# Expert Panel Endorses Electric Vehicles



## EVDL Archive (Jul 26, 2007)

Hybrid-electric and all-electric vehicles offer superior range and infrastructure than CNG vehicles advocated by T. Boone Pickens.

More...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm glad they made the comparison with TBP's CNG plans, they never made much sense. It's nice to see science winning out over special interests. Maybe we can stop wasting resources on things like CNG, ethanol, and hydrogen and put our efforts into the most efficient means of automotive transport.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I'm glad they made the comparison with TBP's CNG plans, they never made much sense. It's nice to see science winning out over special interests. Maybe we can stop wasting resources on things like CNG, ethanol, and hydrogen and put our efforts into the most efficient means of automotive transport.


Huh? It isn't an either/or choice. Too, the very first sentence is nonsense:



> Hybrid-electric and all-electric vehicles offer superior range and a more developed recharging/"refueling" infrastructure than compressed national gas vehicles advocated Thursday by Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens, according to David Cole, chairman of the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor.


Now, since when does an all-electric vehicle have greater range than a CNG vehicle?

My bet on this one is a panel of battery experts...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

EV's have greater range than CNG due to the fact that EV's can recharge everywhere, yet CNG's cannot. There is no comparison.
It is an either or because using CNG in vehicles, and building the infrastructure to refill them nationwide, is expensive and inefficient. It would be more efficient to use CNG in power stations to generate electricity to charge EV's. There is no way around the inefficiency of a CNG ICE. Of course auto makers and big oil would love to try and keep the old paradigm of ICE's and refuling stations, just as they try to push the hydrogen fuel cell nonsense. They know that EV's won't allow them to continue to rape the public and influence policy the way they have for decades. Too bad for them.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> EV's have greater range than CNG due to the fact that EV's can recharge everywhere, yet CNG's cannot. There is no comparison.
> It is an either or because using CNG in vehicles, and building the infrastructure to refill them nationwide, is expensive and inefficient. It would be more efficient to use CNG in power stations to generate electricity to charge EV's. There is no way around the inefficiency of a CNG ICE. Of course auto makers and big oil would love to try and keep the old paradigm of ICE's and refuling stations, just as they try to push the hydrogen fuel cell nonsense. They know that EV's won't allow them to continue to rape the public and influence policy the way they have for decades. Too bad for them.


I don't recall which country you live in, but CNG is widely available in the United States. Not everywhere, true, but certainly taking a long trip on CNG will be simpler in a vehicle than driving an EV with a 50 mile range.

As I said, this is not an answer for everyone but it can certainly be an answer for some - particularly government fleet vehicles which return to a central location each evening.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

My location is at the top right of every post, and where I live there are more areas with no CNG than areas with no electricity, no comparison. Who said anything about a 50 mile EV? Why not compare it to a 50 mile CNG vehicle, you'll have an easier time refilling your EV across the country than a CNG. EV's can easily go over 100 miles between charges, and do it much more efficiently than CNG vehicles. In select locations CNG vehicles may make sense in the short term, but it it not a technology that should be pushed or developed since it's far less efficient than electric. As stated, CNG is more efficient when used to generate electricity, not power ICE's.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> My location is at the top right of every post, and where I live there are more areas with no CNG than areas with no electricity, no comparison.


That's really irrelevant on a long trip, or if you operate out of a base supplied with CNG. A CNG fillup takes a few minutes; a battery recharge takes hours.

I understand the point you are making; you are ignoring the obvious truth of mine.



> Who said anything about a 50 mile EV? Why not compare it to a 50 mile CNG vehicle, you'll have an easier time refilling your EV across the country than a CNG.


EVs are limited either by weight (lead acid batteries) or cost (lithium ion). CNG vehicles can generally get just as much range as a gasoline vehicle. Thus, to compare vehicles you have to do so based on what is reasonably capable; handicapping the CNG vehicle to make it look as bad as an EV is silly.



> EV's can easily go over 100 miles between charges, and do it much more efficiently than CNG vehicles. In select locations CNG vehicles may make sense in the short term, but it it not a technology that should be pushed or developed since it's far less efficient than electric. As stated, CNG is more efficient when used to generate electricity, not power ICE's.


So you get a $90,000 EV that can drive 100 miles before 5 hours of down time. Let's compare it to a $20,000 CNG pickup that can cross the country stopping only at CNG refilling stations. Guess which one gets from New York to LA first? Guess which one people can actually afford to drive?

You see, you cannot leave economics out of the equation. Until someone like EEStor actually releases an affordable superbattery, CNG is a viable stopgap solution. It is also part of a mid-term solution - if we suddenly lost access to gasoline, our existing fleet could rapidly be retrofitted for "reasonable" cost (e.g. under $5k per vehicle). This is simply no possible with an EV conversion at this point in time.

EVs are the future, but the future is tomorrow or beyond. Any good strategy buys a mix of tactics to bridge the gap.


----------



## Jason Lattimer (Dec 27, 2008)

Instead of comparing to CNG they should be comparing to propane. As far as using a gaseous fuel it is superior and it runs just as far as gasoline. Many hot rodders are already using propane carbs on thier old hot rods.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> That's really irrelevant on a long trip, or if you operate out of a base supplied with CNG. A CNG fillup takes a few minutes; a battery recharge takes hours.


That's absolutely untrue. A CNG fillup takes minutes with the right infrastructure, a battery charge can also take minutes with the right infrastructure. Altairnano and A123 cells can be charged in minutes, even TS cells can be charged in under an hour and are still improving.


> I understand the point you are making; you are ignoring the obvious truth of mine.


 You seem to be ignoring the current capabilities of EV's.




> EVs are limited either by weight (lead acid batteries) or cost (lithium ion). CNG vehicles can generally get just as much range as a gasoline vehicle. Thus, to compare vehicles you have to do so based on what is reasonably capable; handicapping the CNG vehicle to make it look as bad as an EV is silly.


Lead shouldn't even be considered, and lithium is quite affordable and getting cheaper all the time. Have you priced a pack lately? TS or SE cells are at $1.10 for the general public, certainly much cheaper if bought in quantity by large manufacturers. You are handicapping EV's to make them look worse than they really are, I just returned the favor.




> So you get a $90,000 EV that can drive 100 miles before 5 hours of down time. Let's compare it to a $20,000 CNG pickup that can cross the country stopping only at CNG refilling stations. Guess which one gets from New York to LA first? Guess which one people can actually afford to drive?


Again, you misrepresent EV's. The Mistubishi IMiev gets 100 miles of range and costs around $20,000. It can travel anywhere there is electricity. Also, as I've mentioned, the 5 hour recharge time you quote is nonsense. Yes you'd need a high power charger, which is more easily implemented than CNG stations.


> You see, you cannot leave economics out of the equation. Until someone like EEStor actually releases an affordable superbattery, CNG is a viable stopgap solution. It is also part of a mid-term solution - if we suddenly lost access to gasoline, our existing fleet could rapidly be retrofitted for "reasonable" cost (e.g. under $5k per vehicle). This is simply no possible with an EV conversion at this point in time.


You need to add in the cost of creating a CNG infrastructure to refuel all those vehicles as well.
We won't suddenly lose access to gasoline, it's not going to happen that way. There is plenty of time for a focused move towards EV's, especially if we are not distracted along the way with things such as CNG. Widespread adoption of plug in hybrids alone would cut our gas consumption in half, with no need for a large investment in CNG infrastructure. Save the CNG for power generation.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> T
> So you get a $90,000 EV that can drive 100 miles before 5 hours of down time. Let's compare it to a $20,000 CNG pickup that can cross the country stopping only at CNG refilling stations. Guess which one gets from New York to LA first?


I'd be very interested to see how many people actually drive those sort of trips. I'd say most of us would be hard pressed to know someone who has made that kind of trip. Plus, they could be done in a rental prius just as easily and use the battery cars for the 80% of driving which is less than 50 miles.

Australia has the same issue: many people say "But you couldn't drive from Sydney to Perth in a EV" And I look em in the eye and ask "Have you driven to Perth? Will you likely ever drive to Perth? I have both driven to Perth and flown to Perth and I will likely never go there again so why do you insist on a car with requirements that you will never need?"

They usually get my point pretty quickly.

Long distance driving isn't the problem - it's the mindless inefficiency called commuting.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Jason Lattimer said:


> Instead of comparing to CNG they should be comparing to propane. As far as using a gaseous fuel it is superior and it runs just as far as gasoline. Many hot rodders are already using propane carbs on thier old hot rods.


It's still inefficient ICE technology, propane fueled power plants would be a more efficient use.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Propane and other gaseous fuels should be use more no matter what they are because its usually just burned to waste in the process of getting the actual crude oil under it. What a waste.

As for burning propane in an ICE, I highly recommend it, if you still have to use ICE. The old impco series carbs are bullet proof and basically maintenance free, not even a fuel filter to worry about.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> Propane and other gaseous fuels should be use more no matter what they are because its usually just burned to waste in the process of getting the actual crude oil under it. What a waste.


Is that still true? Considering the market for propane and CNG it seems doubtful, unless the economics of packaging and transporting them makes it unworkable, which also means concentrating their usage in power plants would be much more efficient than trying to distribute them across the country in individual filling stations.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

CNG isn't as cost effective because it has to be compressed to a higher pressure to be transported and has much lower BTUs, but its still relatively clean burning fuel that should be used expecially for stationary heating and generation. Natural gas pipelines cost some coin to install, but once there in, the energy can flow. Propane isn't as costly as you might think to transport and distribute. It has proved to be consistently cheaper than gasoline per BTU of energy content.

I have a propane truck in storage right now that used to be my dad's he always drove propane because they were so cheap to fuel and maintain. Its not the same as hydrogen.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

It's still inefficient ICE technology. I'm not saying it can't be used as a vehicle fuel, I'm saying we shouldn't put much effort into any of those technologies since those fuels can be used better in other areas besides transportation.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I see fossil fuels as a means to and end (the end being BEVs). I agree that ICEs are junk because they are unreliable, dirty and inefficient, but we can't replace them completely yet which is why I support using gaseous fuels like CNG and propane if they are cost effective. All I'm saying is that its better to use it then burn it off at the source because there isn't infrastructure to transport it. A combined cycle gas turbine power plant (>80% efficient) would be the ideal use for any hydrocarbon fuel, but if that isn't around, I see no problem with converting ICEs to run propane because it is a better fuel than gasoline.

Probably best to keep public money out of it because political grand standing has a way of destroying good ideas especially when it comes to energy policy. 
BC had a fleet of CNG busses ready to go a decade ago. The NDP government paid for it saying that it was green technology. Turns out they were too expensive and never saw service after the photo ops.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> That's absolutely untrue. A CNG fillup takes minutes with the right infrastructure, a battery charge can also take minutes with the right infrastructure. Altairnano and A123 cells can be charged in minutes, even TS cells can be charged in under an hour and are still improving.
> 
> You seem to be ignoring the current capabilities of EV's.


Are you even reading my responses? I thought not - light's on, nobody home. You cannot compare a $100,000 Tesla to a $20,000 Ford Ranger and expect anyone to take you seriously.



> Lead shouldn't even be considered, and lithium is quite affordable and getting cheaper all the time. Have you priced a pack lately? TS or SE cells are at $1.10 for the general public, certainly much cheaper if bought in quantity by large manufacturers. You are handicapping EV's to make them look worse than they really are, I just returned the favor.


Really? Then where are all the $20,000 Ford Rangers?

If we really, really spooled up production of EVs using current technology the price would once again rise as demand outstripped supply. Again, one day EVs will be the final answer - but with the Obamanoid over bowing and begging to the Saudis right now I think we can rest assured even he is well aware that it isn't happening overnight.



> Again, you misrepresent EV's. The Mistubishi IMiev gets 100 miles of range and costs around $20,000. It can travel anywhere there is electricity.


Let's see now, where did I put that IMiev? Ah, here it is:

"According to unconfirmed reports from Japanese news sources, Mitsubishi Motors will begin supplying electric cars to PSA/Peugeot-Citroen Group as early as next year. Japan's fifth-largest carmaker could supply as many as 10,000 *Mitsubishi i-MiEV* passenger electric cars a year to the French automaker by 2011 on an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) basis. "

So, in just two years from now (not today, as you suggest) there MAY be a whopping 10,000 affordable EVs on the roads of France. Guess what? We could have 10,000 affordable CNG vehicles on the roads here NEXT MONTH. Too, you cannot compare that deathtrap-on-wheels to a Ford F-150. That dawg ain't gonna hunt.



> Also, as I've mentioned, the 5 hour recharge time you quote is nonsense. Yes you'd need a high power charger, which is more easily implemented than CNG stations.You need to add in the cost of creating a CNG infrastructure to refuel all those vehicles as well.


Speaking of nonsense, the power requirements to actually achieve a "five minute recharge" would require a battery pack on site of larger size than the one being recharged - and frequent use of the rapid recharge mode will undoubtedly reduce the life of the LiIon batteries. Meanwhile, a simple compressor at home could draw natural gas from your furnace line into a holding tank, from which you could refill each week in minutes.



> We won't suddenly lose access to gasoline, it's not going to happen that way.


How comforting it must be to know the future! I wish that I too were such a gifted genius. Alas, I have to study to learn deep wisdom - like the study of history. While it may be true that we are unlikely to lose complete access to gasoline in short order, history suggests that unrest could easily drive up the price of American gasoline to unheard of heights in just months - like, for example, just last year.



> There is plenty of time for a focused move towards EV's, especially if we are not distracted along the way with things such as CNG.


Now, just who is distracted? We have the world's largest reserves of CNG, and existing cars can be easily converted. Distraction is creating a faux "emergency" such as the alleged "Global Warming" as an excuse to destroy our infrastructure and impose a fascist dictatorship.



> Widespread adoption of plug in hybrids alone would cut our gas consumption in half, with no need for a large investment in CNG infrastructure. Save the CNG for power generation.


Really? Even misers like Clark Howard are on to the Hybrid scam. It is an evolutionary dead-end, worse for the economy and your pocketbook than just burning gas.

Our oil-energy dependency needs to end, this no one will dispute. Demanding that we all fly the same way like lemmings rushing to the sea is suicidal.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> I'd be very interested to see how many people actually drive those sort of trips. I'd say most of us would be hard pressed to know someone who has made that kind of trip. Plus, they could be done in a rental prius just as easily and use the battery cars for the 80% of driving which is less than 50 miles.
> 
> Australia has the same issue: many people say "But you couldn't drive from Sydney to Perth in a EV" And I look em in the eye and ask "Have you driven to Perth? Will you likely ever drive to Perth? I have both driven to Perth and flown to Perth and I will likely never go there again so why do you insist on a car with requirements that you will never need?"
> 
> ...


Commuting is certainly one piece of the puzzle. Most of us can't afford two cars however, so anyone who has to travel some of the time is up the creek (yes, I know you can pull a trailer).

Turning your example around, many areas in America have natural gas right at the home. A small compressor and storage tank would suffice to refill the cars once per week, and you can convert your existing car for a fraction of the cost of a new electric roller-skate.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Are you even reading my responses? I thought not - light's on, nobody home. You cannot compare a $100,000 Tesla to a $20,000 Ford Ranger and expect anyone to take you seriously.


 When did I say anything about a Tesla, are *you* reading my responses? If you thought by "TS" I meant Tesla, TS refers to Thunder Sky batteries. Do you ever actually read up on EV's here or just bash Obama, global warming, and try to promote non EV technologies? I really wonder if you're just a troll as you seem to have little interest in EV's.


> Really? Then where are all the $20,000 Ford Rangers?


Huh?


> If we really, really spooled up production of EVs using current technology the price would once again rise as demand outstripped supply.


Right, because mass production usually makes costs increase 


> Again, one day EVs will be the final answer - but with the Obamanoid over bowing and begging to the Saudis right now I think we can rest assured even he is well aware that it isn't happening overnight.


Typical meaningless Obama bashing.


> Let's see now, where did I put that IMiev? Ah, here it is:
> 
> "According to unconfirmed reports from Japanese news sources, Mitsubishi Motors will begin supplying electric cars to PSA/Peugeot-Citroen Group as early as next year. Japan's fifth-largest carmaker could supply as many as 10,000 *Mitsubishi i-MiEV* passenger electric cars a year to the French automaker by 2011 on an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) basis. "
> 
> So, in just two years from now (not today, as you suggest) there MAY be a whopping 10,000 affordable EVs on the roads of France. Guess what? We could have 10,000 affordable CNG vehicles on the roads here NEXT MONTH. Too, you cannot compare that deathtrap-on-wheels to a Ford F-150. That dawg ain't gonna hunt.


 You have to be kidding me, 10,000 CNG vehicles in one month? Even you can't believe that, or maybe you can since you don't have a firm grasp on reality.


> Speaking of nonsense, the power requirements to actually achieve a "five minute recharge" would require a battery pack on site of larger size than the one being recharged - and frequent use of the rapid recharge mode will undoubtedly reduce the life of the LiIon batteries. Meanwhile, a simple compressor at home could draw natural gas from your furnace line into a holding tank, from which you could refill each week in minutes.


Of course with an EV you don't have to fast charge at home, you can slow charge most of the time. The "fast refill" dilemma is mostly a non issue that people falsely cling to in an attempt to scare people away from EV's.


> How comforting it must be to know the future! I wish that I too were such a gifted genius. Alas, I have to study to learn deep wisdom - like the study of history. While it may be true that we are unlikely to lose complete access to gasoline in short order, history suggests that unrest could easily drive up the price of American gasoline to unheard of heights in just months - like, for example, just last year.


And what happened, the end of the world? No, people cut back and drove less, and the price plummeted. Gas could double in price and still be less than most of the world pays.


> Now, just who is distracted? We have the world's largest reserves of CNG, and existing cars can be easily converted. Distraction is creating a faux "emergency" such as the alleged "Global Warming" as an excuse to destroy our infrastructure and impose a fascist dictatorship.


 Clearly paranoid delusions. Yes, the evil cabal of scientists is faking global warming so they can impose a fascist dictatorship, or is it communism, or socialism? Hard to keep track.



> Really? Even misers like Clark Howard are on to the Hybrid scam. It is an evolutionary dead-end, worse for the economy and your pocketbook than just burning gas.


If you usually travel short distances but still feel the need for unlimited range a plug in hybrid would fit the bill, especially if gas prices increase. Personally I can get by with a limited range EV and keep an ICE, or rent one, for the occasional long trip, or just not take the long trip since I have no real need to do so.


> Our oil-energy dependency needs to end, this no one will dispute. Demanding that we all fly the same way like lemmings rushing to the sea is suicidal.


Trading our oil dependency for other oil company controlled fossil fuels doesn't seem like a great idea to me, but feel free to stick to the old paradigm if it makes you feel better.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Ease up guys, I'm sensing a little hostility here and spitting of hairs that ends up burrying the topic.

As for the actual claim that EVs are ready for prime time.....well the parts are at least. All we need now is some one to assemble a decent car thats affordable and can still go 100 MPH or 100 miles of range (not at the same time) and start selling them. As always, EVs are not good enough for everyone yet, but they can displace some ICE vehicles and the market share can grow from there. I think simply driving a well built electric car will have a much bigger effect than any policy wrangling.

At least thats my opinion.


----------



## alexander (May 25, 2009)

Turning your example around, many areas in America have natural gas right at the home. A small compressor and storage tank would suffice to refill the cars once per week[/quote]

Sorry bud do you know bad idea it is, it wil make a nice bom...
And it will main obimimi surimii can put some more tax on you and the familie tink the cold winters and dose long showers...ow 

Bud the N gas tinks are al there, its super nice it will give you also 10% more hp.

And the once a week i dont thinke so your miles per galon will by have.

how do i know in europe gas is 7 dollars per galon. The only way we can use big v8 is running them on N gas. and yes it works. 

alexander


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> When did I say anything about a Tesla, are *you* reading my responses? If you thought by "TS" I meant Tesla, TS refers to Thunder Sky batteries. Do you ever actually read up on EV's here or just bash Obama, global warming, and try to promote non EV technologies?  I really wonder if you're just a troll as you seem to have little interest in EV's.


My EV plans were curtailed, thank you very much, due to an economic bubble-bursting caused by big government interventionists attempting to promise every American free credit.

As for the Tesla, it is the only car in production which has the kind of performance you are touting as "comparable to a CNG vehicle."

Claiming that we MUST build EVs because the world will come to an end if we don't is just silly. Balderdash.



> Huh?


Exactly - there aren't any electric equivalents to a Ford Ranger and you know it. Instead you point to micro-coffins on wheels as "suitable replacements to current vehicles" even though even they cannot be made to do the job done by our current vehicles.

So, the theory YOU posited was that CNG vehicles are not as good as EVs. This is patently untrue, and each time I tell you all you can do is get confused and say, "Huh?"



> Right, because mass production usually makes costs increase


That is one half of the production equation. However, in the equation of SUPPLY and DEMAND there are two pieces, one of which you seem to be ignoring like the Emperor's new clothes. If DEMAND goes up by several orders of magnitude, PRICE will also go up much more quickly than mass production yields cost savings.



> Typical meaningless Obama bashing.


His lack of qualifications aside, are you really that deluded to think that ANYONE has the power to simply make the oil problem go away? Why do YOU think he went over there? To tell them we don't need their oil anymore because we'll all be driving EVs next year?



> You have to be kidding me, 10,000 CNG vehicles in one month? Even you can't believe that, or maybe you can since you don't have a firm grasp on reality.


One of us clearly doesn't understand reality. All it takes is a $3,000 conversion kit and a couple of days to convert a vehicle to dual fuel. If set as a national priority we could be converting 10,000 vehicles next month, and 20,000 the month after. Do you not understand that an ICE can burn CNG with just a simple valve to control flow of the gas into the engine? That all it requires is a high pressure tank and a few valves?

Really, I'm not sure why you are so resistant to the simple facts on this.



> Of course with an EV you don't have to fast charge at home, you can slow charge most of the time. The "fast refill" dilemma is mostly a non issue that people falsely cling to in an attempt to scare people away from EV's.


Ok, so you admit that EVs cannot fulfill the role that a CNG vehicle can, suddenly taking a long trip away from home? That at least is a little progress.



> And what happened, the end of the world? No, people cut back and drove less, and the price plummeted. Gas could double in price and still be less than most of the world pays. Clearly paranoid delusions.


This time, and yes the effect was severe. Next time it will likely be much worse. You are young, you have not seen how the world economy can be wrecked simply by war. You HAVE seen how it can be wrecked by big government, but have yet to learn that government will never solve those problems it creates.



> Yes, the evil cabal of scientists is faking global warming so they can impose a fascist dictatorship, or is it communism, or socialism? Hard to keep track.


No, some scientists are promoting it because they get paid to do so - and more and more are now backing down or at least softening their predictions to "annoying" rather than "an extinction event." This is not a new phenomenon, it has recurred throughout history. I cannot help you with your personal Chicken Little demons. As for what they call it, it doesn't matter. The end is simply power, and the loss of freedom for individuals. You can watch a movie to make it easier to understand - the Fountainhead is still available.



> If you usually travel short distances but still feel the need for unlimited range a plug in hybrid would fit the bill, especially if gas prices increase. Personally I can get by with a limited range EV and keep an ICE, or rent one, for the occasional long trip, or just not take the long trip since I have no real need to do so.Trading our oil dependency for other oil company controlled fossil fuels doesn't seem like a great idea to me, but feel free to stick to the old paradigm if it makes you feel better.


How nice for you. Your answer would not work for 80% of the people in metro Atlanta. This is why your answer is not being adopted, which brings us back (finally) to the initial point of the thread:

EVs are not yet a suitable replacement for ICE in terms of capability or ecconomics. Stating otherwise is at best wishful thinking, at worst delusional.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Ease up guys, I'm sensing a little hostility here and spitting of hairs that ends up burrying the topic.
> 
> As for the actual claim that EVs are ready for prime time.....well the parts are at least. All we need now is some one to assemble a decent car thats affordable and can still go 100 MPH or 100 miles of range (not at the same time) and start selling them. As always, EVs are not good enough for everyone yet, but they can displace some ICE vehicles and the market share can grow from there. I think simply driving a well built electric car will have a much bigger effect than any policy wrangling.
> 
> At least thats my opinion.


You are correct, and I have agreed with that position several times.

EVs are now suitable for SOME tasks, and should be used for those.

For others, we need to acknowledge and adopt a wide range of strategies that help both the ecology and the economy until the technology catches up with were we WISH it was!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Claiming that we MUST build EVs because the world will come to an end if we don't is just silly. Balderdash.


Yes that is silly, of course not even close to what I said. My point has been, as the article states, that EV's are a more efficient model than CNG vehicles, and that CNG vehicles should not be promoted since they waste CNG which could be more efficiently used to generate electricity.


> Exactly - there aren't any electric equivalents to a Ford Ranger and you know it. Instead you point to micro-coffins on wheels as "suitable replacements to current vehicles" even though even they cannot be made to do the job done by our current vehicles.


You are aware of the Ford Ranger EV right, built 10 years ago? How about the Rav4EV? Many of which are still on the road? If these same vehicles were changed over to lithium they'd perform even better.


> So, the theory YOU posited was that CNG vehicles are not as good as EVs. This is patently untrue, and each time I tell you all you can do is get confused and say, "Huh?"


They are not as *efficient *as EV's, that's the point, pay attention. Most people travel less than 40 miles each day, so EV's can easily be good enough. You are hung up on the range issue, like many people, but it's really not an issue for most people.


> That is one half of the production equation. However, in the equation of SUPPLY and DEMAND there are two pieces, one of which you seem to be ignoring like the Emperor's new clothes. If DEMAND goes up by several orders of magnitude, PRICE will also go up much more quickly than mass production yields cost savings.


You mean like with flat panel TV's, which less than 10 years ago cost $10,000 for a 50 inch screen and now cost around $2000 for the same? Demand went up, production went up, cost went down, way down.


> One of us clearly doesn't understand reality. All it takes is a $3,000 conversion kit and a couple of days to convert a vehicle to dual fuel. If set as a national priority we could be converting 10,000 vehicles next month, and 20,000 the month after. Do you not understand that an ICE can burn CNG with just a simple valve to control flow of the gas into the engine? That all it requires is a high pressure tank and a few valves?


Yes I am aware of that, it still misses the point that it's not necessary, is not an efficient use of CNG, and won't make that much of a difference. Again, I return to the original point in the article, EV's are more efficient than CNG, and you'll get more miles from CNG burned in a generating plant than an ICE.


> Ok, so you admit that EVs cannot fulfill the role that a CNG vehicle can, suddenly taking a long trip away from home? That at least is a little progress.


You better choose your trip carefully in a CNG vehicle since you could easily find yourself stranded far from a CNG refill.


> No, some scientists are promoting it because they get paid to do so - and more and more are now backing down or at least softening their predictions to "annoying" rather than "an extinction event." This is not a new phenomenon, it has recurred throughout history. I cannot help you with your personal Chicken Little demons.


You're the one who thinks all our gas will disappear or get too expensive to use in a year or two, not me. Your money trail to pro GW scientists is pretty weak, since the powers that be are more tied into keeping the status quo. I see much more money coming from industry and big oil to deny any climate problems since it will hurt their bottom line. Your basic premise is that somehow the pro GW crowd has taken all the power from established industry and is bending science and the world to it's views, when the exact opposite is the case.


> How nice for you. Your answer would not work for 80% of the people in metro Atlanta.


What is unique about Atlanta that it falls out of the majority of daily transport which is less than 40 miles per day? Even so, a 50 mile range takes care of that and is easily achievable.


> This is why your answer is not being adopted, which brings us back (finally) to the initial point of the thread:
> 
> EVs are not yet a suitable replacement for ICE in terms of capability or ecconomics. Stating otherwise is at best wishful thinking, at worst delusional.


You might want to read the first post of the thread, since the initial point was that EV's are better than CNG vehicles.


> Hybrid-electric and all-electric vehicles offer superior range and a more developed recharging/"refueling" infrastructure than compressed national gas vehicles advocated Thursday by Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens


----------



## jeffb (May 26, 2009)

Excellent debate, folks, but I'll echo david85, please keep it civil. This whole site sets a wonderful example that is hard to find in most web forums (hats off to all contributors). But I love the point-counterpoint.

I find this so interesting because I've considered both CNG and EV projects. My motivations, are not wanting to support crude from the middle east, and having a fascination with vehicles that are mechanically interesting or unique-- environmental concerns alone would not justify the money for me.

I've recently tried to envision using electric as I've gone about my daily driving, which consists of a short commute on city streets, short errands, and numerous trips to the local home improvement store. But at least once per week there is a trip to a customer site or some other errand that takes an extra 50 to 80 miles. 

For any EV that I could afford, that would be a stretch. And in the 6+ years I've had the Jeep Cherokee, I've taken around 20 trips of 150 or more miles. I live in San Diego, which all hills and valleys. I know the knot I get in my stomach when I've pushed my luck running the gas tank to empty, and while I know the EV won't run out all at once, running low on power when pushing the range and slowing down on every hill is a driving experience I'll choose to avoid if I can.

So the EV is, at best, a second car. Or maybe the first car, for most of the daily driving, if I have a second car that overcomes the other shortcomings.

I also happen to have an old muscle car, which I briefly imagined as an EV. But the fire-breathing nature of it is one of its greatest appeals, along with the fat, high rolling resistance tires. And it's not aerodynamic at all. I realized I could actually make it quite a performer as an EV, but of course that would limit the range even more. 

With CNG, I can get away from supporting crude and still keep most of the flexibility of my old ICE, keep the personality of my old hot rod, and still have a vehicle that I can refuel in a few minutes--provided, of course, I can find a fill station. True, it will be less powerful, but many new cars can blow the doors off most old hot rods these days, so it is really more about the car's personality than power--as long as it has enough power to be fun.

I'd really love to have both an EV daily driver and a CNG powered hot rod. And I agree that given the perfect technology, electric power would probably overcome all the deficits. But if I'm voting on public money for alternative fuel, right now, I'll vote for CNG stations. To me, that is the shorter path to ridding ourselves of oil dependence.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

If you ever do decide to use CNG, make sure you do your home work on the operating cost, perfromance and range. Something that hasn't really gotten across here is that CNG vehicles typically have range that is not much better than EVs. If you have access to refueling along the way for your longer trips then that might not be a problem.

Conversion cost is much lower than electric however so it might be to your advantage. Personally, I like propane and have a vehicle that burns it. Range takes about a 15% hit/gallon, but power drop is negligable if the engine is tuned well. Another advantage with propane is if you ever get stranded and run out of fuel, you can get a fuel adaptor for a BBQ bottle and refuel on the side of the road.

Welcome to the forum, jeffb


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

jeffb said:


> But if I'm voting on public money for alternative fuel, right now, I'll vote for CNG stations. To me, that is the shorter path to ridding ourselves of oil dependence.


I find that odd considering you are a perfect candidate for a plug in hybrid. 20-40 miles of all electric range, then gas powered for the occasional longer trip, no need for public money or a change in infrastructure, and it immediately drops our oil usage by a large degree. Or since you do have 2 vehicles keep the muscle car as is for longer trips and use the EV for the rest.
As for the tone of the discussion, Phantom often uses inflammatory rhetoric instead of facts, you'll see the same style in many of his posts.


----------



## jeffb (May 26, 2009)

A propane conversion would meet my criteria for fascinating, and it's certainly the cheapest, as I don't think it requires the certified professional installer that the high pressure CNG does. And while I find hybrid technology interesting, when I look at what I could afford, I find it hard to get excited about a 5 year old Prius.

But more significant to me, given that propane is derived from oil refining, and the hybrid still burns gas, neither option meets my first motivation.

Since I managed to reduce my commute to less than a mile, I've probably already taken the biggest step I could in saving money, energy, time, and general impact on society. So my motivation to get off petroleum is fueled  by my reaction to world news, not saving money.

My constant need to run errands means I don't walk to the office nearly as often as I thought I would. An EV seems the perfect solution for those errands.

And since I have always had a hot rod, it is normal for me to think in terms of a two car solution. Perhaps the main thing I have in common with the masses is that cost is a major issue for me.

A CNG conversion looks low cost even with professional installation. And the pro installation means the project could be done in a few days (preceded by a few weeks of planning) as opposed to the years it takes me to build anything myself. Even adding the cost of a home fueling station, it would still be comparable to the lowest cost EV I could likely put together.

Hmm... I wonder what it would take to do a home built hybrid CNG/electric. With batteries that could be charged from both a household outlet and a high voltage plug, and a CNG generator that could be refilled at home or on the road. If that could be done cost effectively, that would be money. And, it would lean me towards supporting a CNG infrastructure.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Just make sure you do your cost/mile calculations because in some cases it can actually cost more to run CNG (true with any major alternative fuel investment).

As far as certification goes, I know where I am it is required for propane as well as CNG, but most people get around it be stealing a certification window sticker off a wrecked vehicle. I think you are also allowed in some cases to perform the LPG conversion then have it inspected without breaking any rules to save some money. Different states will have their own rules though.

I have an old 1986 F150 that was bought ready converted from a used car lot 10 years ago so it has lived most of its life on LPG now. The sticker in the window has no serial number on it so I am guessing it may not ever have been certified. The fuel system has worked very well in those 10 years other than vaporizer freezup when cold starting in cold weather without using the block heater. The truck will hold pace with a stock F150 of the era for power though. Oil stays nice and clean too.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

jeffb said:


> Hmm... I wonder what it would take to do a home built hybrid CNG/electric. With batteries that could be charged from both a household outlet and a high voltage plug, and a CNG generator that could be refilled at home or on the road. If that could be done cost effectively, that would be money. And, it would lean me towards supporting a CNG infrastructure.


Let's see, all the cost and complication of both an EV and CNG conversion.... EV's can be done for low cost, search for "forkenswift".


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Yes that is silly, of course not even close to what I said. My point has been, as the article states, that EV's are a more efficient model than CNG vehicles, and that CNG vehicles should not be promoted since they waste CNG which could be more efficiently used to generate electricity.


CNG is certainly more efficient at producing electricity than at powering an ICE, I agree - but coal is cheaper than CNG and plentiful and cannot be used in the 300 million ICE vehicles currently on the road.

As always, I also agree that ULTIMATELY EVs are the way to go - but the technolgy is just not "there yet" as a rapid bridging strategy to get us independent of foreign oil without imposing a terrible economic burden.



> You are aware of the Ford Ranger EV right, built 10 years ago? How about the Rav4EV? Many of which are still on the road? If these same vehicles were changed over to lithium they'd perform even better.They are not as *efficient *as EV's, that's the point, pay attention.


Yes, and was disappointed that they stopped making them - but understood the financial reasons. Those reasons haven't changed enough yet. A LiIon Ford Ranger with a 200 mile range would probably cost $80,000 and up.

Yes, they are more *efficient* and perhaps we are just arguing two separate points. My point is that the typical person in a metro area can't yet buy a production EV for less than an ICE vehicle plus fuel, and that in many cases a "reasonable compromise" vehicle will seem unacceptable to many people for a variety of reasons including size; range; load carrying capability; price; and cross-country capability.

Despite what some people seem to think, I am a VERY strong proponent for EVs. I am also a strong proponent of not overstating the positives of a solution with significant limitations. Like crying "Wolf!" when there is no wolf - do this too much and a significant proportion of the population will not believe you even when we get to a point where every logical objection has been overcome. This sabotages our shared desire to get people to move in the better direction.



> Most people travel less than 40 miles each day, so EV's can easily be good enough.


This is an example of what I was talking about with respect to overstating. The actual fact is that most people travel less than 40 miles per day ON MOST DAYS; yet it is also true that MOST people take longer trips each month, or wish to run several errands in a day covering more than a 40 mile charge will cover. "Crap, I ran out of juice between Pennys and Home Depot!" will kill the EV movement just as dead as a bullet.



> You are hung up on the range issue, like many people, but it's really not an issue for most people.


See above. Too, when we start talking about housewives trading in their SUV on something smaller than a VW Rabbit in order to keep the cost affordable, I can pretty much guarantee that a significant portion of the male population will be living in NoNookyVille...





> You mean like with flat panel TV's, which less than 10 years ago cost $10,000 for a 50 inch screen and now cost around $2000 for the same? Demand went up, production went up, cost went down, way down.
> Yes I am aware of that, it still misses the point that it's not necessary, is not an efficient use of CNG, and won't make that much of a difference. Again, I return to the original point in the article, EV's are more efficient than CNG, and you'll get more miles from CNG burned in a generating plant than an ICE.


Actually, your argument helps me make my case in this example. Flat Panel TVs are not made out of rare materials - silica is available on just about any beach. In a case like that, price coming down is strictly a factor of technology and manufacturing techniques. LiIon batteries, however, are another story. They require scarce materials from limited sources. Mining will NOT increase this capacity in anything like the projected growth curve if everyone started using LiIon batteries to power their cars.

Again, "efficiency" in the market is not a straight function of how many kilowatts of energy are required to move a car from A to B.



> You better choose your trip carefully in a CNG vehicle since you could easily find yourself stranded far from a CNG refill.


I don't have the link handy, but there is a graphical map somewhere that made it pretty clear you could get refills within about 50 miles from just about anywhere in the U.S. That may not be perfect, but planning your trip shouldn't be too difficult.



> You're the one who thinks all our gas will disappear or get too expensive to use in a year or two, not me.


No, I simply pointed out that prices could continue to fluctuate dramatically which COULD lead to things like rationing. Just like investing your money in a variety of industries is a way to make your money safer, so too breaking apart our nation's infrastructure into several competing technologies "hedges our bets" against wild price swings. CNG has the enormous plus that once you convert an ICE to run dual-fuel, you can also in most cases add a simple adapter and use Propane as well. If gasoline prices shoot sky-high or rationed you can start using CNG with a simple toggle of a switch. The same is not true of electric.



> Your money trail to pro GW scientists is pretty weak, since the powers that be are more tied into keeping the status quo. I see much more money coming from industry and big oil to deny any climate problems since it will hurt their bottom line. Your basic premise is that somehow the pro GW crowd has taken all the power from established industry and is bending science and the world to it's views, when the exact opposite is the case.


That isn't really central to my position that we should explore all alternatives, nor is it intirely accurate. There certainly IS a great deal of money in the Global Warming hysteria - Al Gore has profited about $100 million in the past few years peddling his tale. History is rife with examples of how an issue overstated creates an artificial crisis from which people benefit. I happen to think this is just another example, and that once all the facts are truly in we will discover compensating mechanisms at work which will turn out to make GW just another failed theory.

To restate my position: The evidence does not seem to indicate that the majority of temperature changes recorded are due to things caused by mankind; that that portion which IS due to mankind is predominately or even significantly due to CO2; nor that there aren't also other compensating mechanisms within the system which are both undiscovered and sufficient to compensate. It isn't like I'm arguing that mankind doesn't have an impact on the ecology - anyone who has looked at the 50-year thermal images from space of a major metro like Atlanta would have to be an idiot not to notice that bulldozing our forests and installing asphalt causes localized climate change. But likewise, it doesn't make sense to wreck our economy on a theory that can't predict the observed weather patterns.



> What is unique about Atlanta that it falls out of the majority of daily transport which is less than 40 miles per day? Even so, a 50 mile range takes care of that and is easily achievable. You might want to read the first post of the thread, since the initial point was that EV's are better than CNG vehicles.


I'll remind you of the first part of the conclusion of the panel:

"Hybrid-electric and all-electric vehicles offer superior range..."

Hybrids certainly do, using gasoline. But, then, a CNG dual-fuel probably gets the edge there, too - it is strictly a matter of tankage at that point. All-electric EVs do not get superior range, unless you load them up with an extremely expensive and heavy LiIon battery pack. If you do that you now have a significantly more expensive vehicle than a CNG conversion with a smaller fast-recharge infrastructure than that of CNG. It is not right to compare quick-fillup CNG stations with overnight charging at home. 

In either case, the economics of the situation favor the CNG today.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Let's see, all the cost and complication of both an EV and CNG conversion.... EV's can be done for low cost, search for "forkenswift".


Not to mention that once you realize the generator's cost would now DOUBLE your range off electricity if you bought batteries instead... let alone integrate it properly (with a rectifier and transformer etc etc)... you realize the entire idea of a hybrid is poorly planned.

It's neither cheaper, more efficient, or better... it's just a marketing campaign for stupid Americans.

Say you could even get a CNG generator powerful enough to run a car (probably not... 25kw one will be hard to find)... let's say by a miracle you found it for $2000... that's still 7kwh of lifepo's you could have bought instead (40-100 miles based upon design).

In reality such a generator, after you integrated it into a car, would run you about $7000... or about 18kwh-20kwh of LiFePO batteries... enough to take your average overweight steel car 150 miles/charge or so...

custom fiberglass/alum that'd be enough to do about 250-300miles or so. Not to mention it'd last forever.

Compressed natural gas isn't cheap either... expect at least 4-5 times more costly to "fill up" than if you just charged it...

Still sound like a great idea?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Yes, and was disappointed that they stopped making them - but understood the financial reasons. Those reasons haven't changed enough yet. A LiIon Ford Ranger with a 200 mile range would probably cost $80,000 and up.


You're on crack phantom.. even if you wanted a 150-200 mile range in that SUV ev... you're still talking at most a $10k battery (that won't be replaced for 10-15 years or 300-400k miles). Easily looking at a 35kwh+ battery at this price... though I suspect you could HALF that price in the quantities manufacturer's are buying.

So if the Rav4 costs $20,000 with a new engine etc... assume about $4000 for the wholesale costs of engine/tranny/etc (since you wouldn't need those things if you designed it well)... you're talking about $6000 more for a full on EV + a less complicated computer system to control it (much much less complicated).

I think $30,000 isn't much... at all... and that's probably a very high estimate of what they could do ... I'm sure their wholesale prices are far lower than even my best guesses.

By my guess a plug in 200 mile rav4 EV could make Toyota the same profits at $30k as they did at $20k with an engine... probably even more actually

You just don't seem to grasp they don't WANT those cars to be out... because of the ultra ultra low maintenance


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Actually, your argument helps me make my case in this example. Flat Panel TVs are not made out of rare materials - silica is available on just about any beach. In a case like that, price coming down is strictly a factor of technology and manufacturing techniques. LiIon batteries, however, are another story. They require scarce materials from limited sources. Mining will NOT increase this capacity in anything like the projected growth curve if everyone started using LiIon batteries to power their cars.


There is very little lithium in a LiFePo4 battery. It will be a long time till supplies are stretched, not to mention there are other chemistries in the works.


> In either case, the economics of the situation favor the CNG today.


Actually the economics of the situation favor gasoline over CNG today. However it's a shortsighted view.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

So far, I don't think a 200 mile ford ranger has ever been built, but I would imagine that it could be done for less than $80k. Retail priced LiFePO4 battery power would probably cost about $30k, and another $20k if you insisted on getting a new donor truck. My saturn will come in at a little over $20k and I expect 100 miles honest range if it goes according to plan.

uh tech, I don't think a 150 mile SUV is gonna happen on only $10k worth of batteries...

I am of course just speculating based on other vehicles that have been built before and I don't really buy into calculated range estimates. They never seem to get it right

Seriously guys, lets try and tone this down a little and not worry so much about splitting hairs like this.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Technologic said:


> You're on crack phantom.. even if you wanted a 150-200 mile range in that SUV ev... you're still talking at most a $10k battery (that won't be replaced for 10-15 years or 300-400k miles). Easily looking at a 35kwh+ battery at this price... though I suspect you could HALF that price in the quantities manufacturer's are buying.
> 
> ...
> 
> You just don't seem to grasp they don't WANT those cars to be out... because of the ultra ultra low maintenance


Never could use drugs or I never would have been allowed in those fun pointy Air Farce jets!



I'd love to be shown how wrong I am on this. The most popular vehicle today is still the good old Pickup Truck. With it's beefier suspension it is a natural fit to handle the battery weight necessary to haul a significant load a good number of miles. Yet the only serious attempt to build one with acceptable range (Phoenix Motorcars; > 100 miles advertised range) has a price tag of $60,000; does not seem to have actually delivered one yet; and they are only accepting fleet orders. That is at least double the cost of a similar-sized pickup.

Too, I think the business model for selling cars has changed over the years. The big car manufacturers are no longer depending on parts revenue to make their profit. Yes, ultimately they will lose some sales as reliability will cause EVs to last longer, but the reality is that many cars are lasting longer than 250,000 miles already. Some people just LIKE a new car every few years, and the used vehicles simply move "down the food chain" to poorer folk.

EVs will not change the business model for collision repair, which is now probably the biggest source of revenue for the manufacturers.

Conspiracy theories considered, if it were possible to mass-produce competitive vehicles then IMHO one of the manufacturers would be doing it anyway if only for the bragging rights.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> There is very little lithium in a LiFePo4 battery. It will be a long time till supplies are stretched, not to mention there are other chemistries in the works.


I don't have the link handy, read a report that factored current mining vs estimates of lithium needed to supply millions of cars. It would be enough to increase lithium costs at least twofold for 5-10 years or even more if extracting the lithium from new sources proves more difficult than anticipated. Again, my reasoning on this has to do with fleet conversion times and the probability that production spool-up will follow historical patterns.



> Actually the economics of the situation favor gasoline over CNG today. However it's a shortsighted view.


Naturally - I was only comparing CNG to EV. The point is that we have an existing fleet of ICE vehicles which can be modified at small cost to allow multi-fuel operation, a good hedge against rising gasoline prices, and a ready supply of domestic CNG. I don't think it makes sense for the government to sponosor conversion kits & services for the masses; however, I'll bet a number of businesses are considering fleet conversions as protection against rising prices. Every vehicle converted frees up more gasoline for those still stuck with a petroleum solution.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> So far, I don't think a 200 mile ford ranger has ever been built, but I would imagine that it could be done for less than $80k. Retail priced LiFePO4 battery power would probably cost about $30k, and another $20k if you insisted on getting a new donor truck. My saturn will come in at a little over $20k and I expect 100 miles honest range if it goes according to plan.
> 
> uh tech, I don't think a 150 mile SUV is gonna happen on only $10k worth of batteries...
> 
> ...


You are as always correct. I'm really not trying to damp people's enthusiasm, I've just been through so many similar exercises in my real life work ("Hey, we could do this for only $XXX!!!") only to find out that the real costs always end up being double or triple what you initially thought it would cost - if you are LUCKY...

My hats are off to all you guys who have built an EV. It would be an interesting poll to conduct to get realistic logs of how much time was spent in the conversion and then multiply those hours by the rates a shop needs to charge to remain competitive (figure around $100/hr minimum to factor in ALL business costs, including Liability Insurance for the "Product" you are selling). You might be surprised to find out how much your "inexpensive conversion" really costs in the business world.

I have done repairs and upgrades to my experimental airplane. I kept a log and was truly stunned to find out how much it would have cost me to pay someone else to do them - I couldn't afford to fly if I had to do things that way. But for those of us who love our hobbies, the time spent not only does not cost us any hard cash but actually counts as "fun time."


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Never could use drugs or I never would have been allowed in those fun pointy Air Farce jets!


 I think Tech may have taken a hit off the pipe on this one as I don't think his truck battery numbers are even close to accurate, as much as I'd like them to be.


> I'd love to be shown how wrong I am on this. The most popular vehicle today is still the good old Pickup Truck. With it's beefier suspension it is a natural fit to handle the battery weight necessary to haul a significant load a good number of miles. Yet the only serious attempt to build one with acceptable range (Phoenix Motorcars; > 100 miles advertised range) has a price tag of $60,000; does not seem to have actually delivered one yet; and they are only accepting fleet orders. That is at least double the cost of a similar-sized pickup.


 I wonder if in new vehicle purchases the pickup truck is still as popular. As personal transportation it's really inefficient and mostly underutilized for it's intended purpose. 


> Too, I think the business model for selling cars has changed over the years. The big car manufacturers are no longer depending on parts revenue to make their profit.


I don't know about that, have you priced a part for a newer vehicle lately, especially emissions items? They still have parts failures, no matter how long the vehicle may last.


> EVs will not change the business model for collision repair, which is now probably the biggest source of revenue for the manufacturers.


I have to question that as well, I would think the largest cost of collision repair is labor, which goes to the dealer, or independent shop.


> Conspiracy theories considered, if it were possible to mass-produce competitive vehicles then IMHO one of the manufacturers would be doing it anyway if only for the bragging rights.


Large auto moves about as quickly as continental drift.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I don't have the link handy, read a report that factored current mining vs estimates of lithium needed to supply millions of cars. It would be enough to increase lithium costs at least twofold for 5-10 years or even more if extracting the lithium from new sources proves more difficult than anticipated. Again, my reasoning on this has to do with fleet conversion times and the probability that production spool-up will follow historical patterns.


I've read articles that say we will have plenty of lithium. Here's one saying we will have an excess through 2013 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/outlook-lithium.html
There does seem to be a lot of debate, but it looks to me as if we have years of lithium to play with. Lithium is the battery flavor of the month, there are other flavors out there, some may be even more tasty. 


> Naturally - I was only comparing CNG to EV.


Of course, but what I was pointing out that short term is not the way to look at it. Short term it makes sense to drive on gasoline, slightly longer term it may make sense to use CNG, for some, but long term EV's make the most sense. So the sooner you make the move to an EV the better off you are in the long run. Expanding the CNG infrastructure looks to be a waste of resources since it will only be a blip on the way to EV's. Bypass that blip and you're closer to where you want to end up, and the savings start adding up that much sooner. Remember switching to CNG doesn't eliminate all the ICE maintenance and support systems the way an EV does. See what it costs to replace a modern exhaust system for example.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Large auto moves about as quickly as continental drift.


LOL! Agreed! All the more reason we should have let them die.

I still have my doubts that we will ever live to see the chevy volt sold on a large scale.

Last I heard phoenix motorcars was bankrupt.....

About lithium supply concerns.....

1: lithium would be considered a renewable, commodity resource that is recycled and reused, unlike crude oil which is burned only once. Yes its still a limited resource, but we are only starting to truly exploit it on a world scale. I have no doubt that there are still other natural deposits yet to be discovered.

2: Lithium is only one of many other battery chemistries out there. NiMH will become available for independent research again in the next few years after the patent held by chevron/texaco expires. There is still room for that battery to grow. If lithium ends up being replaced by a better battery later on, than so be it. There are plenty of other elements on the periodic table that can form a electro-chemical reaction.

The basic superior efficiency of the electric car still holds true even if lithium isn't used. This also means that EVs can be retrofitted as time go on to accommodate changes in battery technology should they ever occur.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> So far, I don't think a 200 mile ford ranger has ever been built, but I would imagine that it could be done for less than $80k. Retail priced LiFePO4 battery power would probably cost about $30k, and another $20k if you insisted on getting a new donor truck. My saturn will come in at a little over $20k and I expect 100 miles honest range if it goes according to plan.
> 
> uh tech, I don't think a 150 mile SUV is gonna happen on only $10k worth of batteries...
> 
> ...


David,
Here's my basic calculations... assume a 250wh/mi range (bad) with regen

a $10,000 35kwh battery is 0.35 per w/h... exactly the current price for low volume

I'm sure you could easily half that in large volume but I didn't assume so...

35kwh ... assuming that watt-hour/mile = at least 150 miles of range (at least... though I guess more with even a decent no-tranny design)

I don't think it's crazy to do the math that way... in fact I think I was being VERY moderate in my predictions.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I'd love to be shown how wrong I am on this. The most popular vehicle today is still the good old Pickup Truck. With it's beefier suspension it is a natural fit to handle the battery weight necessary to haul a significant load a good number of miles. Yet the only serious attempt to build one with acceptable range (Phoenix Motorcars; > 100 miles advertised range) has a price tag of $60,000; does not seem to have actually delivered one yet; and they are only accepting fleet orders. That is at least double the cost of a similar-sized pickup.


Unless you want my personal project to be proof of parts costs I don't think you'll see this in your lifetime phantom

You cannot and never should assume that people are doing "all that is possible"

I've learned this when I was 17 and design speaker motors... nobody, not even a single person, wants to do anything new...

Lithium batteries are cheaper than engines/trannies... period... that's all there is to say about it. The tech is there... the concern just isn't.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I think Tech may have taken a hit off the pipe on this one as I don't think his truck battery numbers are even close to accurate, as much as I'd like them to be.


Hehe - don't get me wrong, pipe-smoking sounds like lots of fun and as a Libertarian I think they should STOP spending money on jails and START collecting tax revenues on drugs to help the deficit! However the FAA still takes a dim view of it, and I would rather give up a few body parts than give up my freedom to fly my toy plane.



> I wonder if in new vehicle purchases the pickup truck is still as popular. As personal transportation it's really inefficient and mostly underutilized for it's intended purpose.


My memory is not totally reliable, but I think just this year I heard that the Ford F-150 is still among the best selling, or even THE best selling, vehicle in America.

This, and hot sales of SUVs, is why I think that it's still going to be a while until we get mass adoption of electric vehicles. Double the vehicle weight and it requires double or triple the batteries (and price) to provide decent performance and range. It just isn't easy to get people to change their ways; the RIGHT solution is to keep funding research until we get technology that allows everyone to drive a monster truck with a lead foot for pennies per mile! 



> I don't know about that, have you priced a part for a newer vehicle lately, especially emissions items? They still have parts failures, no matter how long the vehicle may last.I have to question that as well, I would think the largest cost of collision repair is labor, which goes to the dealer, or independent shop.


Yes I agree - but remember that that business will not disappear overnight. It will be a slow drawdown, entirely predictable. Remember, too, that a significant portion of car sales are not driven by "need because the old one wore out" - but rather by the affluent desiring something new.



> Large auto moves about as quickly as continental drift.


ROFL - or slower!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> I've read articles that say we will have plenty of lithium. Here's one saying we will have an excess through 2013 http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/01/outlook-lithium.html
> There does seem to be a lot of debate, but it looks to me as if we have years of lithium to play with. Lithium is the battery flavor of the month, there are other flavors out there, some may be even more tasty.


Ok, I'll bet you a beer (b). Odds are we will both be wrong. I think some of the folks on this forum have pointed out what will truly drive battery development - it will be hand-held widgets like computers and drills. If it is possible for prices to fall enough, it will be that competitive market that drives it first.



> Of course, but what I was pointing out that short term is not the way to look at it. Short term it makes sense to drive on gasoline, slightly longer term it may make sense to use CNG, for some, but long term EV's make the most sense. So the sooner you make the move to an EV the better off you are in the long run. Expanding the CNG infrastructure looks to be a waste of resources since it will only be a blip on the way to EV's. Bypass that blip and you're closer to where you want to end up, and the savings start adding up that much sooner. Remember switching to CNG doesn't eliminate all the ICE maintenance and support systems the way an EV does. See what it costs to replace a modern exhaust system for example.


Well, possibly it is a case of violent agreement. I agree we don't need to expand our CNG infrastructure much, if at all. A "filling station" could be nothing more than a regular station with a compressor and large holding tank hooked up to city natural gas by a slightly larger than normal pipe. Free enterprise can deliver these at low cost, and surely a few filling stations would pop up if enough people converted. As I said, large companies (perhaps some government agencies, like the post office and emergency vehicles) could convert some large fleets to CNG/dual fuel, with the benefit that CNG is at the very least a little cleaner than gas. These sorts of things would act like a hedge fund in the stock market, protecting us from total paralysis if wartime or another Katrina were to cause gas shortages.

Ultimatly we phase out all ICE vehicles. I would personally prefer that the government keep out of it, however, as it encumbers us unnecessarily and will not truly accellerate the inevitable outcome.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Technologic said:


> David,
> Here's my basic calculations... assume a 250wh/mi range (bad) with regen


Here's your first mistake, 250wh/mi is GOOD, and probably impossible for a truck or SUV. Remember we aren't talking about your cardboard and string no air drag go cart, , but full sized vehicles with payload capabilities. Just look through the EValbum and check out wh/mi, very few average 250 even with smaller conversions.


> a $10,000 35kwh battery is 0.35 per w/h... exactly the current price for low volume
> 
> I'm sure you could easily half that in large volume but I didn't assume so...


I don't think you can half that at any volume yet, but could probably make a good dent in it.


> 35kwh ... assuming that watt-hour/mile = at least 150 miles of range (at least... though I guess more with even a decent no-tranny design)
> 
> I don't think it's crazy to do the math that way... in fact I think I was being VERY moderate in my predictions.


If you could find any real world example of a full sized EV averaging 250wh/mi I would love to see it. Not just putting around town either but in mixed driving with some highway thrown in.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Hehe - don't get me wrong, pipe-smoking sounds like lots of fun and as a Libertarian I think they should STOP spending money on jails and START collecting tax revenues on drugs to help the deficit!


That makes too much sense, the Puritans won't stand for someone else having fun that they can't control.


> My memory is not totally reliable, but I think just this year I heard that the Ford F-150 is still among the best selling, or even THE best selling, vehicle in America.


You are correct, it is, but not by much and only because gas got really cheap again and vehicle prices dropped.
May 2009
1.) Ford F-Series: 33,381
2.) Chevy Silverado: 31,463
3.) Toyota Camry: 31,325
4.) Toyota Corolla: 23,576
I'm still amazed at how stupid people are and short sighted, they see $2 per gallon gas and $5K off a new pickup and jump at it. Crazy. However, the low gas prices won't last, they are already climbing, and when they start breaking the $4 mark again people will start freaking out and downsizing as they did before.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Ultimatly we phase out all ICE vehicles. I would personally prefer that the government keep out of it, however, as it encumbers us unnecessarily and will not truly accellerate the inevitable outcome.


While I agree, the reality is that the government will spend money on something, so it might as well be the most efficient technology out there, which at this time is BEV's. Oil and gas are subsidized making a gallon of gas appear cheaper than it really is, I don't have a problem throwing some of those subsidies at BEV's to level the playing field.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> If you could find any real world example of a full sized EV averaging 250wh/mi I would love to see it. Not just putting around town either but in mixed driving with some highway thrown in.


Wasn't the actual rav4 EV something like 270 wh/mi?

You are comparing apples and oranges again... the EV album is almost entirely lead acid which of course yields ungodly high wh/mi (weight, crap usable capacity... very very high amounts of those cars use very high C ratings for discharging).

I'm just talking about the Aptera here... or hell even the tesla roadster (which can be assumed in it's convertible form to be about the Cd of a pickup truck based upon general data)

250 wh/mi in a AC regen lithium system is NORMAL... 

Using the aptera a 35kwh pack would go 360 miles... not 150...
I'd hardly say the aptera was "strings and crap" like you tend to make fun of. It's actually very heavy for it's size.

If you make a "large dent" you're still looking at a $6000 battery ish... you're trying to tell me that they couldn't make an EV SUV for $30k with a 35kwh battery (100-150 miles of range)?

I'd just like to know "why" they couldn't... and keep the same profit margins on a $20k gasser (though probably increase it).

Why? What's stopping it? Engineering wise what is the problem? I'm not even asking for material changes to the body... if they did that they could double that range off the same pack... but really... why?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> That makes too much sense, the Puritans won't stand for someone else having fun that they can't control.
> You are correct, it is, but not by much and only because gas got really cheap again and vehicle prices dropped.
> May 2009
> 1.) Ford F-Series: 33,381
> ...


Don't be too harsh on them - a LOT of people who drive pickups need them for their small business. Small businesses still makes up a large part of our economy, and are still employ the largest group of workers.

After all, when was the last time you saw 6 illegals riding in the back of a Camry?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> While I agree, the reality is that the government will spend money on something, so it might as well be the most efficient technology out there, which at this time is BEV's. Oil and gas are subsidized making a gallon of gas appear cheaper than it really is, I don't have a problem throwing some of those subsidies at BEV's to level the playing field.


I'm not sure where you get the idea that oil and gas are subsidized - the government makes more on each gallon of gas than the oil companies do.

While I agree that some of that wasteful spending should be funneled towards a solution, I would personally rather see it spent in research. Anything developed with government dollars becomes public domain, which would prevent the discovered technology from being held back.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

PhantomPholly said:


> Don't be too harsh on them - a LOT of people who drive pickups need them for their small business. Small businesses still makes up a large part of our economy, and are still employ the largest group of workers.
> 
> After all, when was the last time you saw 6 illegals riding in the back of a Camry?


I can't picture a camry towing more than 1000 lbs reliably either. For the record, I happen to be one of those guys who can be called a self employed tradesman. My livelihood would not be possible if it was not for the fact that I have access to a long range medium duty vehicle like a diesel powered 3/4 ton truck. No living means no EVs either, not to mention food or shelter.

A lot of people don't seem to understand just how much of a western nation's GDP is made up of small mom & pop shops like this.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> I can't picture a camry towing more than 1000 lbs reliably either. For the record, I happen to be one of those guys who can be called a self employed tradesman. My livelihood would not be possible if it was not for the fact that I have access to a long range medium duty vehicle like a diesel powered 3/4 ton truck. No living means no EVs either, not to mention food or shelter.
> 
> A lot of people don't seem to understand just how much of a western nation's GDP is made up of small mom & pop shops like this.


Well you could make an EV pickup... they're actually fairly fuel efficient... the problem is companies need to RETHINK the shapes/materials used... 

lol sorry I made myself chuckle on the last one.

Using ethanol or whatever powered trucks that are only used for very long distances is fine... or Hybrid pickups... why not?

Problem is people are so close minded about the REST of the tech... taking only a single sector of car uses and saying everyone needs 300 miles of range in their vehicle and 30,000 lbs of towing is silly


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> David,
> Here's my basic calculations... assume a 250wh/mi range (bad) with regen
> 
> a $10,000 35kwh battery is 0.35 per w/h... exactly the current price for low volume
> ...


If you look in the garage of the forum you will find a LiFePO4 powered toyota rav4 that comes close to what you are talking about but it only gets 100 miles @ 55 MPH (realistically, that is a more valid way to rate the range of EVs then hypermiling). I've also seen similar LiFePO4 cars on the EV album that seem to corroborate the range claim of this car.

Lets pick this apart a little. I'll assume range @ 55 MPH.

Ditch the warp motor for a brushless high efficiency motor....5 miles extra at least because you gain 5% efficiency, the efficient power band is wider and you get regen which should be at least 80% efficient. ok, maybe 10 extra miles total for going brushless.

110 miles @ 55 MPH

add another 5 kwh of battery capacity (currently at ~30kw) 15 miles extra

125 miles @ 55 MPH

Now ditch the transmission to potentially recover another 20% efficiency from losses in the tranny. Currently there aren't any choices for wheel motors that are 96% efficient and powerful enough, but they can be built and I think its onlt a matter of time. So.... another 20 miles for that

150 miles @ 55 MPH

ACK!! - my numbers betray me! LOL


OK tech, I take it back. 150 miles is possible with the lightest of SUVs out there right now. Even if the battery cost climbs to $15k for charger and BMS, thats still doable.

Damn, thats downright reasonable. Makes me wonder what the hell my car will do when its done.

Smaller, lighter, more aerodynamic, and it looks like I will be able to run a BLDC motor........


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Well you could make an EV pickup... they're actually fairly fuel efficient... the problem is companies need to RETHINK the shapes/materials used...
> 
> lol sorry I made myself chuckle on the last one.
> 
> ...


Never had to move 30 000lbs with any of our trucks and probably never will. In all honesty, I did give serious consideration to converting my propane powered truck to electric before I decided to find a light donor car and do that kind of conversion. At the time, there were no accessible motors that could push a 4500lb truck up to acceptable speeds and the battery would have to be bigger to have satisfactory range. In the end I decided that I needed to focus on making something that would get as long a range as possible on a single charge for as low an investment as reasonably possible.

But I may rethink converting the truck later on since batteries and BLDC motors have made real progress in the last 2 years thanks to the china 863 program. Our business does use more than one truck at a time, but we don't need more than one to go 200 miles per day at a time. Although maybe even 200 miles while towing isn't out of line anymore. Cost permitting, of course.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Wasn't the actual rav4 EV something like 270 wh/mi?


Yes, but that's not a full size pickup or SUV.


> You are comparing apples and oranges again... the EV album is almost entirely lead acid which of course yields ungodly high wh/mi


There are over 120 lithium powered EV's on the album, look at those, and I don't mean the bikes and scooters.


> I'm just talking about the Aptera here... or hell even the tesla roadster (which can be assumed in it's convertible form to be about the Cd of a pickup truck based upon general data)


But no where near the weight, and the numbers for the Roadster weren't derived with the top down.



> Using the aptera a 35kwh pack would go 360 miles... not 150...
> I'd hardly say the aptera was "strings and crap" like you tend to make fun of. It's actually very heavy for it's size.


It's also a far cry from a pickup or SUV, which is what we're talking about.


> If you make a "large dent" you're still looking at a $6000 battery ish... you're trying to tell me that they couldn't make an EV SUV for $30k with a 35kwh battery (100-150 miles of range)?


Hmm, .35 cents a wh gives you a $12,250 35kwh pack, $6000 is .17 wh. I think even in bulk you're looking at close to $10K for the pack once you include shipping and BMS. A full sized pickup or SUV will need a good sized AC motor, which is not cheap. An ACP setup will run you at least $11K in volume. We're already over $20K and we haven't even built the vehicle yet.

I'm not saying it can't ever be done, just that we are not there yet. An ACP or equivalent setup doesn't have to cost $11K but the volume doesn't exist.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I'm not sure where you get the idea that oil and gas are subsidized - the government makes more on each gallon of gas than the oil companies do.


Not exactly true.


> Since 1950, the federal government has provided more than $160 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industries (see Table 1)


http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=1553&category=Energy&type=Project
Lots of stuff here:
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980
I could spend all day posting links to big oil tax breaks and subsidies.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

On the full sized pickup issue, yes some people need them for business, but next time you're driving, not on a construction site or something, take note of how many pickups are basically empty in the back with one person in the cab. A lot of the work pickups do could be done more efficiently with a vehicle capable of occasionally towing a 2000lb trailer, that gets left at home most of the time when not being used.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> On the full sized pickup issue, yes some people need them for business, but next time you're driving, not on a construction site or something, take note of how many pickups are basically empty in the back with one person in the cab. A lot of the work pickups do could be done more efficiently with a vehicle capable of occasionally towing a 2000lb trailer, that gets left at home most of the time when not being used.


It depends on the trade, some guys drive to a work sight in an old chevy sprint hoopty, but those rarely last more than a year in that line of work. I needed so much room that I had to build a trailer in addition to my truck to haul everything I need. There are no smaller vehicles that I would consider durable or reliable enough other than a full size pickup. The european 3.0L turbo diesel ranger comes close, but still isn't quite enough considering the small box. Not to mention that its not allowed in north america because of emissions.

And yes, I do drive my truck on the weekend to tow a boat or run errands with only me in it. Insurance cost makes it impractical for me to have more than one vehicle insured at one time even though it would be nice.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

For a number of years I had a beater 4x4 for hauling and off roading and drove an economy car most of the time. Gas saved more than paid for the insurance, obviously no collision or theft coverage.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> For a number of years I had a beater 4x4 for hauling and off roading and drove an economy car most of the time. Gas saved more than paid for the insurance, obviously no collision or theft coverage.


I nearly shat a brick when I found out what some guys down south were paying to insure trucks identical to mine. And i have the maximum discount from a clean record with no collision or theft. I think I'm paying about 3-4x what a similar person and vehicle would cost in your neck of the woods.

I forgot about the insurance being cheaper down there. Maybe it is viable for you to keep to cars insured. I still have to find out what that saturn would cost. Hoping it won't be too much being a 4 door sedan that is very unpopular.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Not exactly true.
> http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=1553&category=Energy&type=Project
> Lots of stuff here:
> http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/electricity/energybill/2005/articles.cfm?ID=13980
> I could spend all day posting links to big oil tax breaks and subsidies.





> Since 1950, the federal government has provided more than $160 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industries (see Table 1)


I hear what you are trying to say; however, at over $0.50 per gallon in taxes added at the pump and income and capital gains taxes, the government isn't really "doing them a favor."

Let's do some simple math. Total gas consumption in the U.S. (in barrels) * 55 gal/bbl * $0.50 = $69.9 billion per year (conservatively - I believe the rate is over $0.50/gal) in pump taxes alone. Comparing that to $160 billion in tax breaks since 1950 is like comparing a grain of sand to the beach. Meanwhile, the oil companies' profits are around $0.10 / gal, and relative to the capital invested are among the lowest profit businesses in America.

You see, saying that Congress gave the oil companies "big tax breaks" when in fact they have the most crushing single-item tax in America is really like saying you saved money at the shopping mall on your new pair of shoes because there was a 20% off sale. Everyone knows that those same shoes outside a mall will be 50% cheaper, so you "only" got taken for 30% more...



Do I feel sorry for the oil companies? No, not really. The reality is that oil is simply too strategic for the world at this point to imagine any government will let the free market work and not try to dip their fingers into the golden stream (literally AND figuratively), and if you go into a business like that no one is surprised at the pigs gathering around the trough.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Yeah I hear a lot about how much money government gives to big oil here in canada too, but its not really a fair statement. Yes, they do offer some inscentives and initial investment to start new projects, but after its up and running, they levy taxes until the resource runs out. Overal there is much more money flowing from oil profits to governments than the other way around. If it were the other way around, it would not be profitable and would never have started in the first place.

Sad reality is that oil royalties are a major source revenue for governments all over the world even in places where the nations are net importers of the stuff. This brings up the bigger question of how that source of revenue can ever be replaced if the government is really genuine in trying to curbe fossil fuel consumption.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Yeah I hear a lot about how much money government gives to big oil here in canada too, but its not really a fair statement. Yes, they do offer some inscentives and initial investment to start new projects, but after its up and running, they levy taxes until the resource runs out. Overal there is much more money flowing from oil profits to governments than the other way around. If it were the other way around, it would not be profitable and would never have started in the first place.
> 
> Sad reality is that oil royalties are a major source revenue for governments all over the world even in places where the nations are net importers of the stuff. This brings up the bigger question of how that source of revenue can ever be replaced if the government is really genuine in trying to curbe fossil fuel consumption.


Exactly! This is why I do not believe government really wants us to succeed in getting off of oil - they haven't figured out how to tax electricity without absolutely slamming the poor, and in any event know that they will be in the fight of their lives trying to convince the public that shifting those oil taxes to electric taxes is "a good thing for everyone."

All politicians are liars, that is part of the game. However, you can tell as much about their motives by what they DON'T do as by what they do. I believe if government wanted EVs to happen they would be implementing a "Battery Manhattan Project." That they are not doing so pretty much proves what is in their black hearts...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> I hear what you are trying to say; however, at over $0.50 per gallon in taxes added at the pump and income and capital gains taxes, the government isn't really "doing them a favor."
> 
> Let's do some simple math. Total gas consumption in the U.S. (in barrels) * 55 gal/bbl * $0.50 = $69.9 billion per year (conservatively - I believe the rate is over $0.50/gal) in pump taxes alone. Comparing that to $160 billion in tax breaks since 1950 is like comparing a grain of sand to the beach. Meanwhile, the oil companies' profits are around $0.10 / gal, and relative to the capital invested are among the lowest profit businesses in America.


Except for the fact that the oil companies don't pay those fuel taxes, the consumer does! Subsidies and tax breaks are funded by the consumer and given to the oil companies. Here is one break down of a gallon of gas from last year, ratios can be assumed to be similar:


> That $4 we pay can be divided into four categories: taxes, refining, marketing/distribution and the price of crude (according to CNN Money).
> Crude oil is the most expensive part of a gallon of gas, costing more than $2. This money goes straight to big producers of crude, or national oil companies controlled by countries like Saudi Arabia, Mexico or Venezuela.
> The federal government takes about 20 cents from each gallon, on top of the state's tax, which varies greatly, but averages about 22 cents a gallon. Most of this money is used to build and maintain roads (which is why removing the gas tax is a bad idea).
> Refineries — such as Valero, Sunoco, ExxonMobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips eat about a quarter dollar a gallon.
> Marketing and distribution can eat up the rest of the $4 price tag, with your local gas station getting only about 10 cents per gallon, transporting the gas to your station eating up another quarter, and so on.


http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080608/NEWS/806080327


> So you think you're getting a good deal on a tank of gasoline these days? You wouldn't think so if all the oil industry tax subsidies received from the federal and state governments and other costs that went into producing that gallon of gasoline were included in the pump price. Such external costs push the true price of gasoline as high as $15.14 a gallon, according to a new report released by the International Centre for Technology Assessment.
> "In reality, the external costs of using our cars are much higher than we may realize," the Washington-based research group said in its report.*Publisher's note -- for a deeper look at this, see Clifford W. Cobb's article here.*​The report examined more than 40 separate cost factors, the group said, that are associated with gasoline production but aren't reflected by the price of gasoline at the pump. These external costs total up to $1.69 trillion per year, according to the report.
> The group points out that the federal government provides the oil industry with tax breaks and massive corporate welfare handouts, so gasoline is artificially cheap for American consumers.


http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm
It is clearly not a level playing field for BEV's. However in contrast to your claims, the current administration is looking to promote BEV's, Chu has clearly stated this and has cut back on hydrogen spending, and started battery subsidies:


> In one of the government's biggest efforts at shaping industrial policy, the Energy Department has been soliciting applications for $2.4 billion in funding aimed at turning the U.S. into a battery-manufacturing powerhouse. At the deadline last week, the department said it had received 165 applications.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329271803452475.html


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Except for the fact that the oil companies don't pay those fuel taxes, the consumer does! Subsidies and tax breaks are funded by the consumer and given to the oil companies. Here is one break down of a gallon of gas from last year, ratios can be assumed to be similar:
> http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080608/NEWS/806080327


Ok, read that article. I'll address some of this:



> These hidden costs include military patrols of oil shipping lanes and presence in oil producing countries, ...


First, the military. You may argue pros and cons of projecting military might throughout the world, but economically speaking the patrols cost us nothing. Why? Because we would just be doing them somewhere else. Too, due to the historical (and recently being re-illustrated for us by the Somalis) fact that pirates will blossom where law is absent, military patrols simply offset the economic losses we would have experienced due to pirates had we not patrolled.




> ...air pollution from auto exhaust, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, ...


Next, air pollution. I'm not going to go back into the whole GW argument again, sorry. I will point out, however, that the United States today has more forested acres than it did when the Pilgrims landed, and that our use of gasoline is about the cleanest in the world. Absent the Chinese spewing trillions of tons of dust into the atmosphere and building another new dirty coal power plant each week, the air quality today would be as good or better than it was in 1492. 

Does that come at a cost? Certainly - costs for catalytic converters and other technology mandated by Congress are passed on to the Consumers. However, here is the rub in this particular argument: In this case, the subsidy falls in favor of the EV because they do NOT require $1,000-2000 worth of emissions gear.



> ...environmental devastation caused by drilling, pipelines and oil spills, ...


It is true that in the past unsafe techniques have resulted in environmental damage. Today, however, 9 out of 10 Carribou in Alaska prefer the pipeline. Why? Because it is clean, safe, and happens to provide a little warmth. Oil rig spills are virtually non-existant, and we are still talking about the Exxon Valdiz because there hasn't been another incident of that magnitude. Taken as a cost of doing business (which, by the way, is insured and covered by the oil companies so is already included in the price) it nets out to zero ADDITIONAL cost as that author portrays.



> ...and economic damage caused by importing foreign oil.


*Of all of this list of arguments, this is the one I most strongly agree with.* I find it unconscionable and bordering on treasonous that our Congress has allowed us to fall into this nation-destroying trap while forbidding us to drill for our own resources. Nor have they implemented any real plan, such as a "Manhattan Project" for superbatteries, which would deliver us from this evil. The result of these policies, put forth primarily by liberal but also supported by some alleged conservative politicians is that our nation is not only deeply in debt in actual dollars but also facing a period of natural devaluation due to trade imbalance. Oh, and did I mention that all of that will simply add fuel to the fire for the hyperinflation sure to set in now that Congress is about to crank up the funny-money printing press?




> If all these hidden costs were actually tallied into the price of gas, we would pay well over $5 per gallon, according to the National Defense Council Foundation.


I can't say that I know what the "real" cost is, but I will agree it is more than what we see at the pump. However, based solely on that article I would surmise that they are overstating the case. Final thought on this: No one ever seems to remember that gasoline / oil was an IMPROVEMENT for the ecology over coal, which was used to heat homes 100 years ago...



> http://www.progress.org/gasoline.htm


Wow, I can tell I'm going to have a hard time reading this tripe from the first paragraph, followed by the first sentance of the second paragraph:

"A revenue-neutral tax shift that raised the price *of driving and other socially damaging behavior *while lowering taxes on productive effort would have important impacts on these problems. " (emphasis mine)

Driving is "socially damaging?" Sorry, this is a RADICAL Left viewpoint and indicative of a damaged mind. Driving is exactly what has caused our economy to increase exponentially since WWI. "...lowering taxes on productive effort..." ??? These are fascist social engineering whackos who want to tell you when to sleep and when to pee and when to jump and how high. Hello, 1984.

Ok, I will try to keep an open mind and read the rest; however, I will acknowledge up front that I am deeply skeptical that this is anything other than another in an endless stream of emotional anti-technology pieces.
..........................................

Well, I feel ill but I have completed it. The paper was a complete rationalization for why our government should be made bigger and people punished for doing what is in their best interests. 

1. There was not a single citation justifying the estimates of "costs."
2. In any event, the "cost of roads" is a false hypothesis - as I believe are the other "costs" cited.

The paper begins from the point of view that the existance of roads is purely a "cost" that does not return value to society. This false premise is frequently employed by political groups seeking to extend control of government or increase taxes. 

Why is it a false premise? Think about this: What would happen to the GDP in the United States if the roads were simply left to rot? In turn, what would happen to the price of groceries? What would happen to the increadible tax base which our bloated government is sucking the life out of?

The answer should be immediately obvious to a schoolchild: There would be mass starvation; rioting; and economic collapse.

The reverse is also true. Each and every American benefits from the roads in the form of reduced prices for goods and services. Think of this benefit as a "negative tax" improving everyone's lifestyle. The government benefits from this alone are orders of magnitude above what the cost of the roads are. The idea that gas taxes are "to fund the roads" was a massive lie peddled to the American public long ago to rationalize yet another tax. *For each and every dollar the government "spends" on roads, they benefit at least $10 in increased tax revenues due to a better economy.*

The same is true for virtually every USEFUL (not "bridges to nowhere") infrastructure project. Don't ever believe a politician when they tell you what a particular tax dollar will be used for. Whatever comes out of their mouths is the ONE thing you can be sure will never see a dime of that money.

The same "logic" is the foundation of the rest of this piece, along with strong prejudicial arguments that "someone" knows better than individuals do what is "good for society." Hogwash - just an excuse to stick their noses into other people's business.

The final nail in the coffin of this line of thinking? That it is government's business to see that society is "channeling their efforts into the most productive avenues." Right there is the definition of Citizens as Slaves to the Government, for if we are not free to choose how hard we work and how we spend our time than we are little more than slaves to political tyrants so that THEY can live as gods. Beware false gods, and newsmen who get a tingle up their leg...



> It is clearly not a level playing field for BEV's. However in contrast to your claims, the current administration is looking to promote BEV's, Chu has clearly stated this and has cut back on hydrogen spending, and started battery subsidies:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329271803452475.html


Good - we have a number: $2.4 billion for battery development. That amounts to about .016% of 2008 GDP.

Let's compare that to a serious government effort - "The Manhattan Project." At a cost of about $20 billion over the years 1940-1945 GDP (and, it should be pointed out, while in the midst of a horrific war where every dollar not spent on tanks, ships, and guns meant possibly losing the war) we find $20 billion / $7,644 billion * 100 = .262% of GDP every year for 5 years. That is nearly 20 times the attention being given to finding batteries which will stop our country from bleeding nearly $1 trillion each year in dollar-devaluing purchases of oil.

Nope, the government is in no way serious about a solution.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> It's also a far cry from a pickup or SUV, which is what we're talking about.
> Hmm, .35 cents a wh gives you a $12,250 35kwh pack, $6000 is .17 wh. I think even in bulk you're looking at close to $10K for the pack once you include shipping and BMS. A full sized pickup or SUV will need a good sized AC motor, which is not cheap. An ACP setup will run you at least $11K in volume. We're already over $20K and we haven't even built the vehicle yet.
> 
> I'm not saying it can't ever be done, just that we are not there yet. An ACP or equivalent setup doesn't have to cost $11K but the volume doesn't exist.


I think it's been shown before the ACP isn't even necessary.
$11k is way too much... you could use 2 industrial motors/specialty wound motors straight into the differentials and a fairly low cost controller (maybe 600A IGBTs? run you about $80-100 for a 3 phase output stage in bulk).

I don't think SUVs should be the first EVs rolling down the street. The technology to make a Toyota Camry/Honda Civic go 200+ miles on a charge for the same price as a Prius is definitely there. Even if you couldn't decrease the pack's price to less than $10k with a BMS and ready to install delivered you're still looking at the same car price (something tells me that a large company like toyota could still do a lot better... even building their own battery factory)

ACP's setup isn't necessary or even recommended for this application. I don't think their marketing strategy is sane. They seem to want ultra high pricing from OEMs... which is an oxymoron.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I was able to find retail priced BLDC motor/controller sets in the 6-7K range in china. I see more companies like that on alibaba every other month, so competition and volume will only drive the cost down like what happened with LiFePO4 batteries.

ACP is making a living right now, so hats off to them. Long term they will have to drive the cost down however. Maybe they have a plan to do that, maybe not. But $11k is too expensive to be viable in the long term no matter how good the system is. As bill gates proved rather well, claiming to be the best isn't what matters.

Driving is socially damaging behavior? Uh, ok......I wonder how many more guys are going out to buy guns in light of that kind of inflammatory propaganda. Thanks a lot for that, now they think EVs will mark the end of their personal right to move freely about the country. 

......idiots.....


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Let's compare that to a serious government effort - "The Manhattan Project." At a cost of about $20 billion over the years 1940-1945 GDP (and, it should be pointed out, while in the midst of a horrific war where every dollar not spent on tanks, ships, and guns meant possibly losing the war) we find $20 billion / $7,644 billion * 100 = .262% of GDP every year for 5 years. That is nearly 20 times the attention being given to finding batteries which will stop our country from bleeding nearly $1 trillion each year in dollar-devaluing purchases of oil.
> 
> Nope, the government is in no way serious about a solution.


Just don't add up how much the government spends on welfare/entitlement programs each year out of the US's GDP 

Arguably, removing oil from our primary fuel would achieve more for economic stability than any other single thing we could do as a country (besides perhaps the complete removal of income taxes etc).

It's a shame... out of all of that stimulus none of it went to anyone that needed it... I suppose that's just inevitable though... that's what governments do.

They hold back things, not make them possible.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Next, air pollution. I'm not going to go back into the whole GW argument again, sorry. I will point out, however, that the United States today has more forested acres than it did when the Pilgrims landed, and that our use of gasoline is about the cleanest in the world. Absent the Chinese spewing trillions of tons of dust into the atmosphere and building another new dirty coal power plant each week, the air quality today would be as good or better than it was in 1492.


Tell that to the residents of smog bound cities, cities that didn't even exist in 1492. Not to mention air pollution often ends up as water pollution. I'd really like to see some sort of science that backs up your assertions on this one.


> Does that come at a cost? Certainly - costs for catalytic converters and other technology mandated by Congress are passed on to the Consumers. However, here is the rub in this particular argument: In this case, the subsidy falls in favor of the EV because they do NOT require $1,000-2000 worth of emissions gear.


Emissions parts don't cost the manufacturers $1000-$2000, just the consumer when it's time to replace them.


> *Of all of this list of arguments, this is the one I most strongly agree with.* I find it unconscionable and bordering on treasonous that our Congress has allowed us to fall into this nation-destroying trap while forbidding us to drill for our own resources.


That sort of ignores the fact that there are large areas open for drilling where no drilling is being done, and that even tapping every last resource we have would not significantly reduce our foreign oil usage and will only serve to more quickly deplete our reserves. 



> Wow, I can tell I'm going to have a hard time reading this tripe from the first paragraph, followed by the first sentance of the second paragraph:
> 
> "A revenue-neutral tax shift that raised the price *of driving and other socially damaging behavior *while lowering taxes on productive effort would have important impacts on these problems. " (emphasis mine)....


You could have spared the rant since that was not the article I linked to.
Why don't you just google oil and gas subsidies and true cost of gasoline and see what you come up with. I'm sure there will be some nut jobs in there but it's also pretty convincing that big oil has had lots of help along the way.
Yes the current battery subsidies aren't that large, but it's just the beginning. It should have happened 20-30 years ago, but on the other hand batteries are already improving so quickly on their own we don't need huge subsidies, and that's a good thing. The best of current batteries are good enough and getting better, they just need to be cheaper, which means they need to be made in larger quantities, but there is no demand because they cost too much, it's a vicious circle, which can be broken with temporary subsides. Drop the price, demand goes up, production goes up, economics of scale makes prices go down, subsidies have done their job and we are all driving affordable 300 mile range SUV's and Pickup trucks. Battery range isn't so much limited by technology anymore but by price. Same thing on the motor/controller side, the technology is there it just costs too much because it's limited quantity.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Technologic said:


> I think it's been shown before the ACP isn't even necessary.
> $11k is way too much... you could use 2 industrial motors/specialty wound motors straight into the differentials and a fairly low cost controller (maybe 600A IGBTs? run you about $80-100 for a 3 phase output stage in bulk).


No you can't, have you followed etischers AC controller build? Much more complicated and expensive than that, not to mention industrial motors are heavy and inefficient.


> I don't think SUVs should be the first EVs rolling down the street. The technology to make a Toyota Camry/Honda Civic go 200+ miles on a charge for the same price as a Prius is definitely there. Even if you couldn't decrease the pack's price to less than $10k with a BMS and ready to install delivered you're still looking at the same car price (something tells me that a large company like toyota could still do a lot better... even building their own battery factory)


Of course, but we were talking about SUV's and pickups specifically. I agree completely they should not be the first target for BEV technology.


> ACP's setup isn't necessary or even recommended for this application. I don't think their marketing strategy is sane. They seem to want ultra high pricing from OEMs... which is an oxymoron.


They are a downright bargain compared to UQM systems. There just aren't that many players in the field, so until someone makes a price breakthrough they can almost charge what they want. Remember, the ACP system includes motor, controller, DC/DC, and high power charger using the motor windings. Price out a Warp11, PFC50 charger, Zilla 1kHV if you can find one, plus a good DC/DC. You're over $10k right there with less performance than the ACP system. I'm sorry but the ACP is a bargain, too bad you can't get them unless you buy a 100 or more.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> No you can't, have you followed etischers AC controller build? Much more complicated and expensive than that, not to mention industrial motors are heavy and inefficient.


Industrial motors are inefficient? Really? They're designed to run 24/7 at continuous load meaning that the capital cost is a tiny fraction of the operational cost. Their main design criteria is low maintenance and EFFICIENCY. Have you ever read an induction motor datasheet? Ever compared the efficiency to a series wound motor? Have you ever read a book that wasn't just pictures?

My Toyota MR2 conversion I'm currently working on is a two industrial induction motor set up. The motors are heavier than the type you'd find in the the Ranger EV for instance but these are air cooled - doing away with the added weight and complexity of the liquid cooling system.

Technologic may have understated the cost of a 3 phase motor controller a little but, still, it doesn't have to be anywhere near as expensive as one from ACP or Metric Mind. Plus, in a high voltage EV system, the 3 phase inverter can double as an onboard rapid 30 minute battery charger.

Sam.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

samborambo said:


> Industrial motors are inefficient? Really? They're designed to run 24/7 at continuous load meaning that the capital cost is a tiny fraction of the operational cost. Their main design criteria is low maintenance and EFFICIENCY.


Inefficient was the wrong term. Over built and a poor power to weight ratio for an EV application was probably a better way to describe them. EV's don't need a motor built to run 24/7.


> Have you ever read a book that wasn't just pictures?


Have you ever read a book on constructive discourse? At least Phantom usually gets a few posts deep before starting in with the personal attacks.
I agree that AC systems don't need to be as expensive as an ACP unit, I'm using one from HPG that's $4200. However it's no where near the power of an ACP. If you know of one that is equal to an ACP for less money I'd love to see it.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Inefficient was the wrong term. Over built and a poor power to weight ratio for an EV application was probably a better way to describe them. EV's don't need a motor built to run 24/7.Have you ever read a book on constructive discourse? At least Phantom usually gets a few posts deep before starting in with the personal attacks..


Don't take it personally, mate. This forum is littered with technical misinformation. People state apparent facts which turn out to be what they *think* and not what is researched and proven. Such an attitude is completely inappropriate for an engineering forum. You think my response was not constructive? You got the message that quoting misinformation makes you look like a fool, didn't you? 

My point also was that induction motors are not really that over-built. A layman reads that a 60kg industrial performance induction motor is only capable of 11kW. This is true continuously at full load. The starting torque and stall torque ratios, usually 3 to 8 times the continuous torque rating, are better indications of the power available in an automotive duty cycle. Besides, power is not a very intuitive metric of AC motor performance - torque is. 



JRP3 said:


> I agree that AC systems don't need to be as expensive as an ACP unit, I'm using one from HPG that's $4200. However it's no where near the power of an ACP. If you know of one that is equal to an ACP for less money I'd love to see it.


I can't find the reference right now since forum search is broken. I'll come back later and edit with the correct details so as to not be hypocritical considering my rant above about apparent facts. Someone on this forum modified a second hand 2kW industrial VSD, basically upgrading the power stage, to drive a Siemens induction motor for a converted BMW. That make for a very cheap DIY hack. I, on the other hand, am building mine from scratch.

A 700V, 150A, automotive duty AC controller should not be anywhere near US$4200. Many have built such a controller for much less. Hell, once my two controllers are working I'll post the schematics and source code.

Anyway, isn't this a massive digression from the thread topic? Doesn't this happen on every other thread on this forum? If people read forum threads that relate to the argument, we wouldn't have to digress. AC motors, especially induction motors, have been discussed at great length in the Electric Motors section.

Sam.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

samborambo said:


> Don't take it personally, mate. This forum is littered with technical misinformation. People state apparent facts which turn out to be what they *think* and not what is researched and proven. Such an attitude is completely inappropriate for an engineering forum. You think my response was not constructive? You got the message that quoting misinformation makes you look like a fool, didn't you?


Not at all, however I did get the message that you're a bit of an ass, but don't take it personally. 


> My point also was that induction motors are not really that over-built. A layman reads that a 60kg industrial performance induction motor is only capable of 11kW. This is true continuously at full load. The starting torque and stall torque ratios, usually 3 to 8 times the continuous torque rating, are better indications of the power available in an automotive duty cycle. Besides, power is not a very intuitive metric of AC motor performance - torque is.


Ok, show me some examples and numbers.




> Someone on this forum modified a second hand 2kW industrial VSD, basically upgrading the power stage, to drive a Siemens induction motor for a converted BMW. That make for a very cheap DIY hack.


That was the exact example I was talking about. Do you know his costs? They may be higher than you think.



> A 700V, 150A, automotive duty AC controller should not be anywhere near US$4200. Many have built such a controller for much less. Hell, once my two controllers are working I'll post the schematics and source code.


Great, but the $4200 I referenced was for motor, controller, wiring harness, and display. I also expect a company to make a profit on their products, I'm not just talking about home built controllers with no regard to labor costs.


> Anyway, isn't this a massive digression from the thread topic? Doesn't this happen on every other thread on this forum? If people read forum threads that relate to the argument, we wouldn't have to digress. AC motors, especially induction motors, have been discussed at great length in the Electric Motors section.


In case you haven't noticed this thread has wandered all over the place, and I'm not the one who started talking about super cheap high power AC motors that don't seem to exist. Not really a big deal since this is the news section, not technical.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

> Someone on this forum modified a second hand 2kW industrial VSD, basically upgrading the power stage, to drive a Siemens induction motor for a converted BMW. That make for a very cheap DIY hack.





> I've been throwing money into additional parts for the inverter, so it's costing more than I originally thought. I'd like to sell it for around 5-6k, but the number seems to keep creeping up =( I'll just have to see what they sell for on ebay.


http://www.diyelectriccar.com/forums/showthread.php/home-built-ac-drive-ford-siemens-27893p8.html
Cheap DIY hack?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

samborambo said:


> Technologic may have understated the cost of a 3 phase motor controller a little but, still, it doesn't have to be anywhere near as expensive as one from ACP or Metric Mind. Plus, in a high voltage EV system, the 3 phase inverter can double as an onboard rapid 30 minute battery charger.
> 
> Sam.



I'm not trying to underestimate it... I'm simply certain it'd cost a large large factory like toyota almost nothing to design the system (per car produced I mean)... the rest is just component costs... which can be handled almost entirely in software (cheap) or hardware (no R&D).

I think it's absurd to think that a very well designed AC controller would cost a company over $600/car in volumes of 100-200k/yr... in fact I think it's so absurd to even use ACP and metric mind as an example because it's just clearly not the case, never will be the case, and talking about it is as a realistic prospect is a waste of time.



> Great, but the $4200 I referenced was for motor, controller, wiring harness, and display. I also expect a company to make a profit on their products, I'm not just talking about home built controllers with no regard to labor costs.


You're asking for the impossible here JP... listen to yourself for a second

You are comparing OEM part costs (ie. the AC controller's COST to a factory like toyota) to that of a DIY effort in someone's garage solely created in his own time

Etischer's example is actually a very very very poor one as far as parts cost (and just to be clear his part costs are still <$1000 ranges for the whole controller in 1 quantities). His controller employs arrays of controls for throttle ramps etc... things you don't actually need with a full on DSP or DSP like system (similar to the one started by me)..

What you need to do is get a general IDEA of the part costs for something like the powerex 3 phase IGBT module, DSP, 200+ part count controller boards and current sensing (sensorless) systems... the price is in the $200-300 range for ALL of those in bulk totalled (even including those "huge high voltage DC filters")
These are chinese prices or hell even panasonic's prices would be similar for many many of the same parts

Just because you can buy a brand new Rav4 engine from an aftermarket or DIY builder for $4000-5000... does NOT mean that Toyota pays even 1/5th that much
If my experience with Hyundai's actual prices is any indication, expect at most a 4 cylinder engine runs $600 fully constructed by the time it's on the line and being dropped in.

And they do exist JP... you just simply don't have access to them...
Do you think that the AC motor controller in the Prius costs Toyota more than $500? If you do 

The point isn't what you know of, it's what's possible. Large corporations are only limited to what is possible... they do not share your limitations as far as "one off design pricing, and profitability on small volume".


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Not at all, however I did get the message that you're a bit of an ass, but don't take it personally.


Nah, that's alright mate, I understand. I'd expect that reaction from a yank, especially a New Yorker.



JRP3 said:


> Ok, show me some examples and numbers.


Sure. Look up ABB's catalogue of industrial performance aluminium frame induction motors. 



JRP3 said:


> That was the exact example I was talking about. Do you know his costs? They may be higher than you think.
> Great, but the $4200 I referenced was for motor, controller, wiring harness, and display. I also expect a company to make a profit on their products, I'm not just talking about home built controllers with no regard to labor costs..


You realise you're posting on DIY electric car forum, right?



JRP3 said:


> In case you haven't noticed this thread has wandered all over the place, and I'm not the one who started talking about super cheap high power AC motors that don't seem to exist. Not really a big deal since this is the news section, not technical.


Mea culpa. I realise it wasn't you who wandered off topic and shouldn't have made it look like I was blaming you.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

samborambo said:


> Nah, that's alright mate, I understand. I'd expect that reaction from a yank, especially a New Yorker.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I know I frustrate JP on a decently regular basis with my expectations of people/companies, technologies and pricing, but I think I like to see what is possible at the basic level, before digging around into what it is "available"

JP works the opposite. He wishes to see something first, before making a judgment on viability. I suppose it's the difference between an engineering mindset and a consumer's mindset. One thinks of what could be possible or constructed and what it should cost at the "best price", the other thinks about what is available for himself and what he can access.

As a DIYer, I'm sure some of my ideas are frustratingly hopeful. They are not always real expectations, simply frustrations with the current hypocrisy of politicians and the reality of the world. It leaks out at times without me noticing.

At any rate, JP's ideas are always well founded, but only in the known technology he could theoretically use himself today or could get his hands on.

I suppose it's not always possible for those two people to get along, even if the engineer does make something for the parts costs he describes. The labor, time, research, etc etc will always loom above the end result as an obstacle. Though the expertise of one man creating everything I've described so far is more than possible, it's likely not helpful in any way to the revolutionary mindset this forum thrives upon. An example of such a thing, done for such a reasonable price, could be used to inspire others for their own builds, but likely will not yield ANY attention from those in legitimate positions of power.


It's a true shame that is the reality of the world, but it is undeniably the truth. Simply providing an example of the stupidity of others, even shining the light so blindly upon the truth as creating it precisely how one claims is possible, often yields the exact opposite of what one hopes. Instead of people being attracted to the brilliance and truth, they are repulsed by the idea of facing reality. Not the reality of themselves or even the reality of what things should cost and what should be available, but they are repulsed by the notion of facing the truth of corruption, idiocy, and slavery in which they live.

JP's view is always very understandable and justified, at least I can't recall any times I felt he was being unfair.
I actually never mind him knocking me down a peg or two when I get too hopeful about things.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

Well said, Technologic. I can definitely appreciate JP's aptitude and ability - his 6x6 conversion and modifications are a good reference.

I was digging into him over the statement "induction motors are bulky and inefficient". That was blatantly false information. Like I said, this forum is littered with misinformation.

Many "newbies" come to this forum to learn about DIY EVs. Statements like the one above knock them back in understanding the options available and deciding upon the best solution for their intended build.

Misinformation also affects the credibility of the forum as a whole. I'm convinced there are plenty of other electrical and electronics engineers out there with a keen interest in DIY EVs but are reluctant to contribute to this forum due to the general lack of quality information.

Basically, if you don't know about a subject in depth, don't bluff it. Someone else is bound to call your bluff. Although, many engineers may not bother calling one's bluff due to the confrontation it may cause.

Sam.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

samborambo said:


> Well said, Technologic. I can definitely appreciate JP's aptitude and ability - his 6x6 conversion and modifications are a good reference.
> 
> I was digging into him over the statement "induction motors are bulky and inefficient". That was blatantly false information. Like I said, this forum is littered with misinformation.


I'm not sure what engineers think of this forum to be honest.
Perhaps you're right and they are hesitant, but I generally enjoy talking with people about the things in which I am educated. 

Engineers are really practical people though and sometimes can be very close-minded... for good or bad reasons.

You are right that was a poor choice of words, but I think it was an honest mistake of JP's... 

The holy grail of the DIY community is a cheap, reliable 3 phase sensorless AC controller that can be used on industrial motors.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

Technologic said:


> The holy grail of the DIY community is a cheap, reliable 3 phase sensorless AC controller that can be used on industrial motors.


I totally agree, which is why I'm working on my controller design.

How's your controller design coming along? I haven't seen much activity on your controller thread lately.

Sam.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

samborambo said:


> I totally agree, which is why I'm working on my controller design.
> 
> How's your controller design coming along? I haven't seen much activity on your controller thread lately.
> 
> Sam.


I'm currently not in the country (Uruguay)... haven't had time lately to dig into it (after finals)... I'm sure I'll have something tangible for the PSU soon.
I've been rather busy lately though... last month has been very time consuming for me (haven't posted here hardly ever)


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

Technologic said:


> I'm currently not in the country (Uruguay)... haven't had time lately to dig into it (after finals)... I'm sure I'll have something tangible for the PSU soon.
> I've been rather busy lately though... last month has been very time consuming for me (haven't posted here hardly ever)


I've been pretty busy with other jobs too - mostly computer related - modding TomToms, building MythTV systems, etc. I've got a bit of spare time in the evenings now to dedicate to working on EV stuff, especially the controller design. I'll post on your controller thread...

Sam.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

samborambo said:


> Nah, that's alright mate, I understand. I'd expect that reaction from a yank, especially a New Yorker.


You do realize that it was you who started in with personal attacks, right? Did you feel that would raise the level of technical discussion? Should I expect that from a New Zealander? I try not to judge an entire country from the poor behavior of a single person.

As to the inaccuracy of my initial statement, if a motor is heavier than it needs to be for the power it puts out then it will be an inefficient motor for an EV, since the EV has to drag around the extra unnecessary weight. So while I agree it wasn't the best choice of words it wasn't exactly the outrageous statement you made it out to be. I have no problem being shown I'm wrong about something, that's how I learn, but concrete examples should be used to do so.
The ACP motor is 75lbs and 150kw peak, and I've already laid out what the entire system includes. If you have links to other motors of similar specs I'd be happy to see them. I'm sure in large quantity it could be built for a lot less, how much less I'm not sure since parts alone don't show the whole picture of manufacturing costs.
As Tech mentioned we often go back and forth about prices, probably because he seems to only look at the cost of parts when that's not all that is involved.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Just to be totally clear, I would love to be proven completely wrong and find inexpensive industrial motors with an appropriate power to weight ratio for an EV and inexpensive controllers to power them.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JP, motors aren't that different from one another as you might think. Using an industrial motor frame with higher power density parts inside is nothing new. The chinese company I am working with right now uses rare earth magnets in an industrial motor frame to get the relatively low cost and above average performance out of the motor. The motor and controller together will be roughly 150lbs and have a constant rating of 20kw or 40 peak. The only reason it could not have been higher, is my system voltage is too low. As I mentioned on other threads, they can make 100lb motors that go all the way to 60kw constant/120 peak with liquid cooling. The price for a single set would have been under $8000.

The reality is once you design the prototype motor, the cost of mass producing them is very low. The weight problem can be resolved by changing from an iron casting to an aluminum casting. The truth is, the warp series of motor for example is more than adequate in terms of power for electric cars, but it is not nearly as light as it could be. Indeed at 160lbs for only the 9" motor, it is comparable to some industrial motors already. I don't really see what the big deal is.

Something else I wonder is what the constant rating of the ACP system is since its generally used in smaller and lighter cars. 190Hp is actually enough to comfortably power a 1/2 ton pickup, yet its never been used in any mid sized vehicles.


----------



## samborambo (Aug 27, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Just to be totally clear, I would love to be proven completely wrong and find inexpensive industrial motors with an appropriate power to weight ratio for an EV and inexpensive controllers to power them.


The Red Suzi AC induction motor conversion: http://www.evalbum.com/1149

From that page: "Remember the idea of this conversion is to use standard low cost industrial parts"

Sam.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Just don't add up how much the government spends on welfare/entitlement programs each year out of the US's GDP


Too late - some nights it gives me nightmares.

Federal Spending Breakout since 1940.

You can see the trend is exponential, and therefore completely unsustainable. The Baby Boomers screwed us all.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> Tell that to the residents of smog bound cities, cities that didn't even exist in 1492. Not to mention air pollution often ends up as water pollution. I'd really like to see some sort of science that backs up your assertions on this one.


Ah, but in 1492 there weren't nearly as many humans. Ever hear of a "London Fog?" That city had nightly smog so thick you could cut it with a knife 200 years ago. Other large cities around the world had similar problems, Mexico City and others still do. This country is better in Los Angeles today than most smaller cities around the world.

Like I routinely say, if you want to cut emissions, start with the one that causes all others. 



> Emissions parts don't cost the manufacturers $1000-$2000, just the consumer when it's time to replace them.


So? That is part of the cost of owning a vehicle, a "tax" if you will on Gasoline vehicles from which an EV would be exempt. You can argue about what the dollar impact is; you cannot dispute the fact that it exists.



> That sort of ignores the fact that there are large areas open for drilling where no drilling is being done, and that even tapping every last resource we have would not significantly reduce our foreign oil usage and will only serve to more quickly deplete our reserves.


So? If we are really serious about converting and DON'T do it, then all the oil that is there becomes worthless when conversion happens. If we DO drill, we reduce the trillions of dollars we are bleeding overseas. An average second grader could figure out the answer to that little puzzle. There is a political agenda leading here, not logic.



> You could have spared the rant since that was not the article I linked to.


I just clicked the link. If you meant another article, you should have posted it. Nor was it a rant - it was rather objectively pointing out that the article begins with false assertions and assumptions - simply put, it is opinion, not science. Bad science posing as truth makes me ill.



> Why don't you just google oil and gas subsidies and true cost of gasoline and see what you come up with. I'm sure there will be some nut jobs in there but it's also pretty convincing that big oil has had lots of help along the way.


Once again, help compared to what? Is that like Obama's planned "tax cuts" which start with letting the Bush tax cuts expire? This is yet another reason I am a FairTax supporter - it's time to take the spin out of claims of tax favoritism. Our current system panders to politicians who take $100, give $1 back and call it a "subsidy." Don't get me wrong on this one - both parties play the same game. Still it is B.S. and you need to look at the big numbers (total revenue vs. total taxes paid net of "subsidies") to understand that Uncle Sugar isn't doing any special favors for big oil.



> Yes the current battery subsidies aren't that large, but it's just the beginning. It should have happened 20-30 years ago, but on the other hand batteries are already improving so quickly on their own we don't need huge subsidies, and that's a good thing.


Well it is a good thing - but it takes away nothing from my point that if they were really serious about it they would invest in RESEARCH, not subsidize the current crop of batteries which really AREN'T good enough yet. Why subsidize this current crop of batteries, when for just a bit more we could develop infinitely reusable carbon nanotube capacitors which require no rare materials? Again, this is political games not real action.



> The best of current batteries are good enough and getting better, they just need to be cheaper, which means they need to be made in larger quantities, but there is no demand because they cost too much, it's a vicious circle, which can be broken with temporary subsides. Drop the price, demand goes up, production goes up, economics of scale makes prices go down, subsidies have done their job and we are all driving affordable 300 mile range SUV's and Pickup trucks. Battery range isn't so much limited by technology anymore but by price. Same thing on the motor/controller side, the technology is there it just costs too much because it's limited quantity.


On the other hand, if we have the government researchers develop something like carbon nanotube capacitors and make the technology public domain, we will be flooded with cheap batteries without the subsidies.

I guess our differences here boil down to a simple concept: You favor immediate political favoritism to a few manufacturers freezing the current technology hoping for a "reasonable cost," while I favor a longer view looking for the government to fund non-partisan research making new technologies available for maximum competition in the market place by any manufacturer that wishes to use the public domain knowledge. In the short run with your approach we will have slightly more expensive cars that are electric but wanting some in performance and needing replacement batteries down the road; in the longer run with my approach we all have really cheap cars that never need the battery replaced and don't need scarce materials to build.

My bet: I'm just older than you and more patient...


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> JP, motors aren't that different from one another as you might think. Using an industrial motor frame with higher power density parts inside is nothing new.


Sure but we are getting farther away from off the shelf industrial motors.


> The chinese company I am working with right now uses rare earth magnets in an industrial motor frame to get the relatively low cost and above average performance out of the motor. The motor and controller together will be roughly 150lbs and have a constant rating of 20kw or 40 peak. The only reason it could not have been higher, is my system voltage is too low. As I mentioned on other threads, they can make 100lb motors that go all the way to 60kw constant/120 peak with liquid cooling. The price for a single set would have been under $8000.


I'm interested in how these motors perform, but again the price is climbing and nothing close to what Tech has been talking about.


> The truth is, the warp series of motor for example is more than adequate in terms of power for electric cars, but it is not nearly as light as it could be. Indeed at 160lbs for only the 9" motor, it is comparable to some industrial motors already. I don't really see what the big deal is.


I thought the Warp9 was closer to 140 lbs, and I thought the peak power was much higher than similar sized industrial motors I've seen in that weight range.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

samborambo said:


> The Red Suzi AC induction motor conversion: http://www.evalbum.com/1149
> 
> From that page: "Remember the idea of this conversion is to use standard low cost industrial parts"
> 
> Sam.


Interestingly enough I looked at that conversion this morning while looking for ABB motors. 176 lb motor 11kw, 48kw peak. It may have been cheap but it doesn't seem like a great power to weight ratio.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> Sure but we are getting farther away from off the shelf industrial motors.


LOL, just now different do your really think they are inside? High power motors and industrial motors use the same materials and internal components and can be assembled on the same assembly lines. The only reason the high performance motors are not cheaper, is because they are not mass produced by the thousand normally.

The reality is, rare earth PM brushless motors are becoming the standard for industrial use along with the mid 90s efficiency ratings. Brushless motor peak outputs are limited by cooling more than anything else. In other words, its as high as you dare to go and the more peak power, the shorter the duration at peak output. If the warp 9 motor was used in an industrial application, do you honestly think they would rate it at 28kw constant?



JRP3 said:


> I thought the Warp9 was closer to 140 lbs, and I thought the peak power was much higher than similar sized industrial motors I've seen in that weight range.


You're thinking of the warp9 Impulse which is indeed about 140 lbs. It has a lower power rating that the original warp 9 and works as a higher efficiency suppliment for the warp 8. The original warp 9 is roughly 160 lbs.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> This country is better in Los Angeles today than most smaller cities around the world.


That's not saying much.


> Like I routinely say, if you want to cut emissions, start with the one that causes all others.


 As I routinely say, I'm all for it.



> So? That is part of the cost of owning a vehicle, a "tax" if you will on Gasoline vehicles from which an EV would be exempt. You can argue about what the dollar impact is; you cannot dispute the fact that it exists.


It's not part of the upfront costs though, which is what most people look at when purchasing. A $30k EV will probably cost less than a $20k ICE in the long run, but how many people really see that?


> So? If we are really serious about converting and DON'T do it, then all the oil that is there becomes worthless when conversion happens. If we DO drill, we reduce the trillions of dollars we are bleeding overseas. An average second grader could figure out the answer to that little puzzle. There is a political agenda leading here, not logic.


No, the oil will never become worthless, some vehicles will still use petroleum fuels for a while, not to mention that petroleum can have a longer useful life when made into products than burned. Even a massive drilling effort now will not make much of an impact for years, if ever. Again, you ignore the many sites open to drilling already that are not being used at all. The idea that oil companies are being denied the drilling sites they need is simply false.


> I just clicked the link. If you meant another article, you should have posted it. Nor was it a rant - it was rather objectively pointing out that the article begins with false assertions and assumptions - simply put, it is opinion, not science. Bad science posing as truth makes me ill.


I think you clicked the link within the article I linked, no big deal.



> This is yet another reason I am a FairTax supporter


It figures, don't get me started on this one, there is nothing far about the fair tax. Luckily it will never happen. (Please if you feel the need to debate the fair tax start a new thread, this one has already gone far enough off topic.)



> Well it is a good thing - but it takes away nothing from my point that if they were really serious about it they would invest in RESEARCH, not subsidize the current crop of batteries which really AREN'T good enough yet.


What's not good enough about them? They don't fast charge? Yes they do. They aren't dense enough to make a 200 mile and more EV. Yes they are. They cant take thousands of cycles? Yes they can. They can do all this and are still improving.


> Why subsidize this current crop of batteries, when for just a bit more we could develop infinitely reusable carbon nanotube capacitors which require no rare materials? Again, this is political games not real action.


 I'd say subsidizing real, proven products is less a game than chasing a mythical product that may or may not be practical.


> I guess our differences here boil down to a simple concept: You favor immediate political favoritism to a few manufacturers freezing the current technology hoping for a "reasonable cost," while I favor a longer view looking for the government to fund non-partisan research making new technologies available for maximum competition in the market place by any manufacturer that wishes to use the public domain knowledge.


No, I favor subsidies to get the current technology to the masses, which will allow it to continue to improve.


> In the short run with your approach we will have slightly more expensive cars that are electric but wanting some in performance and needing replacement batteries down the road; in the longer run with my approach we all have really cheap cars that never need the battery replaced and don't need scarce materials to build.


My approach helps promote and improve existing real world technologies, your approach is banking on a technology that might not pan out the way you hope.


> My bet: I'm just older than you and more patient...


In that case you have less time to wait around patiently


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> LOL, just now different do your really think they are inside? High power motors and industrial motors use the same materials and internal components and can be assembled on the same assembly lines. The only reason the high performance motors are not cheaper, is because they are not mass produced by the thousand normally.


I don't think there is magic fairy dust in the motors, just that they will cost more since they aren't the mass produced motors we were talking about.
If higher power to weight ratio motors become more prevalent then of course I expect prices to come down. If that's what is happening then great.




> You're thinking of the warp9 Impulse which is indeed about 140 lbs. It has a lower power rating that the original warp 9 and works as a higher efficiency suppliment for the warp 8. The original warp 9 is roughly 160 lbs.


I've seen everything from 142-170 for the weight of the Warp 9, so I'll take your word for it. Ultimately I never used the Warp 9 as a great example of power to weight, remember we were originally talking about high power AC systems, and I was specifically looking for similar specs as an ACP unit. Basically I said $11K for an ACP didn't seem too bad for all you get, Tech of course thought I was insane, and here we are. I have yet to find a comparable system in an industrial motor, though I admit sometimes it's hard to extrapolate peak KW from continuous for a particular motor. If anyone can show me a 75lb motor with similar peak to an ACP I would really like to see it.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

JRP3 said:


> I have yet to find a comparable system in an industrial motor, though I admit sometimes it's hard to extrapolate peak KW from continuous for a particular motor. If anyone can show me a 75lb motor with similar peak to an ACP I would really like to see it.


Do you happen to know what the constant rating of the ACP system is?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Constant is 50 KW, however it seems I was using the weight from the Tesla motor, which apparently has improved upon the ACP design. The ACP motor is 110 lbs while the Tesla motor is 70 lbs.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

So what do you think of these? Keep in mind, these are steel case motors, not aluminum.

http://taianxindongli.en.alibaba.com/product/226193073-202415003/water_cooled_motor.html

I think I priced out the 50kw motor and it came to a little over $7000USD for a single motor/controller set.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

Specs look pretty good, but I'm a bit leery of some of these Chinese motors. I've read some accounts of poor build quality and specs not being met. Wasn't there a guy named GLEVP selling these or something similar on the board? Also, liquid cooled motors aren't what I think of when someone talks about off the shelf industrial motors. Finally, $7K for an unknown 50kw continuous, 100kw peak motor makes $11K for a 150kw peak ACP seem not so bad. ( I don't know what the Tesla motors cost, and you can't get them, but they put out over 200kw from their 70lb motor).


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Time will tell if they are any good. This is actually the company that will hopefully supply my 20kw air cooled motor. Its actually bigger and heavier than the 50kw motor because of the system voltage isn't what they normally work with, but the overall cost and performance is still good enough for me. Next car (if it ever happens) will use 320V instead of 144.

Didn't think the tesla had more power than the ACP system I thought the T-zero and tesla were similar in weight (tesla being slightly heavier) but ACP's car made better 0-60 times by nearly 25%. Also a 300 mile range to boot.

There are all sorts of chinese motor companies comming on line now, much like what happened with lithium. Something else is that the quality issue might not be as big a deal as we once thought. Turns out its getting much harder to export goods from china because of more and more strict regulation.

I don't think GLEVP is sourcing from the same company, though I have seen some of the companies that he is sourcing from. Why did you mention him? heard bad things?


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

The TZero was quite a bit lighter than the Tesla, it was a very stripped down car. It may have been geared differently as well.

I remember reading some complaints about GLEVP, maybe they were resolved but http://myworld.ebay.com/glevp/ 
I wonder if that's our very own Jack Rickard?
There were also some complaints under another Ebay user name.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Yeah I heard about the Ebay complaints too. I thought you knew something more recent. I wonder about Jack Rickard too....

Probably better safe than sorry with so many EV scams running around.

When did ACP updated their website? Seems they have much more info on there now. The peak efficiency isn't something I ever saw before and I must say its a little dissapointing. 91% peak and 86% under cruise?

http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/AC150_Gen2_specs.pdf


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> It's not part of the upfront costs though, which is what most people look at when purchasing. A $30k EV will probably cost less than a $20k ICE in the long run, but how many people really see that?


There is a way to calculate it - it is called "Net Present Value." The EV, for the same performance and size, does not come close to a gasoline vehicle yet.



> No, the oil will never become worthless, some vehicles will still use petroleum fuels for a while, not to mention that petroleum can have a longer useful life when made into products than burned. Even a massive drilling effort now will not make much of an impact for years, if ever.


That has been the argument used by liberals in this country for decades. It was not true then; it is not true now. We could have some new sources of oil online in under two years if we made it a priority.



> Again, you ignore the many sites open to drilling already that are not being used at all.


Not really. Not all sites with oil are created equal. If it were profitable to drill there, they would be drilling. Strange how liberals only want to curtail drilling where it might be profitable.



> The idea that oil companies are being denied the drilling sites they need is simply false.


The idea that oil companies are NOT being held back from drilling at known rich sites is false. The fantasy that "there are sites just as good as those being ignored" is rubbish.



> It figures, don't get me started on this one, there is nothing far about the fair tax. Luckily it will never happen. (Please if you feel the need to debate the fair tax start a new thread, this one has already gone far enough off topic.)


Oh, I am quite aware that any kind of fair taxation is off the table under our current administration. They will bleed the rich until they are poor, then we can all be poor together.



> What's not good enough about them? They don't fast charge? Yes they do. They aren't dense enough to make a 200 mile and more EV. Yes they are. They cant take thousands of cycles? Yes they can. They can do all this and are still improving.


See the note on Net Present Value above. The 200 mile Ford F-150 is NOT $30,000, it is closer to $80,000 (upping the price for the Phoenix a bit because it is only 100 miles and a bit smaller).



> I'd say subsidizing real, proven products is less a game than chasing a mythical product that may or may not be practical.


Ah, the impatience of youth. What is the hurry? GW? Even the avid proponents now say it isn't a serious problem for at least 50 years. And you want to help hasten our bankruptcy over a problem 50 years away?

I think there is time for level heads to prevail here. If you want to go buy an $80k Ford F-150, you should be free to do so - but you should not steal MY tax dollars to subsidize what I genuinely believe to be a mistake of huge proportions.



> No, I favor subsidies to get the current technology to the masses, which will allow it to continue to improve. My approach helps promote and improve existing real world technologies, your approach is banking on a technology that might not pan out the way you hope.


Ah, what a magnificent world it would be if we could just spend a bit more of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Politicians have been playing this game now for decades - problem is, we are running out. The goose won't lay, and it damn sure isn't going to KEEP laying if you keep stealing them.



> In that case you have less time to wait around patiently


Well, I will not help you and your fellow fascists finance your dream. Like many other professionals I know, I have plans to relocate to a country which is fiscally responsible before the lid caves in. 

Then you and all of your impatient friends may enjoy your fiscal collapse in your unpowered EVs.

Cheers!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> The peak efficiency isn't something I ever saw before and I must say its a little dissapointing. 91% peak and 86% under cruise?
> 
> http://www.acpropulsion.com/tzero/AC150_Gen2_specs.pdf


Those numbers are probably more realistic for real world performance than most, and they are in line with the numbers I've seen for controller plus motor efficiency for the HPG systems.


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> There is a way to calculate it - it is called "Net Present Value." The EV, for the same performance and size, does not come close to a gasoline vehicle yet.


A little subsidy action could make that happen 


> That has been the argument used by liberals in this country for decades. It was not true then; it is not true now. We could have some new sources of oil online in under two years if we made it a priority.


Still not in enough quantity to change the price of gas by even one penny.


> Not really. Not all sites with oil are created equal. If it were profitable to drill there, they would be drilling. Strange how liberals only want to curtail drilling where it might be profitable.


See above, plus have you ever considered that tearing up the wilderness just so oil companies can get cheaper oil, which will not translate into lower prices, just higher profits, might not be worth it? I know, that's crazy talk, drill baby drill.... 


> The idea that oil companies are NOT being held back from drilling at known rich sites is false. The fantasy that "there are sites just as good as those being ignored" is rubbish.


Never said they were just as good, I don't really know one way or the other, but it's not the point. It's still not enough to make a significant difference. Fact is that lower oil prices merely keeps us addicted to the stuff longer. And as I previously mentioned there are much better uses for oil than burning it.


> See the note on Net Present Value above. The 200 mile Ford F-150 is NOT $30,000, it is closer to $80,000 (upping the price for the Phoenix a bit because it is only 100 miles and a bit smaller).


I still don't think a pickup truck should be the target market, there are millions of people who'd like a smaller efficient EV, which is easier and cheaper to build. Trucks will come in time.


> Ah, the impatience of youth. What is the hurry? GW? Even the avid proponents now say it isn't a serious problem for at least 50 years. And you want to help hasten our bankruptcy over a problem 50 years away?


Aren't you the one pushing for a massive Manhattan type project for battery development? I'm advocating less extreme, less costly subsidies. I'm saying let's take money away from wasteful subsides such as ethanol and hydrogen and put them towards EV's. I'm not suggesting spending any more money, just spending it more wisely.


> I think there is time for level heads to prevail here. If you want to go buy an $80k Ford F-150, you should be free to do so - but you should not steal MY tax dollars to subsidize what I genuinely believe to be a mistake of huge proportions.


Except you really don't believe that. You are willing to spend your dollars on the Manhattan battery project but don't want to spend less of your money on building, improving and lowering the price on the batteries we have? I'm sure you're aware your tax dollars are being wasted in other areas already.


> Ah, what a magnificent world it would be if we could just spend a bit more of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Politicians have been playing this game now for decades - problem is, we are running out. The goose won't lay, and it damn sure isn't going to KEEP laying if you keep stealing them.


As stated I want to spend our money efficiently. The sooner we get cheaper batteries the sooner we free ourselves from oil dependency and the better off we'll all be. Our dependence on oil hurts our national security, we can't get off it soon enough.


> Well, I will not help you and your fellow fascists finance your dream. Like many other professionals I know, I have plans to relocate to a country which is fiscally responsible before the lid caves in.


Good luck with that. I'll stay and do what I can to be part of the solution. 


> Then you and all of your impatient friends may enjoy your fiscal collapse in your unpowered EVs.
> 
> Cheers!


I should be driving around oil free in my appropriately powered EV in a month or so.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Oh, I am quite aware that any kind of fair taxation is off the table under our current administration. They will bleed the rich until they are poor, then we can all be poor together.


Hong Kong has a flat tax... with deductions... max anyone can pay is 15%  Most wealthy people pay far less.

You want to move to NZ right? their tax rate is at least 45% for most professional salaries.

I'm off to Hong Kong myself... going to start buying up property from there once the market starts dying for good 



> Ah, what a magnificent world it would be if we could just spend a bit more of OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. Politicians have been playing this game now for decades - problem is, we are running out. The goose won't lay, and it damn sure isn't going to KEEP laying if you keep stealing them.
> 
> Well, I will not help you and your fellow fascists finance your dream. Like many other professionals I know, I have plans to relocate to a country which is fiscally responsible before the lid caves in.
> 
> ...


EVs are fine Phantom... why dog on them?
You really think the only people here are making conversions out of old junkers? not me... I'll be doing something no gaser could ever rival  and taking it with me...

Hong kong is a damn small area so I won't even get to use the 150-200 miles of range I plan on... off 15kwh 

Now I def wouldn't be doing anything like converting an F-150... blech... waste of space/time.

Any top educated professional (like myself currently in law school at a top 10 school) will be high tailing it to Asia. This is what I intend to do in 4 years tops.

I'm taking my expensive, government subsidized education, food stamps I used while in college (even when I had a job), full tax rebates for every job I've had so far, and not paying a single dime back into their system. No remorse about it, I'm simply doing the obvious. Taking what they have to offer, since they have nothing else to offer me but still a premier education.

Hong Kong's average attorney salary is 4 times higher than the US... a full 5% of them make over 1 million USD/yr... see ya 

If my current relationship works out... you'll be looking at a corporate attorney and facial reconstructionist/surgeon in Hong Kong... living off effectively no taxation...
Someone will need to pinch me once that happens.

I've been broke for too many years to hand it over to government goons.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> A little subsidy action could make that happen


Your current portion of the Federal debt is currently $333,333 including future obligations. A "LITTLE" subsidy will not make these 100 mile spam-cans suitable substitutes for my SUV, and since you seem to think like most youngsters that "government money" is some kind of magical substance waved up by a wand then I suggest you really should seek professional help to understand that your (the "collective you," not just you personally) suicidal insanity to spend your grandchildren's inheritance because you lack the patience of a gnat to EARN what you want will guarantee our contry's destruction, and is starting to irritate those of us who actually shoulder the load. Atlas will shrug, and you can expect it pretty soon now.

I have a better idea. For those wanting an EV now using current technology, join a DIY self site and build one with your own money. Oh, isn't that what this site is supposed to be for? In the mean time, get your *#)^%# parasitical hands out of my pocket looking for a handout.



> Still not in enough quantity to change the price of gas by even one penny.


This has been proven false over and over again. The mere DISCUSSION of opening off-shore drilling caused a $20 / bbl drop in the price of crude. In any event, it isn't so much to REDUCE the price as to guarantee us a supply. Again, you and those like you prove that they think only tactically, not strategically.

"Strategy without Tactics is the slowest path to victory.
Tactics without Strategy is the noise before defeat."
- Sun Tszu



> See above, ...


So you are wrong on this, too... 



> plus have you ever considered that tearing up the wilderness just so oil companies can get cheaper oil, which will not translate into lower prices, just higher profits, might not be worth it? I know, that's crazy talk, drill baby drill....


ANWR drilling has proven to be the best thing that could happen to the Alaskan wildlife. Nor is it necessary to "destroy the wilderness" to drill any more. Drilling today has become clean, safe, and ecologically friendly - creating nesting places on land and fishing reefs off shore.

You are still repeating Green talking points from the 70's. Better wear your tie-dye T-shirt, too, while you are at it. 



> Never said they were just as good, I don't really know one way or the other, but it's not the point.


Huh? It is EXACTLY the point. You may "hate" the free market, but the fact is you really don't understand it. The market is nothing more than an expression of how to maximize use of scarce resources. Government controls never change the outcome of reality, they simply disguise it (adding cost).

If we are to keep oil as our bridge strategy until practical EVs are a reality, then it is utterly imbecilic to go chase after the most expensive oil (wasting even MORE precious resources attempting to get it). 



> It's still not enough to make a significant difference.


That seems to depend on whose "estimates" you listen to. There is enough verified oil on the continental shelf to supply the U.S. for decades. Beyond that, the fact is that we don't KNOW how much of a difference it will make until we actuall sink drills, because all estimates on reserves are JUST THAT - "Estimates."



> Fact is that lower oil prices merely keeps us addicted to the stuff longer. And as I previously mentioned there are much better uses for oil than burning it.


Another false premise clouded by your assumption that "oil is bad." Batteries have been improving by about 5% - 10% per year for decades (cost / kwh). They will continue to do so, and at some point they + the electricity to charge them will be lower than the equivalent cost of oil for cars. This is inevitable. Your (again not you personally - referring to the more rabid demanders of "immediate action" as a group) Chicken Little paranoid demands that we "make it happen now" are causing a far bigger crisis than GW ever could, because the price point crossover will happen all on its own long before GW (were it factual) would be truly perceptible.



> I still don't think a pickup truck should be the target market, there are millions of people who'd like a smaller efficient EV, which is easier and cheaper to build. Trucks will come in time.


But you don't get to decide what people need. Looking at the spread of cars in the U.S., SUVs & Pickup Trucks are "average" for half our population or more. Once again, in your fanatical frenzy to make things happen overnight you would reduce the standard of living of everyone who has legitimate need for such vehicles.

The answer isn't to force everyone to change their habits. The answer is to invent a better answer.



> Aren't you the one pushing for a massive Manhattan type project for battery development? I'm advocating less extreme, less costly subsidies.


Ah, but you haven't really calculated the true cost. Ramping up production on less than satisfactory batteries at an opportunity cost of trillions of dollars and benefitting a few select groups will actually cost MORE to our society than a short Manhattan-style research program - and will DELAY introduction of a truly superior technology into the market.

Research beats subsidies every time in terms of true value to the citizens.



> I'm saying let's take money away from wasteful subsides such as ethanol and hydrogen and put them towards EV's. I'm not suggesting spending any more money, just spending it more wisely.


If you want to spend money wisely, take it out of the hands of government. That parasitical, unethical, and idiotic bunch of crooks are currently wasting nearly half of our entire GDP.



> Except you really don't believe that. You are willing to spend your dollars on the Manhattan battery project but don't want to spend less of your money on building, improving and lowering the price on the batteries we have? I'm sure you're aware your tax dollars are being wasted in other areas already.


True - I believe based on factual evidence that the problem will solve itself within 10 years, and that all of the money being taxed allegedly to "help" this problem has and will continue to in fact hurt it. However, given a choice between unwise subsidies that favor a few politically connected cronies (for, they won't go by the "best technology" but rather by political power brokering) and research where the results become public property, I'll take the research every time. But at the end of the day they are BOTH pathetic rationalizations for growing our government beyond the bounds set forth in our Constitution.



> As stated I want to spend our money efficiently.


First off, it's not OUR money. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not in the upper 50% of tax payers based on your typical writings. So, right away you start making claims that it is "our" money and I cannot help but imagine that your way of thinking is at heart that of a parasite, not a producer. As I posted earlier, the favorite cry of the Liberals is, "Just give me more of YOUR money and I can do GREAT THINGS!" Well, they may seem great to you but they seem small, stupid, and shortsighted to most of us.

Secondly, if you want our TAXPAYER money spent EFFICIENTLY, then leave it in the hands of taxpayers and shrink government. Each and every economic model, even those of the liberals, conclude that large government (such as we have) stifles the economy, investment in research, and innovation.



> The sooner we get cheaper batteries the sooner we free ourselves from oil dependency and the better off we'll all be. Our dependence on oil hurts our national security, we can't get off it soon enough.


True, but you cannot wave a wand and have a solution. It will arrive, but we don't know when. In the mean time we should take advantage of every alternative already available.



> Good luck with that. I'll stay and do what I can to be part of the solution.


You mean, you will start working to reduce the size of government? Teriffic! You have my full support!



> I should be driving around oil free in my appropriately powered EV in a month or so.


And for that I commend you and your innovative spirit. Things are looking better here - mom's in the home, her home is finally ready to rent (can't sell thanks to Barney Frank and his buddies trashing the home market) so I should be in a position to start my project by next spring.

In the mean time, I'm going to start flying my plane. A lot.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Hong Kong has a flat tax... with deductions... max anyone can pay is 15%  Most wealthy people pay far less.
> 
> You want to move to NZ right? their tax rate is at least 45% for most professional salaries.


It's a bit less, and their new government is cutting spending (and taxes).

It is also skewed because, unlike the U.S., they do not have the added parasitical layer of "States." So, the total tax rate there is now below most places in the U.S. and declining, while ours is increasing - and the fully-loaded debt (including future obligations which will never be met due to bankruptcy) is $1/3 million per person here while it is only a few thousand there. Future for the USA: "Can't get there from here..."



> I'm off to Hong Kong myself... going to start buying up property from there once the market starts dying for good


Good idea, but neither I nor my wife speak Cantonese. That limits our options, and besides I don't Hong Kong as a safe strategy due to the unknowable intentions of the Chinese. They SAY they will leave it alone, but...



> EVs are fine Phantom... why dog on them?


If I came across as dogging EVs in ANYONES perception, let be be perfectly clear: I am truly excited that EVs are finally becoming practical. I've wanted one since the early 70's, but each time I've evaluated them they can't do my mission. Now they can, but the price is still steep. I've been blessed in my life, and hope to build one next year despite the fact that it will be more time and money than simply buying an equivalent used car.

It is not my purpose or intent to dog EVs. However, I am deeply disconcerted when the proponents of a new technology grossly overstate the potential of current technology. Why? Becuase as a technology leader I have been burned many times by exaggerated promises, and have learned that there are consequences of this behavior which actually HURT the adoption of new technology.

It is precisely because I WANT EVs to succeed that I do not keep quiet when I see members here (and people elsewhere) making exaggerated claims.



> You really think the only people here are making conversions out of old junkers? not me... I'll be doing something no gaser could ever rival  and taking it with me...


Right, but when you figure in your time (at "real shop rates") and the compromises you will be making to achieve your personal ideal of a vehicle, you will most likely end up with a solution which would not be mass-marketable. I don't want a mass-marketable vehicle, either - I want one that lets me drive fast but is practical enough to commute in. I expect it will take months of work once I do get started.



> Hong kong is a damn small area so I won't even get to use the 150-200 miles of range I plan on... off 15kwh


Hehe - hope you don't get "island fever!"



> Now I def wouldn't be doing anything like converting an F-150... blech... waste of space/time.


Actually, I was thinking that with dual motors and a LOT of batteries it might be pretty sporty!



> Any top educated professional (like myself currently in law school at a top 10 school) will be high tailing it to Asia. This is what I intend to do in 4 years tops.
> 
> I'm taking my expensive, government subsidized education, food stamps I used while in college (even when I had a job), full tax rebates for every job I've had so far, and not paying a single dime back into their system. No remorse about it, I'm simply doing the obvious. Taking what they have to offer, since they have nothing else to offer me but still a premier education.


I am sorry to hear that. Whenever I hear people like yourself (myself included) speak of leaving this country, I am sad. I'm not young enough / reckless enough to fight a revolution, and based on what I see I think that is the only chance left to turn it around.



> Hong Kong's average attorney salary is 4 times higher than the US... a full 5% of them make over 1 million USD/yr... see ya


Well, if we DO move down under we will definitely visit HK. I'll watch for your EV and buy you a beer!



> If my current relationship works out... you'll be looking at a corporate attorney and facial reconstructionist/surgeon in Hong Kong... living off effectively no taxation...
> Someone will need to pinch me once that happens.
> 
> I've been broke for too many years to hand it over to government goons.


You deserve to prosper from your talent and hard work. Obama et. al. will not allow that to happen here, I'm afraid.

Best of luck to you!


----------



## JRP3 (Mar 7, 2008)

It's been fun, but I don't have the energy, too many articles to read about the constantly improving battery technology  Bottom line, I'm right, you're wrong  See ya.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

JRP3 said:


> It's been fun, but I don't have the energy, too many articles to read about the constantly improving battery technology


Hehe - exceeded that attention span limit...



> Bottom line, I'm right, you're wrong  See ya.


I remember when I knew everything, too...



Keep reading those articles - in just under 10 years the cost-effective solution for everyone will be here!


----------

