.................................

I think that the internal volume of a car cabin carries enough oxygen for at least 10 minutes of occupant safety. As long as traffic doesn't gridlock, zero emmision vehicles travelling through the tunnel at a mile a minute will carry all the ventilation needed for a ten mile tunnel span!

I believe the typical car provides some ventilation from the outside, even when the heater/AC is off. Thus any carbon-monoxide fumes in the tunnel would be drawn into the cabin and likely affect the driver. It's not a matter of oxygen.

 

Understood about the cabin air venting to and from the tunnel.

The tunnels I am talking about would likely be turnpike style shortcuts, where you would pay a larger epass toll for a ventilation charge to take an ICE vehicle through or they would be limited to zero emissions vehicles.

In the example of the ten mile tunnel - with traffic moving a mile a minute, Air that is exchanged from the cabin of a car was less than 5 minutes ago filled with outside air, at the point where the car is halfway through the tunnel. The car is providing ventilation to the tunnel as it is pulling air in from the tunnel. Zero Emissions vehicles would provide all the ventilation that they would need.

You would have a ventilation system. But it might be based on things like a compressed air tank system for emergency refresh, and a much smaller exhaust and refresh piping for ventilation if you don't need air for burning fuel in vehicles and and exhaust of all that carbon dioxide. You could likely just build a stack on top of some drilled vent pipes and use draft ventilation for most of this.

 

Car tunnels (longer ones) always have ventilation pipes, they have plenty of tunnel building shows on science TV.

It's not just for breathable air, it's also for reducing soot and dirt buildup in the tunnels etc.

To get back on topic re electric cars of the future, Mercedes Benz' new electric sports car SLS has 500-740hp (depends on model?) and 4 individual wheel motors, whcih self-adjust the power to each motor when cornering etc.

Extremely nice performance.

 

So after reading the thread several times it comes to getting energy/power into and out of a car. We can get gasoline (electric) into the car and store it in a gas tank (battery/capacitor) and give it to a big metal thing under the hood the engine (3 phase motor) to get the power to the wheels to get to work in the morning.

Energy density of gasoline is huge, but we can only push about a 100 amps into the car with level 3 charging. So to make hybrids or electric vehicles better we heed to move energy from the grid to the car quicker and of course increase the capacity of the storage device.

Batteries and capacitors are very close in the way they act, but could a capacitor be added in series/parallel with the battery increase regen because the battery can't accept very high currents, and also could the caps be used to reduce the high current demands on the batteries.

I am also a EV driver, we need to find a way to charge batteries faster.

 

Energy density of gasoline is huge, but we can only push about a 100 amps into the car with level 3 charging. So to make hybrids or electric vehicles better we heed to move energy from the grid to the car quicker and of course increase the capacity of the storage device.

All we need to do is to build a power station at every home or recharge facility.

I am also a EV driver, we need to find a way to charge batteries faster.

I spent about 40 years in the electronics business, for 30 of it I was a specialist in power conversion. The "way to charge batteries faster" has been the holy grail for decades.... but the fact is there is a hard limit as to how fast a rechargeable battery can be recharged regardless how much current is available. The limit is set by the chemistry and thermal limits. Even assuming unlimited power, the Li batteries can not be recharged safely faster than about an hour.

PERIOD.

The recharge time for an EV is always going to be the "elephant in the room" and the reason it can never be practical as a long range travel vehicle unless you are willing to make your trips in 200 mile segments.

All other disadvantages aside (ridiculous cost, weight, limited range) the fact that a gas car refills in three minutes and an EV never will is not a problem which can be solved by any form of technology advancement.

 

...
The recharge time for an EV is always going to be the "elephant in the room"...
...
All other disadvantages aside (ridiculous cost, weight, limited range) the fact that a gas car refills in three minutes and an EV never will is not a problem which can be solved by any form of technology advancement.

Did you miss my suggestion of modular swappable battery packs? You could swap in a pack with a generator. that charges while you drive and shop.

Or you could swap in a fully charged battery/cap pack, in 3 minutes, from a station or from your own garage. Heck, put a fully charged pack and folding trolley in the trunk, and swap it yourself on the side of a country road.

OR, develop a battery type or fuel cell type where you only need to swap the liquid electrolyte to fully "recharge" it. Then you are back to the time needed to swap liquids.

Saying the problem can "never be solved" sounds a bit naive, to me it's pretty much already been "solved", just not in the Prius that people are driving.

 

Did you miss my suggestion of modular swappable battery packs?

No, you missed mine. I pointed out about 15 pages back in this thread that the only viable mode of use for EV's to gain any kind of non-negligible market share would be if they standardized battery pack modules across vehicle brands and types and had "recharge" stations which could do a drop-and-swap in 15 minutes or less. That is already being done in japan for a fleet of small commercial trucks. EV owners would pay a "user fee" for the privilege of using that system and probably a "recharge fee" each time they swap. Batteries would be owned by the state who would operate the program.

Of course, standardizing would require the FED stepping in and setting standards and makers conforming .... none of which is going to happen.

 

Saying the problem can "never be solved" sounds a bit naive, to me it's pretty much already been "solved", just not in the Prius that people are driving.

I said that the problem of fast charging could not be "solved" by any technological advancement. That is an absolute fact. Li batteries can not be fast charged like NI types can.

There are theoretical systems that could be implemented to reduce "down time" by swapping power units but the chances of any such system ever being standardized and gaining any kind of widespread use is non existent.

That really is the problem: where do all the trillions of $$$ come from? Who is going to pay for all the "charging/power swap" stations that would be needed along major routes to give EV's any kind of useful range?

What is going to happen is that states like Cali are going to dump BILLIONS of my tax $$$ onto these EV's and build some charging facilities and use them for state cars..... of course, they are also going to burn about $10 BILLION of our tax $$$ to build a fast train that goes from northern NOWHERE to southern NOWHERE....

but it's important to project the image of "high tech green".....


I am not opposed to EV's if they can stand on their own feet, I am just opposed to infinite government welfare using my money to bribe car makers to build them and buyers to buy them. They are not a viable long term solution that can significantly reduce oil consumption or air pollution.

If the EV problems can be 'solved", let's hear the plan and see the path. All I see is an industry built on ATAMO (and then a miracle occurs) and financed on subsidies.


Some EV proponents brag about the government welfare. In other words: EV's are expensive, but the government will dump a bucket of money on you if you buy one. MY MONEY.

2. Electric vehicles will be expensive. This is a half-truth, since the purchase price will indeed be higher than you're used to paying. Expect $35,000 to $40,000 for entry-level cars the size of a Subaru Forester. But the last time I looked, nobody was subsidizing my purchase of gas-powered cars, and there is money for EVs. Specifically, there's a $7,500 federal tax credit for the purchase of battery cars, and a second credit of up to $2,000 that will pay up to 50 percent of your home charger installation. It's even better if you live in certain states. California just launched a $5,000 "cash-for-clunkers" type rebate (much better than a tax break) to early adopters of EVs there. Other states are similarly generous. Oklahoma (who knew?) subsidizes half the purchase price of battery cars, which made it possible to buy Wheego EVs for only $2,500, and more than 100 have already been sold there.

http://phys.org/news188543729.html

 

.....................................
I am not opposed to EV's if they can stand on their own feet, I am just opposed to infinite government welfare using my money to bribe car makers to build them and buyers to buy them. They are not a viable long term solution that can significantly reduce oil consumption or air pollution.

If the EV problems can be 'solved", let's hear the plan and see the path. All I see is an industry built on ATAMO (and then a miracle occurs) and financed on subsidies.

I'm with you as soon as they do away with all the subsidies for gas and oil companies.

 

I'm with you as soon as they do away with all the subsidies for gas and oil companies.

Those go away first, next are the "farm subsidies" which are about 99% paid to massive corporate conglomerates.

I would actually support a REASONABLE subsidy to get an "infant" industry on it's feet IF AND ONLY IF there was a viable technological path (at a reasonable cost) to a useful product that could have some significant impact. EV's are just more Solyndra spending: throwing money at the ONLY solution currently looking stylish and green... regardless of the fact it is not feasible.

The truth is that even the standard hybrids have fared VERY poorly here in the US, better in Europe and japan where gas costs a lot more. But EV's are a whole different thing because a trillion dollar infrastructure would have to be built to "fuel" them.... and who is going to pay? The current "reasoning" is that as EVs are bought in larger volumes, citizens will "demand" the government provide this service.....

EXCUSE ME?

For cars that make up a few percent of the total vehicles?

The whole "product model" is convoluted.

Understand: I have no doubt that such infrastructure will be built here in Cali because both houses of government and the Governor's chair are firmly in the hands of the people who love to tax everybody and dump money down the drain. But as for any national acceptance, never happen.

Remember how E85 was going to reduce dependence on foreign oil and clean up the air?

E85, once expected to be in wide use by now, has failed also to gain acceptance by consumers. Even communities once expecting to fuel their own vehicles with this fuel, consisting of 85% ethanol, are having second thoughts. The Denver Post recently reported “The city of Fort Collins is considering eliminating the use of corn-based ethanol fuel in its fleet vehicles because of concerns over environmental damage. City Council members said Tuesday they would support gradually doing away with vehicles that use the fuel because of the impact on water and soil degradation.”

Sometimes new isn't automatically better. But let's throw money at it anyway....

 

T............................... and who is going to pay? The current "reasoning" is that as EVs are bought in larger volumes, citizens will "demand" the government provide this service.....

........................

I'm sure it's all those nasty strawman liberals are propagating that "reasoning"....

 

Instead of focussing on the political solutions/impact, what are the business solutions? A company is formed to manufacture standardized battery packs. But what is their distribution? If their is great demand forcing government to subsidize EV use, the demand would be there for oil companies to protect their customer base - an existing distribution system. The model for cross-corporate suppliers has existed for decades. I.e., what happens when a Mobil battery is exchanged at a Shell station? The railroads per-diem for the use of another companies railcars has been in use for years.

 

The recharge time for an EV is always going to be the "elephant in the room" and the reason it can never be practical as a long range travel vehicle unless you are willing to make your trips in 200 mile segments.

All other disadvantages aside (ridiculous cost, weight, limited range) the fact that a gas car refills in three minutes and an EV never will is not a problem which can be solved by any form of technology advancement.

"Never"

Can you see 5 or 10 years into the future that maybe storage capacity could increase and cost come down??

Lets all agree to leave government out of EV's and let free enterprise work, if I owned quick lube stores across the country I would go to Nissan and make a deal to do the battery pack swaps. Granted this will be several years down the road when the battery packs reach about 300 to 400 mile range.

Also battery charging is limited by todays technology, how fast can you charge a capacitor? and will the line between batteries and capacitors become blurred?? look how far batteries has come in the last 10 years, my guess is that we are at the knee in battery technology.

And you don't need one standard size battery to make a market, walk into a auto parts store and ask for a starter battery, they have 10 different sizes and shapes.



"bountyhunter" "I said that the problem of fast charging could not be "solved" by any technological advancement. That is an absolute fact. Li batteries can not be fast charged like NI types can."

That is a little strong, could no advancements be made in battery technology???

 

Batteries would be owned by the state who would operate the program.

Of course, standardizing would require the FED stepping in and setting standards and makers conforming .... none of which is going to happen.

This was a weak and fallacious argument 15 pages ago and it's still weak and even more fallacious now that you've said it again after I already pointed out the fallacy.

BTW what does the federal reserve have to do with battery pack standardization?

 

So my idea is that the hybrid vehicle should be purely electric drive, with a capacitor bank instead of a battery bank. The capacitor bank should be sized such that at nominal voltage, it will provide only enough power for one “pedal to the floor” acceleration uphill with full cargo load to freeway speed.

So, why is it not done this way? Why does my Prius have a 1.8L engine (same size as comparable non-hybrid), and why is my 1.8L engine coupled to the wheels mechanically with some convoluted sun gear and running outside it’s peak efficiency? Why am I carrying around 800Lbs worth of batteries when I could be carrying 100Lbs of capacitors? Why is it a $10,000 upgrade to get a cord I plug the thing in at night? Why does my Prius engage the mechanical brakes every time I come to a stop instead of recouping the dollars I invested to get it up to freeway speed?

.

Your very long description of a hybrid sounds just like the Prius, I'm sure you have already figured out why they use a 1.8L engine (1.8L is what is needed to get that size car over the top of the mountain when you run out of battery at American speeds)

The brakes on the Prius is very complicated, they put a lot of time and research into making the brake pedal feel like we are use to in a nonhybrid, they use a counter balance spring on the brake pedal.

Be careful what you use to power the generator, it has to meet emission standers.

 

Better Hybrid

Put a Nissan leaf battery in the new Prius, you would have 80 mile driving range before gasoline engine start up.

 

A small amount of power is lost in the suspension travel, where it contributes to rolling resistance. There's a fair amount of research work going on to harvest some of this without sacrificing performance and comfort.

On modern paved highways, it may not be possible to get enough energy to cover the cost of the harvesting device. Few of us drive gravel roads anymore.

I'd like this on my bike though. Adding a power-generating suspension sounds good compared the no-suspension-at-all I have currently.

 

The "This is as good as energy storage will ever get" argument holds no water.

40 years ago the internal combustion engine was "as good as it will ever get," and you were lucky to have 350 horsepower from 350 inches on leaded gas with no emission control.

Technology can, and will, improve. Infrastructure will need to adapt to serve electric vehicles, and that requires a pretty substantial economic incentive. I'd say infrastructure is the 300m target, while office charging stations and increased range are the 50m target.

 

Originally Posted by strantor ...............................

So, why is it not done this way? Why does my Prius have a 1.8L engine (same size as comparable non-hybrid), and why is my 1.8L engine coupled to the wheels mechanically with some convoluted sun gear and running outside it’s peak efficiency? Why am I carrying around 800Lbs worth of batteries when I could be carrying 100Lbs of capacitors? Why is it a $10,000 upgrade to get a cord I plug the thing in at night? Why does my Prius engage the mechanical brakes every time I come to a stop instead of recouping the dollars I invested to get it up to freeway speed?

The engine is mechanically connected through a simple sun gear to do away with the mechanical automatic transmission (which is orders of magnitude more complex). The sun gear also connects to the electric motor and to the generator. The three are controlled by the electronics to maintain the engine at near it's optimum (efficient) speed. For example at startup, the engine speeds up while applying torque directly to the wheels. But it also drives the generator, with the generator output then powering the motor to add additional torque to the wheels. It's this adjustment of power flow and relative speed between the engine, motor, and generator that allows the sun gear to act as a normal automatic transmission.

And the Prius does use regenerative braking to recover energy, unless you need to stop rapidly where the mechanical brakes are also applied. That's why the Prius city mileage is about the same as the highway mileage, unlike non-hybrids.

 

I'd say infrastructure is the 300m target, while office charging stations and increased range are the 50m target.

The argument is circular. From a Forbes article (and a common belief among EV proponents):

The best way to deploy EVs is to get cars on the road first, then add infrastructure. If there are no EVs to use those plugs and parking spots, people see it as wasteful. We think infrastructure is a small part of good policy at a federal, regional and local level to support EV early adopters.

In other words: get 'em pregnant then force the taxpayers to foot the bill for the massive infrastructure of charging stations and/or battery swap centers.

The problem is obvious: EV's will never comprise a large enough percentage of the vehicle population that such an expenditure would make economic sense. It's just more "Solyndra spending" which is dumping massive amounts of money into a non viable technology just because it's all there is at the moment.

We can't afford it. We should not have to be subsidizing this Titanic but we are.



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/...aying-ridiculous-subsidies-for-electric-cars/

I’ve said electric cars get subsidized too much. Turns out I was wrong. In California, they are subsidized ridiculously too much. Tesla gets $45,000 for each car it sells in state and federal subsidies. The Tesla S starts at $69,000, so about 40% of its total cost is subsidies (Tesla isn’t making any big profits). This is because the California Air Resources Board has mandated that zero emission vehicles should comprise 15% of new-car sales by 2025 — up from less than 1% now. This forces other car companies that can’t comply to pay for credits from Tesla. “At the end of the day, other carmakers are subsidizing Tesla,” says one analyst.



Remember, the Tesla avoids perhaps 10 tons of CO2 (more likely, with its large battery pack it avoids nothing or even *increases* total CO2 emissions). That means Americans pay at least $5,000 per ton of CO2 avoided – about a thousand times more than the price in the European Trading System. It also avoids local air pollution (which is presumably the Air Resources Board’s objective), but over the entire lifetime of the car, this is worth around $500.


Source:
https://www.facebook.com/bjornlomborg/posts/10151689361298968

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/18/unplug-the-electric-subsidies/


President Obama stopped by Argonne National Laboratory in his Chicago hometown on Friday to demand Americans hand over another $2 billion in subsidies for electric cars. Mr. Obama seeks another cash infusion for “what should be our top priority as a nation.” Taxpayers already offset $7,500 of the cost of every hybrid through a federal tax credit at a total cost of $2 billion. In addition, many states offer similar incentives of their own. The 2009 stimulus bill poured $2 billion into the development and manufacture of electric-car batteries and other components, and the Energy Department’s “advanced-technology vehicle manufacturing program” offers up to $25 billion in direct federal loans to electric car makers. Moreover, $400,000 has been wasted on “education projects” to promote electric cars.

Such princely subsidies haven’t sparked a lot of interest among consumers. The Congressional Budget Office noted in a report last year that electric cars are so much more expensive to produce that “the credits would have to be two or three times as large as they are now to make those vehicles cost-competitive” with reliable, gasoline-powered sedans. The auditors calculated a plug-in hybrid costs $19,000 more to produce, but over the car’s 150,000-mile life span it would only save $7,000 in reduced fuel consumption. Only people who can’t do math buy them.


The president says, “Walk into any dealership today, and you’ll see twice as many hybrids to choose from as there were five years ago.” That may be so, since he can order Government Motors to shove more electric cars in its showroom. Apart from state and federal fleets, those cars aren’t going anywhere.


Lack of public demand for electric cars is what sent battery maker A123 Systems, recipient of $380 million in state and federal subsidies, into bankruptcy. Fisker Automotive announced on Wednesday that its founder and chairman, Henrik Fisker, had resigned. The Congressional Budget Office says there’s no future for this industry. “Unless consumers view electric vehicles very differently in the years ahead, sales of electric vehicles will probably be no greater than those of traditional hybrids because of their higher purchase price and lengthy recharging times.”
Worse, the driving force behind the subsidies is the insistence that carbon dioxide, which is a building block of life on this planet, causes the oceans to rise through global warming. Throwing billions more at electric cars will have “little or no impact on total gasoline consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions,” the government auditors noted.
So all of this crony capitalism accomplishes nothing beyond propping up — for a time — some fly-by-night companies.

​