Originally Posted By: Panzerman
Theres alot of things in your story I have trouble with, but Ill touch on the high spots. How could the cars been the price of a new Ferrari, when they were making similar versions in Ford Rangers and I saw fleets of what looked like company trucks. You dont buy company trucks at Ferrari prices. On the guy that does conversions in the movie to any car, that is not the first time I heard of him and that was all the same qoutes as I heard before, nickel batteries will go 100,000 miles or the life of the car for around $20,000, far cry from 2.5 million(Ferrari). If it wasnt a threat, Chevron Texeco would not be buying battery technology. Iam not a goverment conspiracy nut looking for black helicopters, but I do believe GM weilded alot of clout in the 90s and the oil companies always have and always will. Only thing I will agree on you with is that its a complex problem and Iam sure alot of money has already been made. GE and Siemens cant compete with the money of Shell and Chevron.
Not arguing, but just to clarify some comments:
A new Ferrari costs about $250k+ depending on the model.
The Ranger wasn't cheap, but certainly less than the EV1 and it was a retrofit in a vehicle that has the space to add things to it. The batteries are still very, very expensive and moreso on a lifecycle basis.
Lifespan has to be quoted based on two things: duty cycle (i.e. how it is used - driving types) and calendar life. As I said before, the depth of discharge is directly related to cycle life. You need to compare the size and weight of the batteries for the application.
The part that is different from the oil industry/car mfg conspiracy issues of the past, is that the technology is the exact same needs that the consumer electronics/PC/cell phone industry uses and needs. There have been billions to improve batteries for those devices alone, because batteries today are just barely adequate for most portable devices and getting more and more power hungry. If something is solved, it will show up in portable devices first, then adapted to cars, due to readiness of people willing to pay for longer runtimes,without more bulk in portable devices today.
Vanadium oxide batteries are a great idea for large scale power storage. It is expensive, but can be positive value for industrial apps. For cars, it is too expensive, large, and heavy. It is being used to as electrodes in Li-ion batteries in some developments lately.
GE and Siemens have plenty of money to figure it out on their own.
The movie has so many issues that I think it actually does a great disservice to developing electric cars. I guess like the Ranger, why doesn't someone just make an electric car in their backyard or at a University with existing materials? They all exist. The problem is not easy.
Batteries biggest challenge to go beyond short distance city cars, is to increase energy density as much as possible to enable long distance driving and long times between recharges, without being extremely heavy. All this while lasting a long time and being economically viable.
Interesting discussion!
Theres alot of things in your story I have trouble with, but Ill touch on the high spots. How could the cars been the price of a new Ferrari, when they were making similar versions in Ford Rangers and I saw fleets of what looked like company trucks. You dont buy company trucks at Ferrari prices. On the guy that does conversions in the movie to any car, that is not the first time I heard of him and that was all the same qoutes as I heard before, nickel batteries will go 100,000 miles or the life of the car for around $20,000, far cry from 2.5 million(Ferrari). If it wasnt a threat, Chevron Texeco would not be buying battery technology. Iam not a goverment conspiracy nut looking for black helicopters, but I do believe GM weilded alot of clout in the 90s and the oil companies always have and always will. Only thing I will agree on you with is that its a complex problem and Iam sure alot of money has already been made. GE and Siemens cant compete with the money of Shell and Chevron.
Not arguing, but just to clarify some comments:
A new Ferrari costs about $250k+ depending on the model.
The Ranger wasn't cheap, but certainly less than the EV1 and it was a retrofit in a vehicle that has the space to add things to it. The batteries are still very, very expensive and moreso on a lifecycle basis.
Lifespan has to be quoted based on two things: duty cycle (i.e. how it is used - driving types) and calendar life. As I said before, the depth of discharge is directly related to cycle life. You need to compare the size and weight of the batteries for the application.
The part that is different from the oil industry/car mfg conspiracy issues of the past, is that the technology is the exact same needs that the consumer electronics/PC/cell phone industry uses and needs. There have been billions to improve batteries for those devices alone, because batteries today are just barely adequate for most portable devices and getting more and more power hungry. If something is solved, it will show up in portable devices first, then adapted to cars, due to readiness of people willing to pay for longer runtimes,without more bulk in portable devices today.
Vanadium oxide batteries are a great idea for large scale power storage. It is expensive, but can be positive value for industrial apps. For cars, it is too expensive, large, and heavy. It is being used to as electrodes in Li-ion batteries in some developments lately.
GE and Siemens have plenty of money to figure it out on their own.
The movie has so many issues that I think it actually does a great disservice to developing electric cars. I guess like the Ranger, why doesn't someone just make an electric car in their backyard or at a University with existing materials? They all exist. The problem is not easy.
Batteries biggest challenge to go beyond short distance city cars, is to increase energy density as much as possible to enable long distance driving and long times between recharges, without being extremely heavy. All this while lasting a long time and being economically viable.
Interesting discussion!
