The Electric Car EV Conspiracy

The Electric Car EV Conspiracy

by Liv | Published on March 2nd, 2007, 9:18 pm | Science

Okay, so I think I've found myself a new passion. So Besides Gadgets, Guinness, and Greensboro, now I'm firmly on this whole EV thing. EV as in Electric vehicles, battery operated cars, as in, "Oh my god, the technology exists, and yet we still drive gas vehicles around?"

So I've been googling, right and left.... learning, educating myself, and it's a shocking conspiracy, let me tell you.

Did you know there were more electric vehicles then gas vehicles, 100 years ago? Wow, I thought. I watched a little interview on NOVA about the directer of the film "Who Killed the Electric Car" and was shocked to find out GM only created the EV1, GM's only electric car, to satisfy government regulations. Then when they struck a deal with legislators, took all of them out to the desert and crushed them even though they were almost brand new, and their owners who had been leasing them still wanted them.

So there's something to this whole electric thing. You can convert almost any gas vehicle for about $5,000 dollars now or you can buy a new one. What's out there?

Well you've got the basic cars, like the one's from Zap. Their most popular is the Xebra, a 3 wheeled electric vehicle that can drive you almost anywhere you want within about 20-40 miles. Perfect for commuting short distances or taking the kids to school. The best part? Saw one on EBay, NEW for about 6,000 dollars. Even better, it fits the needs of 90% of the country's population.

But they're slow right? People thing Electric Vehicles are golf carts with doors? That's where I was surprised too. In fact most electric vehicles are faster at accelerating then most of their gas counterparts, due in part to constant torque being available without a mechanical power-band, like combustion engines. Need proof? Take a look at this EV called Tesla.

The Tesla is the Ferrari of Electric with 0-60 in 4 seconds, and a range of 250 MPH. This is the car George Clooney drives, and this can out run your neighbors mustang GT without an ounce of emissions. At about 90 thousand dollars it's out of reach for alot of us, but capable of showing everyone, that if we can do this, build cars capable of rivaling it's finest gas counterparts, then maybe the reason we still drive them around, isn't because we can't, but because someone doesn't want us to?

But so far, my favorite, and most likely to be able to be afforded by my meager salary is a car called the Zap Obvio:

A 28,000 dollar electric sports car, that will be available in electric, and flex-fuel, and seats 3. The Obvio will produce speeds of up to 160MPH and can turns head at the same time.

I'm convinced the more, and more I read, electric cars are the future, and are being influenced by car manufacturers and oil companies. It's with the knowledge of how simple, and effective these cars can be, we as a society could benefit from this technology. But until people realize that car companies make more money selling your your H2 then an EV, then we will continue to have to dump hundreds of dollars into the gas pumps just to survive.

The technology is on the way. I think hybrids will more popular at first because you don't have any recharge time.

That's the big draw back of an all-electric vehicle: The recharge time. The limited range of the cars is also a draw back. But as technology improves, the challenges will be overcome.

Things that concern me:

Infrastructure: It will be expensive to create new fueling and recharging locations like we have gas stations.

Environment: A silly concern about an electric car right? Wrong. How is the electricity that charges the cars batteries produced? Coal fired plant? Nuclear plants? But something tells me it's cleaner to produce the extra wattage than the exhaust from the cars. I may be wrong though. And what about battery leaks and disposals? Any more dangerous to get in an accident with an electric car vs combustion? I don't know.

Economy: It's going to take time to convert all the internal combustion engines out of cars. I think we're looking at 50 years. All those jobs making combustion engines, combustion engine parts, oil at refineries, etc.... they will begin to disappear. I hope a new need takes it's place.

Oil companies won't go quietly either. They'll use their influence to slow the process and eventually will drop oil prices to make it more cost effective to use an internal combustion motor than electric. When that happens, you'll REALLY see instability in the mid east. Demand will drop, there will be excess capacity, which will lead cheap prices and no more mega riches from oil. Then you'll see them really tear each other apart. United States won't have a big economic interest so they'll let them go at it.

These are all challenges that will need to be overcome. But I think we've started down the path and won't turn back now.

Xebra:
Max speed; 40mph
Max range: 40 miles on level ground
Recharge: 8 hours on 20 mp circuit
Hills 5% max (10% with heavy duty controller)
Battery life:3 years @ $1,200
Carry capacity: 500lb
I'd have to say that that would be totally impractical for me. It wouldn't get me to work

The Obvio is not yet available but the specs are rather strange.
It has a 50 l tank - for what?
Electric Drive: 120 kW, 220 Nm
Battery: Li Ion, 39 kWh, 580 lb
So at full power the battery would last 20 minutes, yet they claim a range of 200 miles.
They say the charge time is 2 hours (fast) on a 20 kW supply. 20kW? That's a 180 amp supply! That's huge (almost twice my house supply). On a regular 15 amp socket it's a 24hr charge.

Before I shelled out $30 grand I'd want to do real due diligence

But the big problem for an electric vehicle is the range and recharge. I frequently need to drive more than 200 miles and even if the charging stations were available waiting 2 hours for a charge wouldn't work. And what if you run out? No rescue with a can of gas - it's a tow.

This why I'm not enthusiastic about electric vehicles. They are great for in town short range deliveries - like the electric milk floats that delivered the milk when I was a kid.

But for everday vehicles I just don't think they are practical - or ever will be unless instant charging can be invented.

But chemical energy has the advantage of being portable and concentrated. I think hydrogen, biofuels or synthetic fuels are more practical.

My brother and I are currently building electric cars and motorcycles though we'll probably move towards Inline Hybrids that will run on batteries only using the Internal Combustion Engine to charge the batteries when they get low. That's the sort of technology trains have been using for over 50 years. The engines on a train are not connected to the wheels except by the wires the electric current flows through. Hopefully in a few months we can show them to the world. That is: If I can scrape up enough cash to finish them.

Rereading the Obvio specs I realized that the $30,000 Obvio is the multi-fuel (gasoline, ethanol) one, which explains the tank The all electric one is $50,000, but apparently also has a tank?

Even for my commute I would need a combustion vehicle or hybrid, but for our other car which sees less than a few mile each day to go to the store, and take the kids to school, and electric vehicle would be perfect.

The problem with Hybrids though is they arn't as efficent as electric vehicles, and worst yet they still pollute. What hopefully will be a compromise is a plug-in hybrid, where you can plug it in at night, so your not burning gas, and drive the first 40 miles totally on electric. Then if you need additional range, the combustion motor comes on. The problem is, car companies don't want that.

Environment: A silly concern about an electric car right? Wrong. How is the electricity that charges the cars batteries produced? Coal fired plant? Nuclear plants? But something tells me it's cleaner to produce the extra wattage than the exhaust from the cars. I may be wrong though. And what about battery leaks and disposals? Any more dangerous to get in an accident with an electric car vs combustion? I don't know.

That's true Matt, but... that's a fixable thing.... it's called Nuclear. Better yet, down the road we can easily switch to other power sources like solar, wind, ect., or even zero point energy if it becomes available.

I wouldn't think an acidic bay of batteries in a a battery box would be anymore dangerous then a steel piston moving up and down 6000 times a minute, or a drive shaft revolving under the floor board of the car.

please don't think I'm poo-pooing your opinion. I agree with the main premise of your thinking.

My comments are about what obstacles that will have to be overcome. I truly think those challenges will be met, eventually.

But for now, oil and automakers will drag their feet until they figure out a way to make the big $ off of alternative powered cars.

Oh, I don't... and believe me... up to about a month ago, I was very skeptical of the whole thing too... but it's absolutely incrediable that you can buy a brand-new electric vehicle on ebay for 6,000 dollars. While it won't replace our primary combustion vehicle, when you really start thinking about all the little trips you could use it for, and how much gas you'd save... it's kind of funny to think, we as a society haven't accepted electric more readily. I think we have misconceptions and taboos just like alot of other things. I think it's more a case of "not willing" rather than "not capable".

And I'm convinced, once this thing gets snowballing, technology will surpass most objections. Hell, look at the cell phone. 15 years ago, the bell's said "who'd want to use a phone in their car" and now I can watch tv on mine?

Liv wrote:The problem is, car companies don't want that.

Why would you say that? If the demand was there they'd want to satify it. It's more that there are very few people prepared to spend significantly more money for tiny cars with limited range.

Liv wrote:I wouldn't think an acidic bay of batteries in a a battery box would be anymore dangerous then a steel piston moving up and down 6000 times a minute, or a drive shaft revolving under the floor board of the car.

Your assessement of risks is wrong. A battery leak or rupture releases explosive hydrogen, acid and lead.

According to PREVENT BLINDNESS AMERICA around 6000 Americans lost their sight from exploding batteries in 2003. The most dangerous place in an underground coal mine is the electric locomotive recharging station - even safety lamps must be extinguished there.

But I do agree that the danger from internal combustion powered vehicles is likely greater than from electric ones. However the biggest danger is the fuel not the pistons or drive shaft.

A Person wrote:Why would you say that? If the demand was there they'd want to satisfy it. It's more that there are very few people prepared to spend significantly more money for tiny cars with limited range.

Well the argument the film uses, and after learning about it makes sense. It's not profitable. A simple combustion vehicle has thousands of mechanical and electronic parts under the hood, that once purchased require maintenance, repair and replacement. In addition the ties between oil companies and vehicle manufacturers increases profits for both.

In an electric vehicle, you basically have a simple electric motor, and a motor controller. Fairly inexpensive items to replace, and consistently reliable without maintenance or repair. Thousands of parts would no longer be required in an electric vehicle, and you wouldn't have to change the oil, plugs, filters, fluids, gaskets, or anything else.

Then take the fuel source: batteries. A fuel source none of the companies really have connections to. More importantly, as technology increased the need for replacements may be severely limited. When your not getting kickbacks from oil companies, you certainly can't continue to profit in the way you have been.

This is why they're so diligently pursuing hybrids, because they still require a mechanical motor, and a fuel source that continuously requires the owner to rely on an infrastructure of fossil fuels.

Hey if you're going to believe a movie, how come Weird Science never worked for me?

Well it makes sense... oh, and the weird science thing? What size bra did you have on your head? Could be the problem.

I knew we should have gone for the D cup! Stupid Junior sizes....

I think you need to remember the maxim 'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.' (Robert Hanlon)

The same applies to conspiracy. While I'm sure GM would rather not spend the money developing expensive new technology that few people want to buy, Toyota has (apparently) started to turn a profit on hybrids. If there's money to be made GM and Ford will follow.

While I could see me buying a hybrid I would never buy an all electric car until 'instant charging' problem is solved. I just do too much driving beyond the range and I'm not alone in that. Nothing to do with liking pistons

Oh and the reason that they don't make hybrids that charge overnight is that the system is designed to keep the batteries at optimum charge. You'd have to tell it to shut the engine off at the right distance from home to make it run the battery down. Not impossible but likely not worth it.

Today's generation of coal-fired powerplants--the source of most electricity generated in the U.S.--is about 40 % efficient--only 40 percent of the total heat energy present in the coal ends up in the powerlines. Meanwhile clean euro-turbodiesels are about 45 % efficient, on a fuel that consists of much more hydrogen and less carbon--and therefore produces less CO2--than coal. We can incrementally replace petrodiesel relatively easily with carbon-neutral biodesel, eventually, hopefully, produced from algae without tying up vast acreage that should be used to grow food for a world that will soon have five times too many humans.

Europe is crawling with 50 mpg plus vehicles, mostly small clean turbodiesels. My next vehicle would be a 1.3 Liter Fiat Panda turbodiesel--76 highway mpg (!), 100 mph top speed, and 0-60 about twice as fast as the 22 mpg Toyota pickup I currently drive--but the EPA and NTSB, whoring for Congress, the Detroit Three and the oil companies, won't let me have one.

I believe that's called an iron triangle.

Meanwhile, if a 2200 lb 1.3 liter (actually 1245 cc) mini suv with a mechanical drivetrain can get 76 mpg, the same vehicle with the same performance with a serial hybrid-electric drive train with hub motors and a decent battery pack might need only a 600 or 700 cc engine, get well over 100 mpg on the highway, and have unlimited range with no recharge-layovers. Serial electric hybrids powered by small clean turbodiesels should approach 70 % efficiency. That's better than we'll ever do with coal, on cleaner, lower carbon fuel, again easily replaced with an even (much) cleaner, carbon neutral biofuel.

Until we have enough wind, solar, and geothermal on-line to power our vehicle fleet, electric vehicles will simply run on coal, once removed. Make mine a plug-in serial hybrid run by a small turbodiesel.

You ain't buildin' no nukes in my neighborhood, bub.

I forget its name, but there's a two cylinder, 1100 pound, 158 mpg four seater scheduled for production in Europe this year or next; 158 mpg and it's not even a hybrid. Amory Lovins and crew designed a 900-pound 116-mpg four seat hybrid with a carbon-fiber frame and body that is simpler to produce, stronger and safer than steel--and no more expensive to build. Detroit could do this, if it wanted to. Instead the big 3 keep producing 3-ton pickups and Suburbans and Expeditions, and when we fools finally stop buying them, simply go to congress to transfer their debt to the taxpayers.

Know what it's called when government robs taxpayers to benefit megabuck industries and the filthy rich?

Fascism.

GM seeks redemption for killing the EV-1 by introducing the Volt

With the ability to drive 40 miles on a single charge, the Volt aims to usher in a new era of gasoline-free daily commutes when the car debuts in late 2010 in the Washington area and San Francisco, GM officials say. But some analysts and government officials predict the car may be initially priced up to $40,000, and possibly more, because of its costly lithium-ion batteries.

"Over time the costs will come down and be competitive with conventional cars," said Bob Lutz, GM vice chairman for global product development, who has taken on the Volt as his last project before retirement. "Although right now that's not the case."

At $40,000 it's easy to see why they killed the EV-1. Let's hope there are enough early adopters to drive the costs down.

I luv my 4500lb 15mpg truck.

Even when it cost me nearly $100 to fill up.

I figure I'm helping to save the environment by not buying another vehicle.

We've seen your idea of 'figurin' March 23rd, 2009, 6:26 pm

We've seen your idea of 'figurin'

I purchased a bicycle for about $100.00 and am riding it everywhere.... I love it!