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."
My fear (Score:2, Insightful)
The Aptera is cool looking (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My fear (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think most people on Slashdot probably understand what it will take. We need to stop subsidizing oil companies with tax dollars. We need to stop spending billions on wars to secure supplies for oil companies. We need to pass strict legislation to regulate the types of power plants that can be built based upon the real costs to the citizens. We need to legislate a date within the next decade when coal plants are required to meet emission, waste, and safety standards and stop approving new, unclean coal plants. Then, when the real costs of all these industries are borne by those industries, we need to let the market sort it out and provide the most cost effective solution.
I suspect politicians and their advisors know this as well. I just don't think any of them are as interested in making it happen as they are in making sure their re-election campaign is well funded and they're owed political favors.
Re:Cost? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My fear (the smell of burning cars) (Score:5, Insightful)
You can live in Fear.
Or you can be a proud patriotic American and refuse to live in Fear.
Those are the choices.
Re:Not a Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My fear (Score:5, Insightful)
Because of course, gasoline is non-flammable. Actually, for a while there was no official method to fight a car fire in a hybrid or electric vehicle, or to cut one open in a major accident. That was solved a few year ago when people started seeing all those Toyotas... Now it is just like any other car... The most dangerous part is the loose nut behind the wheel.
Re:Let's black this bitch out! (Score:3, Insightful)
lol, if we need to shape up the power grid into supporting millions of fully-electric cars, we won't look into wind mills. Either nuclear power plants or coal power plants, and considered both the current administration (there's little we can assume about the next administrations) and the mineral resources of this country, we might go for coal power plants, and suddenly that makes fully-electric cars seem much less eco-friendly (as things are they're not very eco-friendly either).
Re:Not a Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Electric cars make it easier to solve the problem because then the problem is one of solving electricity generation, which can be done piecemeal without disruption either to most vehicle users or new delivery systems, since the electrical grid can delivery electricity no matter what fuel is used to generate it, and electric vehicles don't care how their electricity is generated.
Hydrogen is clean when burned, but is either produced at an energy loss by consuming other fuel or mined, and IIRC the mining output that is practical won't support its use as a major fuel. Plus there are the distribution problems. Hydrogen might have uses as a motor vehicle fuel, but EVs are a lot more useful.
Re:Not a Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me summarize the legions of faults in your arguments.
Electric cars reduce, but do not eliminate, these emissions, because while they are more efficient, the power has to come from somewhere, and right now that means a power plant
No one said the energy is free. And anyone who does is just flat out stupid. Of course the energy has to come from somewhere, but approaching things in absolutes as you have eliminates the gray areas that is the whole point of this process. Yes, 1kw consumed in an electric car has to be produced somewhere. However, 1kw produced by an internal combustion engine in a single car is FAR less efficient than 1kw out of 100,000 produced in a central plant. Any centralized power production facility, based on current technology, will be more efficient than individual producers.
Solar is very inefficient
Congratulations for dismissing an entire industry based on one point. Yes, current solar cells, operating somewhere in the mid-teens efficiency wise, are inefficient converters. But they are CLEAN converters. They consume no energy in when in use, produce no by products, and do not require frequent maintenance. By those metrics, Photovoltaic cells are fantastic energy sources. There is an argument that production of the cells is 'dirty', but understand that production of a combustion engine, a nuclear power plant, or a hydroelectric dam is 'dirty' as well.
wind is costly and unsightly
You must work for the idiots on Nantucket that are fighting against the Cape Wind project. Which is more unsightly, a silent windmill on a hill, or smog and dead plants and animals everywhere? Windmills are more expensive than buying a tank of gas at the pump, but they are enormously efficient, very low maintenance, and produce clean, no by-product energy. Unsightly? Then put them somewhere you don't want to see them, like out to sea or in isolated regions. Personally I find them very attractive and fascinating - far more beautiful than a coal plant pumping garbage into the atomosphere.
Nuclear presents it's own problems
In teh grand scheme of things, nuclear power is one of the most efficient, cleanest processes for producing energy (that uses at thermal variance process - heated steam to turn a turbine) on the planet. The by-products of used fuel can be managed and dealt with, becuase the by products are KNOWN quantities. What people dont' realize is that the junk a nuclear reactor generates is not far off from the garbage a coal plant puts into the atmosphere. The difference is the nuke plant has the by products contained and controlled, while coal and oil plants just throw them into the air. "Oh well, someone elses problem."
i am more interested in hydrogen
This argument is one the Bushies and others push, without understanding the real problems. There is no hydrogen economy, and hydrogen fuel is ridiculously hard to manage in compressed or liquid form. Did you know you cant' put them in tanks? Nope, tanks corrode when you store hydrogen in them, they have to be very specific types of tanks that are ridiculously expensive and complicated. There is no infrastructure for delivering and fueling vehicles based on hydrogen, nor will there ever be one. Can you imagine the cost of replacing every gas pump with a hydrogen pump, every gasoline and oil tank with a hydrogen tank? Hydrogen is a great dream, but will never actually function until breakthroughs are made in hydrogen storage and transportation. Give up this dream and focus on what is possible now.
The number one obstacle in electric based vehicles is batteries. Full stop. And there has been so much work put into battery technology in the last 5 years, that the tiem of the electric car is here, and it's here to stay. Stop poopooing the technology that is proving itself to work (notice the fleets of priuses out there), and wishing for castles in the sky. Work with what's here and now.
Re:My fear (Score:2, Insightful)
Just to clarify my personal view here...I'm not afraid of vehicles fire in an EV, I'm afraid of how public opinion of EV's might unfairly change after one well-publicized EV fire.
Where do you get your numbers? (Score:3, Insightful)
1 Gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 36.7kW-hr. This [shec-labs.com] is my reference.
1 Gallon @ $3.00 or 36.7kW-hr x $0.07/kW-hr = $2.569 A little less expensive, but not quite as cheap as you make it out to be.
Disclaimer: This comparison relies upon an assumption that the efficiency of an internal combustion engine powered car is (very) roughly equivalent to a battery charge and discharge cycle to power an electric motor of an electric car. Yes, an electric motor will be more efficient than an ICE, but you have to count the power going into the battery charger (which will take into account charging losses, battery losses, and discharge losses), not the just the motor, to properly compare costs. To really make a true comparison, you need the miles per kW-hr for the electric to compare with the gasoline equivalent MPG.
Re:Coal Power... (Score:4, Insightful)
One big coal plant (with scrubbers and such) isn't necessarily any worse than hundreds of thousands of small, inefficient gasoline engines -- and infrastructure upgrades to reduce the pollution from that plant (and otherwise mitigate its effects) can be done at one time, in one place, rather than needing to upgrade hundreds of thousands of small, separately owned vehicles. (If the folks working on fusion power get that worked out, every EV is suddenly fusion-powered -- while folks with gasoline vehicles are still releasing the carbon from long-dead forests).
Coal is dirty, sure, but lots of little inefficient gasoline engines isn't necessarily any better. (Also, not everyone gets their power from coal).
Re:Where do you get your numbers? (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember when I took Power Mechanics in grade 10 and Electricity 11 12 that in fact, gasoline engines are not 100 percent efficient. Even were we to assume you have a tuned engine (not normally true of most cars on the road, and especially not for SUVs), the reality is that the average electric motor - especially a souped up real electric motor like those used in industrial applications as most of these retrofits use - will almost always have a much higher efficiency engine than any gasoline engine unless constantly maintained at peak performance.
Re:Cost? (Score:2, Insightful)
During the day you SELL the electricity.
During the night you buy (CHEAP!) electricity to charge your car.
Re:Not a Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Cost? energy 1/10th gas cost (Score:1, Insightful)
So the cost of the energy ranges from $3 a gallon (cheap in the West) for gas to $0.30 gallon equivalent for electricity in coal states to $0.04 gallon equivalent for electricity in the Northwest.
Math kitty sees what you've done there.
1 gallon-o-gas ~ 131 MJ
1 KWh = 3.6 MJ
In gasoline, you get $0.0229 per MJ.
In green energy:
1. $0.07/KWh = $0.0194 per MJ
2. $0.04 = gallon equivalent
3. ???
4. $0.0011/KWh ($0.04/gallon == $0.04/131 MJ == $0.04/131 MJ*3.6 MJ/KWh)
3 is either a free battery pack that continually prints money or a quantum device that redefines the Dollar-Joule.
Math like that buried the electric car. People were promised these huge savings and instead got a hulking over priced POS that was good for a maximum distance of 30 miles per day 5 days a week and required $15,000 in battery disposal and replacement fees every other year.
The electric car may happen one day, but it will have to at least be economically reasonable. Currently, I expect hybrids to be an economically reasonable purchase in 3-5 years (or at $5/gallon). You can't ask a family to drop $25% more on a car and not see some sort of fiscal benefit, and you can't call it mainstream until you can find a family vehicle sporting it for under $20,000 -- used.
Re:My fear (Score:3, Insightful)
The trolls are the !@#$% idiots who watch the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car" and than damn GM without having a real clue. I keep hearing people criticize GM for not releasing a car with our present LiIon battery tech.
But the truth is, said technology in it's current form is not very safe. Especially if you are enclosed in the said technology rather than just wearing it.
Say GM were to sell 20,000 vehicles. Then a few cars have their LiIon batteries ignite and people die. Can you imagine the lawsuit? the recall? it'd kill GM...
Frankly, I'd rather they take a couple more years and improve the battery technology and put safeguards.
And if that makes me a troll. I'll take being a troll over being a moronic twit any day.
***
Oh yeah, to all those who claim the EV1 was viable. Please note that Honda's Insight which had only 1/2 the inconveniences of the EV1 and cost about a 1/4 of what the EV1 did to build was deemed a financial failure. (Even though it got the best mpg in the country.) The car was removed from the market because it was economically unviable.
TROLLS are far better than little stupid twits who watch movies made by stupid twits.
And if you don't have a garage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Likewise, the stated mileage doesn't sound like it takes into account things like being stuck on the freeway for hours while your engine is still idling and consuming power or being stuck in downtown traffic so, while you're unlikely to be driving your full range daily, it seems just as likely that with greater urban congestion you'll be running through a lot of power while you don't manage to actually go very far making the need for frequent recharging necessary.
Likely solutions will arise, but problems seem to be significant (what about jackasses just unplugging your car if it's somehow charging on the street?) regardless. It's a shame too because the urban environment is the ideal place for an electric car where it would help reduce both air and noise pollution and where trips are generally much shorter and infrequent. I can really see a car share program being able to make excellent use of electrics, but that's about it.
Re:Cost? (Score:4, Insightful)
ALL electric and hybrid vehicles are priced way out of the reach of the typical american. Fact is the typical american makes less than $32,000.00 a year. The payment on a $24,000.00 car is insane and therefore not afforadble by the masses only by the few rich people. Most people can afford USED cars under $8000.00 some stretch to the $14,000.00 mark but not many.
the ONLY way to get this going is get subcompact efficient cars that are under $11,000.00 NEW. That is the only answer, nothing else will make a difference.
If the common man and woman cant buy the car then it will make no difference. and your other suggestions only will punish the poor and working class. The guy barely making it at a paltry $16.00 an hour will suffer huge because he HAS to drive a old low gas mileage car to work and back. The rich making $60,000 a year or more will whine about $5.50 a gallong gas but it will not affect them. The poor people which outnumber the middle class and rich 20 to 1 are who will suffer.
So your plan is to punish the poor? I like my plan. a 200% tax on all luxury cars. Rich dude has to have a Hummer H2? then he can pay for cost reduction on 5 electric cars for poor people. Want that Fararri? you get to subsidise 20 Smart fortwo's to be sold at 1/2 price to poor families.
That is the only workable answer. Otherwise it will take well over 25 years before the current hybrids and future electrics to trickle down to the poor where it will make the biggest difference. The poor kid making minimum wage will only be able to afford that prius when he can buy it for $800.00. Otherwise he will be buying that gas hog ford escort that only get's 21mpg.
Re:Tesla (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately that wouldn't be just a dedicated circuit; it'd probably be a dedicated drop, or you'd at least have to get your standard 200A service bumped to 300A. If everyone on the block gets one the power company probably isn't going to be able to provide that much power for a while.
Not a problem if you own (and spend a lot of time in) a business in a commercial or industrial area of course.
Re:And if you don't have a garage? (Score:5, Insightful)
Care to explain which model of electric motor uses power when it is stopped?
I sure hope they don't start selling those in hard drives or my laptop battery time is going to suck!
No, it's not. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is roughly correct for state of the art gas-fired plants. Efficiently numbers like the above don't even make sense, though, for the large (and growing) fraction of our power mix that is nuclear, and the growing portion that is wind-powered.
Then there is attenuation loss while its delivered to the consumer.
The power grid is over 90% efficient overall. Locally generated energy (say, from PV panels on your roof) is even better in this regard.
Then it has to be stored in batteries which lose energy over time.
It's starting to sound like you're outside your area of expertise. IAAEVE (I am an electric vehicle engineer.) Are you?
Electric engine has THEORETICAL top efficiency of around 45%.
This is total BS. Are you spreading misinformation deliberately or do you actually believe this? AC Propulsion's AC-150 drive system [acpropulsion.com] is about 90% efficient over a typical driving cycle. Follow the link to a spec sheet with the detailed efficiency map. Tesla Motors' propulsion system is based heavily on ACP's, and will be roughly the same in terms of efficiency.
The theoretical efficiency of gasoline engine (which I don't remember at the moment) is 2-3 times that.
The BS is flying thick, now. I don't know what you mean by "theoretical efficiency", but it's clear that you don't, either. Gasoline engines in the real-world cars I drive are around 15-18% efficient. (Did you really think they were 3 * 45 or 135% efficient?)
So for every calory [sic] of heat we burn (and release into atmoshere) with a gasoline engine we'd get 2-3 as much work.
Somehow you managed to get your conclusion in the right ballpark, but you have it backwards. Most modern EV propulsion systems are at least 3x as efficient as gasoline cars in a real-world, fair, wells-to-wheels energy comparison, making them about equivalent to 120-140 miles per gallon. You can do your own homework on this -- it's well documented. Tesla Motors' website has some interesting whitepapers and other material on the subject that's pretty easy to understand.
These cars will just end up burning more coal and release massive amount of greenhouse gases. But hey, it's cool to be green.
Spreading FUD when you don't know what you're talking about isn't cool at all. Even from coal, EVs are substantially more efficient and clean. This. Is. Well. Documented. And coal is just part of the power mix. Electricity is the ultimate flex fuel. And EV charging is biased towards off-peak times, when baseline (e.g. nuclear) energy is a larger part of the grid mix.
Electric Vehicles (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with cars in our cities is not that they run on petrol, gas, diesel or supergreen pie-in-the-sky imaginary fuel, it's that there are cars in our cities. Sure, if you live in the remote wilderness I might understand the need for wheels, but most of us live in urban areas or within commuting distances of them. Cars are a horribly inefficient and outdated mode of transportation, not just with energy but with space and the social ramifications that poor land usage entails.
Sure, the car was a good alternative to horses and given a choice I'd rather step in tarmac than horseshit, but that's about the only advantage the car has bought as far as I can see. It's time to remodel and redesign our cities. Higher density and better public transport. Nothing new about it, that's how cities like Paris, London and New York grew so big in the first place. Or you could look at the alternative, LA. I know where I'd rather live.
Re:The Aptera is cool looking (Score:4, Insightful)