Subject: Re: [Fot] Electric cars

From: "Barr, Scott" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 16:30:12 +0000

50 years from now there will be a Vintage Prius Racing list on whatever
version of the internet exists at that point.  Some crusty old crock will be
telling tales about the old days, when batteries went bad and how they first
learned to refurbish those batteries in their driveway, using stuff they dug
out of dumpsters and how, later, they figured out how to boost the discharge
and recharge rates of those stock batteries without them blowing up all the
time.

Scott B.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of RACER BUD
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 11:18 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [Fot] Electric cars

What happens to The electric cars when the batteries are  no good
anymore..?..and what does it cost to replace tham..or..what becomes of the
car?

RB
_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

http://www.fot-racing.com

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

http://www.fot-racing.com

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive

---

From: "RACER BUD" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:10:26 -0700

Thanks Randall..Quite enlightening.
RB

-----Original Message-----
From: Randall [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 11:07 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Fot] Electric cars

---- RACER BUD <[email-masked]> wrote:
> anymore..?..and what does it cost to replace tham..or..what becomes of
> the car?

They're kind of expensive to replace; buddy of mine said the battery for his
1st gen Prius was $7k but he convinced Toyota to cover half (which I suspect
means the wholesale price is closer to $3.5k).  (Yes, I realize a Prius has a
relatively small battery, it's just a data point).

When the car isn't worth the price of a new or rebuilt battery, it gets
scrapped just like any other car that isn't worth repairing.

At the moment, AFAIK the nearest Li-ion battery recycling facility is in
Canada.  Toxco was supposed to open a new plant in Ohio last year, but it
doesn't seem to have happened yet.  At the moment, lithium is so cheap that it
doesn't pay to recycle it; but likely that will change if electric cars gain
more acceptance.

Personally, I don't see full electric as ever replacing internal combustion.
There is certainly a niche market for them, short distance commuting and so
on.  But the advantages aren't nearly as great as some folks like to claim.
They aren't anywhere close to "zero pollution"; its just that most of the
pollution comes out somewhere else.  NFI, YMMV, etc.

Randall

---

From: Bill Babcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 11:41:46 -1000

Like any other emerging infrastructure, it's not as "good" as the technology
it replaces. Of course if we were starting off fresh with no transportation
technology a piston-driven internal combustion engine would the the very last
possibility considered. Horrible design choice, but after a hundred years of
development it's pretty tough to compete with either the design or the
infrastructure that supports it. It's SO entrenched that hybrid cars use it as
a generator driver when a turbine-derived design would be so much more
efficient, and a small fuel cell would be even better.

Electric and other technologies will replace gasoline as a fuel, and it's
conceivable that a piston-driven engine will be replaced. Such a hideous and
intrinsically limited design.

My next car for Maui will definitely be electric-based. I can and will run it
for "free". I generate about 200KWH per week with photovoltaic panels, and
I'll double that next year. Given Maui's electric rates and the cost of
gasoline they pay for themselves in five years. I don't have any other
investments that come anywhere close to the ROI. I can do math, so until the
engine in my jeep drops out onto the road I'll probably still be using that,
but given expected battery life an electric vehicle pencils out very nicely
here.

I've also built an electric bicycle here that I use for shuttling myself when
I do downwind runs (drop the bike off, drive to the start, do the run, drive
the bike back to pick up the jeep. Yes I could pedal, but after paddling a
stand up surfboard ten miles a little boost is nice. My bicycle runs on the
same 4S 5000MAH lithium polymer batteries that I use for my quadcopter drone.
I just slot four of them into a case I made and it's good for about thrity
miles with hills.

I also made an electric tricycle that everyone in the Northwest is really
tired of seeing in the pits. It does 50 MPH on the flats and I've done a
century ride with it--over Mount Hood. A "short" ride with it is 50 miles.
Great little grocery getter.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YC_o66ABn6M

> Donate: http://www.team.net/donate.html
> Forums: http://www.team.net/forums
> Unsubscribe/Manage: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:07:53 -0500

The problem with electric cars is that they run on whatever produces the 
electricity, usually natural gas or coal, both produce green house 
gases. The way you're doing it, Bill, makes more sense.  To have a 5 
year payout, Hawaii must have exceptional incentives for installing 
solar panels.  Payout periods are usually 10 to 15 years. The problem 
with incentives is that they usually change and rarely for the better.
Larry

On 4/1/2013 4:41 PM, Bill Babcock wrote:
> Unsubscribe/Manage: http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]

---

From: "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 14:00:04 -0600

You are correct.  It takes coal fired power plants, gas fire power plants,
hydro, solar and wind to power these batteries!  Then they end up in a
landfill as it doesn't pay to recycle them.  But they are "green" vehicles and
oh so manly. I am waiting for a hydrogen vehicle.  Zero emissions and
power....maybe not in my lifetime but.

I almost got hit walking in a parking lot a few months back. The guy was
backing up in his Prius and since it makes no noise, he just about clipped me.
Had I not heard the sand under the tires, and yelled, well.....

Ty

Sent from my iPad
(Please excuse any errors or typos)

> Unsubscribe/Manage:
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

---

From: Bobby Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)

not having an electric or hybrid type car I have an opinion... they are not as 
'green' as they could be touted in the long run. The lithium batteries are not 
forever batteries and at some date and time they will have to be disposed of. 
I'm not sure of the re-cycling phase of that process... and lithium is not a 
natural product found easily around the world...
I had a neighbor, Rick Perry (not the Texas governor) who was a 5 state 
representative for Audi America.. (we own our third Audi) and his thought about 
diesel was pretty interesting... I think most of us 'racer' types have seen what 
Audi has done in the past with Formula 1 and diesel powered F1 super 
cars....amazing success story I'm sure most will agree...but.. 100 mpg is not a 
stretch in the real world for a diesel powered vehicle in the near future... 
diesel is a product that can be made out of natural products, like cooking oil, 
in the bio-diesel realm of things...
Seem to reason IMHO that diesel or bio-diesel could be a long term solution to 
energy and 'green' standards for the future of consumer automobiles.... just a 
thought....   Bobby Whitehead
To: [email-masked]
Sent: Mon, April 1, 2013 11:20:09 AM
Subject: [Fot] Electric cars

RB

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2013 21:00:05 -0500

Diesel is a technology overlooked in the US, because the solution has 
been dictated by the government.   Europe is about 50% diesel. I have a 
friend that averages 50 mpg in his Volkswagen Golf.  My big X5 BMW gets 
29 mpg at 70 mph.  With that massive torque and 6 speed transmission it 
easily pulls my 18 foot enclosed car trailer with about 14 mpg.  I 
previously had a Ford Expedition with a 5.4L gas engine.  It didn't tow 
as well, averaging about 9 mpg.  Diesels still produce green house 
gases, but to a lesser extent than gas engines.  Otherwise, with today.s 
technology it is very clean. Unfortunately, it has a bad reputation with 
people that remember all the noise and soot from city buses.

This discussion is starting to get political, so I'm dropping out from 
now on.
Larry

---

From: Bill Babcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 19:59:38 -1000

It's not really the incentives that make it worthwhile, though they were just
fine, thank you, but there are plenty of people here with $1000 per month
electric bills. The main generators burn oil and there's a fuel surcharge that
floats on top of the approved electric rate. We have a growing number of wind
generators, but it's still less than 15% of the island's power.  So you spend
$40K on photovoltaics, drop your electric bill from $800 per month (in my
case) to $14 and the math is pretty simple. In today's 3% ROI economy I'd have
to invest $320,000 to yield $9600 per year,  so my $40K investment seems
pretty sound.

The "green" aspect of electric cars is shifting pretty quickly, though
honestly, I could care less about that kind of bullshit. The US is fast
becoming the Saudi Arabia of Natural Gas (because of shale fracking), we're
already the Saudi Arabia of Coal and we're likely to become the Saudi Arabia
of Oil. Weirdly blessed with natural resources. Coal is pretty nasty, but you
can burn natural gas in a lot of ways that limit it's environmental effect.

All of our worries about global warming and other greenhouse gasses will be
pretty trivial as the third world continues it's steep ramp up the consumption
curve. China will surpass the US in CO2 generation this year, and their
pollution levels in dust and coal black are double ours. Move your troublesome
manufacturing out of the country all you like, it's still just one planet.

Electric cars are a popcorn fart compared to the real issues that face the
world. But saying they're useless because they use electricity from plants
that produce greenhouse gas demonstrates a deep lack of understanding of the
economics of transportable fuel vs. centralized power generation, as well as
just  basic thermodynamics. Its just an easy thing to repeat. If you really do
the math or a little research you'll be more enthusiastic.

> The problem with electric cars is that they run on whatever produces the
electricity, usually natural gas or coal, both produce green house gases. The
way you're doing it, Bill, makes more sense.  To have a 5 year payout, Hawaii
must have exceptional incentives for installing solar panels.  Payout periods
are usually 10 to 15 years. The problem with incentives is that they usually
change and rarely for the better.

---

From: "Tim Murphy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 17:23:53 -0500

Hydrogen has to be produced also.  You can either extract it from the air or
strip it off of water molecules.  Both processes take energy, and if I
recall correctly, not necessarily an insignificant amount.

Tim

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of [email-masked]
Sent: Monday, April 01, 2013 3:00 PM
To: Randall
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [Fot] Electric cars

landfill as it doesn't pay to recycle them.  But they are "green" vehicles
and

I almost got hit walking in a parking lot a few months back. The guy was
backing up in his Prius and since it makes no noise, he just about clipped
me.
Had I not heard the sand under the tires, and yelled, well.....

Ty

Sent from my iPad

>> anymore..?..and what does it cost to replace tham..or..what becomes of
the
1st gen Prius was $7k but he convinced Toyota to cover half (which I suspect
means the wholesale price is closer to $3.5k).  (Yes, I realize a Prius has
a
relatively small battery, it's just a data point).
Canada.  Toxco was supposed to open a new plant in Ohio last year, but it
doesn't seem to have happened yet.  At the moment, lithium is so cheap that
it
doesn't pay to recycle it; but likely that will change if electric cars gain
more acceptance.

Archive: http://www.team.net/archive
http://autox.team.net/mailman/options/fot/[email-masked]
_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

---

From: Bill Babcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 21:57:43 -1000

One last comment and then I'll quit. the REAL issue holding back cheap,
efficient, "green" transportation is the mixed mode of transport. for a car to
be safe it has to survive on a road with trucks and existing two ton cars --
which is the average weight of cars in America, from the 3,200 pound Honda
Accord (most popular car) to the 5500 pound F150. There's no way to be super
efficient when you have to move two tons to carry one person--which is all the
average car has in it (well, 1.24 occupants, but its close enough). One ton
per person is ridiculous, especially when you have to climb hills, two is
insane. Should be something more like two hundred pounds per person. Easy to
do with carbon fiber and modern electric stuff. My tricycle weighs 65 pounds
and goes 65 MPH. Stops on a dime and gives you seven cents change. Of course
you have to be crazy to do that in mixed traffic, which is pretty much what
the cops have been telling me each time they catch me.

Next time you're stuck in traffic, picture all those massive cars replaced
with tiny, light, two person vehicles. Poof, traffic jam gone. Except in
Italy, where it's already happened but the roads were built for bicycles--or
maybe scooters.
_______________________________________________
[email-masked]

---

From: Bill Babcock <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2013 10:33:04 -1000

Yup. Numerous ways of making hydrogen, but all involve either natural gas or
methane as a feedstock plus steam to feed the reaction, or hydrolysis, using
electricity. It's just a transportable storage medium, the same as electricity
in batteries. And of course it takes more energy to produce it than it
releases when you recombine it. Trust good old themodynamics to apply a tax.

Transportable fuels require a lot of energy to make and transport, including
gasolene and diesel.

A common error is to just look at how much energy is required to obtain and
refine the fuel. It also takes energy to build and maintain the refineries,
and build, operate and maintain the transportation structure to and from the
refineries, build, maintain and operate the gas stations. Seven percent of the
energy in the US is used to operate refineries. Crank that up to include all
the infrastructure and transport costs and it's probably more like ten
percent. That works out to about 15KWH per gallon.

Gasolene energy equivalence is roughly 33 KWH/gallon

Ethanol generates about 25 KWH/gal. Ethanol gets a bad rap, mostly because the
early plants (1980) were inefficient. State of the art plants for corn-based
ethanol are nearly twice as efficient as early plants, and create co-products
that have value as feed, fertilizer, and plastic feedstock. An energy output
of around 84,000 BTUs/gallon requires 48,000BTUs/gal to produce and the
co-products are worth about 36,000 BTUs for a net energy gain of about 72,000
BTUs -- about 150%. That calculation includes all energy inputs, including
bulk transport, fertilizer, etc. but does not include the infrastructure
energy costs required to build refineries.

Of course corn used for ethanol starves a kid in india, so they say. That
arguement didn't work for me when my Mom told me to clean my plate. It remains
a bit thin today. Ultimately there's cellulosic ethanol, and if the ethanol
market keeps growing we'll be making that too. The yield is higher in terms of
energy in/energy out, but the infrastructure is more expensive. No one is
jumping on that. The co-products from cellulosic ethanol are more valuable
than corn-based. Good plastic feedstocks, surfactants, building materials,
specialized alchohols, etc.

Again, no easy answers, but facile statements like "ethanol takes more energy
to produce than it yields" is simply repeating what some flack got some lazy
reporters to publish.

---

From: Larry Young <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2013 14:54:12 -0500

It takes as much energy to convert water to hydrogen (and oxygen) as you 
get back when you burn it to get H20 back, minus those good old 
efficiency loses.  In thermodynamics there is never a free lunch. 
Storing hydrogen is one of the major problems, since it doesn't like to 
exist in liquid form and thus takes up a lot of space.  Since Oklahoma 
is a gas producing state, there is a lot of interest in CNG, but it has 
the same storage problem.  Nevertheless, a lot of public vehicles are 
being converted to CNG and a few filling stations are even showing up.  
Hydrogen seems like it would be very clean, but if all cars ran on it, 
how much would the humidity change in our cities?  Would Phoenix become 
more like Houston?  Not a happy thought.

On 4/2/2013 5:23 PM, Tim Murphy wrote:
> Behalf Of [email-masked](