Reply With Quote
This is why I have a 95 Honda accord and a 2000 Chevy Siverado truck to haul.
The mechanic that is so honest but you pay for his work keeps them running. F the dealer who charges more and you take it in 5 times before it gets done right.
Will Tesla Make the Auto Mechanic Obsolete?
There are just six parts of a Tesla Model S that must be regularly replaced: the four tires plus the two wiper blades.
The all-electric sedan made in California doesn’t need the gamut of moving parts found in internal combustion engines. That means no valves, camshafts, crankshaft, cylinders or ignition system. There aren’t any connecting rods, clutches or gears, either, nor any need for belts and pulleys, oil filters, spark plugs, mufflers, oxygen sensors or air filters.
The list goes on.
It’s a little known feature of all battery electric vehicles: simplicity of design and ultralight maintenance. Car owners are estimated to spend half as much on the care of electric vehicles compared to their dinosaur juice-sipping counterparts, according to theCenter for Automotive Research. Why is there such a gap?
Design Differences
Internal combustion engines are inherently complex. They require hundreds and, lately, thousands of specialized components to safely convert fossil fuels into motion via cycles of controlled explosions. And the more ‘modern’ traditional cars get, the more complicated their guts are, and the less friendly to DIY repairs.
Most drivers have grown accustomed to regular oil changes, filter switches, radiator flushes, exhaust system replacements and smog checks. These habits were carefully cultivated by generations of car owners to help the high-maintenance gas engine do its job.
Electric vehicles (EVs), in stark contrast, emphasize self-reliance. The design of an electric propulsion system is elegantly simple, pared down to the basics: a propulsion motor, radiator fans, speed controller fans and, sometimes, a coolant pump.
Cars made by Tesla Motors have but one moving part: the rotor. Fewer electronic components are needed, and with regenerative braking, the brake pads in EVs last many times longer than those in traditional cars.
Read more at http://www.teslarati.com/will-tesla-...GoCXmYtvfMD.99
The totally disruptive advance will be higher energy density, price, and longer life for EV batteries, permitting EVs to wipe out the internal combustion car.
No surprise that Tesla is looking to build its own battery factory, to capture the manufacturing margins and control supply.
We should cut $100B+ from the US national security/empire mainteance budget and spend it on battery research.
This is why I have a 95 Honda accord and a 2000 Chevy Siverado truck to haul.
The mechanic that is so honest but you pay for his work keeps them running. F the dealer who charges more and you take it in 5 times before it gets done right.
The way they plan to change out batteries with robots and such will require high tech people to monitor the machines.
I don't want people pounding on rocks just to pound on rocks. Technology that makes physical lives of people easier can't be stopped. Nor should it be.
Battery research is incredibly important imo.
Mostly BLUE STATES, natch
California in 8-state pact to boost electric cars
California joined Oregon and six east coast states — together representing nearly one-quarter of America’s auto market — in announcing Thursday a set of joint steps designed to add at least 3.3 million electric cars, plug-in hybrids and fuel-cell vehicles to their roads by 2025.
The states, which also include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont, have committed to buying large numbers of zero-emission vehicles for their government fleets and building fueling stations for cars that run on electricity or hydrogen. They may also allow electric car drivers from one state to drive solo in the carpool lines of another and give them prime parking spots in publicly owned garages and lots.
The steps flesh out an agreement signed in October by the governors of each of the states, who view zero-emission vehicles as a way to fight both climate change and air pollution.
http://blog.sfgate.com/energy/2014/0...electric-cars/
=============
Meanwhile in filthy red OH, per ALEC(corporate) marching orders:
Ohio rolls back green energy standards — cue widespread hair-tearing
Congratulations, Ohio! Not only do you purportedly enjoy the most heinous unofficial state food in the union (please refer to item No. 52 on the linked list), you’re also vying for the position of Most Regressive Energy Policies in an Already Relatively Behind-the-Times Country. And that is definitively a contest in which no one wins.
Yesterday, the Ohio House of Representatives passed a bill that will freeze requirements that utilities gradually increase their use of renewable energy and energy efficiency. It rolls back a law passed by a wide majority of the state House and Senate in 2008. The state Senate has also approved the bill, and Gov. John Kasich (R) is expected to sign it.
On what basis could one oppose such a green energy policy? Let’s ask an Ohio Republican. From The Columbus Dispatch:
The standards needed to be changed because they “are simply not achievable or sustainable,” said Rep. Peter Stautberg, R-Anderson Township.
Alright, then! Let’s keep dreaming big, America.
Across the country, conservative organizations such as the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have spent the past couple of years trying to roll back state renewable energy standards.
Until yesterday, their efforts had largely failed.
To be fair to Ohioans, this outcome doesn’t appear to be representative of their actual desires at all — and thus the irony of American democracy strikes again.
Last month, a survey commissioned by the Ohio Advanced Energy Economy showed that 72 percent of Ohio residents expressed a preference for pursuing solar and wind power as alternatives to coal and nuclear energy. Eighty-six percent supported the 2008 clean energy law as it was.
http://grist.org/news/ohio-rolls-bac..._campaign=feed
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-30-2014 at 10:17 AM.
Too Much Electric Car News!
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/06/07/much-electric-car-news/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29
holy , talk about revolutionary, disruption!
All Our Patent Are Belong To You
By Elon Musk
Yesterday, there was a wall of Tesla patents in the lobby of our Palo Alto headquarters. That is no longer the case. They have been removed, in the spirit of the open source movement, for the advancement of electric vehicle technology.
Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport. If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal. Tesla will not initiate patent lawsuits against anyone who, in good faith, wants to use our technology.
When I started out with my first company, Zip2, I thought patents were a good thing and worked hard to obtain them. And maybe they were good long ago, but too often these days they serve merely to stifle progress, entrench the positions of giant corporations and enrich those in the legal profession, rather than the actual inventors. After Zip2, when I realized that receiving a patent really just meant that you bought a lottery ticket to a lawsuit, I avoided them whenever possible.
At Tesla, however, we felt compelled to create patents out of concern that the big car companies would copy our technology and then use their massive manufacturing, sales and marketing power to overwhelm Tesla. We couldn’t have been more wrong. The unfortunate reality is the opposite: electric car programs (or programs for any vehicle that doesn’t burn hydrocarbons) at the major manufacturers are small to non-existent, cons uting an average of far less than 1% of their total vehicle sales.
At best, the large automakers are producing electric cars with limited range in limited volume. Some produce no zero emission cars at all.
Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true compe ion is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world’s factories every day.
We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.
Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined compe or, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/all-...are-belong-you
Cool.
this could be a game changer if it scales up, killing NatGas as source of hydrogen and makes the upcoming delivery of FCV and all EVs very promising.
HyperSolar Reports Record Time for Hydrogen Production
The company’s patent pending polymer coating applied to a bromine electrode in a wireless solar powered particle allows continuous production of renewable hydrogen for 170 hours
SANTA BARBARA, CA – June 30, 2014 -HyperSolar, Inc. (OTCQB: HYSR), the developer of a breakthrough technology to produce renewable hydrogen using sunlight and water, announced today that it’s patent pending polymer coating, when applied to a bromine electrode in a wireless solar powered particle, resulted in 170 continuous hours of hydrogen production, one of the longest duration applications of wireless hydrogen production on record.
The test conducted by members of the company’s research team at the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) confirms the possibility of commercializing a process for the direct conversion of sunlight into valuable chemicals and fuels. Solar to chemical conversion (artificial photosynthesis) has the advantage in that the energy storage challenges associated with photovoltaics are eliminated. The company’s goal is to efficiently convert solar energy into hydrogen.
“Our UCSB research team is continuing its work to reach the ultimate milestone of achieving 1.5 open volts required to successfully split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen. Meanwhile, we are very encouraged to learn that our patent pending polymer coating will allow the process to occur,” said Tim Young, CEO of HyperSolar.
HyperSolar’s technology is based on the concept of developing a low-cost, submersible hydrogen production particle that can split water molecules using sunlight without any other external systems or resources – acting as artificial photosynthesis. A video of an early proof-of-concept prototype can be viewed at http://hypersolar.com/application.php. The company announced earlier this year that it had achieved 1.2 open circuit voltage progressing towards its goal of 1.5 open volts.
==============
Here's where Feds could drop a few $100M to "pick a potentially HUGE winner"
Hmmm..setting up customers for it's planned battery plant. I think I'm going to buy some Tesla stock.
If that "hydrogen from sunlight + water" research works out, batteries as exclusive power source of EVs will be doomed.
Availability of Lithium
The demand for Li-ion batteries is increasing, and finding sufficient supply of lithium as a raw material is testing the mining industry. A compact EV battery (Nissan Leaf) uses about 4kg (9 lb) of lithium. If every man, woman and teenager were to drive an electric car in the future, a lithium shortage could develop and rumor of this happening is already spreading.
About 70 percent of the world’s lithium comes from brine (salt lakes); the remainder is derived from hard rock. Research ins utes are developing technology to draw lithium from seawater. China is the largest consumer of lithium. The Chinese believe that future cars will run on Li-ion batteries and an unbridled supply of lithium is important to them.
In 2009, total demand for lithium reached almost 92,000 metric tons, of which batteries consume 26 percent. Figure 1 illustrates typical uses of lithium, which include lubricants, glass, ceramics, pharmaceuticals and refrigeration.
Figure 1: Lithium consumption (2008)
Batteries consume the largest share of lithium, and with the advent of the electric vehicle the demand could skyrocket. For now, the world has enough proven lithium reserves.
Courtesy of Talison Minerals
Most of the known supply of lithium is in Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, Australia and China. The supply is ample and concerns of global shortages are speculative, at least for the moment. It takes 750 tons of brine, the base of lithium, and 24 months of preparation to get one ton of lithium in Latin America. Lithium can also be recycled an unlimited number of times, and 20 tons of spent Li-ion batteries yield one ton of lithium. This will help the supply, but recycling can be more expensive than harvesting new supply through mining.
http://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/availability_of_lithium
Am I to understand it only lasted for 170 hours? If so, at what cost. How much to replenish it for the next 170 hrs, and what is the residue? What is the recycling cost?
No doubt the researchers haven't thought of any of this questions, so I'm sure your input would be appreciated.
Honda's first jet takes to the skies
If GM made a Jet would you fly in it?
nano to the rescue
Team achieves ‘holy grail’ of battery design: A stable lithium anode
Engineers use carbon nanospheres to protect lithium from the reactive and expansive problems that have restricted its use as an anode
Engineers across the globe have been racing to design smaller, cheaper and more efficient rechargeable batteries to meet the power storage needs of everything from handheld gadgets to electric cars.
In a paper published today in the journal Nature Nanotechnology, researchers at Stanford University report that they have taken a big step toward accomplishing what battery designers have been trying to do for decades – design a pure lithium anode.
All batteries have three basic components: an electrolyte to provide electrons, an anode to discharge those electrons, and a cathode to receive them.
Today, we say we have lithium batteries, but that is only partly true. What we have are lithium ion batteries. The lithium is in the electrolyte, but not in the anode. An anode of pure lithium would be a huge boost to battery efficiency.
“Of all the materials that one might use in an anode, lithium has the greatest potential. Some call it the Holy Grail,” said Yi Cui, a professor of Material Science and Engineering and leader of the research team. “It is very lightweight and it has the highest energy density. You get more power per volume and weight, leading to lighter, smaller batteries with more power.”
But engineers have long tried and failed to reach this Holy Grail.
“Lithium has major challenges that have made its use in anodes difficult. Many engineers had given up the search, but we found a way to protect the lithium from the problems that have plagued it for so long,” said Guangyuan Zheng, a doctoral candidate in Cui’s lab and first author of the paper.
In addition to Zheng, the research team includes Steven Chu, the former U.S. Secretary of Energy and Nobel Laureate who recently resumed his professorship at Stanford.
“In practical terms, if we can improve the capacity of batteries to, say, four times today’s, that would be exciting. You might be able to have cell phone with double or triple the battery life or an electric car with a range of 300 miles that cost only $25,000—compe ive with an internal combustion engine getting 40 mpg,” Chu said.
The engineering challenge
In the paper, the authors explain how they are overcoming the problems posed by lithium.
Most lithium ion batteries, like those you might find in your smart phone or hybrid car, work similarly. The key components include an anode, the negative pole from which electrons flow out and into a power-hungry device, and the cathode, where the electrons re-enter the battery once they have traveled through the circuit. Separating them is an electrolyte, a solid or liquid loaded with positively charged lithium ions that travel between the anode and cathode.
During charging, the positively charged lithium ions in the electrolyte are attracted to the negatively charged anode and the lithium ac ulates on the anode. Today, the anode in a lithium ion battery is actually made of graphite or silicon.
Engineers would like to use lithium for the anode, but so far they have been unable to do so. That’s because the lithium ions expand as they gather on the anode during charging.
All anode materials, including graphite and silicon, expand somewhat during charging, but not like lithium. Researchers say that lithium’s expansion during charging is “virtually infinite” relative to the other materials. Its expansion is also uneven, causing pits and cracks to form in the outer surface, like paint on the exterior of a balloon that is being inflated.
The resulting fissures on the surface of the anode allow the precious lithium ions to escape, forming hair-like or mossy growths, called dendrites. Dendrites, in turn, short circuit the battery and shorten its life.
Preventing this buildup is the first challenge of using lithium for the battery’s anode.
The second engineering challenge is that a lithium anode is highly chemically reactive with the electrolyte. It uses up the electrolyte and reduces battery life.
An additional problem is that the anode and electrolyte produce heat when they come into contact. Lithium batteries, including those in use today, can overheat to the point of fire, or even explosion, and are, therefore, a serious safety concern. The recent battery fires in Tesla cars and on Boeing’s Dreamliner are prominent examples of the challenges of lithium ion batteries.
Building the nanospheres
To solve these problems the Stanford researchers built a protective layer of interconnected carbon domes on top of their lithium anode. This layer is what the team has called nanospheres
The Stanford team’s nanosphere layer resembles a honeycomb: it creates a flexible, uniform and non-reactive film that protects the unstable lithium from the drawbacks that have made it such a challenge. The carbon nanosphere wall is just 20 nanometers thick. It would take some 5,000 layers stacked one atop another to equal the width of single human hair.
“The ideal protective layer for a lithium metal anode needs to be chemically stable to protect against the chemical reactions with the electrolyte and mechanically strong to withstand the expansion of the lithium during charge,” Cui said.
The Stanford nanosphere layer is just that. It is made of amorphous carbon, which is chemically stable, yet strong and flexible so as to move freely up and down with the lithium as it expands and contracts during the battery’s normal charge-discharge cycle.
Ideal within reach
In technical terms, the nanospheres improve the coulombic efficiency of the battery—a ratio of the amount of lithium that can be extracted from the anode when the battery is in use compared to the amount put in during charging. A single round of this give-and-take process is called a cycle.
Generally, to be commercially viable, a battery must have a coulombic efficiency of 99.9 percent or more, ideally over as many cycles as possible. Previous anodes of unprotected lithium metal achieved approximately 96 percent efficiency, which dropped to less than 50 percent in just 100 cycles—not nearly good enough. The Stanford team’s new lithium metal anode achieves 99 percent efficiency even at 150 cycles.
“The difference between 99 percent and 96 percent, in battery terms, is huge. So, while we’re not quite to that 99.9 percent threshold, where we need to be, we’re close and this is a significant improvement over any previous design,” Cui said. “With some additional engineering and new electrolytes, we believe we can realize a practical and stable lithium metal anode that could power the next generation of rechargeable batteries.”
Read more at http://scienceblog.com/73597/team-ac...IyoY4gUVEkT.99
When the battery problem (more recharge cycles, charge time, energy density, cost, etc) is solved, the switch to EVs will be massive.
Republicans Are Only Sometimes the Party of Uber
Consider state laws that prohibit auto manufacturers like Tesla from selling directly to consumers. Car dealers favor these laws, which interfere with Tesla’s direct sales model.
Of 22 states that permit direct sales, 14 voted for President Obama. New York, California and Illinois all have freer markets in auto retailing than Texas.
Did I mention that car dealers are a strongly Republican cons uency? In 2009, the statistician Nate Silverfound that 88 percent of car dealers’ political donations went to Republicans.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/09/up...abt=0002&abg=1
Repugs' REAL ideology is do whatever my corrupters pay me to do (not "free market" crap)
$8,000 Hydrogen Tax Credit Expires, What Now?
http://gas2.org/2014/12/24/8000-hydr...t-expires-now/
Chevy says that the Volt has saved more than 25 billion gallons of fuel and that its owners are averaging 900 miles per tank of gas.
http://www.cnet.com/news/chevrolet-gives-us-a-sneak-peek-of-the-new-volt-at-ces-2015/#ftag=CAD590a51e
Toyota to give away fuel-cell patents to boost industry
Toyota will give away thousands of patents for its fuel-cell cars, it said Tuesday, in an effort to encourage other automakers into the new industry.
The world’s largest vehicle maker said it will allow royalty-free use of about 5,680 patent licenses, including 1,970 related to fuel-cell stacks and 3,350 concerning fuel-cell system control technology.
The firm also said the free patent licenses will include about 290 items related to high-pressure hydrogen tanks.
The cost-free licenses will be allowed “through the initial market introduction period” of fuel cell vehicles (FCV), which the company expects to last until about 2020.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/t...e+Raw+Story%29
Great strategy.
Get other auto makers to use their patents for the next five years for free, so they don't make their own technology, then you have a captive market to sell the rights to!
Boutons, I didn't know you appreciated capitalistic marketing strategies that much!
research and technology are moving so fast in FCVs, I wonder how much these patents are really worth, and to whom.
All big car mfrs already are deep into FCVs and have models coming out in the next couple years.
as with solar and wind, the FCV obstacles are as much political as technical, with ALEC/BigCarbon/Repugs blocking renewables at every turn.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 01-07-2015 at 12:30 AM.
A whiff of brimstone
Adding sulphur to electrical cells may quintuple their performance
http://www.economist.com/news/scienc...formance-whiffBUILD a better battery, to paraphrase Ralph Waldo Emerson, and the world will beat a path to your door. For consumer goods, from computers to cars, “better” means “better than lithium-ion”. And several groups of engineers think they have one: it is based on lithium and sulphur.
A lithium-ion (Li-ion) battery works by shuttling the eponymous ions, which are positively charged, through an electrolyte that links two electrodes, one made of carbon and the other of a substance containing a heavy metal such as cobalt, manganese or nickel. Such metals have multiple oxidation states, meaning they can lose or gain different numbers of electrons in different cir stances. To balance the movement of lithium ions, electrons (which are negatively charged) move to or from the heavy metal through an external circuit that also links the electrodes, changing the metal’s oxidation state as they do so. When the battery is discharging, both ions and electrons travel spontaneously in one direction, creating a current and releasing energy. When it is being recharged they are forced, by the application of a voltage, to go the other way and thus to store energy.
Lithium-sulphur batteries work in a similar fashion, but dispense with the heavy metal. Instead, they use sulphur, which also has multiple oxidation states—more of them, indeed, than many metals do. This fact, combined with sulphur’s lightness, means lithium-sulphur batteries can, in principle, store four or five times as much energy per gram as lithium-ion ones manage. And, since sulphur is cheap, they can do so at lower cost.
Turning that principle into practice, though, has been a hard slog. Experimental lithium-sulphur cells tend to wear out, because the sulphur in their electrodes gradually dissolves into the electrolyte. There are also questions about their safety. Part of the cycle of a lithium-sulphur battery involves some lithium ions turning into metallic lithium. This metallic form of the element may grow into filaments called dendrites that cause short circuits, and thus overheating and fires.
That last bit notes the technical part of why these things have fires, like the ones that grounded Boeing's dreamliners. I thought it an interesting bit of chemical knowledge
sulphur's cheap?yep, yellow MOUNTAINS of it next to refineries that remove it from diesel, other oil products. There's even a town in S. Louisiana named after it.
Study Says EV Chargers More Effective Than Tax Credits
The National Science Foundation has released a study that concludes EV tax credits have been ineffective at convincing people to switch to battery or plug in cars.
It says if the $1.05 billion in tax credits given to individual buyers between 2011 and 2013 had been used to build charging infrastructure instead, there would be 60,000 more charging stations in America right now.
That’s half as many charging stations as there are gas stations in the US and would eliminate range anxiety as a reason not to buy and electric car.
http://gas2.org/2015/02/08/study-say...n-tax-credits/
hmm, there is a serious premium, not fully offset by tax breaks, to pay for an EV vs. GV. But that should be coming down with the Tesla Giga factory and inevitable battery breakthroughs.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
