Electric cars head toward another dead end

I guess I don't understand why there's the big push to use batteries
instead of fuel cells.
As I understand it, the fuel cell uses nitrogen (non-flammable gas) as
fuel, produces electricity and water vapor as a by products. Building
a tank to hold relatively high pressure non-flammable gas into a car
body shouldn't be a problem as it shouldn't explode in an accident.
The whole drive system should not weigh any more that the combined gas
engine, batteries and electric motor and, I would think, be easier to
package within the confines of the body. Range would not be any more
of a problem than with current gasoline engines. Replacement of the
platinum screen shouldn't cost as much as replacing the batteries
though I don't know if it would last as long.
What am I missing in this discussion that drives the makers to only
consider batteries?
R. Wink

On Sat, 09 Feb 2013 07:06:01 -0800, whoyakidding's ghost
> wrote:

>On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:
>
>>"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
>>>>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
>>>>using
>>>>lead-acid banks.
>>>
>>> My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer
>>> drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to
>>> about 60mpg.
>>
>>60 mpg is not shabby.
>
>Especially considering that it's NOT a flyweight gutless econobox.
>It's a really nice car and it's a pleasure to drive. But 60 is nothing
>for a Volt. Check out the site below to see people getting 5000 or
>better.
>
>It's a shame that more of the people who can afford it, don't step up
>and support the tech.
>
>>When my driving habits settle down it should be more like
>>> 90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other
>>> owners though.
>>
>>On full ICE mode, no electric contribution whatsoever, what do you think
>>your mpg's would be?
>
>It's about 40. Unless it's in "mountain mode", where it can be
>increasing battery state of charge while driving on ICE power. That's
>inefficient but I've used it a couple times on extended trips to
>ensure that the battery is sufficiently charged at the destination to
>allow friends to drive the car on battery alone.
>
>http://www.voltstats.net/ At that website you can view mileage stats
>from hundreds of Volt owners. Click on the top of the columns to
>resort by category. A Volt shopper can estimate his projected EV
>percentage, sort by percentage, and then see the stats of current
>owners with a similar EV percentage.
>

whoyakidding's ghost > wrote:
>
>Especially considering that it's NOT a flyweight gutless econobox.
>It's a really nice car and it's a pleasure to drive. But 60 is nothing
>for a Volt. Check out the site below to see people getting 5000 or
>better.

Try the BMW Active E. I got to drive one briefly a while ago and it was
a very, very fun car by any standard.

Range is too limited for folks out here in the sticks, and charging
is still a problem, but that's what you get with a new technology
competing with one that already has an extensive and active infrastructure.

>It's a shame that more of the people who can afford it, don't step up
>and support the tech.

I agree, but then I'm still driving a carbureted car to work every day,
because it still keeps running fine and remains fun to drive. That's
a little part of the adoption problem right the people don't replace
their cars as often as they used to.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

rwwink > wrote:
>I guess I don't understand why there's the big push to use batteries
>instead of fuel cells.

Because nobody has a fuel cell that will work on road gasoline yet without
being poisoned.

>As I understand it, the fuel cell uses nitrogen (non-flammable gas) as
>fuel, produces electricity and water vapor as a by products. Building
>a tank to hold relatively high pressure non-flammable gas into a car
>body shouldn't be a problem as it shouldn't explode in an accident.

No, the fuel cell requires a flammable fuel. It oxidizes the fuel using
oxygen from air, and develops current directly from that oxidation.

The fuel cell can be designed to work on a variety of fuels. If you want
to create water as your only byproduct, you have to use hydrogen which is
a flammable gas (and a pain to work with even by flammable gas standards).

You can build a fuel cell that will run off methanol or ethanol, or off
of propane. Since these fuels have carbon in them, your exhaust is now
full of carbon compounds (hopefully carbon dioxide if you did it right).
In general these designs also have a limited lifespan because they become
clogged up with combustion by-products.

The holy grail right now is to build a fuel cell that can operate off of
gasoline without becoming hopelessly clogged up after a short running time.
The fuel cell gives you more efficient use of the fuel than an internal
combustion engine, especially when you are not requiring peak output.

You can't run a fuel cell on nitrogen.... nitrogen combines with itself
and it doesn't like to let go or combine with other things. If you ever
see a compound that contains nitrogen, like nitromethane or nitrocellulose
or trinotrotoluene, it's a compound that took a lot of energy to make and
is apt to want to release that energy fast.

>The whole drive system should not weigh any more that the combined gas
>engine, batteries and electric motor and, I would think, be easier to
>package within the confines of the body. Range would not be any more
>of a problem than with current gasoline engines. Replacement of the
>platinum screen shouldn't cost as much as replacing the batteries
>though I don't know if it would last as long.

This is true, and it would seem that retrofitting a commercial fuel cell
into a current hybrid vehicle would not be a huge job. The hard part
would mostly be software.

>What am I missing in this discussion that drives the makers to only
>consider batteries?

In spite of the fact that fuel cells have been with us since NASA developed
them for the Gemini program, we still don't have any that will run off a
convenient fuel that we can already distribute.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Two things about your comments:
1) I get the impression that ethanol could/can be used as a fuel. It
attracts water and requires a non-rusting tank to hold it but there
are metals that can be used without a great deal of additional cost.
We're doing it now for the E85 fuel.
2) Ethanol can/is being distrubed now though combined with gasoline.
A different pecentage mixture, say 50/50 or something else, could be
transported and distributed very much like diesel fuel...separate tank
and pump. The existing tanks and trucks could be coated with a
plastic material to prevent rusting. It could allow use of the same
infrastructure.
Again, what am I missing?
R. Wink

On 9 Feb 2013 11:46:17 -0500, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>rwwink > wrote:
>>I guess I don't understand why there's the big push to use batteries
>>instead of fuel cells.
>
>Because nobody has a fuel cell that will work on road gasoline yet without
>being poisoned.
>
>>As I understand it, the fuel cell uses nitrogen (non-flammable gas) as
>>fuel, produces electricity and water vapor as a by products. Building
>>a tank to hold relatively high pressure non-flammable gas into a car
>>body shouldn't be a problem as it shouldn't explode in an accident.
>
>No, the fuel cell requires a flammable fuel. It oxidizes the fuel using
>oxygen from air, and develops current directly from that oxidation.
>
>The fuel cell can be designed to work on a variety of fuels. If you want
>to create water as your only byproduct, you have to use hydrogen which is
>a flammable gas (and a pain to work with even by flammable gas standards).
>
>You can build a fuel cell that will run off methanol or ethanol, or off
>of propane. Since these fuels have carbon in them, your exhaust is now
>full of carbon compounds (hopefully carbon dioxide if you did it right).
>In general these designs also have a limited lifespan because they become
>clogged up with combustion by-products.
>
>The holy grail right now is to build a fuel cell that can operate off of
>gasoline without becoming hopelessly clogged up after a short running time.
>The fuel cell gives you more efficient use of the fuel than an internal
>combustion engine, especially when you are not requiring peak output.
>
>You can't run a fuel cell on nitrogen.... nitrogen combines with itself
>and it doesn't like to let go or combine with other things. If you ever
>see a compound that contains nitrogen, like nitromethane or nitrocellulose
>or trinotrotoluene, it's a compound that took a lot of energy to make and
>is apt to want to release that energy fast.
>
>>The whole drive system should not weigh any more that the combined gas
>>engine, batteries and electric motor and, I would think, be easier to
>>package within the confines of the body. Range would not be any more
>>of a problem than with current gasoline engines. Replacement of the
>>platinum screen shouldn't cost as much as replacing the batteries
>>though I don't know if it would last as long.
>
>This is true, and it would seem that retrofitting a commercial fuel cell
>into a current hybrid vehicle would not be a huge job. The hard part
>would mostly be software.
>
>>What am I missing in this discussion that drives the makers to only
>>consider batteries?
>
>In spite of the fact that fuel cells have been with us since NASA developed
>them for the Gemini program, we still don't have any that will run off a
>convenient fuel that we can already distribute.
>--scott

On Feb 8, 2:18*pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
> "whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than the
> >>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
> >>using
> >>lead-acid banks.
>
> > My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer
> > drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to
> > about 60mpg.
>
> 60 mpg is not shabby.
>
> When my driving habits settle down it should be more like
>
> > 90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other
> > owners though.
>
> On full ICE mode, no electric contribution whatsoever, what do you think
> your mpg's would be?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Part of the "failure", I think, is the refusal to limit hp,
>
> > Take a Volt for a spin. It's no racecar but I love that silent
> > electric torque launch and it still surprises me sometimes when
> > passing at highway speeds. My last car was a V6 Camry which did have
> > about 100 more hp which I thought I'd miss. But I don't because the
> > smooth torquey nature of electric drive makes up for it. I've
> > surprised a few asswipes at stop lights which ****es off my wife. My
> > excuse is oh sorry I didn't mean to take off quite so fast, it's a
> > sensitive pedal. That story is still working although I may be
> > chalking up a higher number of eye rolls from her than usual.
>
> >> and the
> >>incomprehensible *weight* to these effing cars. *Whazzup wit dat?
>
> > The Volt is about 3500. About 400 of that is the battery. It's a nice
> > car to drive and the weight is part of what prevents it feeling cheap.
> > I love the electric smoothness and the low CG and flat cornering.
>
> >>. *VW beetles did fine with between 36 and 54 hp, under 2,000 lbs -- 54
> >>being the hot-rod bug -- in 1974!!! *Also their minivan/bus.
>
> > Apples and oranges. Bugs are absolute POS compared to a Volt or even a
> > Prius. But if you want small and can do without features then take
> > that bug logic all the way to its natural conclusion.
> >http://gizmodo.com/5982007/the-small...d-is-painfully...
>
> The point was, the insistence on triple-digit hp is not doing the "energy
> cause" any favors.
> Nor is the bloated poundage of vehicles.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>Also, part of the "failure" is of our own making, ie urban sprawl, where
> >>commutes are 30-100 miles, one way.
>
> > So what? When the Volt runs out of battery you just keep going and
> > usually don't notice the changeover to ICE.
>
> >>The Leaf, et al, could reliably handle 50 mile commutes (one way), but
> >>you'd
> >>need charging stations at the yob.
>
> > Pure electrics should be great for many as commuter vehicles or second
> > vehicles.
>
> >>The Tesla, tho, seems to have surmounted much of these limitations -- if
> >>it's not all hype. *And then, who can afford them?
>
> > The Volt will be a long payoff for me. But at least it has a payoff,
> > unlike a boat or a quad or a million other things. Besides I already
> > have lots of toys and I'm enjoying that for a change I did something
> > about fuel costs other than whining. My next project is making my home
> > (including the car) net-zero. Many of my friends could afford to do
> > similar but the simple fact is that to a man they'd rather spend their
> > money on truly useless crap. I don't eat out much but recently we had
> > dinner with some friends who do. About $75 per couple which isn't hard
> > to do these days. During dinner my friend says he can't justify buying
> > LED light bulbs. Yeah a $20 entree makes perfect sense to him but a
> > $20 lightbulb, forget it. Let's face it, the tech and the cost of
> > electrics can already fill the bill for many people like me and most
> > of my middle class friends. The real problem is that most of us prefer
> > to use our disposable income on baubles while putting the cost of
> > doing anything about the environment onto future generations. That's
> > never going to change and tech can't fix it.
>
> Bleeve me, ahm not argering in favor of our species.
> I do wonder about the Tesla tho. *That car seems to have broken thru some
> mileage barriers, but it's tough to separate hype from price from reality..
> --
> EA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>And then, who can afford them?
>
> > Well, definitely not the chair bound, that's for sure. Add electric
> > cars to the endless list of things that the pimpletons, gunners,
> > bonkers, etc will never be able to afford. But my qawd they will never
> > run out of hours to bless the world with their tunnel vision about
> > every stupid ****ing notion that comes into their heads. Maybe they're
> > practising for the day when they'll get paid for every post. Which
> > will be the day AFTER the great cull I guess.

"I do wonder about the Tesla tho. That car seems to have broken thru
some mileage barriers, but it's tough to separate hype from price from
reality. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/au...hway.html?_r=0

"But as I discovered on a recent test drive of the company’s high-
performance Model S sedan, theory can be trumped by reality,
especially when Northeast temperatures plunge."


"At the Washington Auto Show last month, Dr. Chu, who has since
announced his plan to leave office in the next few weeks, discussed
the Energy Department’s goal of making electric vehicles and plug-in
hybrids as cheap and convenient as comparable gasoline-powered cars.

He continued: “We can’t say this everywhere in America yet, but
driving by a gasoline station and smiling is something everyone should
experience.”

I drove a state-of-the-art electric vehicle past a lot of gas
stations. I wasn’t smiling.

Instead, I spent nearly an hour at the Milford service plaza as the
Tesla sucked electrons from the hitching post. When I continued my
drive, the display read 185 miles, well beyond the distance I intended
to cover before returning to the station the next morning for a
recharge and returning to Manhattan.

I drove, slowly, to Stonington, Conn., for dinner and spent the night
in Groton, a total distance of 79 miles. When I parked the car, its
computer said I had 90 miles of range, twice the 46 miles back to
Milford. It was a different story at 8:30 the next morning. The
thermometer read 10 degrees and the display showed 25 miles of
remaining range — the electrical equivalent of someone having siphoned
off more than two-thirds of the fuel that was in the tank when I
parked.

I called Tesla in California, and the official I woke up said I
needed to “condition” the battery pack to restore the lost energy.
That meant sitting in the car for half an hour with the heat on a low
setting. (There is now a mobile application for warming the battery
remotely; it was not available at the time of my test drive.)

After completing the battery conditioning process, the estimated range
reading was 19 miles; no way would I make it back to Milford.

The Tesla people found an E.V. charging facility that Norwich Public
Utilities had recently installed. Norwich, an old mill town on the
Thames River, was only 11 miles away, though in the opposite direction
from Milford.

After making arrangements to recharge at the Norwich station, I
located the proper adapter in the trunk, plugged in and walked to the
only warm place nearby, Butch’s Luncheonette and Breakfast Club, an
establishment (smoking allowed) where only members can buy a cup of
coffee or a plate of eggs. But the owners let me wait there while the
Model S drank its juice. Tesla’s experts said that pumping in a little
energy would help restore the power lost overnight as a result of the
cold weather, and after an hour they cleared me to resume the trip to
Milford.

Looking back, I should have bought a membership to Butch’s and spent a
few hours there while the car charged. The displayed range never
reached the number of miles remaining to Milford, and as I limped
along at about 45 miles per hour I saw increasingly dire dashboard
warnings to recharge immediately. Mr. Merendino, the product planner,
found an E.V. charging station about five miles away.

But the Model S had other ideas. “Car is shutting down,” the computer
informed me. I was able to coast down an exit ramp in Branford, Conn.,
before the car made good on its threat.

Tesla’s New York service manager, Adam Williams, found a towing
service in Milford that sent a skilled and very patient driver, Rick
Ibsen, to rescue me with a flatbed truck. Not so quick: the car’s
electrically actuated parking brake would not release without battery
power, and hooking the car’s 12-volt charging post behind the front
grille to the tow truck’s portable charger would not release the
brake. So he had to drag it onto the flatbed, a painstaking process
that took 45 minutes. Fortunately, the cab of the tow truck was
toasty.

At 2:40 p.m., we pulled into the Milford rest stop, five hours after I
had left Groton on a trip that should have taken less than an hour.
Mr. Ibsen carefully maneuvered the flatbed close to the charging
kiosk, and 25 minutes later, with the battery sufficiently charged to
release the parking brake and drive off the truck, the car was back on
the ground. A Model S owner who had taken delivery the previous day
watched with interest."

"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
news
> On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> > wrote:
>
>>"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than
>>>>the
>>>>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
>>>>using
>>>>lead-acid banks.
>>>
>>> My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer
>>> drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to
>>> about 60mpg.
>>
>>60 mpg is not shabby.
>
> Especially considering that it's NOT a flyweight gutless econobox.
> It's a really nice car and it's a pleasure to drive. But 60 is nothing
> for a Volt. Check out the site below to see people getting 5000 or
> better.
>
> It's a shame that more of the people who can afford it, don't step up
> and support the tech.

Mebbe over-tech?? $45K for a battery and a motor??

But I already "defended" the Volt in this thread, above, noting its
similarity to how virtually all Diesel Locomotives work -- an ICE generator
+ traction motors. So the Volt peeple didn't invent or discover anything --
they just had the presence of mind to recognize, in all the permutations of
electrics, the right way to do it. And the diesel locomotive model was it.

Imo, ALL "all electrics" should have a standby generator, even a ****ty li'l
Quiet Honda Inverter, tucked away, that could be manually hooked up, on the
cheap, if stranded.
A ****ty 10,000 W generator is good for almost 15 hp, which is proly more
than enough to propel an aerodynamic shape to about 60 mph on level surface.
My 15,000 W generator weighs about 230 lb, and sips less than 1.5 gal/hr, at
full load. Five gal of gas would be good for.... click click.... about
200 mi!!!!!

Assuming the car were then designed to "extract" that 15 hp at the right
point on the torque curve, rpm, etc.

I was actually thinking of doing that in pure EV, as an anti-strand range
extender.... but certain practicalities prevail, such as noise, CO, other
diy non-ergnomics. And a torque curve over which I can't really control, so
if things were not "matched up" properly, proly would be another diy
dead-end.

But indeed, the Volt IS well designed -- the way it ""should"" be done. But
jb is also correck, imo -- an ass****ing to the consumer, nevertheless.
--
EA


>
>>When my driving habits settle down it should be more like
>>> 90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other
>>> owners though.
>>
>>On full ICE mode, no electric contribution whatsoever, what do you think
>>your mpg's would be?
>
> It's about 40. Unless it's in "mountain mode", where it can be
> increasing battery state of charge while driving on ICE power. That's
> inefficient but I've used it a couple times on extended trips to
> ensure that the battery is sufficiently charged at the destination to
> allow friends to drive the car on battery alone.
>
> http://www.voltstats.net/ At that website you can view mileage stats
> from hundreds of Volt owners. Click on the top of the columns to
> resort by category. A Volt shopper can estimate his projected EV
> percentage, sort by percentage, and then see the stats of current
> owners with a similar EV percentage.
>
>
>

"jon_banquer" > wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 2:18 pm, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
> "whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
> > On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better
> >>than the
> >>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile
> >>ranges,
> >>using lead-acid banks.

Having helped build some I have an interest in electric vehicles. So
Thursday when I picked up an ordered part at the Honda dealer I
checked their showroom.

Every car in there was gas-only.

I pretended to be interested in a hybrid and the salesman tried to
talk me out of them based on the extremely long payback period and our
relatively short stretches of stop-and-go traffic. The gasoline 2013
Civic is rated at 39MPG, the hybrid only 5 MPG better for another
$6000.
http://automobiles.honda.com/shop/ci...0209185449: s

I had a 1978 Accord that routinely gave me 36 - 38 MPG so I know they
can do it. I logged every drop of gas and oil that went into that car
as well as all the maintenance.

"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
...
>
> Imo, ALL "all electrics" should have a standby generator, even a
> ****ty li'l Quiet Honda Inverter, tucked away, that could be
> manually hooked up, on the cheap, if stranded.
> A ****ty 10,000 W generator is good for almost 15 hp, which is proly
> more than enough to propel an aerodynamic shape to about 60 mph on
> level surface. My 15,000 W generator weighs about 230 lb, and sips
> less than 1.5 gal/hr, at full load. Five gal of gas would be good
> for.... click click.... about 200 mi!!!!!
>

Do you really want to provoke the EPA into making generators meet car
emission standards?

On Feb 9, 10:55*am, "Existential Angst" > wrote:
> "whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
>
> news >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:18:02 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 01:11:23 -0500, "Existential Angst"
> >>> > wrote:
>
> >>>>Electrics have indeed been disappointing, tho -- not much better than
> >>>>the
> >>>>Ranger EV's, from way back, which had 30-40 electric-only mile ranges,
> >>>>using
> >>>>lead-acid banks.
>
> >>> My main ride for the last 5 months has been a Volt. Too many longer
> >>> drives lately have made my EV portion less than 50%, which equates to
> >>> about 60mpg.
>
> >>60 mpg is not shabby.
>
> > Especially considering that it's NOT a flyweight gutless econobox.
> > It's a really nice car and it's a pleasure to drive. But 60 is nothing
> > for a Volt. Check out the site below to see people getting 5000 or
> > better.
>
> > It's a shame that more of the people who can afford it, don't step up
> > and support the tech.
>
> Mebbe over-tech?? *$45K for a battery and a motor?? *
>
> But I already "defended" the Volt in this thread, above, noting its
> similarity to how virtually all Diesel Locomotives work -- an ICE generator
> + traction motors. So the Volt peeple didn't invent or discover anything --
> they just had the presence of mind to recognize, in all the permutations of
> electrics, the right way to do it. *And the diesel locomotive model was it.
>
> Imo, ALL "all electrics" should have a standby generator, even a ****ty li'l
> Quiet Honda Inverter, tucked away, that could be manually hooked up, on the
> cheap, if stranded.
> A ****ty 10,000 W generator is good for almost 15 hp, which is proly more
> than enough to propel an aerodynamic shape to about 60 mph on level surface.
> My 15,000 W generator weighs about 230 lb, and sips less than 1.5 gal/hr, at
> full load. * Five gal of gas would be good for.... *click click.... about
> 200 mi!!!!!
>
> Assuming the car were then designed to "extract" that 15 hp at the right
> point on the torque curve, rpm, etc.
>
> I was actually thinking of doing that in pure EV, as an anti-strand range
> extender.... *but certain practicalities prevail, such as noise, CO, other
> diy non-ergnomics. And a torque curve over which I can't really control, so
> if things were not "matched up" properly, proly would be another diy
> dead-end.
>
> But indeed, the Volt IS well designed -- the way it ""should"" be done. But
> jb is also correck, imo -- an ass****ing to the consumer, nevertheless.
> --
> EA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>When my driving habits settle down it should be more like
> >>> 90mpg. It will never be fully EV for me but it is for many other
> >>> owners though.
>
> >>On full ICE mode, no electric contribution whatsoever, what do you think
> >>your mpg's would be?
>
> > It's about 40. Unless it's in "mountain mode", where it can be
> > increasing battery state of charge while driving on ICE power. That's
> > inefficient but I've used it a couple times on extended trips to
> > ensure that the battery is sufficiently charged at the destination to
> > allow friends to drive the car on battery alone.
>
> >http://www.voltstats.net/At that website you can view mileage stats
> > from hundreds of Volt owners. Click on the top of the columns to
> > resort by category. A Volt shopper can estimate his projected EV
> > percentage, sort by percentage, and then see the stats of current
> > owners with a similar EV percentage.

"But indeed, the Volt IS well designed -- the way it ""should"" be
done. But
jb is also correck, imo -- an ass****ing to the consumer,
nevertheless."

No doubt in my mind that the Chevy Volt is well designed and
manufactured. The Tesla model S is as well. Neither vehicle is
economically viable for the majority of Americans. The technology just
isn't there to make electric vehicles economically viable unless they
are made extremely light weight.

On 2/9/2013 10:55 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
snip
>
> Imo, ALL "all electrics" should have a standby generator, even a ****ty li'l
> Quiet Honda Inverter, tucked away, that could be manually hooked up, on the
> cheap, if stranded.
> A ****ty 10,000 W generator is good for almost 15 hp, which is proly more
> than enough to propel an aerodynamic shape to about 60 mph on level surface.
> My 15,000 W generator weighs about 230 lb, and sips less than 1.5 gal/hr, at
> full load. Five gal of gas would be good for.... click click.... about
> 200 mi!!!!!
>
> Assuming the car were then designed to "extract" that 15 hp at the right
> point on the torque curve, rpm, etc.
>

There was a thread a while back about a guy who sawed the front end off a
front-wheel-drive car and put a trailer hitch on it. His all-electric
car had a range of 30 miles or so. To go further, he hooked up the
gizmo and used it as a pusher for road trips. Also had a generator
that could recharge the car.
He had few technical problems.
The problem was that the DMV wouldn't license the thing.
He finally convinced them that it was a trailer-mounted generator.

Ought to be technically simple to have an engine and gas tank
that poked into the back of an electric car and raised the rear
wheels off the ground. Just park the engine and drive off
when you get where you're going.