[LINK] Standards, please! The third coming of electric vehicles

Frank O'Connor francisoconnor3 at bigpond.com
Mon Apr 23 00:39:42 AEST 2012


On 22/04/2012, at 2:04 PM, Karl Auer wrote:

> 
>> Mmmm ... I have a roof full of solar cells that generates about
>> 1600-2000W per hour at peak ... which covers most contingencies
>> (except heating, cooling, cooking and other high demand periods
>> when I have multiple devices going.)
> 
> Solar hot water, cook with gas instead of electricity, and get more
> cells, more cells! Seriously though, while power can and should be
> encouraged on individual roofs, it can and should also be generated
> locally in wind farms, solar panel farms and so on. Reducing
> transmission is pretty much the same as generating more power.
> 

Sadly in Victoria we have the Bailleau government which is a bit of a family affair that has vetoed wind farming as a result of the complaints of one of the cadet branches of the family when wind farms were proposed near their farm or retirement retreat. No noblesse oblige from these folks.

Solar panel farms ... the only ones I know of are in desert country in Victoria's North ... sadly when real estate values are as high as they are where I live this isn't really an option. There is a lot of Crown Land around me ... but sadly in Victoria we have the Bailleaus who ... 

> We have 2.5kW on our garage, and our yearly usage is slightly greater
> than our yearly production.

My usage is about 40% more than that ... which is why I still pay power bills.

> 
>> Sad fact of life but we live in a pretty energy intensive age. Unless
>> we can make the devices an order of magnitude more energy efficient
>> (like they have done with light bulbs) the power requirements will
>> always tend to be more than we can locally generate.
> 
> That seems unduly pessimistic on two counts. We need to change the
> amount of energy we use, which does mean more energy-efficient devices,
> but also means building better houses (especially better-insulated
> ones), using solar to heat water, and changing the *ways* we use energy.
> 
> None of these are impossible, they just need will. I'm much more
> pessimistic on a that front - I don't think we will do a damn thing
> until impending disaster is completely undeniable.

Oh I agree, I agree ... and sadly in Victoria (you know the rest) ...

> 
>> Now compare the current fully electric car, with the current fully
>> hydrocarbon powered car.
> 
> It's an unfair comparison. I freely admit that the performance of a
> petrol powered car is better than any comparable EV. However the
> specific attributes of the cars you mention - speed and range - are
> specifically those areas where EVs are weak. Compare the emissions, and
> ask where in Sydney you would have any opportunity to *use* that speed
> or performance, and the comparison starts looking a bit better.

Actually the Tesla shaded the Exige on top speed (the Exige's governor limits its top speed) and initial acceleration. Range, performance consistency, reliability and weight were where it lost out (and of course price ... but not by much.)

> 
>> - Why not install them in the wheels?
> 
> Because then they would be sprung weight.

On a fixed axle (no diff required) with a heavy bearing to which the wheel is attached then.

> 
>> - Why not make the drive system inherently 40-50% more efficient by
>> doing so?
> 
> Indeed! Why not? And computer-controlling multiple motors would remove
> the need for a differential.

Mmm ... my thoughts exactly. With wheels that could operate much like rotatable independent tracks .. imagine how much easier parking would be. Imagine how much better the handling would be.

> 
>> - And wow! That gives us a 40-50% increase in range!
> 
> Well, maybe.

The amount of energy lost on the drive shaft, the differential, the axle cogs connecting to the diff, and the axle (through inefficient force vectoring and rotative loss, friction and other causes) would have to be saved big time if you were feeding direct from the coil to the motivating wheel or shaft. Those energy savings would be substantial, and all things being equal would have to translate into more range if the battery/available power quotient remained constant.

> 
>> takes me 8-10 hours to fully recharge it, and 4-5 hours to get to
> 
> Most people's cars spend much of their lives parked - at work or at
> home. Plug them in when parked.

Again we get back to the availability of the power sources.

> 
>> It's a product confidence thing. Unless Joe/Josephine Public can be
>> assured that they can refuel and repair the family car at regular,
>> local and convenient locations
> 
> OR they realise from the outset that their EV will be used only for
> local trips...

So the two/three/four car family is here to stay? I don't know that we can continue with that model for much longer. 

Hydrogen would bypass all these problems ... which is why I see EV's as simply an interim measure.

>> 
> 
> Your roof is one local spot. The local windfarm is another, the local
> solar farm a third - and so on. Local doesn't have to mean up your left
> nostril.

Sadly here in Victoria we have a family called the Bailleaus ....

> 
>> You and I have different ideas of what is 'viable', Karl.         :)
> 
> Perhaps we also have different ideas about how urgently the problem of
> CO2 emissions needs to be addressed.

No same I think ... but I share your pessimism about what it will take to get the problem seriously addressed. Hre in Victoria I look forward to the day when the sea is lapping up against the Bailleau back doorstep  ...



More information about the Link mailing list