×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Company Builds Fast Charging Station For Electric Cars

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the fast-as-lightning dept.

Power 359

thecarchik writes "Japanese based JFE Engineering has released its ultra-fast charge station. Designed to comply with the CHAdeMo standard developed by Tokyo Electric Power Company, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru and Toyota, the system is capable of charging a 2011 Mitsubishi i-Miev from empty to 50% full in just three minutes. Even just three minutes plugged into the fast-charge station was enough to enable a standard 2011 Mitsubishi i-Miev to travel a further 50 miles before further charging was required."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

359 comments

Some quick math says... (4, Interesting)

JesseL (107722) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835214)

This thing is putting nearly a quarter megawatt (240kw) drain on the power grid during use.

I wonder if it has some sort of means of load smoothing and a limited duty cycle, or if it's going to need its own substation.

Re:Some quick math says... (5, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835238)

I would be inclined to stand back before switching the power on. And I don't think I would leave the kids in the car during the charging operation.

Re:Some quick math says... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835558)

God hates fags.

Re:Some quick math says... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835594)

if your troll is not even funny... then what's the point?

Re:Some quick math says... (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32836026)

You have much to learn about dysfunctional behaviour grasshopper ...

Re:Some quick math says... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32836062)

Whodunnit? Jewdunnit!

Lifting the Lid on the Guilty Yid

The liberals got it exactly right. For years now they’ve been telling us how “vibrant” mass immigration has made stale, pale White societies. Well, London was certainly vibrating on 7th July and that got me thinking: What else have the liberals got right? Mass immigration “enriches” us too, they’ve always said. Is that “enrich” as in “enriched uranium”, an excellent way of making atom bombs? Because that’s what comes next: a weapon of real mass destruction that won’t kill people in piffling dozens but in hundreds of thousands or millions. Bye-bye London, bye-bye Washington, bye-bye Tel Aviv.

I’m not too sure I’d shed a tear if the last-named went up in a shower of radioactive cinders, but Tel Aviv is actually the least likely of the three to be hit. What’s good for you ain’t good for Jews, and though Jews have striven mightily, and mighty successfully, to turn White nations into multi-racial fever-swamps, mass immigration has passed the Muzzerland safely by. And mass immigration is the key to what happened in London. You don’t need a sophisticated socio-political analysis taking in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Jewish control of Anglo-American foreign policy, British colonialism, and fifteen centuries of Christian-Muslim conflict. You can explain the London bombs in five simple words:

Pakis do not belong here.

And you can sum up how to prevent further London bombs – and worse – in three simple words:

PAKI GO HOME.

At any time before the 1950s, brown-skinned Muslim terrorists would have found it nearly impossible to plan and commit atrocities on British soil, because they would have stood out like sore thumbs in Britain’s overwhelmingly White cities. Today, thanks to decades of mass immigration, it’s often Whites who stand out like sore thumbs. Our cities swarm with non-whites full of anti-White grievances and hatreds created by Judeo-liberal propaganda. And let’s forget the hot air about how potential terrorists and terrorist sympathizers are a “tiny minority” of Britain’s vibrant, peace-loving Muslim “community”.

Even if that’s true, a tiny minority of 1.6 million (2001 estimate) is a hell of a lot of people, and there’s very good reason to believe it isn’t true. Tony Blair has tried to buy off Britain’s corrupt and greedy “moderate” Muslims with knighthoods and public flattery, but his rhetoric about the “religion of peace” wore thin long ago. After the bombings he vowed, with his trademark bad actor’s pauses, that we will... not rest until... the guilty men are identified... and as far... as is humanly possible... brought to justice for this... this murderous carnage... of the innocent.

His slimy lawyer’s get-out clause – “as far as is humanly possible” – was soon needed. Unlike Blair and his pal Dubya in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bombers were prepared not only to kill the innocent but to die themselves as they did so. And to laugh at the prospect: they were captured on CCTV sharing a joke about the limbs and heads that would shortly be flying. Even someone as dim as Blair must know you’ve got a big problem on your hands when there are over 1.6 million people in your country following a religion like that.

If he doesn’t know, there are plenty of Jewish journalists who will point it out for him. There’s the neo-conservative Melanie Phillips in Britain, for example, who never met an indignant adverb she didn’t like, and the neo-conservative Mark Steyn in Canada, who never met an indignant Arab he didn’t kick. Reading their hard-hitting columns on Muslim psychosis, I was reminded of a famous scene in Charles Dickens’ notoriously anti-Semitic novel Oliver Twist (1839). The hero watches the training of the villainous old Jew Fagin put into action by the Artful Dodger:

What was Oliver’s horror and alarm to see the Dodger plunge his hand into the old gentleman’s pocket, and draw from thence a handkerchief! To see him hand the same to Charley Bates; and finally to behold them both running away round the corner at full speed! He stood for a moment tingling from terror; then, confused and frightened, he took to his heels and made off as fast as he could lay his feet to the ground.
In the very instant when Oliver began to run, the old gentleman, putting his hand to his pocket, and missing his handkerchief, turned sharp round. Seeing the boy scudding away, he very naturally concluded him to be the depredator; and shouting “Stop thief!” with all his might, made off after him. But the old gentleman was not the only person who raised the hue-and-cry. The Dodger and Master Bates, unwilling to attract public attention by running down the open street, had merely retired into the very first doorway round the corner. They no sooner heard the cry, and saw Oliver running, than, guessing exactly how the matter stood, they issued forth with great promptitude; and, shouting “Stop thief!” too, joined in the pursuit like good citizens.

“Wicked Muslims!” our two Jewish Artful Dodgers are shouting. “Can’t you see how they hate the West and want to destroy us?” Well, yes, we can, but some of us can also see who the original West-haters are. Mark Steyn claims not to be Jewish, but his ancestry shines through time after time in his writing. Above all, there’s his dishonesty. One week he’s mocking anti-Semites for claiming that the tiny nation of Israel could have such a powerful influence for bad on the world’s affairs. The following week he’s praising the British Empire for having had such a powerful influence for good. You know, the world-bestriding British Empire – as created by a tiny nation called Britain.

If the Brits could do it openly and honestly, Mr Steyn, why can’t the yids do it by fraud and deception? And the yids have done it, of course. They’ve run immigration policy and “race relations” in Europe and America since the 1960s, and Steyn is very fond of pointing out what’s in store for Europe as our Jew-invited non-white guests grow in number and really start to show their appreciation of our hospitality.

Funnily enough, I’ve never seen him point out that the same is in store for North America, which has its own rapidly growing non-white swarms. And when Steyn launches one of his regular attacks on the lunacies of multi-culturalism and anti-racism, a central fact always somehow seems to escape his notice. He recently once again bemoaned the psychotic “Western self-loathing” that has such a “grip on the academy, the media, the Congregational and Episcopal Churches, the ‘arts’ and Hollywood”. Exhibit one: the multi-culti, hug-the-world, “Let’s all be nice to the Muslims” memorial for 9/11. This was his list of those responsible for it:

Tom Bernstein... Michael Posner... Eric Foner... George Soros...
Well, that’s a Jew, a Jew, a Jew, and a Jew – sounds like a lampshade collector showing off his Auschwitz shelf. But fearless “Tell It Like It Is” Steyn, ever-ready to mock the “racial sensitivity” of deluded liberals, is himself very sensitive about race when it comes to the Chosen Ones. He’ll kick dark-skinned Muslims and their liberal appeasers till the sacred cows come home and he can start kicking them too, but just like Melanie Phillips he never whispers a word about the Jews who created liberal appeasement or about the enormous power Jews wield in “the academy, the media, the 'arts', and Hollywood”.

The same is true of all other Jewish “conservatives”. They’re shouting “Stop thief!” at the top of their voices and hoping that no-one will notice that they all belong to the biggest race of thieves who ever existed. Those bombs went off in London because Jews have stolen large parts of Britain from their rightful White inhabitants and handed them over to the non-white followers of a psychotic alien religion. When non-whites commit more and worse atrocities in future, you won’t need to ask who’s really responsible: it’s liberal Jews like Tom Bernstein and George Soros, who organize mass immigration and the anti-racism industry, and “conservative” Jews like Mark Steyn and Melanie Phillips, who distract White attention from the racial motives of Jews like Soros and Bernstein. Heads they win, tails we lose – liberal, “conservative”, they’re all of them Jews.

Re:Some quick math says... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835290)

350*70=24.5 kW, not 240

Re:Some quick math says... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835470)

...16kWh battery pack of the Mitsubishi i-Miev...

...charging a 2011 Mistubishi i-Miev from empty to 50% full in just three minutes

50% of 16kWh is 28800000J. 28800000J divided by 180 seconds (3 minutes) is 160000 J/s, or 160kW.

Re:Some quick math says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835476)

mod parent up^ 24,500w = 24.5 * 1000 w/kw

who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835402)

I wonder if it has some sort of means of load smoothing and a limited duty cycle, or if it's going to need its own substation.

who cares? it makes no difference to you or car owners

Re:Some quick math says... (4, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835438)

From TFA (close to the end):

But for retail locations and gas stations, the 62.5 kW power requirements of each charger should not be impossible to accommodate in all but the remotest of locations.

In addition, even the remotest location can accommodate it: just install a generator burning gas (I'm kidding but only half-kidding: remote locations in which you can currently refill your tank will have petrol and a generator will consume less per kWh generated than the car's petrol engine...be it only because it doesn't need to change gears/etc).

Re:Some quick math says... (3, Interesting)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835900)

Hmm. Kind of like a Chevy Volt.

I just did some quick Googling, and 62.5kW worth of dedicated genset is around $13k to $25k for generating equipment alone. So, to pick a number, it might cost a remote service station $80k to install a single generator-backed rapid charge station (including installation, signage, fancy Toyota-approved hardware, profit, etc).

It wouldn't take a huge amount of regular demand for such a thing to be practical, but I'd think that $80k would still a pretty big chunk of money for such a remote place, which brings up a pretty big catch-22: There won't be demand until facilities exist, and facilities won't exist until there is demand.

Re:Some quick math says... (5, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835440)

It will probably rely on some sort of capacitor-based local storage, so it'll always be drawing power from the grid, but at a steady pace awaiting the next charge.

Re:Some quick math says... (1)

Vegemeister (1259976) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835960)

If capacitors could reasonably store enough energy to drive a car 50 miles, they'd already be doing it.

Re:Some quick math says... (1)

ardle (523599) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835978)

Ok then: use the grid power to create Hydrogen, keep that in a tank until it's needed to re-generate electricity :-)

Re:Some quick math says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32836010)

Huh? That's be nice, but that kind of cap technology is still quite a ways away, or utilities would already be using them for demand smoothing.

Cold fusion (1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835538)

Trust me, you won't see fully electric cars replacing gasoline until we develop cold fusion. Just google how many Joules you get in a pound of gasoline versus a pound of anything else. The technology simply does not exist and will not for a long time. The stuff you see now is just small incremental improvements. Oh and you math geeks, figure out how many pounds of coal was burned to charge that battery halfway.

Re:Cold fusion (2, Insightful)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835566)

Oh and you math geeks, figure out how many pounds of coal was burned to charge that battery halfway.

How about none? I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power, but guess what runs the grid in much of Japan?

Re:Cold fusion (2, Interesting)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835706)

Electric engines are roughly 3-4 times as efficient as gasoline ones. So you get 3-4 times the effective energy density out of batteries.

More importantly you don't need that much energy, almost all car rides are short and electricity can be recharged at home unlike gasoline.

Oh and you math geeks, figure out how many pounds of coal was burned to charge that battery halfway.

Less pollution wise than you'd get from gasoline, someone did look into it. Natural gas is a lot better, and used in quite a few places, but even coal beats out gasoline engines.

Re:Cold fusion (4, Interesting)

iamhassi (659463) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835958)

"Electric engines are roughly 3-4 times as efficient as gasoline ones. So you get 3-4 times the effective energy density out of batteries."

Sure, but who wants to buy a car that only gets 100 miles, then needs to be recharged every 50 miles? This might be a good second or third car, but it's not that practical as your main vehicle, and the fact that an electric vehicle must be charged nightly limits it to only being useful to homes with garages.

This is why SUVs have been so popular in the US despite their poor gas mileage. You can fit 5 to 7 adults comfortably and still have room for luggage.

Electric cars will fail, and series hybrids like the Chevy Volt will succeed. [wikipedia.org] When the batteries run low a gas generator keeps the batteries charged enough to power the vehicle. This is brilliant: I get my electric car for my short daily commutes, but I still have gas for those rare times when I need to drive hundreds of miles in a day. I have the best of both worlds with no sacrifices.

Also series hybrids means we can finally use turbines: gas turbines are the most efficient engine. [wikipedia.org] While a gasoline engine is only 20-30% efficient, [wikipedia.org] a gas turbine is over 80% efficient. [wikipedia.org] In 1999 GM made a EV1 Series hybrid using a turbine generator. The vehicle achieved up to 100mpg while charging the battery [wikipedia.org] using 90s technology and a 220 lbs turbine (modern turbines are much smaller [wikipedia.org])

In ten years when series hybrids become the norm we'll look at vehicles like the Prius the same way Prius owners look at SUV owners today.

Re:Cold fusion (2, Insightful)

adolf (21054) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835984)

Electric engines are roughly 3-4 times as efficient as gasoline ones. So you get 3-4 times the effective energy density out of batteries.

Please explain what you mean. Your premise and conclusion are not related, which makes your statement completely nonsensical.

More importantly you don't need that much energy, almost all car rides are short and electricity can be recharged at home unlike gasoline.

And if that were the issue, we wouldn't even be discussing it. I can already get electric cars that are completely useful and practical for short trips around town, so that the car spends most of its time at home charging. The problem is that none of them are any good at all for leaving town, since there's no available means to recharge them easily, quickly, or without special arrangements.

Less pollution wise than you'd get from gasoline, someone did look into it. Natural gas is a lot better, and used in quite a few places, but even coal beats out gasoline engines.

Citation, please. Adding generation losses, transmission losses, DC conversion losses, battery storage losses, and drivetrain losses to compare it to the total efficiency of an internal combustion engine is a nontrivial thing. Just because some dude on Slashdot assures me that "someone did look into it" does not at all make me satisfied that reality is in any way supportive of the claim.

Re:Some quick math says... (3, Informative)

Animats (122034) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835876)

I wonder if it has some sort of means of load smoothing and a limited duty cycle

Yes, it does. One of the charging stations described itself has a battery, for load smoothing purposes.

That's a win for stations without heavy power available. But busy stations are going to need a high-current feeder, so that can charge one car after another during busy periods.

Still skeptical about all-electric cars (3, Funny)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835230)

I have never owned or even driven one save for a golf cart. My experience with the golf cart leaves me doubt as to whether an electric car can deliver enough torque to climb steep inclines.

Heck, what happens when you are stuck in snow all the while, the spinning of wheels eating away at your juice? Scary, isn't it?

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (4, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835258)

I have never owned or even driven one save for a golf cart. My experience with the golf cart leaves me doubt as to whether an electric car can deliver enough torque to climb steep inclines.

Have you tried a Tesla? I hear they are fast.

Heck, what happens when you are stuck in snow all the while, the spinning of wheels eating away at your juice? Scary, isn't it?

Heck, what happens when you are stuck in snow all the while, the spinning of wheels eating away at your fuel? Scary, isn't it?

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (3, Insightful)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835368)

Heck, what happens when you are stuck in snow all the while, the spinning of wheels eating away at your fuel? Scary, isn't it?

When stuck in snow, the need to keep warm and therefore keep the engine running consumes fuel. When you finally run out of gasoline, you can replenish your supply via some container. How the heck do you do that if your primary source of energy if a battery? This is the problem.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (5, Funny)

Tynin (634655) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835456)

That is when you go to the grocery store, buy all their AA batteries, wire them in parallel and hope it is enough to get you to the next volt station.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (3, Insightful)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835556)

Extreme environments pose challenges for vehicles. There are examples you can point to where EVs may not be appropriate. But say I want to camp in the desert. The nearest petrol station is 1000km away. I could use a bank of photocells to charge my vehicle on site.

And BTW 1000km is quite realistic for remote areas in my country.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

Lohrno (670867) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835734)

I have no idea about this sort of thing, but I would imagine that electric vehicles would do better in cold weather climates. At least you would not have to keep the motor running because it won't start if you don't...

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835778)

I have no idea about this sort of thing, but I would imagine that electric vehicles would do better in cold weather climates. At least you would not have to keep the motor running because it won't start if you don't...

One factor is that there is less energy lost as heat in an electric vehicle so running a heater will increase power consumption. You might be able to recover some heat from the batteries and motor though. Does anybody know how the heater (if it exists) in the Tesla works?

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835860)

Depends on the battery chemistry. Most batteries do not perform as well when cold as they do at room temperature, though exactly how severe "not as well" is for various values of "cold" can vary sharply by chemistry and design.

This is actually part of why conventional engines are hard to start in cold(in addition to increased lubricant viscosity and any other effects on the fuel and fluids). Your car battery needs to deliver a nontrivial amount of current to the starter motor to get the engine started. A cold battery, especially if it was borderline before, is going to have lower peak current output. If your battery's peak current drops below what you need to start, you have a problem. If the starting requirements are higher because lubricants are more viscous than designed, you have two problems flanking you.

An electric vehicle would, presumably, be at lower risk of simply "not starting", since most electric motors will at least turn feebly at well under their preferred voltage or current; but it would be more vulnerable to the fact that cold generally reduces usable battery capacity and available current, at least until the battery is allowed to warm again.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835882)

Most batteries lose capacity as temperature drops. Lead-acid batteries lose a LOT of their capacity below freezing - tip; if your battery is *nearly* dead and the temp is below freezing, AND your car is not one of those that loses its mind when the battery is taken out, take that cold battery out and bring it inside. An hour at room temperature (assuming you paid the oil bill) will give it a big kick in the pants. You will be amazed, and you will get to the store to buy a new one. Or to work.

I suspect even lithium batteries lose a lot in cold temperatures. Me? If I were living in the Northeast again, I would be looking to drive a turbo diesel. Dual batteries, and a series/parallel switch for those really cold mornings. And maybe a block heater, though my old 1960-something diesel Land Rover never needed one. Surely that new TDI will do fine.

In Arizona, batteries will only suffer from 112-degree days, when it's more like 150 in the parking lot. Lead-aid batteries just get burnt up. Sucks.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (2, Informative)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835572)

How the heck do you do that if your primary source of energy if a battery?

You could plug the car in... or carry around a spare container of electricity (aka a battery), or a generator and some gasoline, I suppose.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835940)

daisy chain extension cords to the next power outlet. can you do this with petrol? I think not!

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835942)

a generator and some gasoline

Why even that? Why not just a generator with a hand crank?

No, I've got no idea how much energy these things need, but hey what if you hooked up a bicycle to the battery and charged it up that way?

Or just bike your way in the first way. If you need to bike 5 miles to charge the car to get 1 mile then I dunno.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

tbischel (862773) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835972)

Here is an interesting study [mit.edu] on electric powertrains... it comes to some remarkable conclusions about the wheel to well efficiencies of different technologies, and the long term cost projections... Their analysis seems to point to Battery Electric Vehicles as the least likely long term solution to the transportation section, instead favoring HEVs, PHEVs, and FCVs. Very interesting read!

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

ColaMan (37550) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835270)

Heck, what happens when you are stuck in snow all the while, the spinning of wheels eating away at your juice? Scary, isn't it?

Not really. Spinning of wheels implies low friction and seeing as you're not actually moving anywhere (dammit), power used to spin those wheels is actually pretty minimal compared to normal driving.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32836056)

Also, since the electric motors will all have individual "differentials" the wheels will actually only turn if there is grip, if there is no grip there is no point in spinning the wheel. When you have a EV with a motor on each wheel it will be like having all the benefits of a 4wd without any traditional drawbacks, the drawback will instead be the chance of motordrive failure and the fact that repairing a EV will probably require an electrical engineering degree.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

JesseL (107722) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835280)

Proper gearing will give you all the torque you need to get up any incline with even the tiniest motor. The question is how fast you'll be climbing.

A properly sized motor will provide all the hill climbing performance you could ever want and the limitation becomes range, as limited by battery capacity.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835488)

Proper gearing will give you all the torque you need to get up any incline with even the tiniest motor.

Besides, unlike the petrol engines, an electrical engine has it's maximum torque at 0 rpm - this is why a properly-sized electrical car will beat pants-down any thermal-engine drag racer.

The question is how fast you'll be climbing.

At maximum torque? Never! :D

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835622)

Besides, unlike the petrol engines, an electrical engine has it's maximum torque at 0 rpm - this is why a properly-sized electrical car will beat pants-down any thermal-engine drag racer.

As another bonus - higher power electric motors also tend to be more efficient. I say 'tend' because there's still lots of factors, but on average a 100hp motor of the same design as a 50hp version will be a few percentage points more efficient.

Non-all inclusive list of advantages of Electric motors over IC engines:
* Engines are rated in MAX horsepower, motors in sustained horsepower
**heat is normally their limiting factor. You can drive a heavy duty motor at something like 4X it's rating for a few seconds
* As stated, 100% torque at 0 RPM.
** Combined with the first, it means that a motor of like 1/3rd the horsepower can give most of the same performance as an engine, except for sustained top speed.
* Increase the voltage, increase the power of the motor
** well, at least up until it starts sparking through the insulation. Efficiency generally goes up as well.
* Longevity: There are electric motors out there that are perfectly happy running 24x7 for 20 years.
** Maintenance is less as well. Generally the only thing you might have to do is replace some brushes.
* Efficiency: The quality motors you'd look at using for an EV are generally above 90% efficient.
* Regeneration: The right design allows a motor to also be a generator, enabling regenerative braking, which if you use it right, will make your brake pads effectively last the life of the car.

Electric = Great motor, horrible power source. :(
Internal combustion - lousy motor, great power source.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (4, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835356)

My Tesla Roadster launches off the line faster than any other exotic vehicle I've driven (including a Lamborghini Murcielago and the Ariel Atom). What does that? Torque, and lots of it. Electric motors have full torque from 0 rpms, unlike internal combustion engines that have a limited torque band (and hence, the need for inefficient transmissions).

And regarding the snow? Yea, electric cars do just fine there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH_mSJC21f8 [youtube.com]

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (2, Interesting)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835596)

The Atom is a ridiculous [youtube.com] car. I'd actually like to see a drag race between it and the Tesla Roadster.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835880)

Just curious: what is the Tesla like in the cold? Does it use battery power for heating? Is it still comfortable?

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (4, Insightful)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835384)

My experience with the golf cart leaves me doubt as to whether an electric car can deliver enough torque to climb steep inclines.

Er, what? When dealing with electric motors, you have much more torque than a comparable gas motor.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835386)

My experience with golf carts is that they're great for inclines. You can park them on a hill and start it right up. It wasn't the fastest thing in the world and when it started losing speed it felt like I might not make it, but the torque just pulled it up and over.

And greatest thing about electric motors is that you don't need to spin your wheels. You can apply full torque at 0 rpm and pull yourself out of being stuck.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835716)

My experience with go carts tell me that gas cars suck, did you know if you hit the gas peddle or it gets stuck down that the brakes won't work!? My god I can't believe we drive these deathtraps. I mean a small hit will crush the entire body of those little cars....

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835570)

Well my experience with gas powered push lawn mowers tells me that gas powered cars would be a pain in the ass to push around the yard, and much less fun for pushing on a long trip.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

kaizokuace (1082079) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835670)

even though you weren't being serious, I'd like to add that I've actually seen an electric car made by an individual, so this thing was running on lead acid batteries, that pulled an 8 second quarter-mile.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835698)

My experience with golf carts is the opposite. All they have is torque. What they don't have is speed.

That's all a function of the vehicle's function though, since golf carts are meant to carry 2, 200lb guys and their clubs up and down gentle slopes.

Ride a decent ebike so you can get a feel for electric power...you'll grin from ear to ear, guaranteed.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835802)

Golf carts, shockingly enough, are not especially heavy-duty vehicles. Amazing what being designed to operate cheaply on gently rolling and well-manicured landscapes will do to you.

Electric motors, though, can put out some seriously mean torque at low speed. In fact, dealing with the amount of current they draw as they approach stall is one of the important design considerations in using them.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

ZorbaTHut (126196) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835838)

Similarly, I had an old half-broken gas-powered ATV that just couldn't reach highway speeds. I don't see why people like this "gas" thing so much, it clearly doesn't have enough oomph to do anything serious.

Re:Still skeptical about all-electric cars (1)

webweave (94683) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835872)

How about the parts of America where there is precious little snow and hardly any hills? Well if you look around there now all you'll see is Arab fueled gas guzzlers. America has a huge problem from relying on foreign fuel and an even bigger problem caused by shipping so much of its currency out of the country, you remember the economy, scary isn't it? Worst of all is this problem has been know about since the early '70's and little has been done except for making it worse. Now if you live in Vermont or Denver then by all means keep your gas guzzler but if your flatland brothers had of been buying electric cars for the last twenty odd years then your good old gasoline would be a lot cheaper now and likely as a side benefit the towers would still be standing because the idle rich in Saudi wouldn't have been so rich and idle. Oh and I don't mean to focus on the evil dictatorship know as Saudi Arabia we buy oil from plenty of other despots and tyrannical regimes.

I'll wave when I drive past you ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835242)

My 1996 Passat TDi has a cruising range in excess of 900 miles. That's right,
the car can be driven over 900 miles without stopping for fuel. So while
you are stopped at the charging station, I am driving, and I am also
achieving c. 45 mpg REAL WORLD fuel economy, which makes you
with the electric car look like the chump you are.

Electric cars are not ready for "prime time" yet, because they lack the range
to be useful outside of a commuter scenario. And no amount of PR bullshit
about quick charging is going to alter this fundamental truth.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (0)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835282)

If I had an electric car I would plug it in at night and wave at you filling up your car.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835412)

And depending on where you live, that nighttime power would be dirt cheap. I pay $0.01/KwH between midnight and 5am in the Chicago suburbs for power from ComEd (time of day metering; power is nuclear from Byron generating facility).

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835520)

It's cheap because not many people are charging their electric cars at night. That will change real fast, and the same grid that can't handle everyone running their air conditioner will collapse under the load.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (2, Informative)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835608)

Electric vehicles will become widely available starting in 2011. The current Administration supports a goal of one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. A previous PNNL study showed that America’s existing power grid could meet the needs of about 70 percent of all U.S. light-duty vehicles if battery charging was managed to avoid new peaks in electricity demand.

http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=365 [pnl.gov]

I'm not that worried. There is plenty of nighttime generating capacity.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835296)

more over, electric cars require materials for the batteries that are commodities. I expect these materials will become the new oil. It would be better to invest in technology to figure out a way to make a hydrogen car viable.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (3, Interesting)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835364)

The burning of oil is non-reversable. Once used it is gone for good. Batteries may degrade with use but the original material is still there and available for reconditioning.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (2, Insightful)

John Meacham (1112) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835392)

The way to make a hydrogen car viable is to take your nth generation series hybrid car and replace the engine/generator with a hydrogen fuel cell. Once you are mainly using electricity off the grid, you only need to refill your gas tank occasionally, since you are only doing it every now and again, going to a hydrogen dispensary is less of an issue, even if there isn't one right around the corner. As hydrogen/electric cars become more palatable, hydrogen fuelling plants become more common, eventually you don't need as big of a battery to get between them.

A migration path is key. series hybrid cars let companies experiment with different supplimental energy sources without producing vehicles completely dependent on some external infrastructure.

Heck, I'd like to see a 'standard' for pluggable electric generators in series hybrid cars, pull out the diesel engine, replace it with a hydrogen fuel cell, or a bigger battery pack, or just leave it out and have a pure electric car.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835426)

Hydrogen will always lose out, because it's simply an energy store and not an energy source. Anyplace we can get hydrogen from? No. We have to convert natural gas to hydrogen (might as well run vehicles on natural gas) or crack H20 into hydrogen with electricity (which is horribly inefficient). Electricity is the end game.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

Jeremi (14640) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835598)

We have to convert natural gas to hydrogen (might as well run vehicles on natural gas) or crack H20 into hydrogen with electricity (which is horribly inefficient).

There is always option (c): find another, more efficient way to produce hydrogen (e.g. bioengineered bacteria, or something). I still wouldn't necessarily bet on hydrogen, but it's not impossible that someone might come up with something practical.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835618)

If a) creating it was practical, b) storing it was practical (instead of vessels that need to hold it at tens of thousands of PSI) and c) it was cheaper than electric vehicles, it would be possible. I don't see those things happening though.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835752)

Oil loses out on the same basis... the only difference is that with oil, all the energy that went into making it was done for us over the course of many millions of years. The problem, however, is that we are consuming that energy far faster than we can replenish it. Using hydrogen as a fuel, you create water vapor, which in turn you can extract hydrogen from later. It's not remotely free to do this, of course, but at least the resource is immediately available instead of having to wait millions of years for it.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

tbischel (862773) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835874)

Hydrogen will always lose out, because it's simply an energy store and not an energy source. Anyplace we can get hydrogen from? No. We have to convert natural gas to hydrogen (might as well run vehicles on natural gas) or crack H20 into hydrogen with electricity (which is horribly inefficient). Electricity is the end game.

If electric cars were the best solution (or energy efficiency was the only concern), we would be exclusively burn oil in more efficient power plants, and using that to charge batteries in cars... rather than converting crude to gasoline to fill up.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835432)

Storing hydrogen is a chore to say the least, and that's without thinking about what makes a fuel cell. Call it prejudice but when I imagine the future of the car I don't see a hydrogen IC engine in the spotlight; electric motors are so much better.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

tbischel (862773) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835908)

the Toyota Fuel Cell vehicle gets 420 miles per tank of compressed hydrogen... sounds like they have the storage problem in hand. I agree that combustion hydrogen seems unlikely, but I still have high hopes for FCVs.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (0, Troll)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835462)

Most cars already run on hydrogen. In liquid form it is much easier to handle than in the gaseous state and is called hydrocarbon.

Holy Carp... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835506)

That is so wrong on so many levels. I think my head may explode.

Re:Holy Carp... (1)

JohnRoss1968 (574825) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835600)

Dont feel bad after reading that one I wanted to buy stock in an aspirin company.
Hey heres an idea. Aspirin companys get people to come and look at /. , People read the comments and get a headache. People with headaches buy aspirin. ....errr someone please format this as to how to make a proffit. My head still hurts too much from the parent post

Re:Holy Carp... (0)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835646)

It's simple enough. While hydrogen has the most potential chemical energy by mass, it's also one of the least dense by volume.

An easy solution to this is to bind the hydrogen with carbon. The resulting chemicals lose little energy by weight, but gain huge advantages in density.

In the right chains, the resulting chemicals are even liquid, making storage and transportation far easier.

As mentioned, these chains are called hydrocarbons. Not the most inventive, but descriptive. ;)

Re:Holy Carp... (2, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835740)

I'm sorry, but really, hydrocarbons are not a liquid form of hydrogen, and cars are not powered on hydrogen now. Those things are just wrong!

Your post I find amusing, as it posit a world with abundant hydrogen, looking for a way to make it useful!

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (0)

gothzilla (676407) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835548)

We already have hydrogen cars. It uses fuel comprised of 16 hydrogen atoms stored on 7 carbon atoms. It's far safer than straight hydrogen and there are millions of places to refuel all across the world.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (5, Insightful)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835318)

they lack the range to be useful outside of a commuter scenario

And that scenario only makes up, what, about 80% of the passenger car miles driven in North America?

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835396)

Electric vehicles are always more efficient well to wheel than internal combustion engines. Always.

So you can go over 900 miles with your car. So? How often do people do 900 mile commutes in a day? Rarely. Electric cars aren't just ready for prime time. They're ready for the end of cheap, easy oil (whose time has come, if you didn't notice how we now have to go 1+ miles under the surface of the ocean to get it).

From the Chevy Volt wiki page:

With fully charged batteries, enough electrical energy will be stored to power the Volt up to 40 miles (64 km). This distance is capable of satisfying the daily commute for 75% of Americans, whose commute is on average 33 miles (53 km).

Your 900 mile one-way range? Useless. An electric vehicle's ability to use any power source that can be turned into electricity (be it wind, nuclear, solar, coal, etc)? Priceless.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835654)

I think that, on some level, owning a car actually represents a certain measure of personal freedom to many individuals in our society: specifically, the freedom to be able to go to and fro, wherever one wants, and whenever they want. I think that this association is made subconsciously even if they don't actually exercise that liberty. To that end, I believe that people's problem with the range of EV's is less of an issue of actually needing a really large range on a daily basis and more an issue of having the freedom to drive almost anywhere they might want to on a spur of the moment, if they should so choose.

Re:I'll wave when I drive past you ... (3, Insightful)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835658)

I agree completely. As with most issues, it's a matter of separating the emotional part from the practical part.

charleymiller2010 (0)

charleymiller2010 (1850988) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835278)

The problem we all know with a fast charge is the lost of the deep memory cycle, so the atoms for lack of a better word forget how good it can be, hence you get a quickie over and over and you loos interest. In this case, efficency. SO, BFD, unless we will be all about "instant gratification." At the expense of battery life I rather stick with fuel cells or just continue to drive on corn and brown gas as I have. Charleymiller2010 Unaffiliated

Re:charleymiller2010 (1)

HBoar (1642149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835452)

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but bio fuels derived from crops take more energy to produce than you get out of them (not to mention taking up already scarce land needed for food production), as do hydrogen/oxygen mixtures obtained through electrolysis of water. Anyone with a basic knowledge of science can tell you that.

Re:charleymiller2010 (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835490)

Have you looked the the food commodity prices lately? Even with the large gains seen today, the prices are still below the cost of production. If land for food was as scarce as you claim, should that food not be worth more than it costs to produce?

Re:charleymiller2010 (1)

TooMuchToDo (882796) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835586)

http://www.google.com/search?q=food+prices+biofuels [google.com]

Let me pick some choice headlines:

IMF Survey: Biofuel Demand Pushes Up Food Prices

World Bank Chief: Biofuels Boosting Food Prices : NPR

The biofuel factor in rising food prices | Green Tech - CNET News

The Tortilla Effect: Biofuel and food prices

Just because you don't see the price at Walmart going up significantly, doesn't mean elsewhere the price for food isn't going up.

Re:charleymiller2010 (1)

mini me (132455) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835824)

I am talking about the actual trade of food commodities, not the price you see at the grocery store. Corn, for example, costs approximately $4.50 per bushel to produce (from the field to the grain elevator). Right now, the best I can do on the sale of a bushel of corn is $3.65. Based on current market bids, a farmer in my region will lose almost a dollar on every bushel produced.

If food is even nearing scarcity, why is nobody willing to pay at least a fair market value for the food? The laws of supply and demand seem to indicate that we have an incredible amount of food that we have no idea what to do with. Biofuels at least find a home for all of that excess crop that is going to be grown anyway.

Re:charleymiller2010 (1)

Atmchicago (555403) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835854)

Food in the United States is all heavily subsidized. This comes in various forms, such as subsidies for corn, soybeans, sugar, cotton etc. We also have relatively cheap gasoline. In some cases, agribusiness gets paid to not grow certain crops so as to not alter the price too much. It's one of the reasons why we are today an obese nation - food is cheap and plentiful in our country. Were we to take away the subsidies, we would have the ability to spend our money elsewhere, or not, but prices at the supermarket would increase.

Re:charleymiller2010 (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835676)

Sorry to burst your little bubble, but bio fuels derived from crops take more energy to produce than you get out of them

Are you including solar inputs or not? If you're only counting man introduced energy sources such as electricity, fossil fuels, and such, then the answer is actually 'it depends'.

The study that said that ethanol wasn't energy positive was rather pessimistic, and assumed inefficient plants. Newer designs are more efficient and flip back to the positive side.

Just, well, not enough to justify the amount of land it'd take, which is why I support the ideas for cellulosic ethanol and the fuels made from algae grown in trays filled with seawater out in the desert.

Well, that and saving the ethanol, biodiesel, and biogasoline for uses that suit them, not short trips to work or the mall - use an EV for that.

The Dept of Redundancy would like to have a word.. (1)

Qubit (100461) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835540)

Designed to comply with the CHAdeMo standard...the system is capable of charging a 2011 Mitsubishi i-Miev from empty to 50% full in just three minutes. Even just three minutes plugged in...enable[d] a standard 2011 Mitsubishi i-Miev to travel a further 50 miles before further charging was required."

Good job being.... very redundant? I supposed you'll want some kind of gold star or something...

Speaking of education, guess what time it is? That's right, it's Mathdot Time!.

Usually around this time I whip out my trusty calculator (and before those mod-point-endowed HP-calculator /.-ers down-mod me into oblivion, yes, "RPN FTW!"), but in this case I think we can just use the power of our brains. Just try not to think too hard or you might hurt your brain.

And...it's a story problem!

If samzenpus can charge his 2011 Mitsubishi i-Miev from empty to 50% full in just three minutes, and if three minutes plugged in...enable[s] his standard 2011 Mitsubishi i-Miev to travel a further 50 miles, what is the range of his vehicle?

100 miles? That's it?

Okay, yeah, apparently electric cars are kind of screwed...

Re:The Dept of Redundancy would like to have a wor (1)

mmcxii (1707574) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835662)

100 miles? That's it?

It's a step in the right direction.

For my driving habits this would nearly work* and I would only have a couple of reservations. Early adopters normally put up with a bit of pain to help spur a technology along. If this car would be available at a competitive price point I might actually buy one knowing that it is a stepping stone to what people really envision being offered in an electronic car.

* This car wouldn't have worked for 3 trips, that I can think of, in the last 2 years.

Still too slow, Hydrogen is endgame (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835656)

Even three minutes is a long time to spend actually at the charger, and as another poster noted that produces a hell of a load on the electrical grid which limits the practicality of deployment for further speed improvements in charging.

  I saw an article a bit ago doing the math about how many cars can move through a electric equivalent of a gas station, and something like 10x more gasoline powered cars are able to fuel up FULLY over the course of an hour. And of course if you are only charging for 50 miles station congestion will only be worse.

Purely electric cars are simply not a practical thing, and really don't mesh well with how people like to use cars in America.

That's why I think the alternative fuel of choice will (and should) be Hydrogen. People (consumers and stations and providers) already know how to deal with liquids, it's just an adaptation of existing infrastructure.

Yes it's bloody hard to store and expensive to produce right now. But imagine how much less so it would be (especially production) if the same amount of money were being poured into R&D around Hydrogen cars as we see being poured into electric and solar power.

Misleading summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835678)

Great, so after 3 minutes--the time it takes to fill up my gas tank--I can go 50 miles. 5 minutes for 70%, and after that, the time to continue to fill up grows exponentially.

We're certainly going in the right direction, but don't give people false hope. Inspire people.

I originally read about it on Engadget, where they note the time trend [engadget.com].

Re:Misleading summary (2, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835916)

Some explanations from the Battery university [batteryuniversity.com]:

Some charger manufacturers claim amazingly short charge times of 30 minutes or less. With well-balanced cells and operating at moderate room temperatures, nickel-cadmium batteries designed for fast charging can indeed be charged in a very short time. This is done by simply dumping in a high charge current during the first 70% of the charge cycle.

In the second phase of the charge cycle, the charge current must be lowered. The efficiency to absorb charge is progressively reduced as the battery moves to a higher state-of-charge. If the charge current remains too high in the later part of the charge cycle, the excess energy turns into heat and high cell pressure. Eventually, venting will occur, releasing oxygen and hydrogen. Not only do the escaping gases deplete the electrolyte, they are highly flammable!

Some sources says it's not CHAdeMO compliant (3, Informative)

iktos (166530) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835704)

This source also has some more technical details, like charging current, how much current the charging station will draw from the grid (20kW), that the charging station has twin batteries with different properties, that car makers need to adopt new battery types for it to work:

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20100621/183598/ [nikkeibp.co.jp]

Re:Some sources says it's not CHAdeMO compliant (1)

dadelbunts (1727498) | more than 3 years ago | (#32835996)

Well if chad wants people to be compliant with him maybe he should get a proper haircut, stop wearing eyeliner, nail polish and too tight shirts, and pretending to cut himself in a cry for attention.

Not good enough! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32835748)

I, for one, refuse to buy an electric vehicle until it has a range of 1000 miles on a single charge, and can be fully recharged in under 30 seconds. Anything less is completely impractical. I also want 12 cup holders. When they achieve this performance level, I will find another rediculous excuse not to buy one.

And I will continue to insist on my god given right to mis-spell rediculous.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...