Electric cars are a pipe dream

[adoucette]

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5615

Well then all you are doing is questioning Billvon's use of "reserves" to mean the sum of Proven reserves of 284 trillion cubic feet, as well as the sum of the nation’s probable, possible and speculative reserves.

Normally though I just use Proved Reserves myself.

But since proved reserves continue to grow there is no good reason to think the number is overstated.

http://www.eia.gov/oil_gas/natural_gas/data_publications/crude_oil_natural_gas_reserves/cr.html

 

[billvon]

I think one of the ideas behind this is to fill the air tanks during off-peak hours and that has some efficiency improvement for the power plants.

Yes, and that's an advantage of EV's as well. An additional advantage of compressed air is that you can compress it during off-peak, store it onsite and then use it for "refueling" later. (Although transfilling results in more loss of energy, since you can't just "swap" the contents of the vehicle and stationary tanks.)

At least it's as environmentally harmless as you can get, the only hazard is possible shrapnel (I mean there's no heat or flame from a tank rupture, no toxic chemicals) and of course air is free. It would seem to have the lowest maintenance cost, and it would accept any kind of fuel or renewable energy source, simply by connecting the compressor to whatever sources are available.

An interesting variant of this were steam switching locomotives that used insulated tanks to store live steam. They'd be pressurized in the morning, used for a few hours to move train cars around then recharged as needed. That way the boiler, fuel source etc could be stationary.

 

[Billy T]

More on surging availablity of cheap NG:

“… The EIA raised eyebrows in April 2011 after releasing a study* that estimated technically recoverable shale gas resources in 32 countries at 5,760 trillion cubic feet. According to this report, Argentina boasts the world's third-largest unconventional gas resource; roughly half this 774 trillion cubic feet worth of natural gas is potentially located in the Neuquen Basin, an area in west-central Argentina that includes the provinces of La Pampa, Mendoza, Neuquen and Rio Negro. …”

Quote from: Yahoo mail to me, but

*Read study here: http://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/worldshalegas/?cigx=d.kac,stid.18676,sid.250664,lid.11,mid.8616

Also note that this data is BEFORE the huge new field off E. Africa was proven. – see more on it in post 2507 at: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2909091&postcount=2507

With so much CONVENTIONAL natural gas very recently been found, in a few years, the US´s huge “technically recoverable shale gas resources” may be neither “economically recoverable” nor conform to evolving environmental laws.”

Few speak of the huge release of CH4 dissolved the back flow water that brings up the oil or what to do with this huge volume of very dirty water (now just held in artificial lakes). I own stock in ESPH which can clean up this dirty water for re-injection without using Chemicals and has started to do so more economically at a few fracking oil well sites, with their moble trailer units. See how they do that here: http://www.hydrozonix.com/technology/hydrozonix-ef60

 

[elte]

I had a friend who converted a car to electric. She originally used a brushed motor. They just weren't worth the trouble.

First she had to replace them (of course.) And then she noticed that she was getting brush material all over the place as they wore down. Then she had a few problems with the connections between the brushes and the busbars. She also went to a higher battery voltage and started noticing arcing at higher speeds depending on how the commutator wires were dressed.

Then she replaced them again, and noticed that now the commutator was wearing down. She got a quote to replace the commutator (several thousand) and finally switched to an AC motor. Now she's got higher efficiency, more power overall, less maintenance and no brush dust.

I've long feared brake dust as a health hazard, yet I don't think brush dust would be bad that way. The time I saw brush dust was in that abusive electric lawn mower. I wonder why she had so much trouble. I suspect they were not properly limiting current to her motor, probably to push acceleration to the limit. I guess her starting acceleration went down with the new system since brushed motors generally have higher stall torque.

I built an electric bicycle and the brushed motor has always worked very well. I've never had a power tool show any brush trouble at all. Golf carts have long used brushed motors, and I wonder how they've done. Thanks for the report. I think you have made the point well that an electric car for the masses is going to be much more tricky to make than an improved golf cart. I'm pretty bummed about that and it leads me to doubt that automobile driving will enter into my future again. I miss it, yet I'm just tired of the complexities of gasoline engines.

 

[adoucette]

I'm pretty bummed about that and it leads me to doubt that automobile driving will enter into my future again. I miss it, yet I'm just tired of the complexities of gasoline engines.

You know for most of us we just turn the key and put our foot down.

The complexities of the engine just don't seem to matter.

 

[elte]

You know for most of us we just turn the key and put our foot down.

The complexities of the engine just don't seem to matter.

It matters to me, but I guess you're right, most people don't seem to care. I see cars as being just for the rich, even though the public doesn't see that yet. I suspect that the realization will eventually take hold that people let the idea of convenient personal transportation for everyone get away and the momentum of tradition has been lost. I hope it works out better than that because the trouble of waiting for the school bus is etched in my memory. People should have better than that.

I perceive that you have a big stake in automobiles, somehow, and I hope it all works out well.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

I think one of the ideas behind this is to fill the air tanks during off-peak hours and that has some efficiency improvement for the power plants.


This is what I would have thought. Surprisingly, the little Indian car he was showing us claims 185 miles range.

One of the interesting aspects of compressed air energy is how different the perspective is. For electric power we think of Joules in terms of Watt-seconds. but here it's pressure times volume

1 J = 1 Pa-m[sup]3[/sup] = 1 N/m[sup]2[/sup] x m[sup]3[/sup] = 1 N-m = 1 kg-m[sup]2[/sup]/sec[sup]2[/sup]

At first I was tempted to equate the energy density with the mass of the air being compressed, and conclude that you're right, Lithium is far lighter (per mole) than air. But then I looked at this and thought: if I add 1 kg of air I only get 1 J more? That can't be right. So it took me a minute to back away from that idea, and to recognize that what's being transferred into the tank isn't just mass, it's the acceleration of that mass to produce force (per unit area, in the compressor). And as the tank fills, the energy in the compressor is transferring less and less mass and more and more acceleration, just to produce the next Joule. So the energy density becomes more and more ideal as the tank pressure increases. I suppose we could look at the mass of the filled tank and compare its total energy to that of a fully charged ion battery...but I would also compare the motor weight (magnets and coils are heavy) to the pneumatic engine, which may be relatively light.

Another odd feature of the compressed air car is that the energy in the tank is proportional to the ambient temperature. So if I always fill my tank in a cold environment, dissipating the heat of compression, I can then "gain free energy" of the ambient when the pressure naturally rises during the hottest part of the day. Conversely, if I'm driving and a cold front blows in, I will lose valuable pressure. But it does offer this potential advantage for "riding the thermoclines" so to speak. It's a potentially free geothermal source.

To give an example, suppose I have 1 MJ in the tank at 0° C (273 K). When the ambient temp rises to 40° C (313 K) - a scorching summer day - then my energy boost is 313/273 MJ = 1.146 MJ, or almost a 15% improvement. Obviously you wlll never see that much temperature excursion in a short time span, but even at half that much change you get a free 7.5% gain, which is worth something anyway.

By the same token, I should be able to heat the tank with an emergency fuel supply, to squeeze a little more air out as the tank empties. Also, I can imagine a hand pump for emergency use, or even a low power (slow fill) motor-compressor.



At least it's as environmentally harmless as you can get, the only hazard is possible shrapnel (I mean there's no heat or flame from a tank rupture, no toxic chemicals) and of course air is free. It would seem to have the lowest maintenance cost, and it would accept any kind of fuel or renewable energy source, simply by connecting the compressor to whatever sources are available.

I was thinking it could obtain initial use in the US (where the current version won't be street legal) for purposes such as golf-courses, air-port shuttles, and other off-road use where people/baggage transportation is required. Down the road, I would imagine they would beef-it-up to make it street legal in the US, which will raise the cost, but they should still be able to make it fairly light. And if it costs 5-fold ($12.45 for 185 miles), that's still much better than a 20 mpg gas car ($3.20 for 20 miles as is typical for US cars). I suspect the cost will go down as the number of vehicles increases, too. I can't wait to see the motorcycles using this!

What's great is that it is infra-structure ready. All that gas stations will need is an appropriate compressor and storage tank. And maybe a little instruction to the user on how to make a good compressed-air connection - no room for sloppy connections. But that's true with compressed LNG, too.

 

[adoucette]

It matters to me, but I guess you're right, most people don't seem to care.

You haven't given me a reason I should care.
Indeed, my vehicle's engine is more complex then the ones I used to work at under the shade tree, but then it is also a lot more reliable. The vehicle itself is far more comfortable and safe as well.

I see cars as being just for the rich, even though the public doesn't see that yet.

Guess not, and seeing as one can get a decent new car with a 100,000 mile/10 year warranty for $13,000 it's hard to reconcile that assessment.

I perceive that you have a big stake in automobiles, somehow, and I hope it all works out well.

I have zero stake in automobiles, nor their manufacturers or the suppliers of their fuel/parts/repair or insurance.

I work out of my house and I put relatively few miles on my 10 year old truck each year (I'm averaging about 6,000 miles now)

 

[billvon]

I've long feared brake dust as a health hazard, yet I don't think brush dust would be bad that way. The time I saw brush dust was in that abusive electric lawn mower. I wonder why she had so much trouble. I suspect they were not properly limiting current to her motor, probably to push acceleration to the limit. I guess her starting acceleration went down with the new system since brushed motors generally have higher stall torque.

Oh, she can spin the tires now! I'll see if I can attach a video.

Note that that's not a characteristic of the motor type, rather of the selection of a motor that is rated to the power you want. You can definitely build brushed motors to get whatever power you want, but they're always going to be bigger (due to the mechanics of the brushes) a little dirtier (due to the eroding brushes) a little less efficient (due to arcing and increased resistance) and harder to do regenerative braking on (due to an unchangeable phase angle and base speed.)

I built an electric bicycle and the brushed motor has always worked very well.

I did too - but the power in those motors was around 400 watts. I have an ebike now that will give me 1300 watts with a brushless motor, and I much prefer it. Part of that is the power (which you could get with a brushed motor) and part of it is the ability to regen instead of using the brakes (which you can't easily do with a brushed motor.)

 

[elte]

You haven't given me a reason I should care.
Indeed, my vehicle's engine is more complex then the ones I used to work at under the shade tree, but then it is also a lot more reliable. The vehicle itself is far more comfortable and safe as well.

My early vehicles were more reliable. The last four were more trouble and had more go wrong. More complexity/parts means there is more that can break. If present vehicles were simpler, that should generally increase reliability compared to something more complex.

Guess not, and seeing as one can get a decent new car with a 100,000 mile/10 year warranty for $13,000 it's hard to reconcile that assessment.

For most people, that is a lot of money. Time has value too, warranty servicing is inconvenient.

I have zero stake in automobiles, nor their manufacturers or the suppliers of their fuel/parts/repair or insurance.

I work out of my house and I put relatively few miles on my 10 year old truck each year (I'm averaging about 6,000 miles now)

The cost of using the truck could feel less if it is used in your business.

 

[billvon]

My early vehicles were more reliable. The last four were more trouble and had more go wrong.

Really? My first car was a 1973 Datsun. I was always working on that thing. Plugs would get fouled, points would go, timing would go out of adjustment, gas gauge would start reading badly, speedometer cable would squeak etc. In winter it often needed push starting even when the battery was OK. There were half a dozen holes rusted in it by the time it retired. It was all fixable but I wouldn't call it very reliable.

My latest car is a 2006 Prius. 120,000 miles and no problems yet beyond someone rear-ending it.

More complexity/parts means there is more that can break. If present vehicles were simpler, that should generally increase reliability compared to something more complex.

Depends. An electronic ignition module (complex) is generally more reliable than a set of points (simple.) A fuel injector (complex) is generally more reliable than a carburetor (simple.)

 

[elte]

Oh, she can spin the tires now! I'll see if I can attach a video.

Note that that's not a characteristic of the motor type, rather of the selection of a motor that is rated to the power you want. You can definitely build brushed motors to get whatever power you want, but they're always going to be bigger (due to the mechanics of the brushes) a little dirtier (due to the eroding brushes) a little less efficient (due to arcing and increased resistance) and harder to do regenerative braking on (due to an unchangeable phase angle and base speed.)

I believe you about the burn-outs. The controller must do a good job. Did you mean it is an AC induction motor?

I did too - but the power in those motors was around 400 watts. I have an ebike now that will give me 1300 watts with a brushless motor, and I much prefer it. Part of that is the power (which you could get with a brushed motor) and part of it is the ability to regen instead of using the brakes (which you can't easily do with a brushed motor.)

I built mine completely from scratch and used a Pittman servo motor. I designed the controller and charger in a single unit, and the controller boosts the voltage from 12V to over 40V. I wanted the cost to be minimal. I built my first one 16 years ago, and I still don't like any other ones better than my homemade one. It's only a few hundred watts of assist, but that is all I want and it helps that it propels the cranks and benefits from the gears.

I'm considering regenerative braking on a friction drive system, and that is a major goal, to save wear on the brakes. I agree about the brushless motor being better for that, but I decided if I try it, it will have to be with one of my brushed ones. I would make a controller from scratch for it and I wouldn't enjoy doing it for a brushless.

 

[adoucette]

My early vehicles were more reliable. The last four were more trouble and had more go wrong. More complexity/parts means there is more that can break. If present vehicles were simpler, that should generally increase reliability compared to something more complex.

Just look at the length of the warranties now available on a new car.

5 years/100,000 mile powertrain warranty is common. 10years/100,000 miles by a few.

Far longer than they use to be.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=buy&subject=warranty&story=manWarranty

For most people, that is a lot of money. Time has value too, warranty servicing is inconvenient.

Well it also does a lot, and since 60% of US Households make over $36,000 per year, so for this majority of households, paying for this car represents less than 10% of their income.

Waiting for the bus every day is probably far more inconvenient.

 

[elte]

Really? My first car was a 1973 Datsun. I was always working on that thing. Plugs would get fouled, points would go, timing would go out of adjustment, gas gauge would start reading badly, speedometer cable would squeak etc. In winter it often needed push starting even when the battery was OK. There were half a dozen holes rusted in it by the time it retired. It was all fixable but I wouldn't call it very reliable.

My latest car is a 2006 Prius. 120,000 miles and no problems yet beyond someone rear-ending it.



Depends. An electronic ignition module (complex) is generally more reliable than a set of points (simple.) A fuel injector (complex) is generally more reliable than a carburetor (simple.)

My '79 Honda civic was my favorite car. It was the middle car in the series of ones I had and it needed about medium maintenance compared to ones before and after. Once I made a transistor point bypass from some of the high voltage RCA 2N3055 transistors, the ignition problem from burnt points was taken care of.

 

[billvon]

I believe you about the burn-outs. The controller must do a good job. Did you mean it is an AC induction motor?

Yes

I built mine completely from scratch and used a Pittman servo motor. I designed the controller and charger in a single unit, and the controller boosts the voltage from 12V to over 40V. I wanted the cost to be minimal.

The first one I used had two motors on the same axle and a 12 volt battery. You could put the motors in series or parallel; that was the only control. About as simple as you can get.

I'm surprised you built a boost converter for yours. That requires at least one power switch and a relatively large inductor along with diodes, a controller, capacitors etc. and seems to be going in the opposite direction as "simple."

I'm considering regenerative braking on a friction drive system, and that is a major goal, to save wear on the brakes. I agree about the brushless motor being better for that, but I decided if I try it, it will have to be with one of my brushed ones. I would make a controller from scratch for it and I wouldn't enjoy doing it for a brushless.

Hmm. You'd either need two boost converters for that or one boost with a switching arrangement to change the direction of the converter. And that's definitely doable, but at that point you're close to the complexity of a BLDC controller.

 

[elte]

Just look at the length of the warranties now available on a new car.

5 years/100,000 mile powertrain warranty is common. 10years/100,000 miles by a few.

Far longer than they use to be.

http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=buy&subject=warranty&story=manWarranty

I recall Chrysler/Dodge starting the long warranties to build public confidence after its financial rescue.

Well it also does a lot, and since 60% of US Households make over $36,000 per year, so for this majority of households, paying for this car represents less than 10% of their income.

Waiting for the bus every day is probably far more inconvenient.

I agree that people shouldn't have to go without the time and luggage convenience of private transportation.

 

[elte]

Yes



The first one I used had two motors on the same axle and a 12 volt battery. You could put the motors in series or parallel; that was the only control. About as simple as you can get.

I'm surprised you built a boost converter for yours. That requires at least one power switch and a relatively large inductor along with diodes, a controller, capacitors etc. and seems to be going in the opposite direction as "simple."

I got the benefit of a single 12V battery and the charger transformer was double-purposed for the motor boost/controller.

Hmm. You'd either need two boost converters for that or one boost with a switching arrangement to change the direction of the converter. And that's definitely doable, but at that point you're close to the complexity of a BLDC controller.

I'm hoping if the voltage is 12 yet the motor normally operates off a much higher voltage, boost wouldn't be needed for the regen. That's my present thought.

 

[Billy T]

Again thanks to PM from X-Man2 I know:

"AT&T since the company embarked on a 10- year commitment of up to $565 million to deploy approximately 15,000 alternative fuel vehicles through 2018, including one of the largest U.S. corporate commitments to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to date.

AT&T deployed the 5,000th vehicle, a CNG van, in Palmdale, California. ... we’ve invested in the deployment of thousands of advanced technology vehicles that promote cleaner air, use less fuel and help AT&T lower its operating costs,” said Jerome Webber, vice president, AT&T Global Fleet Operations. “While some may see just another car or truck on the road, we think these vehicles represent the shared values of the communities where we live, work and play.”

Through 2013, AT&T anticipates it will have purchased up to 8,000 CNG vehicles at an estimated cost of $350 million. Additionally, over the life of the commitment, AT&T expects to invest $215 million to replace approximately 7,100 fleet passenger cars with alternative-fuel models. ..."

Source: Gas 2.0 (http://s.tt/15VxU)

Billy T comment: Just AT&T alone may buy about as many CNG vehicles as any one EV company makes EV sales in the US. Hard to believe that natural gas is not the vehicle fuel of the future when a couple of large companies get on board with volume production of NG cars and its lower prices.

 

[adoucette]

Again thanks to PM from X-Man2 I know:

"AT&T since the company embarked on a 10- year commitment of up to $565 million to deploy approximately 15,000 alternative fuel vehicles through 2018, including one of the largest U.S. corporate commitments to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles to date.

AT&T deployed the 5,000th vehicle, a CNG van, in Palmdale, California. ... we’ve invested in the deployment of thousands of advanced technology vehicles that promote cleaner air, use less fuel and help AT&T lower its operating costs,” said Jerome Webber, vice president, AT&T Global Fleet Operations. “While some may see just another car or truck on the road, we think these vehicles represent the shared values of the communities where we live, work and play.”

Through 2013, AT&T anticipates it will have purchased up to 8,000 CNG vehicles at an estimated cost of $350 million. Additionally, over the life of the commitment, AT&T expects to invest $215 million to replace approximately 7,100 fleet passenger cars with alternative-fuel models. ..."

Source: Gas 2.0 (http://s.tt/15VxU)

Billy T comment: Just AT&T alone may buy about as many CNG vehicles as any one EV company makes EV sales in the US. Hard to believe that natural gas is not the vehicle fuel of the future when a couple of large companies get on board with volume production of NG cars and its lower prices.

This statement appears to be a typo: Through 2013, AT&T anticipates it will have purchased up to 8,000 CNG vehicles at an estimated cost of $350 million.

That date is actually 2018 according to AT&T.

http://www.att.com/gen/corporate-citizenship?pid=17899

So far they have but 3,400 CNG vehicles, all trucks.
Their passenger fleet AFVs are Hybrids (1,600)

When they are done, about 10% of their fleet will be CNG.

 

[Walter L. Wagner]

Billy T comment: Just AT&T alone may buy about as many CNG vehicles as any one EV company makes EV sales in the US. Hard to believe that natural gas is not the vehicle fuel of the future when a couple of large companies get on board with volume production of NG cars and its lower prices.

BillyT: Agreed, CNG is better than gasoline, and cheaper. As I mentioned, I drove a truck fueled with CNG in the early 1970s. The vehicle yard had a large tank of CNG, from which we tanked up our trucks with a screw-on coupling. This was cheaper than gasoline back then, and the economies have continued to improve.

CNG comes straight out of the ground, and does not need refining like oil does into gasoline/diesel. And, there is a lot of it. I used to drill wells looking for it (and finding it, for example, in the Bayou Pigeon field of Louisiana).

But I do believe that the better way still, just around the corner, will be the air-powered cars in which oil/CNG is burned to produce electricity to power the air-compressors. Eventually, we'll decide that it is cheaper to use hydro-electric/nuclear to power the compressors, and use the oil/CNG for manufacturing and specialty uses. And then we can put those sugar-cane fields in Brazil back into forest land!