A few thoughts on electric cars

[Matt Timion]

I was about to convert the new n600 to electric again, until I had a few thoughts.

one gallon of gasoline (6 pounds) has about the same stored energy as 700 pounds of lead-acid batteries. They both contain enough energy to move a car between 30 and 50 miles. The downside of the batteries, however, is that all else being equal the same car will weigh 700 pounds more than it's gasoline equivilant. This kills efficiency even more.

While I would love ot be part of the solution and not part of the problem, I am not certain that the technology is really there right now. Well, that isn't true. The technology is there, but just not to retrofit a n600. Perhaps I will retrofit a 89-91 Civic hatchback instead, which can definately take the extra weight.

For the time being, however, I can see why people are reluctant to switch to eletric. The battery technology just sucks.

The one upside of switching to EV however is that once the car is all set up, you can easily switch to better batteries as the technology improves. it is much easier to switch to better, longer lasting (and lighter, I'm sure) batteries than it is to swap a motor, service a transmission, or even rotate tires.

If you are thinking of the long run, I think an electric car is the way to go. For the short run, however, I'm going to wait.

[SVOboy]

You can get NiMH batteries from Japan! Woot woot. Also, you burn 1/8th as much crap to take power from a socket as opposed to from gasoline, so think about that. Plus socket power is much cheaper, even if the car will weigh more.

[Matt Timion]

You can get NiMH batteries from Japan! Woot woot. Also, you burn 1/8th as much crap to take power from a socket as opposed to from gasoline, so think about that. Plus socket power is much cheaper, even if the car will weigh more.

Another factor is that most power plants also burn fossil fuels to give you electricity. If your goal is to reduce reliance on foreign fuels electric cars are not the way to do it until the infrastructure exists for renewable energy.

[DaX]

Another factor is that most power plants also burn fossil fuels to give you electricity. If your goal is to reduce reliance on foreign fuels electric cars are not the way to do it until the infrastructure exists for renewable energy.


This is probably the main reason why I won't get an electric car - it doesn't really lower enviro-impact THAT much.

[Matt Timion]

This is probably the main reason why I won't get an electric car - it doesn't really lower enviro-impact THAT much.

If I had a large amount of money AND a huge property I would install a solar grid and wind turbines on my property.

But since I have neither of those I will not be doing so any time soon.

[SVOboy]

What I meant about burning 1/8th of gas is that if you switch to electric you'll be burning 12.5% of what were were on gasoline, mehbe it's just me, but 87.5% less burning and emitting is good for me.

[The Toecutter]

Another factor is that most power plants also burn fossil fuels to give you electricity. If your goal is to reduce reliance on foreign fuels electric cars are not the way to do it until the infrastructure exists for renewable energy.

The largest portion of our electricity in the states comes from coal, mined right here in the US of A. Then we have nuclear and natural gas, also obtained right here in the U.S. In fact, only 2% of our electricity is from oil.

And even if an electric car recieves its juice from a coal plant, it is likely to be cleaner than the majority of gas cars on the road(depends on the coal plant, but with most coal plants, pollution is reduced with a few exceptions.)

[Matt Timion]

Another factor is that most power plants also burn fossil fuels to give you electricity. If your goal is to reduce reliance on foreign fuels electric cars are not the way to do it until the infrastructure exists for renewable energy.

The largest portion of our electricity in the states comes from coal, mined right here in the US of A. Then we have nuclear and natural gas, also obtained right here in the U.S. In fact, only 2% of our electricity is from oil.

And even if an electric car recieves its juice from a coal plant, it is likely to be cleaner than the majority of gas cars on the road(depends on the coal plant, but with most coal plants, pollution is reduced with a few exceptions.)

Excellent point. SInce I made this post I've learned exactly what you just said. We have enough coal in this country for at LEAST another 200 years of energy production, which will give more than enough time for renewables to take over.

I think I also posted an article a while back about a plan to put algae on the inside of the coal burning smoke stacks. THis algae (or whatever it was) Will absorb a lot of the pollutants and will be able to be squeezed and biodiesel can be produced from it.

[Sludgy]

For years, I thought electric cars would never be practical mostly due to lousy battery technology. But I'm becoming a believer because technology has improved so much recently:

1) Newer batteries like lithium and NiMH have about 3 times the energy density of lead-acid.
2) AC motors in conjunction with inverters or electronically commutated motors have much higher (~95%) efficiency than older convetional DC motors (~70%).
3) The AC/electronically commutated DC motors also regenerate power when braking and coasting downhill, recharging the batteries.

Throw a couple of solar panels on the roof, and we can kiss the oil barons goodby.

[Matt Timion]

For years, I thought electric cars would never be practical mostly due to lousy battery technology. But I'm becoming a believer because technology has improved so much recently:

1) Newer batteries like lithium and NiMH have about 3 times the energy density of lead-acid.
2) AC motors in conjunction with inverters or electronically commutated motors have much higher (~95%) efficiency than older convetional DC motors (~70%).
3) The AC/electronically commutated DC motors also regenerate power when braking and coasting downhill, recharging the batteries.

Throw a couple of solar panels on the roof, and we can kiss the oil barons goodby.




I believe the important thing to note about these cars is that the average commute is 20 miles. Most EVs have at least a 50 mile range. This leaves PLENTY of time to recharge at night time.

Used solely as a commuter vehicle, EVs would be perfect. Keep that gas hog in the garage for road trips.

[philmcneal]

now if we can lower the cost for EV... their base msrp is too far from reach.

[Matt Timion]

now if we can lower the cost for EV... their base msrp is too far from reach.

Maybe it's time to start an EV car dealership.

[The Toecutter]

now if we can lower the cost for EV... their base msrp is too far from reach.

Cost is much more a matter of production volume than of technology.

Ferraris and Lamborghinis are $150,000+ not because of their components, but because of their low production volume.

Same with EVs and their batteries.

In the mid 1990s, AC Propulsion made an electric Honda Civic that did 0-60 mph in 6 seconds and 100 miles rane. This acceleration performance is comparable to an Audi TT or Porsche Boxter. Hand built, they cost $75,000. Alan Cocconi, chairman, quoted them at $20,000 if they could be produced in volume of 10,000 units.

Mendomotive was hand building Porsche Spyder conversions in the 90s from hand built kit car bodies and selling them for $30,000. They did 0-60 mph in 8 seconds, topped 120 mph, and did 130 miles per charge. Compare to a mass produced gas powered Mazda Miata that did 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, topped 130 mph, and cost $25,000.

In fact, the designer of the Renault ESpace van explicitly stated that electric vehicles would be CHEAPER than comparable gas vehicles if they were produced in similar volume.

AC Propulsion quoted a mass produced(for automotive sized volumes) lithium ion battery system with management at $250/kWh.

Or a 50 kWh pack to give a 250 wh/mile Ford Taurus sized electric car with no attention to aerodynamics a 200 mile highway range, $12,500 battery pack. This battery pack would last about 400 cycles to 100% discharge, and about 4,000 cycles to 20% discharge. So someone driving this car 40 miles a day would see 160,000 miles pack life before the battery only delivers 80% of the capacity it did new. And this pack life is when range would be reduced to about 160 miles, the battery would still be usable!

Shape the aerodynamics of the car to bring energy consumption down to 200 wh/mile, and the same size car could be made with a smaller battery pack for the same range and reduced cost, or could have the same battery pack with more range. In either case, cost per mile would decrease further, well below that of a gas car. Say, 250 miles range and ~220,000 miles battery life with a 50 kWh pack from decreased discharge percent.

But no one is mass producing electric cars in and buying large volumes of batteries from battery makers, so battery cost stays roughly $600/kWh, not including a mangeemtn system!

Same with the Ovonic NiMH battery. Robert Stemple, ECD chairman, quoted it at $150/kWh in production volumes for 20,000 cars per year. Cycle life was 1,750 to 100% discharge, or a 200 mile range Ford Taurus like car with no attention to aerodynamics with a 50 kWh pack would have a battery life at least 350,000 miles(more with shallower discharges, and I don't know anyone that commutes 400 miles round trip to work!), and a pack cost of $7,500! Again, improve the aerodynamics to decrease energy consumption, and more benefits to be had.

But, Chevron Texaco bought the battery patent, refuses to mass produce EV sized batteries, charges $1,000/kWh for them for use in today's hybrids($1,000 of the price premium in today's hybrids is lining oil industry pockets as profit), and even restricted the max AH size that anyone duplicating the battery can use(thus preventing plug in hybrids and pure electrics from EVER being made with this battery so long at the oil co holds the patent).

Cost is a matter of production volume, not technology.

EVs are viable today. But there are special interests that have a conflict of interest with the car buying public who are forking over their hard earned dollar to the oil man, the servicing and parts departments, and the tax man.

For years, I thought electric cars would never be practical mostly due to lousy battery technology. But I'm becoming a believer because technology has improved so much recently:

1) Newer batteries like lithium and NiMH have about 3 times the energy density of lead-acid.
2) AC motors in conjunction with inverters or electronically commutated motors have much higher (~95%) efficiency than older convetional DC motors (~70%).
3) The AC/electronically commutated DC motors also regenerate power when braking and coasting downhill, recharging the batteries.

Indeed. Even with cheap lead acid batteries, the best conversions and purpose built EVs were doing 100 miles range at real 70 mph highway speeds, more range if the drivers would slow down. It is even theoretically possible to build a small pickup truck conversion(say Chevy S10 or Toyota T100) with 150-200 miles range on cheap lead acid golf cart batteries, if the proper aerodynamic mods are done to tyhe truck and it has roughly 3,000 pounds in golf cart batteries. No one has attempted such yet, however.

A purpose built CAR could likely duplicate this on less batteries, but it would need a drag coefficient around .18-.20, easily doable given what was done in the past.

Your typical golf cart battery or AGM lead acid battery has about 30 wh/kg of specific capacity at usable EV rates. In an efficient EV needing 180 wh/mile at 70 mph, and with a 600 kg battery pack, this was 100 miles range at 70 mph.

The NiMH batteries developed in the late 1990s achieved 70 wh/kg specific capacity. Or an efficient EV needing 180 wh/mile at 70 mph with a 600 kg battery pack would have roughly 230 miles range at 70 mph.

Today's lithium ion batteries have 150 wh/kg of specific capacity. An EV with a 600 kg pack that needs 180 wh/mile would have 500 miles range at 70 mph.

Obviously, if you slow down to 55 mph, range increases about 50%.

According to a study titled "The Current and Future Market for Electric Vehicles for the Electric Transportation Coalition", the minimum market for EVs in the late 1990s was between 12% and 18% of all new cars on the market. This was with consumers understanding a limitation of 80 miles range in good weather(with an acknowledged reduced range in worse conditions), slightly reduced performance, and able to seat 4 adults.

These limitations were actually quite pessimistic, given that even EVs of that time had comparable and even better performance to their gasoline counterparts, the best individual conversions were doing 120 miles range, and had engineered proper battery heaters for using lead acid batteries in cold weather.

Now, imagine what those numbers would be if this study was repeated for 150 miles range, 200 miles range, and 300 miles range, all with the same or increased performance over comparable gas cars.

With 150 miles range, it's a garunteed 2nd car for 99% of all households.

With 300 miles range, the only thing keeping EVs from being an only car for ~40% of the population that takes long trips each year would be lack of quick charge infrastructure for long distance trips, which can be built and has been proven not only in the laboratory, but in public demonstrations(ie. Mitsubishi's electric FTO driven 1,250 miles in a 24 hour period including time spent stopping to charge).

Throw a couple of solar panels on the roof, and we can kiss the oil barons goodby.

That's why we don't have EVs today.

Gasoline for automobiles is ~40% of America's oil consumption. To eliminate that would piss the oilies off to high hell. They want to keep making money, and to bring less money from consumer to oil industry is something they frown on.

The auto industry is also opposed. No tune ups, no oil changes, no maintenance, no pistons, no belts, no pulleys. One moving part in a DC electric motor, ZERO moving parts in an AC electric motor. Electric motors also last over 500,000 miles. Less money goes from consumer to auto industry, so auto industry frowns on it.

The government is also opposed. The G8 nations made more money on oil tax revenue than did OPEC. Less money goes from taxpayers to politicians, and thus politicians frown on it.

I believe the important thing to note about these cars is that the average commute is 20 miles. Most EVs have at least a 50 mile range. This leaves PLENTY of time to recharge at night time.

Recharging at night is part of the appeal. Takes 10 seconds to plug in, 10 seconds to unplug, and you'll never need to stop anywhere for fuel.

And that 50 miles is from building an EV with inefficient motors, cheap golf cart batteries, and converting an unaerodynamic car not originally meant to be an EV.

A purpose built car using the same components used in today's conversions, DC motor, golf cart batteries, could easily do 100-120 miles range.

Used solely as a commuter vehicle, EVs would be perfect. Keep that gas hog in the garage for road trips.

With today's technology and proper infrastructure for quick charging, gas is obsolete.

[Sludgy]

Ovonics has competition from other battery makers now. Valence Technologies is making big golf-cart sized lithium batteries today, and a French company called Saft also makes big NiMH bateries. It's only a matter of time before electric cars are a reality.

I also think solar cars, or solar assisted cars are on the horizon. Certainly, 200 watts of solar panels in a sunny parking lot for 10 hours would be enough to drive you home 20 miles.

[The Toecutter]

Valence is unable to produce their batteries in volume enough to bring prices down to the levels Ovonics could, nor do they come near Ovonics batteries in specific power. I have no idea what their cycle life is(tested by a third party, not valence), while the Ovonics have repeatedly shown cycle lifes between 1,500 and 2,000 in fleet applications to 100%. 3 million miles of vehicle use and like 6 total module failures used by Southern California Edison.

Further, SAFT is unwilling to produce their NiCds and NiMH in sufficient volume because their previous customers, Renault and Peugeot, are no longer making the few hundred EVs a year they were making. A few hundrd cars was enough volume to bring prices down to ~$500/kWh, to be viable, we need like $250/kWh and below, and that will take 10,000+ cars per year. Further, SAFT has even better technology that they're yet unwilling to offer because they want to milk their NiCd for all they are worth, and without anyone else making viable NiCd or NiMH(or NiMH not regulated by Chevron Texaco), prices can stay high.

Electric cars will never become a reality unless the oil industry and auto industry are basically told to go **** themselves. The technology has been around for nearly a decade, yet even in light of $3/gallon gas, peak oil, a war arguably motivated by oil, rampant human rights abuses on part of the industry, the American Lung Association concluding air pollution prematurely kills more than 50,000 Americans a year, all sorts of taxpayer oil subsidies, and massive unmet demand for EVs, we still don't have highway capable EVs on the market.

I doubt we will have them on the market even if gas hits $10/gallon or god forbid, the stations are dry. Look at Europe with $8/gallon. At under anywhere from $.80-$1.50/gallon(depending on car), most EVs tend to be cheaper to run than gas cars, even factoring battery replacement, but still none are for sale.

Don't expect the mainstream industry and/or government to make these changes for us. They've not only surpressed the technology, they've repeatedly failed to implement it.

Mitsubishi and Subaru are just now throwing a few token attempts out, none of them intended for the American market, and none of them serious long range attempts. Further, these companies will only do it if the Japanese government subsidizes them to keep profit margins equivalent to IC cars(Take away the subsidies and they'd still be profitable, just not as much).

The last barrier to overcome with EVs now is politics. And that is the hardest problem to overcome.

[philmcneal]

very detailed toecutter thank you! Now it gives me a second chance to think if I should be still refueling at Chevron gas or not...

damn all gas companies are evil ;(

[Sludgy]

I think I touched a raw nerve, toecutter! Sorry.

I don't know much about Saft, but a brief update on Valence Technologies is in order. Valence smartened up and built two battery manufaturing plants in China. They will make automotive-size batteries there.

This is smart because:

-China has little or no oil, and would love to produce vehicles that don't need (much) fuel.

-China would love to export inexpensive batteries just like everything else they make.

-Finally, Hydro Quebec has filed a (frivoulous, I think ) lawsuit against Valence for patent infringement. I think China will tell HQ to pound sand and make the batteries, even if the patent suit is upheld.

[The Toecutter]

Now it gives me a second chance to think if I should be still refueling at Chevron gas or not...

damn all gas companies are evil ;(

What is especially disturbing is that many of the people working for these companies have good intentions, yet the execs and other upper management help screw everything up.

Really, what choices do you have?

Buy from Chevron and you're helping surpress technological developments, encouraging ecocide, supporting human rights violations in the middle east, supporting mid east oil dependeancy, and supporting the crony sort of capitalism(Do some research on Condi Rice).

Buy from Shell, and you're helping to rob Nigerians, helping fund a greenwashing campaign for a dirty substance, and helping the oil company aquire even more patents on solar technology so they can hold it back only to slowly ration it out when required...

Buy from Exxon and you're helping to encourage global warming, inadequate cleanup of spilled tankers, and deforestation(at least more so than the other companies) and helping support fascist dictators in third world nations.

Buy from Citgo, and you're supporting a regime that is hostile to the US(regardless of the fairness of their intentions, or the lack of it as oppined by those of a worldview nearly the inverse of mine). The upside is, none of Citgo's oil is from the middle east.

To some extent, you're supporting terrorism with every fillup, and I'm not talking about the paranoid neocon view of terrorism, but even that committed by said companies themselves and our own government as well.

Personally, I'm more of a Citgo and Quicktrip kind of buyer. They're the most palateable as far as my own politics and environmental concerns lie, but their intentions aren't necessarily good, either. They do seek profit after all, and like any oil company, aren't afraid to kill others, erode civil liberties, or destroy our environment to make that extra dollar. I'll be sticking with them until the EV is finished. Then that will be the end of oil use for my transportation needs, hopefully permanently. A shame mass transit is so lacking here, I hate car dependence.

[The Toecutter]

I think I touched a raw nerve, toecutter! Sorry.

No need to apologize. I don't bite. :p

I don't know much about Saft, but a brief update on Valence Technologies is in order. Valence smartened up and built two battery manufaturing plants in China. They will make automotive-size batteries there.

This is smart because:

-China has little or no oil, and would love to produce vehicles that don't need (much) fuel.

-China would love to export inexpensive batteries just like everything else they make.

-Finally, Hydro Quebec has filed a (frivoulous, I think ) lawsuit against Valence for patent infringement. I think China will tell HQ to pound sand and make the batteries, even if the patent suit is upheld.

Making lithium batteries in China is very smart because they literally have enough lithium for 10s of millions of EVs on top of other consumer applications.

However, China's government wants to maximize economic growth, and is supporting car dependency and the internal combustion engine to increase consumer spending. This is why they have been trying to ban electric bicycles and scooters. They want people dependent on expensive gas and an expensive-to-maintain IC engine because it grows the economy with the increased spending.

Needless to say, those not wealthy enough for middle class luxuries like automobiles are NOT amused!

It wouldn't surprise me if their government would foolishly fight electric automobiles, even though they could kill the gasoline powered competition if exported overseas. Imagine that, 5 years from now, China's auto industry has grown at the same rate of today and nearly doubled in size. Enter an EV, that makes roughly 1/5 the profit, still profitable, just not as much. Less revenue for the execs and bureaucrats, so of course they will try to maintain the fossil fueled status quo at all costs! An electric automobile just won't generate the profit a gas one will, and won't encourage near the resource consumption and subsequent economic growth it causes.

Problem is, many of the world's resources we use to have our technology-intensive lifestyle are finite. We will either decide to conserve starting now, or save none for future generations leaving them with a destroyed environment. What will it be, profits or people? Our 'leaders' have made their decision, will we ever get to make ours?

[Sludgy]

All I can say is that I hope you're wrong about a conspiracy in China. And for that matter, America.

Electric cars aren't rocket science now. AT LEAST ONE car major car company ought to build them.......Toyota and Honda could easily modify Prius and Civic hybrids to all-electric.

But will they?

[The Toecutter]

I hope I'm wrong as well.

I'll later be publishing an article that delves into the subject with more depth(still only scratching the surface, long as it is!), including but not limited to documented smear campaigns against the EV on part of the oil and auto industry, artificially inflating projected production costs on part of the auto industry, funding of anti-EV organizations, flat out refusal to offer the vehicles to willing buyers, and even some anti-EV legal action from the Bush/Clinton administrations.

The fight against the EV is real and documented. Historical fact. Not conspiracy theory.

The theory comes in when determining WHY it was being done.

Doing a cost analysis and finding EVs bring less revenue than gas cars and have reduced profits as a result is one explanation, the obvious lost revenue to the oil industry from decreased gas consumption is another, there's also the argument that the big industries will fear the decentalization that the EV would bring with their simplicity and longevity, among others. These motives aren't provable as the industry hasn't explicitly stated their real motive, and has continued to falsely cite 'not enough range', 'people don't want them', or the famous 'not fast enough'. What is provable is the ACTIONS the oil industry, auto industry, and government have taken to stifle the EV, with no rational reason for their actions. Try to find an explanation from there, and it will drive you crazy. The benefits of this technology to the public are so blatantly obvious!

[Sludgy]

I think the biggest obstacle to EVs is insurance, without which (at least here in Massachusetts), a car cannot be registered. From what I've read, it's difficult to get insurance for EVs converted from cars and trucks.

It's hard to know whether this insurance difficulty is part of a conspiracy, or whether it's just good business practice. You have to wonder though, since you see so many tricked-out, pimped gas rides out there. Those contraptions are more dangerous (and dangerously driven) than any EV.

There are several websites offering EV kits, especially for Chevy S10s and Metros. Most of these use low tech, lead acid batteries, conventional motors and cotntrollers. someone should put together a kit with all of the go-far goodies like lithium batteries and electroncally commutated motors.

But even if they did, why would I buy one if I wouldn't be able to insure, register and drive it?

[JanGeo]

That's why adding a small electric motor to a regular car is a good solution - you don't get stuck with pure electric which in the NE area is pricing anyway unlike the west coast where they pay 1/5 the price for a KWH and you don't get the hassels at registration and insurance time. Gas powered electric assisted car. The reality is any electric vehicle that relies on a high electrical power battery is not going to be cost effective with the present battery technology. You only have to do the math and price some components to realize that. You are better off getting a small electric motor and adding it to a bicycle.

[The Toecutter]

I think the biggest obstacle to EVs is insurance, without which (at least here in Massachusetts), a car cannot be registered. From what I've read, it's difficult to get insurance for EVs converted from cars and trucks.

Indeed. IMO, the insurance industry is mostly a government-subsidized scam anyway.

But it is certainly NOT the biggest obsticile to EVs in general. A mass produced EV by major automaker wouldn't have such difficulties.

It's hard to know whether this insurance difficulty is part of a conspiracy, or whether it's just good business practice.

Neither. Insurance companies generally don't like touching what they are unfamiliar with, given that there is no generally accepted rate to maximize profits for one off and converted cars.

If you want to insure an EV, there are a few places to look, however. Allstate has been known to insure EVs, but your best bet might be to go to someone who insures classic and custom cars, like Hagerty.

You have to wonder though, since you see so many tricked-out, pimped gas rides out there. Those contraptions are more dangerous (and dangerously driven) than any EV.

An EV will be roughly as difficult to insure, assuming above cars are racetrack ready.

There are several websites offering EV kits, especially for Chevy S10s and Metros. Most of these use low tech, lead acid batteries, conventional motors and cotntrollers. someone should put together a kit with all of the go-far goodies like lithium batteries and electroncally commutated motors.

Only problem with the go far kit is price.

Without automotive size production of batteries, management systems, and AC motors/inverters, the only ones that would be able to afford such are those who would simply pay someone to build the car for them.

But even if they did, why would I buy one if I wouldn't be able to insure, register and drive it?

It's not as difficult as it appears. There are thousands of operating EVs in the U.S. The most important thing is having a title for the car. Work from there.

That's why adding a small electric motor to a regular car is a good solution - you don't get stuck with pure electric which in the NE area is pricing anyway unlike the west coast where they pay 1/5 the price for a KWH and you don't get the hassels at registration and insurance time. Gas powered electric assisted car.

The downside is, you now have two propulsion systems to maintain, one gas and one electric. This increases maintenance costs and cancels any financial benefit from going pure EV.

The reality is any electric vehicle that relies on a high electrical power battery is not going to be cost effective with the present battery technology. You only have to do the math and price some components to realize that.

It's not technology. It's production volume.

We have companies producing all sorts of different battery sizes for computers, portable electronics, ect. The problem is, they aren't producing similar sizes large enough for a car and in volume enough to bring prices to reasonable levels.

Why?

No one is mass producing highway capable electric cars.

Mass production of lithium ion batteries for automotive application would bring prices to $250/kWh. NiMH, $150/kWh.

Get below $300/kWh, and a mass market EV with 200+ miles range becomes viable. A 50 kWh pack for a 250 wh/mile midsize car at $300/kWh would cost $15,000. Certainly doable for a $25,000-30,000 midsize car. Get down to $150/kWh, and $10,000 lnog range highway capable EVs could be reality.

A shame an oil company is sitting on that NiMH battery patent. Even more of a shame the automakers refuse to touch EVs, as lithium ion not only has double the specific capacity of NiMH, but is catching up to NiMH in mass production costs. Without production for automotive volume, prices stay high.

[JanGeo]

Mass production of lithium ion batteries for automotive application would bring prices to $250/kWh. NiMH, $150/kWh.
Get below $300/kWh, and a mass market EV with 200+ miles range becomes viable. A 50 kWh pack for a 250 wh/mile midsize car at $300/kWh would cost $15,000. Certainly doable for a $25,000-30,000 midsize car. Get down to $150/kWh, and $10,000 lnog range highway capable EVs could be reality.

I paid $114 for a KWh of high output high quality SLA and it still didn't last long enough - 1800 miles and the batteries are apparently at half capacity already. The only way they will become more cost effective is when gas prices get even higher as they are now becoming.

The new news is that the new Li-Ion nano tech cell production is going into full production and they say that they will be making EV batteries also.

[The Toecutter]

I paid $114 for a KWh of high output high quality SLA and it still didn't last long enough - 1800 miles and the batteries are apparently at half capacity already.

a) What kind of battery, brand and model, was it?
b) What kind of charger did you use?
c) What kind of charging algorithm did you use?
d) Did you use regulators?
e) Was this your first ever battery pack?
f) How much range did you have and what was your typical daily range usage?

Examples abound of conversions which have been able to go 20,000+ miles on a lead acid battery pack before it was replaced(with roughly 70-80% of deliverable capacity). In theory, my own conversion will be able to go up to 80,000 miles on its pack if I keep the discharge around 30%, but the data from the EV list suggests to expect around 40,000 miles, mostly from a combination of long range AND small daily discharges. Generally, AGMs should not be regularly discharged below 50%, or they won't last more than 200-300 cycles. At 20-30%, they can last 2,000-2,500 cycles.

With sealed lead acid batteries, you can not skimp on anything related to charging them, or they won't last long.

Also, most first time EV users kill their pack outright not properly caring for it in the case of lead acid batteries, often times not even realizing it(battery management could prevent this).

As far as advanced batteries go, they are proven. Southern California Edison's fleet of EVs equipped with NiMH batteries have had only 6 module failures in over 3 million miles of operation. RAV4 EVs with NiMH are approaching 150,000 miles on the same battery pack with yet no pack degredation. Before they were crushed, numerous EV1s lasted over 40,000 miles on their NiMH pack with no degredation.

The only way they will become more cost effective is when gas prices get even higher as they are now becoming.

Most conversions using lead acid batteries(and properly cared for) break even with their gas counterparts at under $1.50/gallon, some as low as $.80/gallon, factoring in battery replacement. Adjusted for inflation, gas has not been that cheap very often. However, this will only happen if the batteries are charged properly, managed with voltage regulation and thermal regulation systems, and checked by the car owner regularly. Skimp on one of those things and you likely lose the advantage with a very costly mistake.

The new news is that the new Li-Ion nano tech cell production is going into full production and they say that they will be making EV batteries also.

Unless they will be producing enough for 10,000+ cars per year, don't expect them to be affordable. Thundersky is producing enough batteries for a few thousand EVs per year, and their prices are around $600/kWh, down to $450 if you can get with a group and buy in bulk. Larger production volume brings prices to affordable levels, but that takes mass production of EVs, something a small business will never accomplish given current politics in place.

Thundersky's original production run was filled with bad batteries, but their new runs have apparantly kept up with their manufacturing specs. In theory, this would allow 100,000-150,000 mile pack lifes following their charge/discharge cycle statistics.

[JanGeo]

Hawker Genesis 26ah x 3 using separate chargers for final top off and a bulk 36 volt 20 amp charger to get them close to peak charge then finished with 1 amp chargers that charge to 14.9 volts and then drop back to 13.5 volts. Powercheq modules added after the first year to maintain proper balance on charge and discharge and charge after that. Typical range was about 20-25 miles using about 20 ah of the 26ah capacity. This comes out to about 100 cycles give or take a few. Batteries were recharged after each run and float charged between uses. I have more of them that have not been cycled yet but my concern is that they are aging. The Thundersky cells would have been a better deal life wise but the price was too high and they are easily damaged with a simple overload and have very critical operating temperatures.

[The Toecutter]

Typical range was about 20-25 miles using about 20 ah of the 26ah capacity.

There is your problem. 20 AH used out of 26 AH available is a 77% discharge!

AGM batteries are not meant to be chronically discharged passed 50% on a daily basis. It's ok to discharge 70-100% maybe once a week or so for a long trip, but not for the bulk of your EV usage. Otherwise they will not last long at all.

With a 20-25 mile range to 77% discharge, your ideal pack size should be increased to enough where you would have 67-83 miles range to 100% discharge.

Your commute would have then been discharging them to roughly 30%, allowing them in excess of 1,000 cycles.

This is not feasible for most bicycles mind you(unless you're willing to enclose the bicycle with a faring to minimize aero drag), but it is perfectly reasonable for a car or a motorcycle with a custom-built aerodynamic faring.

Due to pricing of Hawkers, such an endeavor would be better suited to larger and cheaper batteries, perhaps Exide Orbitals, rated at 55 AH at the 20 hour rate and with 95 minutes at the 25 amp rate. They retail at $100 each. A Geo Metro sized EV with a 336V pack of them could easily get 50 miles range to 100% discharge without any special attention to aerodynamics, consuming roughly 200 wh/mile and seeing 29 ah per batery at EV rates. With attention to aerodynamics, 60-80 miles consuming 160 wh/mile, and slighly increased capacity due to lower current draws(I take it you know about Peukert's effect).

[JanGeo]

Peukert is very low on Hawkers - problem was that the capacity was not dropping at all then suddenly it did. It is not possible to run bigger batteries - scooter is at 145 lbs already - I did run shorter trips and logged the more recent ones. Just not practical to carry more battery weight. I got the Hawkers for a great deal which is why they were the way to go - when I needed 150 amps they put out.

BTW toecutter you seem to know quite a bit about EVs.

[The Toecutter]

Peukerts might be low on Hawkers, but it is still sufficiently high that your discharge rate will heavily affect your capacity.

The Peukert's exponent on the Exide Orbitals is even smaller than that of most Hawkers, however even then at EV rates they only deliver about 60% of their 20 hour rating.


My knowledge of EVs is mostly academic. I'm still building my first conversion, and by no means do I consider myself an expert. I have studied the subject quite extensively, on the other hand.