News Electric cars can now do 300 miles on a single charge

[dumbo2007]

Screeching to a halt near you soon ! the Tesla Model S

http://www.techworld.com.au/article/433612/tesla_cto_talks_model_batteries_in-car_linux/

Hope they are able to make it cheap soon :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sf-wlvVZmJg


The difference in air pollution may be as significant as when cities moved from horse drawn carriages to gasoline vehicles.

Wonder if car companies having invested hugely in petrol/diesel engines and tech over the years, will let go of it very easily though

IDGNS: What is the state of Lithium Ion battery technology today? It seems that for any gadget powered by Lithium Ion, longer life is always critical.
JBS: Technology in these batteries is constantly improving. It's a pretty exciting thing from a car point of view. Today, we're just at a tipping point where it's possible for the first time ever to build an electric vehicle that has a range similar to a gasoline vehicle. This car has 300 miles of range, and the Lithium Ion batteries are getting better [by] maybe 7 or 8 percent every year. A little bit more energy and range, and also the cost is improving. So, it's a very exciting time, and vehicles we'll build 10 years from now could have almost potentially twice the range of today, or a battery pack that weighed half as much as the battery packs we have today.

 

[garyw]

The difference in air pollution may be as significant as when cities moved from horse drawn carriages to gasoline vehicles.

Except that there will be more demand for electricity so more demand for coal, gas and nuclear power stations.

In my opinion this doesn't fix the pollution problem, it just moves it.

 

[dumbo2007]

Unless electricity generation gradually goes all nuclear for the baseload. The latest generation of nuclear plants are apparently much safer. Nuclear waste disposal is still a problem though.

I read somewhere that there are possibilities for storing charge in car batteries too during times of high generation from renewable power sources.

 

[Keatah]

Perhaps even if the pollution is moved, economies of scale can be realized.
Thing is with electric cars vs petrol power is this:

A petro engine is about 20% efficient. 60% loss going to radiated heat and the other 20% to mechanical friction. But the fuel (I don't know the specifics) is pretty high in energy density, easy to store for short periods and has a vast infrastructure built around mechanically simple & durable mechanisms. I think we can convert petrol to energy at a 65% mass-to-heat ratio or something. IDNR..

Whereas with an electric motor, uP controlled, brushless, and all that, the actual motor part is 90-95% efficient. But unlike the petrol car, the energy source is not high-density or efficient. The batteries are at best, what, 35%-50% efficient? Internal resistance and charge density being the bane. The electric motor is great for torque at low speeds. Just look at Diesel locomotives with traction motors.

So on one hand you've got an efficient propulsor with an inefficient power source. And the other is an efficient power source with an inefficient propulsor..

I personally believe that electrics are the better option. Batteries and their chemistries will continue to improve. And there's always the option to do photovoltaics as a charge source when the weather permits. Furthermore you have more freedom in vehicle design and mechanical layout with electrics.

I don't know about the safety of the batteries. But if a battery is smashed, sometimes they get hot and explode. I suppose this is no better or worse than a tank of gas..

For me, 300 miles a charge is going to be more than sufficient! And it's good to see some major parking garages in the city have an electric connector for topping off your ride, at minimal cost.

 

[Artlav]

The batteries are at best, what, 35%-50% efficient?

Where did you get that number from?

Efficiency of a battery is proportion of energy given out to energy taken to charge it, and last time i checked, li-ion had it at 97-99%.

In my opinion this doesn't fix the pollution problem, it just moves it.

Moves it to a place it can be easier to fix.
Solar, hydro, nuclear, etc gives no pollution.
Coal, gas, etc could be filtered .
One powerplant-sized filter would likely cost less than a thousand car-sized filters.

Worst case, the pollution would be away from the cities - if not less global warming, then at least more health.

 

[palebluevoice]

Except that there will be more demand for electricity so more demand for coal, gas and nuclear power stations.

In my opinion this doesn't fix the pollution problem, it just moves it.

Exactly; but it moves it to a place that's much more efficient, and compatible with future energy plans(fusion, more efficient fission, handwavium, etc.). Besides, nuclear is clean, and coal/gas powerplants are more efficient than gasoline in cars. ($0.15/kwhr from the power company vs the $0.75-$1.50/kwhr I pay for generator(outage/mobile) usage, most of which is idling). Get efficient and flexible enough solar panels, and you could collect enough energy in the parking lot to drive from work and back.

 

[Keatah]

I don't remember where I got the battery efficiency figure from. But I recall it did include heat generation and resistance losses. If I find the paper and bookmark I'll be sure to post it.

Well.. If we have a central source of pollution, isn't there a way to pump all the waste gasses underground? Has that ever been tried before?

---------- Post added at 06:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:11 AM ----------

Use the ground as a filter medium?

 

[dumbo2007]

It will pollute underground water tables and pollute the soil too as the smoke settles.

If there was a huge underground cavity below the water level from where oil has been removed then perhaps.

 

[Donamy]

Funny, battleships move up and down twice a day. Doesn't anyone see the potential in that.

 

[Loru]

Funny, battleships move up and down twice a day. Doesn't anyone see the potential in that.

Well... they're working on it already
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_power[/ame]

 

[SpaceNut]

Yeah, I think at this point, if Musk wants to get Tesla into a position where it's not eating money anymore then they need to come out with a low end model. A low priced model would certainly widen the customer base, and many more people would consider a Tesla if it was priced more in line with the low end of the market.

 

[jedidia]

The article says nothing about the payload for those 300 miles. Pitty.

 

[RGClark]

...
The difference in air pollution may be as significant as when cities moved from horse drawn carriages to gasoline vehicles.
Wonder if car companies having invested hugely in petrol/diesel engines and tech over the years, will let go of it very easily though

Very informative article. Thanks.

Bob Clark

 

[RisingFury]

Efficiency of large electric motors (> 2 kW) quickly nears 99.9% and efficiency of Lithium Polymer batteries is very high, beyond 90%. They have almost zero internal resistance.

Small brushless motors (> 1 kW) for RC aircraft are already in the range of 90% efficient.

 

[FADEC]

Except that there will be more demand for electricity so more demand for coal, gas and nuclear power stations.

In my opinion this doesn't fix the pollution problem, it just moves it.

We have to think completely different. Coal, gas and uranium are all limited power sources.

There is one power source in our solar system that delivers more energy for billions of years than we're ever able to consume. Designing electric cars is only one necessary stone of a mosaic. Men has proven its intelligence not only one time. Solving the energy demand is not a question of possibility. It is only a question of intelligence, consumer behavior, and political will.


Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.

Lord Kelvin, 1895 (president of the Royal Society)

 

[jedidia]

Coal, gas and uranium are all limited power sources.

Fixed that for you

 

[MattBaker]

We have to think completely different. Coal, gas and uranium are all endless power sources.

I hope this is a typo
endless=always exisiting, tidal, hydro, solar energy
finite=just available in a certain amount, coal, gas, oil, uranium
:ninja:'d by jedidia, switzerland and it's reliability

I think 300 miles are enough, except for holidays I've never driven more in one day, but my problem with electric cars is not their range (I would be totally OK with 100 miles), but their price. As long as it's four, five, six-times more expensive than a normal car it's not going to become an alternative.
That's the main problem with change, as long as everything is OK, people are not going to sacrifice their standard of living for the environment and when they realize they have to change something it's too late...

 

[C3PO]

That's quite an improvement. Last summer there was a Tesla demonstration here. It's battery pack was one year old, so the car ground to a halt after 40 km. The car had been used for demonstrations on the pool-table-flat roads in Denmark, but the hills around here killed off the range completely.

---------- Post added at 09:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:36 PM ----------

finite=just available in a certain amount, coal, gas, oil, uranium

How about lithium?

 

[MattBaker]

How about lithium?

Also limited, but the reserves, so what is actually found and economical are large enough for at least 300-400 years (and if we find a technology that makes it cheap to get the lithium out of the oceans...), so for the next 200 years I wouldn't call it a problem.

 

[TitanII]

Time to charge an electric vehicle is totally unacceptable to me. 8 hours + in many cases unless you pay the extra $ for the higher capacity charger - which cuts the charge to about 3 hours...but halves your battery life to 3 or 4 years. Replacing the battery would cost more than most current gasoline fueled vehicles. Yes, a few of my ex-yuppie friends have tried them, and these are first-hand real-world observations.

Yeah, I can see electrics/hybrids or something like Chevrolet's "Eco" systems being offered as options or alternatives, but not as outright replacements anytime soon.

Got rid of the 370Z (which was a beautiful car and a helluva blast to drive, but a total pig economically) and bought a 2 year old G5. Nope, not even in the same class, but passably decent looking with a 5 speed/4 cylinder engine. $27 fills the tank and I generally run 10 - 12 days on 1 tank of gas @ 34 - 39 mpg. You'd have to pry the keys to my gas driven pollution-mobile outta my cold, dead hands.