Did consumers kill the electric car?

[zyewdall]

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Roger Stockton <rstockton@...>
wrote:

>
> It may be possible to produce a limited range EV and sell it in 30k volumes
> profitably, but what attributes would an EV need in order to sell in Honda
> Civic volumes?  My opinion is that similar range as a tank of fuel is one
> such attribute.
>

You are most likely right.... however, from a purely logical standpoint, it
makes no sense at all that a 350 mile range is needed -- or will help with
the problem of running out of juice either.  About once a week I come very
close to running my ICE out of fuel... because a tank of fuel lasts about a
week commuting back and forth to work, and I always drive it till I am just
about completely out before finding a gas station, because I'm
lazy/busy/absentminded, or something like that. I bet it a tank of fuel
lasted a month, it would be even worse, because I'd forget it even needed
fuel by the time it was empty.

My cell phone gets plugged in every night at my house as a standard
procedure... and if I had an EV (Soon, I hope...), it would get plugged in
every night as well, and I wouldn't have to worry about it.  There's
something to be said for a vehicle that can fit in a daily recharging
process at home as being easier to keep filled up.
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[joe-22]

----- Original Message -----
From: "jerryd" <jerryd@...>
To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List" <ev@...>
Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?

>
>               Hi Jeff and All,
>
>      I'd bet oil will drop after the Demo's get control, 60
> seats, of the Senate then able to pass good legislation
> without Bush, Senate Repubs blocking it.
>      The biggest reason for the high price of gas/oil is
> the value of the dollar which has dropped 50%, thus raising
> oil/bbl cost 100%. Now add balancing the budget, raising the
> dollars value, the higher CAFE, other Fed requirements the
> Demo's have tried to pass already will drop demand for oil,
> raise the dollar, dropping oil's price a lot.
>      Then they will add a tax to cover oil's real cost
> bringing the retail price back up to keep conservation
> going. While some will scream TAX!!, it's better it going
> into the US, state gov to do Alt fuels, EV's, Hybrids, High
> speed and local trains, mass transit, ect than into the
> pockets of dictators, terrorists as 30% of it does now. They
> will probably cut the payroll tax some to make up for higher
> gas prices.
>
>                                        Jerry Dycus

If you believe that oil will drop when (and if) the Democrats rule the
roost, not to mention the other crap that you say above, you are in for a
BIG surprise, Jerry.

Yes, taxes will go up, and fast! But the problem in Washington isn't the
Republicans and Bush - the problem IS the Democrats, which are blocking the
things that Bush and the Republicans know will help the economy and the gas
price crunch - after all, the Democrats control Congress right now!!!

Sorry, David, someone  has to answer this crap now, and set the record
straight on-list!!!

Joseph H. Strubhar

Web: www.gremcoinc.com

E-mail: joe@...

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[George Dewey]

"Replacing an "R" with a "D" in the seat of all this power doesn't resolve the problem. It simply accepts it.

The problem isn't what placard you wave at political rallies. The problem is in how much damage your placard can cause, when given too much power..."
----------------------------------------

> From: joe@...
> To: jerryd@...; ev@...
> Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 20:25:19 -0700
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car? OT
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jerryd"
> To: "Electric Vehicle Discussion List"
> Sent: Friday, May 16, 2008 11:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?
>
>
>>
>>               Hi Jeff and All,
>>
>>      I'd bet oil will drop after the Demo's get control, 60
>> seats, of the Senate then able to pass good legislation
>> without Bush, Senate Repubs blocking it.
>>      The biggest reason for the high price of gas/oil is
>> the value of the dollar which has dropped 50%, thus raising
>> oil/bbl cost 100%. Now add balancing the budget, raising the
>> dollars value, the higher CAFE, other Fed requirements the
>> Demo's have tried to pass already will drop demand for oil,
>> raise the dollar, dropping oil's price a lot.
>>      Then they will add a tax to cover oil's real cost
>> bringing the retail price back up to keep conservation
>> going. While some will scream TAX!!, it's better it going
>> into the US, state gov to do Alt fuels, EV's, Hybrids, High
>> speed and local trains, mass transit, ect than into the
>> pockets of dictators, terrorists as 30% of it does now. They
>> will probably cut the payroll tax some to make up for higher
>> gas prices.
>>
>>                                        Jerry Dycus
>
> If you believe that oil will drop when (and if) the Democrats rule the
> roost, not to mention the other crap that you say above, you are in for a
> BIG surprise, Jerry.
>
> Yes, taxes will go up, and fast! But the problem in Washington isn't the
> Republicans and Bush - the problem IS the Democrats, which are blocking the
> things that Bush and the Republicans know will help the economy and the gas
> price crunch - after all, the Democrats control Congress right now!!!
>
> Sorry, David, someone  has to answer this crap now, and set the record
> straight on-list!!!
>
> Joseph H. Strubhar
>
> Web: www.gremcoinc.com
>
> E-mail: joe@...
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_________________________________________________________________
Make every e-mail and IM count. Join the i’m Initiative from Microsoft.
http://im.live.com/Messenger/IM/Join/Default.aspx?source=EML_WL_ MakeCount

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[George Dewey]

I apologize.  I replied BEFORE I read this.  I will refrain from political comments in the future.  Sorry!
----------------------------------------

> From: evpost@...
> To: ev@...; ev@...
> Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 16:14:37 -0400
> Subject: [EVDL] NO POLITICS (was Did consumers kill the electric car?)
>
> Folks,
>
> Just a reminder - please avoid political comments of all kinds on this list.
>  
>
> If you see something which you disagree with, please hold your fire and
> don't respond.  That just makes the original comment more prominent.
>
> David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
> EVDL Administrator
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
> Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not
> reach me.  To send a private message, please obtain my
> email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

_________________________________________________________________
Keep your kids safer online with Windows Live Family Safety.
http://www.windowslive.com/family_safety/overview.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Refresh_family_safety_052008

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[EVDL Administrator]

On 17 May 2008 at 20:25, joe wrote:

> Democrats ... Republicans and Bush ...

Anyone who has been a member of this list for more than a few weeks should
know by now that we have a NO PARTISAN POLITICS rule.  We are all adults
here and I expect everyone to practice restraint, even when someone breaks
the rule.

If someone brings up partisan politics, PLEASE let me handle it offline.  
When you respond to an inappropriate post, all you do is draw attention to
it.

There is enough futile, pointless bickering over this nonsense in the rest
of society.  We do not need it here.  LEAVE THE POLITICS OFF THE EVDL.

Thanks.

David Roden - Akron, Ohio, USA
EVDL Administrator

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
EVDL Information: http://www.evdl.org/help/
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Note: mail sent to "evpost" or "etpost" addresses will not
reach me.  To send a private message, please obtain my
email address from the webpage http://www.evdl.org/help/ .
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Chip Gribben]

I know I'm way late on this topic.

I recall when the EV-1 was still around that many EV-1 enthusiasts,  
particularly members of the EV-1 Club, were pretty angry at GM for  
not promoting or advertising the car more.

The advertisements that did come out weren't very entising. One was  
particularly dark. And several didn't show the car for very long. The  
best one was the appliance one. That one was cute but the EV-1 wasn't  
it it that long either.

Proof that GM failed to advertise the car can still be proven today  
when you show your EVs and people ask you why can't the OEMs make  
them. I respond that GM did make an electric car called the EV-1. And  
most of the time their response is "I never heard of it."

GM was overly pessimistic of the EV-1 from the beginning. Proof of  
this is with the pilot program they did before selling the car.  
First, only select people could be chosen. None were EAA members that  
I know of. We believe GM didn't want to have EV enthusiasts test the  
cars first. Kind of makes sense I suppose. But EV owners could have  
provided some suggestions for the car. They only sold them in two  
markets. They limited them in production. They limited even limited  
production of parts which they later used as an excuse to not let  
leasers buy the cars before crushing them. They ignored waiting lists  
for the car as a measurement for demand. The fact is, GM did what  
they could minimally do from production to advertising. The consumer  
is never going to get a fair chance to review or see the product if  
the manufacture doesn't get it out there. So how can the consumer  
even get a chance to know a car like this actually exists.

Chip



_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Ed Thorpe]

Some additional comments from someone who leased the "other" EV - the Honda
EVplus:

1.EV1s were expensive; they cost two or
three times as much as comparable gasoline powered cars. They could be
leased (but not sold) for $400-600 per month.

The Honda leased for about $500/month, which included ALL the maintenance
and ALL the insurance. It was a great deal, for such a limited production
vehicle. And Honda had no intension of selling them, so you had a chance to
lease a $100,000 car for a very affordable price.

2. the batteries"could not supply the range or durability required by the
mass market."

The 100 miles-per-charge range ment that you could easily drive 400-600
miles per week with only recharging at night, at home, while you slept. That
more than meets most people driving needs, where they fill up with gas 1-2
times per week. The durability issue is only a problem because this was the
first release of the vehicle and they still needed to work out some issue
there. But obviously this is solvable since the RAV4 EV batteries last quite
long.


3. the infrastructure for recharging was not in place.

Not a problem with the Honda EVplus. 90+% of the charging is done at home.
Opportunity charging is done with specific AVCON stations, like at Costco,
and a 110vac adapter which could be used with any electrical outlet.
Electricity is everywhere.

4. the high voltages and operating temperatures of the batteries presented
some
unique safety hazards, and "only a relative handful of mechanics knew
how to work safely on the powerful batteries."

None of the problems were high-voltage electrical. The maintenance and
service issue are soooo small on EVs. The main problem is the lack of
problem - no enough business for the automobile industry to stay alive.

5. the EV1 was a tiny two-seater that simply did not work for families with
children.

Not the Honda EVplus - designed to see 4 adults comfortably. It could have
been setup for 5 people but this was a limited production vehicle and they
wanted to keep the vehicle weight under control. And the rear seat spacing
was actually too much - we could have a parent buckling up two children in
seats with the front seats in the upright & locked positions and have plenty
of room to move around due to the completely flat floor.

Finally, the car was fast, but the handling was odd because of the heavy
battery.
 These limitations prompted an alternative-fuel specialist at J.D.
Power & Associates to conclude that EV1s "are just not acceptable to
consumers."

We could leave most gas vehicles behind from 0-35+ mph from a stop without
flooring it. It drove great, on city streets and freeways. The battery
weight was all in the middle and we never experienced and handling or
driving problems. It was a joy to drive.

Honda had even less success with its electric vehicle, the
Plus, leasing just 300 in three years.

Honda only agreed to build 100 per year for 3 years, nothing more. Honda
didn't advertise, and only listed information hidden on their website. In
California there were less than a dozen authorized dealerships - started in
LA area (how many dealers?) and included Sacramento (the state capital and
seat for decisions, with only 1 dealership), then extended to SF Bay Area
with 3 dealerships. We leased ours about 1/2 way through the program and by
the time people started asking how to lease the pool was dry. No option to
buy. Wonderful, wonderful vehicle. Zero emissions over 4 years and almost
zero maintenance issues for a first-generation vehicle.


BR,
Ed Thorpe
ex-Honda EVplus leasee
90,000 all-electric miles in 4 years
http://www.evalbum.com/268.html
_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Roger Stockton]

Zeke Yewdall wrote:

> You are most likely right.... however, from a purely logical
> standpoint, it makes no sense at all that a 350 mile range is
> needed -- or will help with the problem of running out of
> juice either.

That is a very interesting observation.  I agree w.r.t running out of juice, but there *are* logical reasons in defense of a 200-300mi range (i.e. similar range as a tank of fuel).  First is the one I've been harping on, which is that if EVs had such range I think it is very likely that they would be embraced by such a large fraction of the population that OEMs would address the need/market segment.  The other that I mentioned is that I think it likely/reasonable that once there are sufficient OEM EVs on the road, existing service stations will offer fast charge service, and EVs will need to have enough range to make it from one service station to another if they are ever to replace ICEs for most personal transporation needs.

Until then being able to plug in and refuel overnight at home greatly reduces the odds of running out of juice no matter how large or small the tank, as you point out.

Cheers,

Roger.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Roger Stockton]

Chip Gribben wrote:

> GM was overly pessimistic of the EV-1 from the beginning.
> Proof of this is with the pilot program they did before
> selling the car.
> First, only select people could be chosen. None were EAA
> members that I know of. We believe GM didn't want to have EV
> enthusiasts test the cars first. Kind of makes sense I
> suppose. But EV owners could have provided some suggestions
> for the car.

Sorry to debunk this, but GM *did* solicit input from people without any sort of selection process, and EVers at that.

GM didn't even offer the EV1 in our area (Vancouver BC, Canada), but they brought one around and let the Vancouver Electric Vehicle Association (an EAA chapter) members (and friends, spouses, etc.) test drive the car in exchange for completing a brief survey.

Cheers,

Roger.

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Peter VanDerWal]

Let's think about this for a minute.

Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs from last decade
that our hypothetical EV requires only 250 Wh/mile from the outlet (many
of the OEM EVs required 500 Wh/mile or more )

For a 300 mile range that works out to 75kWh, ignoring for the moment how
much it would cost for a LiPol battery pack that big, what does it take to
"Fast Charge" it?

Let's say we want to do it in say 15 minutes and that the nominal pack
voltage is 370V.  To pump in 75kw in 15 minutes you have to push 300 kw.
Assuming normal charger efficiency
I come up with about 850 amps at 440V. And that's just to charge ONE car.
Can you imagine what the charger would look like?  Or how HUGE that charge
cables will be?

It took me a while to find a chart showing cables that big, it require 750
KCM cables.  Those are almost 1 1/2 inches around and weighs 4 lbs per
foot.  8 lbs per foot for a pair of them and almost 3 inches across.

The point is that there is no way in hell that anyone is going to build a
"fast charging" station for EVs with a 300 mile range.

We simply are not going to be routinely making 2,000 mile trips in EVs any
time soon.  Battery swapping might make it work, but there is too much
resistance to this idea.

>> You are most likely right.... however, from a purely logical
>> standpoint, it makes no sense at all that a 350 mile range is
>> needed -- or will help with the problem of running out of
>> juice either.
>
> That is a very interesting observation.  I agree w.r.t running out of
> juice, but there *are* logical reasons in defense of a 200-300mi range
> (i.e. similar range as a tank of fuel).  First is the one I've been
> harping on, which is that if EVs had such range I think it is very likely
> that they would be embraced by such a large fraction of the population
> that OEMs would address the need/market segment.  The other that I
> mentioned is that I think it likely/reasonable that once there are
> sufficient OEM EVs on the road, existing service stations will offer fast
> charge service, and EVs will need to have enough range to make it from one
> service station to another if they are ever to replace ICEs for most
> personal transporation needs.
>
> Until then being able to plug in and refuel overnight at home greatly
> reduces the odds of running out of juice no matter how large or small the
> tank, as you point out.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roger.
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Peter VanDerWal]

>> Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs from last
>> decade
>> that our hypothetical EV requires only 250 Wh/mile from the outlet (many
>> of the OEM EVs required 500 Wh/mile or more )
>
> Many of them required the A/C to run in order to cool the NiMH pack
> thereby using quite a bit of electricity while charging. 150-250
> Wh/mile from the pack was pretty typical consumption.

No it's not typical.  I doubt you're going to beat the GM EV1 for
efficiency.  The EV1 used 168 wh/mile FROM THE PACK at 60 mph.
I doubt our hypothetical consumer that won't buy an EV unless it can go at
least 350 miles on a charge will accept driving long distances at only 60
mph.

Charging LiPol batteries at 2C is less efficient than charging them at
sub-C levels and at sub-C I believe they are around 85% efficient.

When you figure the real power needed to move something as efficient as an
EV1 at real highway speeds and figure in battery efficieny, even if you
ignore charger efficiency 250 wh/mile is very optimistic.

>>
>> For a 300 mile range that works out to 75kWh, ignoring for the moment
>> how
>> much it would cost for a LiPol battery pack that big, what does it take
>> to
>> "Fast Charge" it?
>
> Why are you using consumption from the outlet to calculate the pack size?

I'm not, I'm using to calculate how much power we have to put back in to
get that range.  Even if the pack is 15% smaller, it's still going to be
expensive.

> Using 200Wh/mile we get 60kWh pack. No pack can be fast charged to
> 100% SOC so the required charge amount is more like 50kWh.

I have already accounted for not fully charging it by using only 300
miles, instead of 350.  Whether we fill it full or not, it still takes AT
LEAST 75 kwh input to charge it enough for the next 300 miles.

>
>>
>> Let's say we want to do it in say 15 minutes and that the nominal pack
>> voltage is 370V.  To pump in 75kw in 15 minutes you have to push 300 kw.
>> Assuming normal charger efficiency
>> I come up with about 850 amps at 440V. And that's just to charge ONE
>> car.
>> Can you imagine what the charger would look like?  Or how HUGE that
>> charge
>> cables will be?
>
> Here's a 250kW charger, what you would need to charge 50kWh in 15 minutes.
> http://www.avinc.com/PowerProcessing_product_details.asp?Prodid=20
>

I didn't say it couldn't be done, I said it's not going to happen.

>
>> It took me a while to find a chart showing cables that big, it require
>> 750
>> KCM cables.  Those are almost 1 1/2 inches around and weighs 4 lbs per
>> foot.  8 lbs per foot for a pair of them and almost 3 inches across.
>
> My less pessimistic numbers lead you to 550Amp cables. Of course, that
> is only for 15 minutes so a chart that presumes continuous rating, no
> cooling and cables in a conduit will give you the wrong number.

Your less realistic numbers might indicate that.  I came up with 750 KCM
assuming it was a continuous use cable in open air, not in a tray or
conduit.

> Instead size the cables for acceptable temperature rise given
> realistic duty cycles and presence of cooling system and you actually
> get manageable cable sizes.

If it's a charging station, then it's is possible to have the cables in
near continuous use as one person pulls out and then next starts charging
immediately.  NEC would require the cable be sized for continuous use.

>
>
>
>>
>> The point is that there is no way in hell that anyone is going to build
>> a
>> "fast charging" station for EVs with a 300 mile range.
>
> Hint:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/56927836@N00/2087692423/sizes/l/

Allow me to rephrase.  Nobody is going to build an actual station, that
people can actually drive up to and pay to actually recharge a real EV
with 350 mile range.

Please note: I'm NOT saying it can't be done, I'm saying it isn't going to
happen.


_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Peter VanDerWal]

> While we're talking about fantasy methods for long-range EV driving...
> Swappable battery packs are clearly a bit of a non-starter.   Charging
> stations that can compete with a gas pump are also a bit problematic,
> not to mention the expense of the batteries needed for such high-power
> and high energy requirements.
>
I think trains are a more practical and realistic solution to long
distance travel.

It's probably easier and cheaper to switch back to track than it is to add
conductive cables along the interstate.

Use EVs for driving around inside towns and trains for long distance
travel between towns.  Make sure the EVs are only 8 foot long so they'll
fit on the trains sideways, just drive on one side of the flatbed in one
town, and off the other side at your destination.

Or, go with a whole new infrastructure and make the trains wider.  Have a
walkway around the cars and dining & sleeper cars.  Relax on your way to
your destination.

I saw a commercial the other day about trains.  Even with todays
technology, trains can move something like 400 short-ton miles per gallon
of diesel.
If I understand this correctly, then if our future EV weighs one ton, that
works out to 400 miles per gallon.
Even if we switch to electric trains, it's easier to provide power on the
go to a train than it is a car.

If you are going to put inductive coils in the road surface, then it's
probably simpler to just use a shorted coil on the vehicle and allow the
road to move the car, like a linear motor.

> So maybe charge-as-you-drive is the answer?  I'm not sure about an
> inductive system, it would probably be lossy and very expensive, on a
> par with mag-lev trains.
>
> But how about conductive charging?  On multi-lane roads, reserve the
> lane closest to the central barrier for EVs, and put a high-voltage
> conductor along the top of the barrier.  To use it, a car just needs a
> pick-up arm and a brush to return the current to a steel track in the
> roadway.   Obviously there would be operational and safety problems to
> overcome, but the infrastructure seems simpler and cheaper.  You are
> just giving electric trains a second chance!
>
> 20KW per car say?  That's quite a lot of power, you might need 2MW per
> mile capacity or more for peak times..  So you would need one wind
> turbine per mile to go with it :-)
>
>
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Mark Grasser <markgrasser@...>
> wrote:
>> So if it were done inductively and the car inductor was on the bottom of
>> the
>> car and the feed inductor were in the pavement and you drove over on top
>> of
>> it, high frequency of course, could this work? How far away would you
>> have
>> to stand, etc?
>>
>> Mark Grasser
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ev-bounces@... [mailto:ev-bounces@...] On
>> Behalf
>> Of Peter Gabrielsson
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 2:43 PM
>> To: evdl@...; Electric Vehicle Discussion List
>> Subject: Re: [EVDL] Did consumers kill the electric car?
>>
>> This reminds me of a scientist at the early part of the previous
>> century who calculated what sort of rocket would be required to fly to
>> the moon. He came to the conclusion that it would have to be as tall
>> as 40 story building, weigh 3 million metric tons, and consist of ~80%
>> fuel, produce mega Newtons of force, etc. Such a rocket was obviously
>> unthinkable and his conclusion was that we'd never be able to get to
>> the moon. His numbers were largely correct.
>>
>>
>>> Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs from last
>>> decade
>>> that our hypothetical EV requires only 250 Wh/mile from the outlet
>>> (many
>>> of the OEM EVs required 500 Wh/mile or more )
>>
>> Many of them required the A/C to run in order to cool the NiMH pack
>> thereby using quite a bit of electricity while charging. 150-250
>> Wh/mile from the pack was pretty typical consumption. Lets instead use
>> a pessimistic 200Wh/mile for a sedan like the solectria sunrise.
>>
>>>
>>> For a 300 mile range that works out to 75kWh, ignoring for the moment
>>> how
>>> much it would cost for a LiPol battery pack that big, what does it take
>>> to
>>> "Fast Charge" it?
>>
>> Why are you using consumption from the outlet to calculate the pack
>> size?
>>
>> Using 200Wh/mile we get 60kWh pack. No pack can be fast charged to
>> 100% SOC so the required charge amount is more like 50kWh.
>>
>>>
>>> Let's say we want to do it in say 15 minutes and that the nominal pack
>>> voltage is 370V.  To pump in 75kw in 15 minutes you have to push 300
>>> kw.
>>> Assuming normal charger efficiency
>>> I come up with about 850 amps at 440V. And that's just to charge ONE
>>> car.
>>> Can you imagine what the charger would look like?  Or how HUGE that
>>> charge
>>> cables will be?
>>
>> Here's a 250kW charger, what you would need to charge 50kWh in 15
>> minutes.
>> http://www.avinc.com/PowerProcessing_product_details.asp?Prodid=20
>>
>> This is a bidirectional unit with built in utility transformer, so
>> it's a bit larger than a dedicated charger would have to be.
>>
>>
>>> It took me a while to find a chart showing cables that big, it require
>>> 750
>>> KCM cables.  Those are almost 1 1/2 inches around and weighs 4 lbs per
>>> foot.  8 lbs per foot for a pair of them and almost 3 inches across.
>>
>> My less pessimistic numbers lead you to 550Amp cables. Of course, that
>> is only for 15 minutes so a chart that presumes continuous rating, no
>> cooling and cables in a conduit will give you the wrong number.
>> Instead size the cables for acceptable temperature rise given
>> realistic duty cycles and presence of cooling system and you actually
>> get manageable cable sizes.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The point is that there is no way in hell that anyone is going to build
>>> a
>>> "fast charging" station for EVs with a 300 mile range.
>>
>> Hint:
>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/56927836@N00/2087692423/sizes/l/
>>
>> --
>> www.electric-lemon.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> For subscription options, see
>> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> For subscription options, see
>> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> For subscription options, see
> http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev
>

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Lee Hart]

Roger Stockton wrote:
> Sorry to debunk this, but GM *did* solicit input from people without
> any sort of selection process, and EVers at that.
>
> GM didn't even offer the EV1 in our area (Vancouver BC, Canada), but
> they brought one around and let the Vancouver Electric Vehicle
> Association (an EAA chapter) members (and friends, spouses, etc.)
> test drive the car in exchange for completing a brief survey.

Now that's interesting. When the EV1 first came out, I contacted GM and
tried to find out where I could see one, drive one, how could I get one,
etc. I got the typical corporate brush-off letter.

I finally flew to Florida and got my chance at EVS-14 in 1997. This only
  increased my desire. But again, GM wanted no advice, had no surveys,
and offered no hope of ever being able to buy or lease one in Minnesota.

I remember hearing a story about a young law student named Ralph Nader,
who sent a polite letter to GM asking about what they were doing about
auto safety. He got a nice-sounding form letter back that said nothing.
Attached to it was a handwritten note, apparently instructions to the
signer's secretary that they forgot to remove before mailing. It said,
"Send him the usual brush-off letter."
--
Ring the bells that still can ring
Forget the perfect offering
There is a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in    --    Leonard Cohen
--
Lee A. Hart, 814 8th Ave N, Sartell MN 56377, leeahart_at_earthlink.net

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Peter VanDerWal]

> Peter VanDerWal wrote:
>
>> Let's assume that unlike the vast majority of the OEM EVs
>> from last decade that our hypothetical EV requires only 250
>> Wh/mile from the outlet (many of the OEM EVs required 500
>> Wh/mile or more )
>
> Vast majority?
>
> The NiMH EV1 consumed 127Wh/mi @ 45mph, 168Wh/mi @ 60mph, and 179Wh/mi per
> the SAE J1634 driving cycle.  It used 373Wh/mi from the outlet:

I was talking about from the outlet, since that is basically what we have
to put into the car.
I'll admit "vast majority" was incorrect.

However, they all took more than 250 wh/mile from the outlet.

What we have to put INTO the vehicle is what counts when we are figuring
out how to get it in.

Even if we assume only 180 wh/mile from the pack at highway speeds and
assume the batteries can be fast charged at 85% efficiency, that still
works out to 212 wh/mile, and that doesn't account for any efficiency loss
between the charging plug and the batteries.  It also assumes we can
charge the batteries that fast without active cooling, etc. etc. etc.
That is a LOT of assumptions that all have to be IDEAL (or better) to beat
my 250 wh/mile assumption.

> Never say never ;^>  If/when there are significant numbers of EVs on the
> road, fast charging *will* appear if it is possible to make a buck
> satisfying the desire of people wishing to travel  longer distances in
> their EVs.

I'll say never, because we'll all be dead before that happens, so nobody
will be able to prove me wrong anyway :-(

As I've said before, I didn't come up with the 350 mile range figure nor
did I suggest fast charging of said vehicle.

Obviously you can make it work if you change the basic assumptions that I
was saying won't work.
But doesn't that just prove me right?

_______________________________________________
For subscription options, see
http://lists.sjsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/ev

[Peter VanDerWal]

> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Evan Tuer <evan.tuer@...> wrote:
>
>> Swappable battery packs are clearly a bit of a non-starter.
>
>
> Why?  Compared to doing an overhead catenary to recharge en-route, it
> seems
> fairly easy, with an OEM EV at least.
>
> I already have lots of stuff that takes swappable battery packs... just
> none
> quite as large as an EV.
>

There are a lot of issues that make it undesirable to many.
I.e if I own the battery am I going to be willing to swap my new battery
for an old one of questionable age/performance?

You can solve this by leasing the batteries, now they don't belong to me
anyway.  Unfortunately many folks won't like the idea of leasing anything.

Add to this, unscrupulous stations.  We have those now, people that toss
old motor oil or water into the gas tanks at the filling stations.  Or
jimmy the fuel pumps to read more than they actually deliver.

Can you imagine someone like that putting a bad battery in your vehic