Chevrolet Volt

[rayner]

Anyone out there keeping up with the status of the electric car? This one looks to be promising... and coming out in the next few years... that's if GM can keep it together. You can go on a 40 mile commute and then after that the fuel-injection will charge the battery. You can get roughly 100 MPG... for people like me that basically drives 12 miles to and from work ( 25 miles round trip ) I will barely have to buy gas... the initial investment would be $32,500 after tax-rebates, and a person could save thousands on fuel. Here is a wiki link cause I'm at work...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt

[KodiaX987]

For any electric car, the money you save on fuel, you spend it on your electric bill. :wacko:

Remember: all motor vehicles require some form of energy in one way or another.

[rayner]

For any electric car, the money you save on fuel, you spend it on your electric bill. :wacko:

Remember: all motor vehicles require some form of energy in one way or another.

Did you read the article? If you drive non-stop... the fuel-injection charges the battery. The 100 MPG is based off constant driving. I doubt the charging would cost more than the fuel needed to re-charge the battery. If so then I'd just run it off fuel...

[Kent]

It's interesting, to say the least. I'd like to see how well the production model fares in real usage, though.

[rayner]

It's interesting, to say the least. I'd like to see how well the production model fares in real usage, though.

I agree, I'll be looking to purchase a new vehicle around 2014 / 2015... so there will be 4 - 5 years of testing by then. It's kinda scary how you have to put in your budget to make investments like this years in advance. Lets hope for the best :-)

[amtalx]

I'd say is pretty sweet for gas conscious consumers, but personally I would rather sacrifice efficiency for horsepower until power output is better.

[Smidge204]

I once did the math and figured that if gasoline stays at $2.00 or more per gallon (currently $2.11) and electric stays at about $0.17 per Kilowatt-Hour I'd actually save money with a purely electric vehicle. This is assuming 25% tank-to-road efficiency for a gasoline engine and 80% plug-to-road efficiency for electric/battery. Energy saving stuff like regenerative braking would only pad the savings more.

<b>amtalx</b>: Electric motor horsepower rating is different from internal combustion engine (ICE) horsepower ratings. The rating for an ICE is peak attainable under load for a specified RPM. The rating for an electric motor is the minimum sustainable power output at a specified temperature, with peak output being much higher for short periods of time without burning the motor. It may seem stupid but I assure you a 15HP electric motor has more get-up-and-go than a 150HP gasoline engine.

Fun fact: A motor (electric or not) that is not connected to anything produces zero horsepower.

(Aside: the phrase "the fuel-injection charges the battery" makes no sense, although I think you mean "the internal combustion engine charges the battery" which is what actually happens.)
=Smidge=

[rayner]

(Aside: the phrase "the fuel-injection charges the battery" makes no sense, although I think you mean "the internal combustion engine charges the battery" which is what actually happens.)
=Smidge=

Yeah that's what I meant to say... also I always try to figure out the savings, but then the price of gas changes. I live in New York City so the price is always like $0.50 more per gallon. When I plan to purchase one in 2015 or so I'd imagine the price of gas would be $3 - $4 a gallon. Or it could be $6.87 like in the future in I Am Legend ;-)

[Ketchup345]

I'd say is pretty sweet for gas conscious consumers, but personally I would rather sacrifice efficiency for horsepower until power output is better.Electric engines usually are better with torque than gas engines. For an examples of how a gas vs electric car is in a drag race, see the Tesla Roadster vs the Elise.

Personally, I think the price is too high, last I saw it was supposed to be around $40k before "adjustments". Compare that to hybrids, like the new Honda Insight, which starts at $20k, and I doubt many will find it worth it to switch to the Volt.

[amtalx]

Interesting stuff about the electric motors, didn't know that. The way I put that was kind of silly though. I meant more along the lines of power for the money. I tried to find the Roadster vs. Elise video but it seems that the BBC decided to be a bunch of crumpet munching assholes about copyright and had it removed from youtube. I'm not sure the Roadster vs. Elise is quite fair though, but it really depends on which Elise they used. The base Roadster is significantly more powerful than the base Elise on paper.

If they can make electric car that doesn't cost 3x as much as a gas burner for similar performance I'm on board. Until then, the jury is out for me.

[Ketchup345]

Interesting stuff about the electric motors, didn't know that. The way I put that was kind of silly though. I meant more along the lines of power for the money. I tried to find the Roadster vs. Elise video but it seems that the BBC decided to be a bunch of crumpet munching assholes about copyright and had it removed from youtube. I'm not sure the Roadster vs. Elise is quite fair though, but it really depends on which Elise they used. The base Roadster is significantly more powerful than the base Elise on paper.Even on paper, the Tesla beats out the Exige S260 in 0-60 (though it is only by 0.1 seconds). I did that comparison, because they are almost the same car, minus some changes in looks, about 500-600lbs, and of course the way the car works.

For the cost and function of a normal car, a hybrid or gas/diesel are the only options. Full electric are either limited in ability or too costly to be an only car.

[Midicronica]

Wow, some really interesting facts in this thread. Am I the only one that is totally digging the body of that car?

[rayner]

There is a video demonstration on CNN business section if anyone wants to look at it:

http://money.cnn.com/?cnn=yes

[Leviathan]

Wow, some really interesting facts in this thread. Am I the only one that is totally digging the body of that car?

The one they have now is okay by my standards, but I really liked the concept of it much more.

http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/volt.jpg

[Lance813]

Make me a Hydrogen fuel cell, then we will talk about it.

[Leviathan]

Make me a Hydrogen fuel cell, then we will talk about it.

Done!
Hy-Wire*

http://www.netinform.net/H2/H2Mobility/imgview2.aspx?id=208

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Hy-wire



*Disregard that the previous concept of it [on the Wikipedia page] looks like a child's play thing.

[Lance813]

Wow, that thing looks scary.

The drivers seat anywhere? wow, thank you Levi.

I now will buy an alt. fuel car when i have the money.

EDIT: what was I thinking... A car with compressed hydrogen on it. If i get into a crash I would take out a block of houses.

[Solstis]

Wow, that thing looks scary.

The drivers seat anywhere? wow, thank you Levi.

I now will buy an alt. fuel car when i have the money.

EDIT: what was I thinking... A car with compressed hydrogen on it. If i get into a crash I would take out a block of houses.

I don't think that's very likely. It would probably catch on fire just as much or as well as an average car. Unless the Ford Pinto design team works on it.

[Zarode]

I'd say is pretty sweet for gas conscious consumers, but personally I would rather sacrifice efficiency for horsepower until power output is better.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX26Yuqanwg

[CelestialBlade]

I love the idea of a hydrogen economy, since it can produce electricity as well as be an alternative to fuel combustion. It really is amazing how it could run our entire planet. There's obviously issues with extracting the pure hydrogen and creating better storage vessels for use in automobiles, but I see faster improvements being made in hydrogen technology than I do with pure electric storage devices and power output.

And the people that complain that hydrogen is "too volatile for a car" watch too many movies. A rupture in a hydrogen fuel tank is not going to cause an explosion any more than your standard gasoline fuel tank does not explode upon sudden rupture. The nice thing about hydrogen gas is that it disperses *very* quickly when not contained--it's extremely light and very readily reacts with elements in our atmosphere. It simply disperses too quickly to have any prayer of causing an explosion. It's no more dangerous than the cars we already drive, and I don't see giant explosions every day on my commute.

Gasoline and coal are limited, hydrogen is near infinite. The possibilities of a hydrogen economy are limited only by ourselves.

[Smidge204]

The hydrogen economy is a total sham as-is. The hydrogen gas must be manufactured, and the most efficient way to produce gaseous hydrogen at this point is methane reformation.

CH4 + H2O --> CO + 3H2 (High temp stage 1)
CO + H2O → CO2 + H2 (Low temp stage 2)

So not only is this process quite energy intensive, but you're still relying on fossil fuels (natural gas) and you're still releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Not only haven't you actually solved anything, but you'll spend untold billions of dollars developing an entirely new distribution infrastructure (that can't rely on long distance pipes like petroleum can - yay more trucks!)

Alternatively, you can skip the wasteful hydrogen production step and just buy a car that runs on compressed natural gas. You can even put a time-fill station in your house for that, and it's ultimately just as clean as a hydrogen car.

Not to say that H2 vehicles are completely useless, but they are a niche market product. Plug-in hybrids are the next stopgap technology, with biofuels beyond that, possibly a portion of vehicles moving to pure electric among the right demographics.
=Smidge=

[Volcompat321]

Wow, that thing looks scary.

The drivers seat anywhere? wow, thank you Levi.

I now will buy an alt. fuel car when i have the money.

EDIT: what was I thinking... A car with compressed hydrogen on it. If i get into a crash I would take out a block of houses.

hydrogen fuel burns real fast, like gasoline, it can evaporate within seconds. and since you need air for fire, it will burn up real fast, as it evaporates.


I don't think that's very likely. It would probably catch on fire just as much or as well as an average car. Unless the Ford Pinto design team works on it.

im sure they have to work on that, just like any other car, or the would have a huge lawsuit on their hands lol.

[CelestialBlade]

That's not to say that it's the only way we know how to manufacture hydrogen. It's a very young energy system, judging the initial energy production methods as its entirety isn't a good way to go about looking at it. Coal-burning and gasoline production didn't start out anywhere near as efficient and somewhat-clean as it is today, so it's going to need time. And yes, starting a hydrogen economy does indeed require fossil fuels, but that's only until hydrogen energy becomes self-sufficient. Once better production methods are found, you can start using the energy you're already producing to produce more energy, much like modern power plants operate. Give it time.

[Smidge204]

Typheros;

The manufacturing hydrogen gas is already at industrial levels, so it's not like the technology involved is in its infancy. We've been producing hydrogen gas in commercial quantities for decades for all sorts of uses - but none of them involved usage as a fuel, so nobody was really concerned with the energy balance.

Also, you missed the point entirely: Hydrogen is not an energy source. It's an energy storage medium.

Imagine running everything off of replaceable batteries with the justification that the dead batteries can be recycled to make new ones. While true, it ignores the bigger problem of where the actual energy comes from in the first place.

There are no naturally occurring deposits of hydrogen like there are with hydrocarbon fuels. Any quantity hydrogen gas has to be created by putting energy into a chemical reaction to separate it from another compound such as methane (via steam reformation) or water (via electrolysis). That energy has to come from somewhere, and will always be more than you will get back by re-burning the hydrogen. Hydrogen energy will never, and can never, become self-sufficient.

The second law of thermodynamics prevents it.
=Smidge=

[CelestialBlade]

Indeed it is not naturally occuring and must be manufactured via chemical reactions, but one doesn't necessarily need to introduce fossil fuels to generate electrolysis. You could combine the hydrogen production system with something like solar, wind, geothermal, or perhaps nuclear energy. With the exception of nuclear, you certainly get less energy out of these types of energy so it would be best to use them to supplement the more powerful hydrogen energy.

It's a balance. Hydrogen must be manufactured but it's also not limited like naturally occuring fuel deposits, nor should the price of energy ever really change. If you were to supplant hydrogen production with a natural, limitless energy source, I really do think it would work.

[Smidge204]

And what do you make the hydrogen from? Methane, which releases just as much CO2 as burning the fuel in the first palce, and is still a limited resource? Electrolysis of water, which can also produce toxic gasses and other forms of pollution?

Why is it a better choice than just using that solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear power directly as electricity instead of literally wasting 60% or more of that energy using hydrogen as a proxy, especially when you have to go through great expense and effort to set it up that way?

The "Hydrogen Economy" was sold by politicians who don't know what they're talking about to people desperate for a solution to a problem they don't understand. Hydrogen as a fuel has its uses but it is not the solution to our energy problem. It's just a diversion.
=Smidge=

[amtalx]

Cold fusion!

[Solstis]

Scoop it from the Sun! There's a lot of Hydrogen there, I heard.

[Lance813]

Tell that to the Hindenburg.... :disapprove:

[Sinue_v2]

The hydrogen economy is a total sham as-is

The Hydrogen Economy is a total sham. Period. We're not even close to having the infrastructure necessary for it to replace fossil fuels, and by the time the infrastructure IS in place, it will be replaced by decentralized solar power. This leaves anyone who invested in the infrastructure shit out of cash.

Electric cars are the way to go. We already have a fairly well established infrastructure, and the technology only a few machine generations away from making the entire process completely decentralized and dependent on solar power - rather than electricity derived from nuclear, gas, or coal. As it is now, we still have the issue of power generation, storage, and recharge times. Storage and recharge times can be overcome by selling the car, and renting the battery. This will allow you to not only recharge your car at home - but when you're on the road you can pull into a station and swap out a depleted battery for a freshly charged one.

As said though, it will not be a carbon free process initially as the greater demand for electricity will result in the burning of more coal, natural gas, etc. Your electric bill will increase. Early adopters will have the greatest benefit, while late adopters will suffer. So if you bought an electric car now, it would easily pay for itself in fuel savings. However, if you adopt late - you'll be stuck with paying both high gas prices and high electrical bills. There will be some relief for late adopters though, as newer generations of solar cells eases the cost of electricity by supplanting industrially manufactured electricity with user-end collected electricity. Gas prices may also drop significantly, depending on how well electric vehicles penetrate developing nations, how much gasoline is used in the generation of electricity, and whether or not OPEC nations decide to jack the price of oil up to increase sagging profits. Gasoline may also see taxes exceed the cost of the gasoline itself as a way to provide incentive to buy electric vehicles.

In any case, I probably won't switch over until they make an electric Cadillac.

For anyone interested, I heard a rather good speech from TED the other day on this subject.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FcoJt2KLC9k

And speaking of taxes above, don't expect electric power to be as cheap as he predicts. There's going to be a significant tax attached to electricity as the current level of taxes generated on gasoline sales starts to drop significantly. They will need to supplant those taxes with electric taxes to maintain upkeep on highway/road/bridge/etc maintenance.

Oh... and as a side note, I recall hearing about a designer single-celled organism which they've (I don't know the company, I just remember Craig Venter was involved) programed to consume CO2 and expel a substance similar to gasoline. Right now it's pretty much just a exhibition novelty, but it's possible that if they can sequester the CO2 from the electric generation process and "feed" it to those organisms - we could use their waste as an alternate fuel. However, I don't know the details of just "how similar" to gasoline their waste is - and what emissions it gives off when burned.