🚀 go-pugleaf

In <30f28311.9516250@news.teaser.fr> bdebreil@teaser.fr (Bernard
Debreil) writes: 

>will1000@ix.netcom.com (Will Stewart ) wrote:

>>There are batteries in development that have shown to
>>have ranges over 200 miles for Taurus-sized vehicles. 

>Maybe, and I'll be glad to see the practical outcome of these
>developments. However, I have heard of such developments for decades,
>with no practical outcome so far. If the matter is to make electric
>cars, the technology has been long known, and such electric powered
>vehicles have existed for almost a century, I believe. 

Certainly, though it has not been pursued because of the energy cheap
nature of gasoline.  As pollution and resource depletion questions
emerge, lawmakers have seen fit to legislate action to avoid the
unpleasant effects 
produced by ICEs.  This has created a market for electric vehicles,
with the superior EVs taking the lion's share of the market.  This
incentive is providing the environment to research, develop, and field
energy storage 
devices that were otherwise pushed aside as unimportant.
 
>In the other hand, if the purpose is to make such vehicle PRACTICAL 
>for most everyday purposes, in the present day context, it has not 
>proven feasible, except in special circumstances (fossil fuel 
>shortages during wars, or for very specific uses).

The proof will be in the fielding and use of the vehicles.  Gasoline
ICEVs, on the other hand, are impractical for sustained usage over the
next few generations.

>I am not against EVs 

That's difficult to surmise from your posts...

>I have even tried one for a short drive. Here in France, a few hundred
>people have had propositions to try EVs at a very
>reasonable cost: one month trial for 1000 FF, that is, about $200. Had
>I been on the list, I would surely have taken one. But there is no way
>that I would buy such a vehicle at its regular price, knowing its
>limitations and the lack of reliability of batteries, their cost and
>short life.

Lack of reliability of batteries?  Every car I know relies upon
batteries to start.

Perhaps you prefer other to spend your money on other items that
produce pleasurable driving, such as CD players, leather interiors,
larger motors, 4 wheel drive, whatever.  We humans sometimes prefer to
enjoy the day, an
d ignore the consequences our present actions will bring.

Do you know what the cost of the EVs in France are expected to be, from
the showroom?

>It remains that, to day, no EV offers more than 90 miles autonomy,
>except on prototype. I believe that it is possible to make almost
>anything: an electric car that would haul a trailer full of batteries,
>could probably drive more than 90 miles... (at least I suppose so,
>for, indeed, the more weight to haul, the more power you need...)

Hybrids are an answer for longer distance needs.  EVs are targeted at
commutes.

>> Recharges are
>>also shown to be less that 90 minutes with many batteries.

>Is it ?   On normal service ?

I should have mentioned charging depths and battery types.  The Horizon
is one such battery.

>To my opinion, if these are regular lead or cadmium/nickel batteries,
>either the 90 minutes charge is a partial charge, that will give you,
>say, only 20 miles autonomy, or it is an accelerated charge at higher
>intensity, and then the battery life will be greatly reduced if this 
>is done often, notwithstanding the fact that its recovery in energy 
>will be less.

It a partial charge, though more than 20 miles range.
There are different battery types (Zinc/air and others) that have
varying charging profiles.

>>>It is not reasonable either to expect a battery which
>>>cost per driven mile be acceptable, considering that it worth not 
>>>less than $2,500 and cannot be expected to last much longer than a 
>>>year or two. 

>>Acceptable is in the mind of the acceptor.  We will assume you speak
>>for yourself.

>Yes, I do, and I think that these are well known concepts. However, I
>don't pretend to detain the truth, and the purpose of most such
threads
>is not to state some faultless truths, it is rather to call for
>discussion and share knowledge and mistakes. 

Yes, and I am guilty of being an EV proponent.  I just tend to
overreact after seeing many posts that profer ridiculous scenarios that
EVs can't satisfy, and pretend that the scenarios are commonplace.

>>>Besides, as soon as the battery is more than a few months old, you
>>>can no longer rely on any device to appreciate, at a given time, how
>>>many miles can be driven before running out of power. 

>>This sentence is a little unclear; what are you claiming here?

>OK: to your opinion, what, on an EV, is a replacement for the fuel 
>gauge of an ICE ?  On the only EV that I have seen from close, it was 
>a mere voltmeter. You've got to remember that a single lead battery 
>cell gives about 2 volts, that is, something like 2.2 volts when fully
>charged, and 2.0 or so, when 90% discharged (one must avoid full 
>discharges). I have no time to go check if the right figures are 
>indeed 2.2 and 2.0, or if it is 2.3 and 1.95v, but I know that I am 
>not too far. What does this mean, anyways ?  it means that, if we 
>suppose that the vehicle is powered in 120 volts (60 - 2 volts cells, 
>that is, 10 - 12 volts elements), the voltmeter will read 132 volts 
>when the system is fully charged, and 120 volts when almost empty of 
>energy. This is on such a voltage gap of 12 volts or so, (120 to 132 
>volts) that the full-empty gauge is relied. Besides, it is more 
>complex than that, since the voltage versus % charge curve is nothing 
>close to a straight line : there is a long flat around 2.1 volts or 
>so, the length of the flat, and its range of co-ordinates being 
>subjected to changes as the cell wears. When all 60 cells of the 
>battery are new, this system is likely to work fine. But, the problem 
>with batteries, is that they wear, they deteriorate, unevenly. Some 
>elements die a lot sooner than others  (this is even worse with NiCad 
>elements). Therefore, after awhile, the voltages to be relied upon for
>full capacity, half capacity, or 1/4 capacity, will change, and the 
>system will not know what figures to rely upon. 

>Besides, batteries do not hold charges forever, and, after a bit of
>wearing, they will not hold charge for more than a few days. This mean
>that one will not be able to rely on how many miles have been driven
>since last recharge, especially if these miles have been driven over
>several days. You must also take this into account when reasoning 
>about recoveries and costs per mile: if the car is not driven on a 
>regular basis, it will still use power to keep its battery in
>charge...

>Isn't there a battery specialist here, that could explain this better
>than I did ?

I've renamed this thread to see if someone will tune in.  My first
blush answer would be to have a narrow range for voltage, resetting the
full charge to 'full' on the voltmeter.  My second blush answer is the
use measure the amps.

>>>Besides, EVs, if produced at a large scale, will boost up the
>>>implementation of more nuclear plants... for, indeed, what would be
>>the point to produce the required electric energy from coal or oil,
which
>>>would produce as much CO2 (greenhouse effect, global warming) and
>>>other pollutants as gasoline does...

>>What are your sources?  What pollutants do you think are emitted by 
>>an ICE? A coal-fired plant?  

>Oh God, when saying "as much" CO2 and other pollutants as gasoline
>does, I surely didn't mean that I had figures to prove that the 
>amounts being released in either processes where indeed exactly the 
>same, or just
>about... I just meant that, from what is widely known, the overall
>pollution  problem would  possibly remain about the same. 

Widely known?  Or widely speculated?  If you visit
http://www.calstart.org/reference/papers/emission.html you will find a
sample estimation/comparison.

>True, an oil
>or natural gas power plant may pollute a little less than an ICE car,
>since its releases are supposed to be constantly monitored, but, in
the
>other hand, using batteries, which recoveries are not 1 (how much ?
>The last figure I had was around 0.5), wastes part of the energy and
>therefore calls for a greater production with, in turn, more 
>polluting.

Don't forget the losses for oil exploration, drilling, transportation,
refining (significant), and other transportation and pumping
requirements.

ICEVs, especially in commuting profiles, operate over a wide range of
engine speeds and loads.  The emission controls cannot operate at a
optimum level over most of these ranges, but a power plant, at a far
narrower range, can.  Plus, it's easier to control emissions at one
point source rather than a million.
  
>>Please provide your references ('I read it in a news post' does not
>>count for much).

>I don't have any at hand. My sayings are based upon a lot of things
that
>I have come up to over several years, reading, also experiencing
>batteries (not very much though). As I said before, if you don't agree
>with me, please explain and give your figures if you have any, and I
>will gladly read you, whether your elements are sound ones, or not so
>sound ones, as long as they are not outright stupid (which I don't
>suppose they will be) 

I try my best to avoid the latter :-)

Let me know what you think of the website I mentioned earlier.  

Cheers,

Will Stewart