🚀 go-pugleaf

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

>In <30ee482c.33105000@news.teaser.fr> bdebreil@teaser.fr (Bernard
>Debreil) writes: 
>
>>Sure, and we do believe that, in the present state of research on
>>batteries, it is not reasonable to expect one that will power a car
>for
>>more than, say, 90 miles or so, without a "refuel" that will take
>>several hours.
>
>Who is the 'WE'?  

In the original post, the matter was about automakers and auto
consumers. We, means us autoconsumers. I agree that I'd better write:
"I, as well as many other autoconsumers..." instead of "we"

>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. 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).

I am not against EVs : 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.

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...)


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

Is it ?   On normal service ?

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 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. I don't have sources to
quote at this time: if you or anyone else  have some knowledge that
contradict my statements, I will gladly read them, as well as, I
suppose, a lot of other people too.
>
>>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 ?
>
>>This, added to the
>>fact that there is no proof that such vehicles are environmental
>>friendly, I surely can see the point of car manufacturers...
>
>The amount of pollution they give off in the city environment is
>negligible compared to ICEVs.
>
>>Anyhow, not talking about the fact that an EV pollutes because of the
>>need to recycle huge amounts or lead or cadmium, it is also
>>unvironmentally unfriendly for another reason: it encourages more
>people
>>to have two vehicules, one for long distances or for use whenever they
>>have more than one passenger (ICE), and an EV for other purposes.
>
>I don't think we're going to see a person run out and buy an EV if they
>already have an efficient ICEV.  On the other hand, a two-car family
>would be suited to such an arrangement.
>
>>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. 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.
>
>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) 
>

Bernard DEBREIL
---------------
Le Chesnay (France)
Home Page: http://www.teaser.fr/~bdebreil/
Chats possible through PowWow (in writing only)
email: bdebreil@teaser.fr