If you want to get a sense of how far the electric car market has really come, it's instructive to read "Foreign Trade in Electric Vehicles," an article available on the New York Times Website.
In glowing terms, the article describes the future of electric cars. The vehicle "has long been recognized as the ideal solution" and is "cleaner and quieter" than other cars, as well as "more economical." The article also praises the electric vehicle (EV) battery. "It is simple, light, easy to take care of and far more efficient than the old lead battery," and the new battery "solves the problem of electric transportation."
An Edison storage battery in test setup, from the 1916 monograph "The Edison Alkaline Storage Battery," by the technical staff of the Edison Storage Battery Co.
The article is dated Nov. 12, 1911 -- 100 years ago this month.
It's hard to look at the article and not wonder how far we've come. Yes, the EV is back. Nissan has its Leaf. Ford has two EVs coming out soon. General Motors has announced the Spark EV and has the Chevy Volt, an electric car that burns gasoline part of the time. Tesla plans to roll out the Model S soon and is working with Toyota on an electric RAV4. Mitsubishi has its i MiEV. Even DeLorean has announced an electric car.
But the EV battery... has it really advanced much in the past 100 years? In a 1998 Design News article, battery makers discussed the creation of a lithium-ion battery with an energy density of 90Wh/kg. Thirteen years later, the Nissan Leaf battery is rated at 140Wh/kg -- a 55% increase. That's not bad, but is it enough to make the EV battery a serious competitor with gasoline, which offers 80 times as much energy and a five-minute refueling capability?
Moreover, there's the issue of cost. In the 1998 Design News article, engineers set a target of $100/kWh to make EV batteries more competitive. Today, the cost figure still hovers between $800 and $1,000/kWh.
Because the costs are so high, most EV makers are using the higher energy densities to reduce the size of their batteries. Instead of a bulky 900-pound unit, they're employing higher-energy packs of about 400 or 500 pounds. But the flip side of that strategy is that EV range hasn't changed much. If we go back to the 1998 Design News article, we see the ranges as follows:
Chrysler Epic minivan: 68 miles.
Ford Ranger EV: 58 miles.
GM EV1: 90 miles.
GM S-10 electric pickup: 45 miles.
Toyota RAV4 EV: 118 miles.
Now contrast that with today's Nissan Leaf. Nissan says its 2011 Leaf travels 100 miles between charges. (The EPA rates it at 73.)
Many EV proponents have explanations for all this. A popular one is the "big oil conspiracy." According to this logic, oil executives have conspired with automakers to suppress development of EVs over the years. Numerous Websites are dedicated to explaining this conspiracy. However, they have not explained why our universities have had limited luck in creating a revolutionary battery over the past 100 years.
The truth is that the EV's real gains have been in speed and performance. On drag strips around the country, EV converters are turning quarter-mile times as low as 10 seconds using old Ford Pintos and Datsuns. The old GM EV1 was said to have hit a speed of more than 180mph, and the White Lightning racing EV reached 245mph. If Thomas Edison (who invented the battery discussed in the 1911 New York Times article) could see the performance of today's EVs, he'd be astounded.
Still, Edison might be equally surprised by the lack of advancement in the area of battery energy. Many potential buyers are still turned off, not only by the cost, but by the pure EV's inability to make long trips. Bill Reinert, national manager of advanced technology vehicles for Toyota, said it best this year, when he told us: "Even if I'm covered 90% of the time, I'm probably unlikely to make a [buying] decision that leaves me uncovered 10% of the time."
Obviously, researchers are working on the energy issue, but their efforts would be best flavored with a little public patience. If the 100-year-old New York Times article teaches us anything, it's that vehicle electrification could still be a long, arduous journey.
Related reading
For a look at GM's Chevy Volt, go to the Drive for Innovation site and follow the cross-country journey of EE Life editorial director Brian Fuller. In a trip sponsored by Avnet Express, Fuller is taking the fire-engine-red Volt to innovation hubs across America, interviewing engineers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and students as he blogs his way across the country.
I've mentioned this before on these topics, but an all-electric vehicle has a major problem that ICE vehicles do not have - the EV must store both reactants for the generation of mechanical energy, while the ICE only has to store one of the reactants, gasoline. The other reactant, oxygen, is available for free in the air.
Imagine if ICE vehicles had to store both the gasoline and the oxygen onboard the vehicle. The storage tanks would be huge - not unlike EV battery systems.
If you google "Lohner-Porsche" you can get an idea.
No idea what the mileage might have been in the early 1900's, but the technology at some fundamental level has not changed much... Note the credit to Porsche's ideas in the development of the Lunar Rover.
Why can't the auto industry standardize battery sizes to say 4 or 5 sizes and capacities? This would allow refueling stations to stock batteries in a charged and properly maintained condition. With some forethought auto makers could standardize a switchout system allowing 5-10 minute battery swaps and the customer is back on the road. A side or rear access to quickly change out batteries on tracks/rails and lock them in place for security should not be that difficult.
The whole Tata thing isn't really panning out. I can't find the article I read where Tata was shelving the project but here is a link that shows that and other attempts:
Alexander The simple answer is H2O when chemically disassembled makes some interesting things like explosives, oxidents, corosives, and undrer elevated or decreased presures various predictable and unpredictable reactions. The interesting thing is how the public might be affected by unauthorized modifed designs that cause undesired product liability. In any case CHARGING is NOT the END GAME PROBLEM but rather the eventual POWER SYSTEM CHOSEN which WON'T be a Battery!
No matter the cause, right now I believeit is more important to FIX OUR PATENT system so we can induce inventors of the world to bring their ideas to the USA FIRST and let the MARKET PLACE decide the success or failure outcome.
As far as HONDA, I would bet certain political, patent, underwriting, safety, or industry economics spy network affected their decision at the time. Or did they have such good info on upcomming competition?
See: TATA MOTORS of India, compressed air car due out this year. The Air Car, developed by ex-Formula One engineer Guy N.For Luxembourg-based MDI, uses compressed air to push its engine's pistons and make the car go. Engine vegetable oil changing of 1 liter is only necessary every 50,000 KM or 30,000 miles. Neat little machine!
I still don't get why Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles, which have been viable demonstrated by Honda and others -- Honda had some great ones at the NY Auto Show only a few years ago -- are completely off the table as far as alternative energy vehicles are concerned. They have NONE of the problems of electrics. The only stumbling block is a complete lack of interest and will in building the infrastructure (i.e., hydrogen stations) to support them. This is a Betamax versus VHS argument on steroids, and the poorer VHS technology -- electrics -- has won.
I agree with you, Tool_Maker, that charging may be a bigger factor than range. Experts tell us that when driving long distances, we should get out of our cars and walk for a few minutes every hundred miles (I don't know how many people do it, but that's the recommendation). If, during those few minutes, we could re-charge our electric vehicles, the range wouldn't be as big a factor. Right now, though, we would have to pull over for eight hours if we found a 220V line and twice that long if we could only find a 110V outlet.
It seems that there is a comparison between gas engines, when they were first developed and electric cars today, especially in the low ranges and lack of infrastructure (i.e, gas stations). It would be interesting if one of the automotive historians out there would put together a short article that compares the present state with the birth of the auto industry and see if there is anything to learn.
No it doesn't need paint as it's finished clear epoxy/wood constaction including the chassis and rear trailing suspension arm. The pic was taken after living 6 yrs outside in the rain and hit by a car.
What it really needed was another body to fix the mistakes I made in it as my first car design.
Dispite being made of wood a compact car rear ended me at 25mph closing speed and totaled the car while it only took $40 to repair mine. Interestingly the wood/epoxy trailing arm was hit and with the wheel still one, was driven over by the car but was barely damaged and was just bolted back on to new chassis pivots.
Just to be clear I build fast/racing boats and use that tech to build light, strong body/chassis now which I believe as the costs of materials rise, composite uni-bodies will be the future in both EV's and ICE's. In just 10 unit production I can beat big auto mass production cost/body compared to steel while making it stromger and about 50% lighter.
There are still multiple retail sources of battery packs/electronics complete that sell for under $550kwhr retail and even A123 ones at under $700/kwhr.
Big auto isn't going to tell you their costs are so low because they'd have to admit EV's are cost effective. Facts are if they are buying packs for over $400/kwhr in mass production they are not real bright as Tesla, others it already.
And another thing is we paid in US subsidies most if not all costs bring these batteries, EV's to market so their actual cost is about nil.
As for the other poster who found my old first EV, it was made 16 yrs ago and while funky and actaully a mistake, it did work for 10 yrs fror only $1k in total costs for those 10 yrs. It did take only 50wthrs/mile though and taught me a lot. And dispite made from wood/epoxy it was rear
My newer one is all composite for production body/chassis finished to a fine standard I hope to bring out late next yr along with an aero cabin 2wh EV MC.
From Dell / Intel® New Paradigms in Design Work Scott Hamilton, vertical market strategist for Dell Precision workstations, 5/2/2013 3
Early in my career, I worked as a draftsman and remember the days of drawing on vellum with numbered pencils and Mylar with plastic lead. This was a fun experience in the sense that I ...
I've been using workstations for more than 10 years and love finding ways to get more performance from my system. With demanding professional applications that require more power each ...
A lasting memory from my first job as an engineer in an auto assembly plant is standing on hard concrete at six in the morning, vending-machine coffee clutched in hand, listening to ...
A quick look into the merger of two powerhouse 3D printing OEMs and the new leader in rapid prototyping solutions, Stratasys. The industrial revolution is now led by 3D printing and engineers are given the opportunity to fully maximize their design capabilities, reduce their time-to-market and functionally test prototypes cheaper, faster and easier. Bruce Bradshaw, Director of Marketing in North America, will explore the large product offering and variety of materials that will help CAD designers articulate their product design with actual, physical prototypes. This broadcast will dive deep into technical information including application specific stories from real world customers and their experiences with 3D printing. 3D Printing is
To save this item to your list of favorite Design News content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This
23 
