on a buck.
I am assuming that Gas prices are $4.00 per gallon and the mileage on both vehicles are the same rate (i.e. average cost of City/Highway).
The Answer:
I would have to drive 250,000 miles before the cost benefit of owning the Tesla Roadster.
Now the I must admit that the Tesla Roadster is more of a babe magnet than my F250, but I will not factor in the cost of a divorce from my wife.
Mitsubishi MiEV is $24K, 2009 model (Score:5, Informative)
The skinny: based on popular I car ( selling very well in Europe ) Mitsubishi is planning to market a fully electric version. About 120 miles range, a bit better acceleration performance than gas version and same top speed. Announced pricetag: $24K.
Fully crashtested to european standards at least, performs as well as gas counterpart.
The prototypes are in fleet testing by Tokyo Electric Power Company ( TEPCO ) right now.
There is some competition from Subaru in the form of R1E and Nissan with the Mixim.
I guess the reviewer does not subscribe to ABG [autobloggreen.com] electric vehicle news.
Re:Let's black this bitch out! (Score:3, Informative)
"In October 2005, WEST signed a contract to deliver 150 megawatts, which should take roughly 50 windmills. A test turbine is scheduled to be in operation this summer; the rest should be spinning by late 2008. Another 50 or so could follow by 2010 if demand warrants."
So 2x150 MW = 300 MW in 3 years..
"At 500 megawatts, that project is bigger than WEST's, but it won't be completed for several years."
So maybe 800 MW in several years, barely enough for 200K houses. But hey only one year late and 1/70 of 21 GW, seen worse facts modded to 5 Informative before...
Re:Cost? energy 1/10th gas cost (Score:3, Informative)
Most electricity is shaped. When I was a Power Engineer at Tek-Cominco in Trail, BC, we shaped the power from one of the hydro dams with additional power from other sources - hydro however does not need much shaping, as you can kick in additional generators as demand increases.
Most dams in the Pacific Northwest (hint, ever hear a song called Roll On Columbia) have very large drops. We have these things called Mountains here, specifically the Rocky Mountains. Even the dams that provide electricity for Seattle along our Coastal mountain chains have very large drops. It's not like the small teeny dams you have in the rest of the US. Most such dams have many turbines, with variable generation capabilities.
Please realize energy sources and shaping may differ depending where you live.
Re:Battery-only cars will fail. (Score:2, Informative)
If you're car was using 100-200hp constantly you'd be hard accelerating up to around a constant rate of about 120-160mph all the time.
Did you actually calculate out how much hp a car uses at a constant real-world speed? It's actually much closer to 10-30hp at freeway speeds all depending on air, tire and transmission resistance. There's many formulas around the internet for this. Pick your favorite.
Charging a car overnight connected to a 240 Volt charger is well within feasible.
Re:Cost? energy 1/10th gas cost (Score:1, Informative)
True, which is why most of the new hydro projects aren't "build more dams" but "make them more efficient". The generators can be significantly more efficient.
Also, did you know it takes petroleum to run a hydroelectric dam? With all the turbines, you need some pretty serious lubrication, which means you also need a bunch of huge pumps to push that oil around, and so you tend to have big ICEs running pumps. I know of projects attacking this problem, too -- one dam (I forget where) is apparently petroleum-neutral.
So, yeah, we can't just build more dams in the Columbia. But we can make them a *lot* better. Just as electronics technology in 1935 made electric cars like these infeasible, it made hydroelectric dams inefficient. We can do much better today.
Re:Mitsubishi MiEV is $24K, 2009 model (Score:4, Informative)
Um, how about NO or hell no ?
So how much do you pay to drive 10 000 miles with a 3 year old Camry ? With MiEV, you pay £50 [autocar.co.uk]
I guess if we discuss the price of the things, then price paid per mile is relevant.
Then, you might be surprised to hear about the little thing called "congestion charge" in a few places in the world, like London. Thats £8 saved every day when commuting to work. Guess what, MiEV would be exempt from that. It would also be able to drive in US HOV lanes.
Now, i havent driven MiEV myself, but everybody who has [autobloggreen.com] say that it performs actually better than the gas-powered counterpart. The reasons for that are: ideal weight distribution with low placed batteries, and instant torque without any gearbox available that is the inherent characteristic of eletric motors. I havent driven a Camry on track myself, but if feels kinda heavy to drive, i would not be surprised if it got its ass handed to it by something like MiEV.
If you add this all together, and throw in the fact that its a zero ( tailpipe ) emissions* vehicle, the metrics wont exactly be all around better.
* An electric vehicle powered by the electricity from coal plants is still roughly 75% cleaner per mile than modern gas engine.