This is a soon to be released doco about how the Electric Car was killed off. The site also has some rather surprising facts. (trailer inc)

http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/


also:
http://www.dontcrush.com/

I'll watch that. Looks like a cool doco.

I'll take a wild stab in the dark here but if Electric Cars didn't look so horrible, they'd stand a chance at being more popular (price not withstanding).

yeah - definately going to lookout for that one

^ WRONG!

The point is what goes on under chassis! I saw on Beyond Tommorrow only a few months ago a company called 'CalCars' or 'Caltech' or something is fitting electric drivetrains and Lithium-Ion battery packs to modern vehicle bodies like the new Mini and the Chrysler Crossfire. With the new Lithium-Ion Battery systems these retro-fitted EV's are getting almost the same performance as the original dirty carbon ICE configuration.
This is even without 'Ultra-Capacitor' Technology!!

There is no doubt in my mind that if even a insignifcant amount of the U.S Iraq war budget was put into R&D for EV's and bettery technology we'd have cheap, kick-arse EV's like last yr!

nah we wouldn't

I'll get in before someone brings up the whole 'pollution is transfered from the Power Station' crap.

Which I guess is partly true as of here in Brisbane right this minute.

However in California for instance over 20% of their power comes from re-newables. So as the grid gets more green so does the car.

Also an EV isnt spreading the smog all over the city.

Its just a theory nF. Educate yerself, use google

electric vehicles can't compete, because at the end of the day people need a car thats actually useful.

the gm electric cars got like 100km per charge, and took like 6 or 7 hours to charge. how on earth is that practical. not to mention they'd probably 2 - 3 times what an equivalent vehicle would cost, and still GM would lose money on them.

^ thats what killed the electic car

^^ Are you suggesting that's as far as the technology could ever go?

im with Chakas on this one. the same reasoning as hydrogen cars.
cant give up on something just because of the result/situation/technology of today

i'm suggesting that yes, electric cars that use batteries will never ever compete with petrol cars. lead acid batteries have been around for what 150 years? even the NiMH and Lithium ion batteries aren't good enough, not to mention they are significantly more expensive.

fact is, a $15,000 petrol car makes more sense economically than an $50,000+ electric car ever would. you can blame oil companies all you want, blame GM for not putting enough money into r&d, hell blame the governments. fact is you could throw an infinate amount of money into electric cars and get absolutely nowhere. there are lots of dead end technologies and battery powered electric cars are one of them.

I completely agree at the moment but I doubt that it must be that way in the future. You say they will "never compete with petrol cars", but if current trends continue, petrol cars will become more and more expensive to run (a whole different set of arguments about how and why that is so let's not bother with that). Meanwhile batteries seem to be improving and may become cheaper in the future. So even if they're not more efficient, electric cars MAY become more cost effective.

nuclea powered cars is where its at. cant wait for that s*** to be allowed to be made.

I understand what your saying nF and your right at this point in time. But it wont make much sense a few years down the track sitting in my $15000 petrol car in my drive making zoom-zoom/tyre screehing noises, leaning quickly from side to side as i turn the steering wheel coz petrol is all run out/costs $50/litre.

edit:and what Chakas said, electric will get better. hydrogen will get better. nuclea will ..maybe be allowed

last edited by Fnukle at 15:45:10 17/Jun/06

Hybrids is where it's at yo!

theres a limit to how far you can take battery technology

they all work (and current fuel cells are included in this) by creating a voltage across a cell or membrane with charged ions. the source of those ions is the limiting factor. batteries do it with a chemical reaction which occurs within the cells, problem is that because it has to be reversible you carry around the depleted s*** as well. this combined with the low energy content of the reagents in the battery means batteries are at a huge disadvantage. due to the reversible nature of the batteries storage, they are essentially limited to a 1 step reaction, so you lose the cascade effects that you could get with a complex organic reaction. this is why i think batteries could never compete.

fuel cells lose the reversible nature, which helps, as you don't have to carry around the water. but its still a 1-step reaction and its a whole lot of hydrogen to carry about. the alternative is to go to an system which breaks down an organic material to generate the H+ ions to drive the fuel cell, and you can increase the complexity of it so that can for instance reuse the hydrogen in the process. however at the end of the day (if you remember your chemisty), theres going to be an oxygen atom needed, and that has to end up somewhere on your waste. so either it ends up attached to some carbon atoms or in water. if its carbon (or whatever was the base of your fuel) then thats going to be a waste product you'll want to dump to atmosphere, and hence pollute.

the advantage of fuel cells (with the multi-step reactions) over petrol engines is you can gain a lot of efficiency over just burning. you'll still lose a lot of energy to heat, but you'll completely reduce the oxygen (hopefully).

nuclear reactor in a car? are you daft? you'd need a car the size of a shopping mall...

they had nuke powered satelites the size of a car...

they weren't reactors, they were heat couplings

I see what you're saying and it indicates that battery powered cars are unlikely to ever be the best choice which is the overall point. But it doesn't prove the point that "electric cars that use batteries will never ever compete with petrol cars" which is the point we disagree on.

the gm electric cars got like 100km per charge, and took like 6 or 7 hours to charge. how on earth is that practical

I wonder how many kms to the tank the first petrol cars got?
And not everyone lives in the middle of nowhere and needs to drive 100km+ a day, obviously road trips would be a exception but then battery powered cars could make an ideal second car or whatever.

it shows that they won't ever be as practical, and people are prepared to pay for practicality. although, electric cars are more expensive and will probably always be more expensive due to the materials used. platinum which is used in electrodes in all sorts of things, is worth more than gold. if you start mass producing electric cars with it, what do you think will happen to the cost of it?

Yeah, but what happens if it costs $500+ to fill a car with petrol?

Foshizzle, total agreeance except for the part where you think things wont improve and a breakthrough wont be found where we can never really say never, since we never know what exactly is around the corner.

Neff, I think you're correct in the fact that obviously today's technologies on electric vehicles are impractical, however I do feel that the toyota hybrid IS a practical idea. To have the take-off assisted by battery, rather than dumping a large amount of fuel into the engine to be quickly burnt is a much more economic method.

I can't see why this technology could not be adapted to most newer cars over the next 5 years. I think the governments need to jump on board and subsidise for the manufacturing plants to assist in the cheaper production of the units to make it more viable.

First we need to get our water issues solved...

Ongoing increases to the cost of consumer petrol will soon likely cancel out extra production costs for EVs. When an EV costs you twice as much as an internal combustion car but saves you the difference in running costs every few years, it becomes a very viable option for everyday motorists.

Also how much can be saved from production costs for EVs by streamlining production? We've spent decades finding clever ways to efficiently produce petrol cars and it may be an unfair comparison.

A car with 100-200k range that took 6 hours to charge would be ideal for commuter use. Hell at the moment I'd be lucky to do more than 200ks a week!

last edited by Hogfather at 17:40:50 17/Jun/06

nF you obviously havent been reading up have you?

YES! the 1996 GM cars had only 100klms range. THAT WAS 10 YRS AGO!!!

* The next generation EV's will have Lith-Ion battery packs to triple the range and halve the re-charge time. This is great for people who want a inner city car
or families that just want a cheap '2nd' car.

* Ultra-Capacitors are a simple way of improving acceleration.

* Reports of a 'Graphite Lead Foam' battery pack in development suggest a cheaper alternative to Lead Acid and Lith-Ion.

* Mitsubishi are developing EV's with the electric motor built into the rear wheel hubs. This allows for more room.

* Go here to see a custum bulit EV smash the f*** out of a V12 Ferrari from a standing start 0-100k/hr in 4 secounds .
http://wrightspeed.com/index.html

* Go here to see a guy from BRISBANE who bought a used Toyota Echo, gutted it and rebuilt it as a pure EV, himself! The whole thing cost him around $20,000+ which includes the cost of the original car and charger.
http://www.electric-echo.com/

* I dont understand why a mass produced EV would cost more than a standard or hybrid vehicle?
There are way less parts (no radiator, distributor, exhaust, fuel injectors/carb etc). Even more so with Hybrids which effectively have 2 engines and there is a 6 month waiting list to buy Toyota Prius's for $38k or you can buy the Honda Civic Hybrid for $34k. In other words a couple of grand more than a standard Falcon or Commodore.

* If you still aren't happy nF there are the 'Plug-in' hybrids which are basically a customised Toyota Prius with a bigger battery that you charge off the grid. Its more EV than ICE. There are working prototypes right now whose owners can go for MONTHS without having to buy petrol.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/6088/pluginprius6yh.jpg

Educate yourself.

http://www.evworld.com/

last edited by sLaps_Forehead at 17:50:21 17/Jun/06

i think we're more likely to synthesize petrol before electric cars become mainstream

what about turbos guys??

What would be so hard about having spare batteries that charge off the grid charging at home while your driving about or for that matter having a couple precharged batteries in the boot?

If you could get interchangable batteries for the operation you could significantly improve the range of the car and charging off the grid you could have several hundred kilometres of travel charging in the time your at work even if it did take 6-8 hours charge time.

Seems like a pretty practical option to me if people are already spending close to 100 bucks a week on fuel for only a few hundred k's travel anyway.

Then you could even perhaps over time come out ahead if you were smart.
Remember those sunball things that if you put like 12 of them on your roof that if your using all your appliances it still pumps electricity back into the grid?

OK you outlay about 15k on them and with the 100 bucks of fuel a week your "wasting" on fuel you pay them off in 3 years or even less as your also not paying between 1k and 1,5 on electricity bills every year as well.

Then over the course of the next 10 years with increasing fuel prices you save about and im being conservative, 70k on money that would have been "wasted" on fuel and pay off that car you bought for this with money that would not have been saved in any way otherwise.

This all adds up with your normal savings cash and you can afford the next gen car with better milage and performance and still have money left over for that extention on your house that all would have been thrown away on petrol.

I may be looking at this to favourably but it does seem like a viable option to me and I don't expect energy technologies to stay stagnant now that people are starting to acknolage the problems exist.

last edited by Xy at 20:00:33 17/Jun/06

maxe, the n/a will last longer ok

Educate yourself.

f*** off dude, i do know a thing or two you know. i even rode in an EV once around brisbane, it got like 80km before it needed a recharge and some guy abused us because it was messing with his radio whenever we took off from a set of lights.

also, did you even read any of those pages?

the guy who did the echo conversion said this:

3. Aren't electric vehicles expensive?

My conversion cost less than AUD$14,000. (If it was mass produced it would have cost less than a petrol vehicle to manufacture.) Add the cost of the near new car (AUD$10,000) and the total cost is still much less than the current hybrids.

Batteries should be considered as consumables and included in the running costs, therefore most EV's are more expensive to run per kilometre, but saving the planet was never going to save you money as well! Think of it as "green money", wisely spent.

Hybrids are totally different thing, seeing they are in everyway a petrol powered car (the batteries are charged by the petrol engine), so i'm going to ignore them.

last edited by nF at 20:22:01 17/Jun/06

Dude, are your eyes painted on? Do I have to explain everything for you?

Pfft, I'm over it. If you want to hump your petrol car till your nutz blow out your arse and you wallet is raped, that's fine by me.

The EV's and PHEV's are on their way. And all its gonna take is another 50 cent a litre rise in petrol and the decision on alternative vehicles will already be made for us.

Ok ok here's the way of the future:

Toyota Prius converted to LPG.
Also, boost up the batteries or whatnot
Add in a few discreet solar panels on the roof.

Bing! Car costs basically nothing to run, outlay like $50g.

Savings over 10 years? Enough to fog a bloke's glasses.

sounds like "sLaps" is out of BS to spin ya?

Dude, are your eyes painted on? Do I have to explain everything for you?

no dude, i worked it out myself.

you need to stop jumping on every bandwagon to save the planet, and take a more objective view i think.

if EVs existed today i would love one as a second car, as public transport is a joke. and believe it or not i enjoy throwing money at petrol pumps as much as you enjoy clubbing seals with bats made from old growth forest timber.

heres something else i found about EV1s.

the battery packs in the EV1s were worth atleast $US20K (for a car that was worth probably $US30-40K). the best you could expect is something like 4 years out of the lead acid batteries, nimh you get significantly less, and lithium ion would be even worse. not to mention the later 2 would be worth more than lead acid to start with.

so best case scenario is you spend $US5000 a year on batteries,

comparison:

$AU12K r32 skyline (lol)
20,000km/year (this is about the average number of kilometres done by an australian motorist in a year)
~400km/50L
so $AU3500 in fuel
lets presume $2K a year in maintenance

$AU43K EV1 (i had to guess the price)
20,000km/year
based on a 13c electricity trariff its something like $15/500km (i think)
so $600 in electricity
~$AU6000 for battery replacement

after 8 years both cars are sold (20% depreciation/yr)
r32 goes for $2700
ev1 goes for $10000

ev1 = $33000 + $53400 in electricity and running costs
r32 = $9300 + $44000 in fuel and running costs

so electric car can't even compete with a jap import for total cost effectiveness, and i was being nice to the ev1 here

That wrightspeed thing is bulls***! Oh look we made a fast car from..... an already existing fast car, it beat a Ferari.... which it would have beat unmolested!

EV are going nowhere, tell me when bateries don't cost a f***ing fortune and I'll be interested. My money is on Bio Diesel.

Slaps_Forehead is living a fantasy.... la... la la... la la la. he should drive a gemini.

bandwagons produce a vast amount of co2

486's ARE AS FAST AS CPU'S WILL EVER GET, LIARS.

edit: I'd always wondered what all that hot air was Jim.

nah that hot air was me letting one rip a hole in my undies.
i can still feel the warmth. its slightly sticky

sounds chewable
squelch-between-your-teeth-able

WOOOW, the guy with the electric echo can drive 20km to work and then recharge and drive home, and it only cost him $14000, that sounds practical.

well they are edible undies im wearing Jim, so you can munch all you want ;)

wait a minute,
isn't it easier to steal electricity then it is to buy petrol?

Hmm thats some good points about the battery life and costs to replace, I didn't think of that in the running costs.

Might be a few more years yet then before it comes close to being worth it.

hmmm... no petrol.

Let's just wait and see, shall we.

WHERE DOES THE ELECTRICITY COME FROM HUH!?! FOSSIL FUEL'D

^ So since when did we import foreign oil to run our Electric Powerstations?

comparison:

$AU12K r32 skyline (lol)
20,000km/year (this is about the average number of kilometres done by an australian motorist in a year)
~400km/50L
so $AU3500 in fuel
lets presume $2K a year in maintenance

$AU43K EV1 (i had to guess the price)
20,000km/year
based on a 13c electricity trariff its something like $15/500km (i think)
so $600 in electricity
~$AU6000 for battery replacement

after 8 years both cars are sold (20% depreciation/yr)
r32 goes for $2700
ev1 goes for $10000

ev1 = $33000 + $53400 in electricity and running costs
r32 = $9300 + $44000 in fuel and running costs

so electric car can't even compete with a jap import for total cost effectiveness, and i was being nice to the ev1 here

Going by this you would be dumb to own a car of either type and not just get by with a pushy and public transport HAHAHA :D

but still... where'd the ligher fluid come from?!

^ So since when did we import foreign oil to run our Electric Powerstations?

All coal-fired power stations are started up using heavy fuel oil. Starting one up costs a few hundred thousand in oil.

Also, most remote communities and plenty of remote minesites and other industrial sites are powered by ICE or GT's burning diesel, and plenty of peaking supply is still run on liquid fuel, although with new peaking plants natural gas is far more prevalent.

We need perpertual motion machine

In this forum we obey the laws of thermodynamics!

Going by this you would be dumb to own a car of either type and not just get by with a pushy and public transport HAHAHA :D

that was kinda my point. a car which isn't really sensible at all, is more sensible than the car thats supposed to be more sensible. if that makes sense.

and it only gets worse for EVs, the NM batteries cost lots more and don't last as long plus they degrade when they get exposed to heat (like australian summers), and lithium ion batteries cost more again and are useless after 2 years. people won't pay that to sort of money to be nice to the environment.

the better option to save the environment is drive a toyota echo, and spend the money you save on planting trees.

Maybe if the scientists and engineers of the past 150 years had looked differently into what they were studying, your ideas and fictional thoughts might have been useful.

neff, watch the South Park episode 'Smug Alert' ;)

Just face it, the planet is f***ed and your kids are going to die a horrible environmental death :P

things that are really interesting overseas:

- americans are douchebags. Seriously. Cities like Los Angeles are all concrete freeways and they all drive massive, MASSIVE fuel guzzling trucks. I will have no sympathy for them when fuel prices skyrocket and their country grinds to a halt because noone knows how to exist without getting in their car and driving alone to work.

- europeans mostly have the right idea. Most of them have really small cars, if they have them at all - at least in the massive cities. The smart cars are plentiful and popular and really make sense.

- public transport is awesome. it is so easy to get around. admittedly massive population density helps here but i would love to see better rail connections between east coast Aussie cities.

- bicycle riders get lots of respect over here. Theyre utterly fearless, largly I guess because they dont have to worry about 4wd soccer mums smashing into them every few seconds.

- you can own and ride a moped without anyone questioning your sexuality (except for Australian tourists I guess)

No one would have to question your sexuality as they would know your gay already by just looking at that bandana.

- americans are douchebags. Seriously.

What until Trog and his american man love trip reads this ... oh wait.

love to see better rail connections between east coast Aussie cities.

Recently when I was preparing for a trip to Cairns I looked into getting a train. I figured that it would take a little longer (18-20 hours IIRC), but it should be cheaper. I mean, longer + uncomfortable == cheaper ... right?

It ended up being $50 more than Freedom and the flight only took 2 hours.

video killed the electric car.

Article in today's paper about E85 ethanol (85% Eth / 15% pet).

They reckon it will retail for 99 cents a litre. For $400 you can have a modification done to your vehicle which will allow reliable engine operation on E85.

Bit of a 'band-aid' like hybrids.

What kind of modification? Sounds like a good idea to me.

You get worse fuel economy with ethanol fuels, its priced at 99c a litre just to make it worth the effort (or attempt to atleast).

You get worese fuel economy with LPG too. on;ly the conversion costs more and the fuel is much cheaper.

Its not cheaper, its just got less of a government excise.

Err, wrong.

It IS cheaper.

Petrol has a 38c/litre tax on it. (46 in other states, QLD is 8c off).
Therefore petrol really costs around 80c a litre.

LPG has no tax on it atm (exept for GST). As of 2012 they will be phasing in a 12.5c tax at the rate of 2.5c/yr until 2017. As of 2012 there will be a $1000 govt grant on gasfits.

Yes, you do lose power with LPG. But you gain torque.
Ie 157kw 360nm Petrol falcon turns into rounghly a 140kw 385nm Falcon when on LPG.

oh and yes you do get worse fuel economy, about 15%. Here's the stats (for city driving)

Petrol Ford Falcon = 15L/100klms @ $1.20/L = $18/100klms
LP Gas Ford Falcon = 18L/100klms @ 55.5c/L = $10/100klms

Ford’s 4.0 litre E-Gas engine in the Falcon is LPG only. It produces significantly less power than the petrol engine – 152 kW compared with 190 kW – and marginally less torque (374 Nm vs 383 Nm.)

also, the ford lpg system doesn't work with the new dohc vvt engines.

its cheaper for fleet cars (like taxis) but not for normal users.

Doesn't it?
I thought it did. Are you meaning the basic 4.0L six?

Yes LPG is worthwhile for families if you're keeping the car for more than 80,000klms.

especially with todays petrol prices

Well my figures were slightly off, but I was right:

...the power output of the LPG Falcon is 143kw with 362Nm of torque versus the petrol car's 157kw 357Nm torque. In fact, the higher octane of the LPG results in slightly higher torque - a distinct advantage if your car needs include towing.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0103/S00097.htm

That's the official stats of the AUII / AUIII gas only motors. I prefer the dual fuellers - more torque again.

Sorry I can't comment on the BF e-gas motors, they simply haven't had enough time out in the field for proper testing. I doubt there would be many BF falcons around that would have done much more than 100,000klms, considering they were only launched last year i believe. You've hardly had time to make your money back.

When I buy a car that i'm looking to keep for a few years, I will definitely be getting gas. $1900 outlay for a saving of $32 a week sounds pretty good to me. This is working on the fact that most cars do roughly 20,000klms/yr. That means it would take you only 60 weeks - 1 year and two months to make your money back and start winning. Also, you can resell the car very quickly and for a higher price if you have LPG as well.

From the Daily Telegraph website:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Costly fuel misers


June 21, 2006

FUEL-SIPPING hybrid cars can actually be more expensive to run than conventional petrol-powered models of comparable size, a new survey reveals.


Despite saving on petrol, hybrid models like the Honda Civic hybrid were more expensive overall because of a higher purchase price, the Royal Automobile Association (RAA) survey showed.

Taking into account depreciation, loan interest, registration, insurance and operating expenses like fuel, tyres and services, the cost of running a Civic hybrid over five years was about $178 a week, the RAA said.

That was almost $23 more a week than the cost of running a petrol-powered Civic and about $60 more than the cheapest of the surveyed new cars to run, the Kia Rio.




Meanwhile, the cost of running a Toyota Prius hybrid was put at more than $207 a week, well above the cost of petrol powered small cars like the Toyota Corolla at $153 and the Holden Astra at $160.

Hybrid cars use a combination of fuel and electrical power, with two engines working together - one a standard fuel powered engine, the other an electric motor powered by a rechargeable battery pack.

RAA Technical Services Manager Mark Borlace said that with the Honda Civic hybrid costing $9,000 more than the petrol Civic, the fuel cost saving it offered could not be recovered over the five-year period.

``Buyers will find that the main advantage of the Civic hybrid is ecological rather than economical,'' he said.

``It saves close to its own weight (930kg) in greenhouse gas emissions each year compared to the petrol model.''

Hybrid models offer reduced fuel consumption by running on a combination of petrol and electric power.

At $117.50 a week the Rio was the cheapest car surveyed, coming in ahead of the Hyundai Getz on $122 and the Holden Barina on $125, largely courtesy of its drive away pricing.

At the other end of the scale, the Toyota Landcruiser GXL turbo diesel topped the survey, costing $357 a week.

The cheapest of the locally-built family cars was the Mitsubishi 380 at $209 a week ahead of the Toyota Camry V6 on $216, the Holden Commodore at $229 and the Ford Falcon at $231.

LPG powered versions of the Falcon and Commodore offered little savings with the LPG Falcon coming in at $223 a week and the dual fuel Commodore at $230.

Mr Borlace said while most recent debate had centred on rising petrol prices, the survey showed there were other costs of running a car that often went unnoticed.

Thats dealing with buying a new car with a loan.

No-one who is trying to make owning a car as cheap as possible owns a new car. Buy a half a dozen year old falcon, put it on gas, keep it till it dies.

Thats the way to save money. Total outlay = ~$10,000, keep it for 8 years or so. Sell for like $2000 cos its gas. Total depeciation over 8 years is 8 grand.

Rego = $20/wk, tyres+mechanical avg $20/wk, fuel $35/wk. Insurance (3rd party property) avg $10/wk, depreciation avgs $30/wk.

Sounds like $115/wk for total costs to run a gas falcon. Thats auto air steer electric windows etc etc.

Cheaper and better than a stupid getz

id rather have the getz

Yep what i did.
$3500 94' Falcon ED on LPG.
Pulls the boat, the bikes, takes me to work and does the long road trips with cruise control ect.
Very cheap to run

how many kilometres do you get out of your LPG tank? And what size is it?

350kms to 65 litres of LPG, city driving in peak hour.
450kms on the freeway to port macquarie towing 2 trail bikes and lots of gear