EV Digest 2559
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: Dump charger with manners (was RE: 20 minute charge to 80%)
by "Joe Smalley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Re: EVLN(Industry funds EPRI study: have feds OK dirty power)
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: Maserati EV conversion considering
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Fw: Maserati EV conversion considering
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) EVLN(Billed as cars of the future, now they're gone)
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: EVLN(Billed as cars of the future,
now they're gone) Worth Reading !
by Danny Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Public officials and existing and future EV charging infrastructures
by Danny Ames <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) How many miles in a day (WAS 20 minute charge to 80%)
by "Chuck Hursch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Electric Renault Express Vans
by "Schacherl Jens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) It's not green, it's "Citrus Yellow"
by Michael Hoskinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
11) How a simple electric vehicle limits speed and ammeter limits.
by "Lawrence Rhodes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12) Orange wire loom
by "Richard Furniss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
That is why the DC ratings are higher. They correspond to the peaks of the
AC waveforms. The PFC-50 needs to deal with the peaks of the incoming AC
waveform that are about 140% of the RMS value plus 10% more for ripple and
distortion. We ship buck enhanced PFC-50s that will deliver 80 amps average
current to the battery. With the distortion during buck, the peak currents
are about 160 amps into the battery. That is why there are such big wires
coming out of the PFC-50.
Joe Smalley
Rural Kitsap County WA
Fiesta 48 volts
NEDRA 48 volt street conversion record holder
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, January 26, 2003 9:12 PM
Subject: Re: Dump charger with manners (was RE: 20 minute charge to 80%)
> Besides which you don't need a PFC charger when going from DC to DC, do
> you?
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Well it just gets better and better ...
If power providers get their way, the public will
think our electrons are as dirty as driving an ICE SUV.
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Have you seen the vehicle. The exotic models aren't the only thing made by
Maserati and other such high end manufacturers. The Elan comes to mind.
Very small, very light. Lawrence Rhodes....
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danny Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV SEND MSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:44 PM
Subject: Maserati EV conversion considering
> I don't know much about these cars.
> But there is an EV Maserati the was converted 10 years ago and is in
> immaculate condition.
> Told goes fast but have no range details.
> I suspect lead acid & DC motor/controller.
> For about 10 grand.
> Can any Maserati be capable of a 4o mile range with lead acid ?
> I can not imagine these cars being good EV candidates unless they are
> strong and light.
> Any opinions appreciated.
> Thanks,
> Danny...
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> Have you seen the vehicle. The exotic models aren't the only thing made
by
> Maserati and other such high end manufacturers. The Elan comes to mind.
> Very small, very light. Lawrence Rhodes....
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Danny Ames" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "EV SEND MSG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 11:44 PM
> Subject: Maserati EV conversion considering
>
>
> > I don't know much about these cars.
> > But there is an EV Maserati the was converted 10 years ago and is in
> > immaculate condition.
> > Told goes fast but have no range details.
> > I suspect lead acid & DC motor/controller.
> > For about 10 grand.
> > Can any Maserati be capable of a 4o mile range with lead acid ?
> > I can not imagine these cars being good EV candidates unless they are
> > strong and light.
> > Any opinions appreciated.
> > Thanks,
> > Danny...
> >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
EVLN(Billed as cars of the future, now they're gone)
[The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
--- {EVangel}
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleViewT7.asp?Accessible=yes&P_Article=11772
Is the clean car coming? February 2003 Philip Ball
Despite recent setbacks, the battle to break the monopoly of
the internal combustion engine is still on. Battery driven
cars are out of favour but fuel cell cars and hybrids -
combining normal engines with batteries - will be widely
used in ten years
It's not often that you find environmentalists protesting
about a company's refusal to manufacture a car. But the
placards outside the Ford offices in San Francisco last
October denounced the company's decision to ditch the Th!nk
City model. Following its unveiling in Europe in 2000, it
was introduced to the US in a flurry of Los Angeles glitz in
January 2002-only to be discontinued months later.
The Th!nk City runs for only 53 miles at a stretch, with a
top speed of around 56 mph. But the car is all-electric: it
needs no petrol and produces no pollution. It was once
billed as the car of the future; now it is a has-been that
never really was.
This is the latest in a series of recent blows to the
electric-vehicle (EV) industry. General Motors has stopped
producing its flagship model, the EV1. Meanwhile, GM and
DaimlerChysler (who, along with Ford, constitute the "big
three" US car manufacturers) teamed up with other automobile
companies to take out a lawsuit against the state of
California's "zero-emission vehicle" policy, which
stipulates that from 2003, 2 per cent of all vehicles sold
in the state should emit no polluting exhaust gases, and 8
per cent should be close to zero emission.
Despite the Californian ruling, there are few full-feature
models available to US consumers. One is the Toyota
RAV4-EV-of which under 400 had been sold to date. The
manufacturers say that there just isn't the demand. Around
1.5m new vehicles are bought every year in California alone,
but there are only 5,000 or so electric cars on the state's
roads. EV enthusiasts, however, claim that companies aren't
really interested in selling them. The number of "clean
cars" of all types on the roads is no more than, roughly,
45,000 in the US and 20,000 in Europe.
Why does the challenge to produce a clean car exist at all?
The one thing that everyone agrees on is that oil will not
last forever. Whilst arguments continue over exactly when
global oil production will peak, or how much oil might be
hidden beneath the Alaskan tundra, or whether George W Bush
covets Iraqi oil even more than Saddam's head, no one doubts
that this is the century in which fossil fuels will begin to
dry up. When even BP adopts "Beyond Petroleum" as its slogan
(though the company subsequently disowned it) you have to
suspect that something is up.
There are two separate problems with oil: sources and
pollution. US oil reserves may be dry within the decade,
which will mean greater reliance on oil from the middle
east-the world's most unstable region But even while there
is still oil to burn, the consequences of doing so are
unwholesome. When petrol is consumed in an internal
combustion engine, the main products are heat and carbon
dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global
warming. Car exhausts contribute about 14 per cent of all
global fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide; in the US
the proportion is closer to 20 per cent.
That is not the only problem. Exhaust fumes contain a
noxious cocktail: soot particles, which can cause
respiratory problems; toxic and carcinogenic hydrocarbons
such as benzene; and the deadly, poisonous gas carbon
monoxide. Petrol burning also produces nitrogen oxides,
which react in the atmosphere to form pollutants that cause
breathing problems, eye irritation and the brown pall of
smog. Air pollution smothers the world's big cities, choking
the citizens to death. Every year, over 3m deaths are caused
at least in part by air pollution, according to the World
Health Organisation. California's legislative attempts to
reduce car pollution may be heavy-handed and
over-optimistic, but they are understandable in one of the
US states with the worst air quality. (The objections of the
car makers to legislation are also understandable, however.
"North America is unusual in having the only regulations
calling for zero emissions, but simultaneously having the
lowest energy prices in the world, which provide limited
But battery-driven electric vehicles such as the Th!nk City
aren't the only solution. Ford claims that its decision to
drop the Th!nk range-and indeed the entire Th!nk R&D
division, intended "to exclusively develop, market and
deliver a wide range of environmentally sensitive mobility
solutions"-was made so as to focus on other low or
zero-emission vehicles powered by devices called fuel cells
or by a hybrid of the internal combustion engine and
electric batteries. These two options-fuel-cell vehicles
(which are also, in the end, electrically powered) and
hybrid electric vehicles-now seem the most likely "green"
cars to achieve wide commercial development. Another
possibility is the use of cleaner fuels from renewable
sources, such as methane from biological waste (biogas) and
ethanol, which can be made from corn.
The automobile industry is, in fact, entering a period of
uncertainty and experimentation akin to that experienced in
the audio and television industries over the past decade or
so, and to that currently facing the microelectronics
industry. That is to say, survival depends on making
fundamental changes, and quickly, to the basic technology;
but no one is agreed on the best solution, and some of those
being explored will inevitably fall by the wayside. An
optimistic view is that the apparent demise of battery EVs
represents nothing more than this inevitable wastage and
does not spell doom to all green vehicle technologies.
Pessimists, however, point to a series of mountainous
hurdles. Consumers will be reluctant to make a large
investment in an untested new technology, no matter how good
the environmental arguments-especially if they risk seeing
their multi-thousand-pound cars become as obsolete in a few
years as a Betamax video recorder. And car culture seems to
be heading in the opposite direction, especially in the US,
where a demand for gas-guzzling "sport utility vehicles"
(big, fast and flashy) has driven the average fuel
efficiency of cars and trucks to a 21-year low of 20 miles
per gallon. The Bush administration has shown itself
steadfastly opposed to serious efforts at improving this
figure.
And who can criticise consumer reluctance about clean
vehicles when there is no infrastructure to support them?
Fuel-cell cars need completely different types of fuel from
those you will find at the local filling station-but where
do you get it from? The oil companies wait for these new
vehicles to find a mass market before they put in the
relevant pumps, while the car companies wait for the fuel
supplies before they risk mass producing the vehicles. How
to break the impasse?
GREEN MACHINES
In an industry where marketing depends mainly on sex and
speed, electric vehicles-redolent of milk floats and golf
carts-were always going to be hard to sell. The car
companies have not always helped matters. The low speed
models such as Ford's Th!nk Neighbor or DaimlerChysler's GEM
are indeed basically souped-up golf buggies. They are
designed for short, local trips and have a range of about 25
miles before needing to be recharged. They are classified as
"low speed/neighbourhood electric vehicles," with top speeds
of typically 25mph. The principle is sound enough-one needs
little more than this for the school or supermarket run-but
the reality is about as appealing as a Sinclair C5, and
could never aspire to be more than a second vehicle for most
people.
The late Th!nk City was altogether a different beast. It
could accelerate from 0 to 30 mph in 7.2 seconds, and the US
version was produced with air conditioning and power
steering. It looked sleek and neat and could be recharged by
plugging into a normal mains socket. Admittedly this could
take four to six hours, but doing it overnight at off-peak
rates makes a full charge-up potentially cheap. GM's EV1,
modelled on similar lines, cost its users no more in
electricity than they spent on petrol (and that is at US
fuel rates).
The range of these EVs is, however, limited by their
batteries. Some use nothing more than the old-fashioned
lead-acid batteries that power the electrics on most cars
today. The EV1 can run for up to 120 miles at a stretch when
driven by a nickel/metal-hydride battery, first introduced
in the 1980s. These batteries hold more electrical energy
per kilogram of weight than a lead-acid battery.
Weight is an important factor in EV battery technology: if
the battery is very heavy it partly defeats its own
propulsive object. This is one reason why rechargeable
lithium batteries, like those used in laptop computers and
mobile phones, are attractive for electric vehicles: not
only do they hold a lot of energy but they are light. Early
attempts to use lithium batteries were beset with
hazards-they used lithium metal, a highly reactive
substance, and one of Mitsubishi's prototype Chariot EVs
burst into flames in 1996. But the new lithium batteries are
safe, and are used in Ford's prototype e-Ka, which has a
range of 120 miles at a cruising speed of 50 mph.
With the simplicity of the plug-in recharging cycle,
battery-powered EVs seemed well placed to corner the
zero-emission market-until a combination of cost (these
batteries are pricey) and overall consumer apathy persuaded
the car companies otherwise. Purists could point out that
these vehicles weren't really "zero emission" anyway because
the electricity from the grid was, in all probability,
produced from fossil fuel burning in the first place-the
burden of greenhouse gases and pollutants was simply being
shifted. But that was never really the issue. Sources of
electricity are potentially renewable: for example,
hydroelectricity, photovoltaic cells, or wind or wave power.
And the pressing problem of noxious emissions in urban
centres is avoided by EVs.
[...]
-
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
This is an outstanding article worth reading and printing.
Bruce EVangel Parmenter wrote:
>
> EVLN(Billed as cars of the future, now they're gone)
> [The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
> informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
> --- {EVangel}
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleViewT7.asp?Accessible=yes&P_Article=11772
> Is the clean car coming? February 2003 Philip Ball
>
> Despite recent setbacks, the battle to break the monopoly of
> the internal combustion engine is still on. Battery driven
> cars are out of favour but fuel cell cars and hybrids -
> combining normal engines with batteries - will be widely
> used in ten years
>
> It's not often that you find environmentalists protesting
> about a company's refusal to manufacture a car. But the
> placards outside the Ford offices in San Francisco last
> October denounced the company's decision to ditch the Th!nk
> City model. Following its unveiling in Europe in 2000, it
> was introduced to the US in a flurry of Los Angeles glitz in
> January 2002-only to be discontinued months later.
>
> The Th!nk City runs for only 53 miles at a stretch, with a
> top speed of around 56 mph. But the car is all-electric: it
> needs no petrol and produces no pollution. It was once
> billed as the car of the future; now it is a has-been that
> never really was.
>
> This is the latest in a series of recent blows to the
> electric-vehicle (EV) industry. General Motors has stopped
> producing its flagship model, the EV1. Meanwhile, GM and
> DaimlerChysler (who, along with Ford, constitute the "big
> three" US car manufacturers) teamed up with other automobile
> companies to take out a lawsuit against the state of
> California's "zero-emission vehicle" policy, which
> stipulates that from 2003, 2 per cent of all vehicles sold
> in the state should emit no polluting exhaust gases, and 8
> per cent should be close to zero emission.
>
> Despite the Californian ruling, there are few full-feature
> models available to US consumers. One is the Toyota
> RAV4-EV-of which under 400 had been sold to date. The
> manufacturers say that there just isn't the demand. Around
> 1.5m new vehicles are bought every year in California alone,
> but there are only 5,000 or so electric cars on the state's
> roads. EV enthusiasts, however, claim that companies aren't
> really interested in selling them. The number of "clean
> cars" of all types on the roads is no more than, roughly,
> 45,000 in the US and 20,000 in Europe.
>
> Why does the challenge to produce a clean car exist at all?
> The one thing that everyone agrees on is that oil will not
> last forever. Whilst arguments continue over exactly when
> global oil production will peak, or how much oil might be
> hidden beneath the Alaskan tundra, or whether George W Bush
> covets Iraqi oil even more than Saddam's head, no one doubts
> that this is the century in which fossil fuels will begin to
> dry up. When even BP adopts "Beyond Petroleum" as its slogan
> (though the company subsequently disowned it) you have to
> suspect that something is up.
>
> There are two separate problems with oil: sources and
> pollution. US oil reserves may be dry within the decade,
> which will mean greater reliance on oil from the middle
> east-the world's most unstable region But even while there
> is still oil to burn, the consequences of doing so are
> unwholesome. When petrol is consumed in an internal
> combustion engine, the main products are heat and carbon
> dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global
> warming. Car exhausts contribute about 14 per cent of all
> global fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide; in the US
> the proportion is closer to 20 per cent.
>
> That is not the only problem. Exhaust fumes contain a
> noxious cocktail: soot particles, which can cause
> respiratory problems; toxic and carcinogenic hydrocarbons
> such as benzene; and the deadly, poisonous gas carbon
> monoxide. Petrol burning also produces nitrogen oxides,
> which react in the atmosphere to form pollutants that cause
> breathing problems, eye irritation and the brown pall of
> smog. Air pollution smothers the world's big cities, choking
> the citizens to death. Every year, over 3m deaths are caused
> at least in part by air pollution, according to the World
> Health Organisation. California's legislative attempts to
> reduce car pollution may be heavy-handed and
> over-optimistic, but they are understandable in one of the
> US states with the worst air quality. (The objections of the
> car makers to legislation are also understandable, however.
> "North America is unusual in having the only regulations
> calling for zero emissions, but simultaneously having the
> lowest energy prices in the world, which provide limited
>
> But battery-driven electric vehicles such as the Th!nk City
> aren't the only solution. Ford claims that its decision to
> drop the Th!nk range-and indeed the entire Th!nk R&D
> division, intended "to exclusively develop, market and
> deliver a wide range of environmentally sensitive mobility
> solutions"-was made so as to focus on other low or
> zero-emission vehicles powered by devices called fuel cells
> or by a hybrid of the internal combustion engine and
> electric batteries. These two options-fuel-cell vehicles
> (which are also, in the end, electrically powered) and
> hybrid electric vehicles-now seem the most likely "green"
> cars to achieve wide commercial development. Another
> possibility is the use of cleaner fuels from renewable
> sources, such as methane from biological waste (biogas) and
> ethanol, which can be made from corn.
>
> The automobile industry is, in fact, entering a period of
> uncertainty and experimentation akin to that experienced in
> the audio and television industries over the past decade or
> so, and to that currently facing the microelectronics
> industry. That is to say, survival depends on making
> fundamental changes, and quickly, to the basic technology;
> but no one is agreed on the best solution, and some of those
> being explored will inevitably fall by the wayside. An
> optimistic view is that the apparent demise of battery EVs
> represents nothing more than this inevitable wastage and
> does not spell doom to all green vehicle technologies.
>
> Pessimists, however, point to a series of mountainous
> hurdles. Consumers will be reluctant to make a large
> investment in an untested new technology, no matter how good
> the environmental arguments-especially if they risk seeing
> their multi-thousand-pound cars become as obsolete in a few
> years as a Betamax video recorder. And car culture seems to
> be heading in the opposite direction, especially in the US,
> where a demand for gas-guzzling "sport utility vehicles"
> (big, fast and flashy) has driven the average fuel
> efficiency of cars and trucks to a 21-year low of 20 miles
> per gallon. The Bush administration has shown itself
> steadfastly opposed to serious efforts at improving this
> figure.
>
> And who can criticise consumer reluctance about clean
> vehicles when there is no infrastructure to support them?
> Fuel-cell cars need completely different types of fuel from
> those you will find at the local filling station-but where
> do you get it from? The oil companies wait for these new
> vehicles to find a mass market before they put in the
> relevant pumps, while the car companies wait for the fuel
> supplies before they risk mass producing the vehicles. How
> to break the impasse?
>
> GREEN MACHINES
> In an industry where marketing depends mainly on sex and
> speed, electric vehicles-redolent of milk floats and golf
> carts-were always going to be hard to sell. The car
> companies have not always helped matters. The low speed
> models such as Ford's Th!nk Neighbor or DaimlerChysler's GEM
> are indeed basically souped-up golf buggies. They are
> designed for short, local trips and have a range of about 25
> miles before needing to be recharged. They are classified as
> "low speed/neighbourhood electric vehicles," with top speeds
> of typically 25mph. The principle is sound enough-one needs
> little more than this for the school or supermarket run-but
> the reality is about as appealing as a Sinclair C5, and
> could never aspire to be more than a second vehicle for most
> people.
>
> The late Th!nk City was altogether a different beast. It
> could accelerate from 0 to 30 mph in 7.2 seconds, and the US
> version was produced with air conditioning and power
> steering. It looked sleek and neat and could be recharged by
> plugging into a normal mains socket. Admittedly this could
> take four to six hours, but doing it overnight at off-peak
> rates makes a full charge-up potentially cheap. GM's EV1,
> modelled on similar lines, cost its users no more in
> electricity than they spent on petrol (and that is at US
> fuel rates).
>
> The range of these EVs is, however, limited by their
> batteries. Some use nothing more than the old-fashioned
> lead-acid batteries that power the electrics on most cars
> today. The EV1 can run for up to 120 miles at a stretch when
> driven by a nickel/metal-hydride battery, first introduced
> in the 1980s. These batteries hold more electrical energy
> per kilogram of weight than a lead-acid battery.
>
> Weight is an important factor in EV battery technology: if
> the battery is very heavy it partly defeats its own
> propulsive object. This is one reason why rechargeable
> lithium batteries, like those used in laptop computers and
> mobile phones, are attractive for electric vehicles: not
> only do they hold a lot of energy but they are light. Early
> attempts to use lithium batteries were beset with
> hazards-they used lithium metal, a highly reactive
> substance, and one of Mitsubishi's prototype Chariot EVs
> burst into flames in 1996. But the new lithium batteries are
> safe, and are used in Ford's prototype e-Ka, which has a
> range of 120 miles at a cruising speed of 50 mph.
>
> With the simplicity of the plug-in recharging cycle,
> battery-powered EVs seemed well placed to corner the
> zero-emission market-until a combination of cost (these
> batteries are pricey) and overall consumer apathy persuaded
> the car companies otherwise. Purists could point out that
> these vehicles weren't really "zero emission" anyway because
> the electricity from the grid was, in all probability,
> produced from fossil fuel burning in the first place-the
> burden of greenhouse gases and pollutants was simply being
> shifted. But that was never really the issue. Sources of
> electricity are potentially renewable: for example,
> hydroelectricity, photovoltaic cells, or wind or wave power.
> And the pressing problem of noxious emissions in urban
> centres is avoided by EVs.
> [...]
> -
>
> =====
> ' ____
> ~/__|o\__
> '@----- @'---(=
> . http://geocities.com/brucedp/
> . EV List Editor & RE newswires
> . (originator of the above ASCII art)
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I appreciate your: Is the clean car coming? February 2003 Philip Ball
Leasing the Ford Think has been EV Nirvana for me.
The mayor of San Francisco is Pro EV and his opportunity having leased a
GM EV I'm sure influenced this.
The City has fitted a dozen public charging stations in the city. With
several more in private settings.
For me personally this is the golden age of EV driving.
The decision of the major car makers and CARB breaks my heart.
One can only wonder what will happen to the existing and future EV
charging infrastructures.
Danny Ames...
Bruce EVangel Parmenter wrote:
>
> EVLN(Billed as cars of the future, now they're gone)
> [The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
> informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
> --- {EVangel}
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/ArticleViewT7.asp?Accessible=yes&P_Article=11772
> Is the clean car coming? February 2003 Philip Ball
>
> Despite recent setbacks, the battle to break the monopoly of
> the internal combustion engine is still on. Battery driven
> cars are out of favour but fuel cell cars and hybrids -
> combining normal engines with batteries - will be widely
> used in ten years
>
> It's not often that you find environmentalists protesting
> about a company's refusal to manufacture a car. But the
> placards outside the Ford offices in San Francisco last
> October denounced the company's decision to ditch the Th!nk
> City model. Following its unveiling in Europe in 2000, it
> was introduced to the US in a flurry of Los Angeles glitz in
> January 2002-only to be discontinued months later.
>
> The Th!nk City runs for only 53 miles at a stretch, with a
> top speed of around 56 mph. But the car is all-electric: it
> needs no petrol and produces no pollution. It was once
> billed as the car of the future; now it is a has-been that
> never really was.
>
> This is the latest in a series of recent blows to the
> electric-vehicle (EV) industry. General Motors has stopped
> producing its flagship model, the EV1. Meanwhile, GM and
> DaimlerChysler (who, along with Ford, constitute the "big
> three" US car manufacturers) teamed up with other automobile
> companies to take out a lawsuit against the state of
> California's "zero-emission vehicle" policy, which
> stipulates that from 2003, 2 per cent of all vehicles sold
> in the state should emit no polluting exhaust gases, and 8
> per cent should be close to zero emission.
>
> Despite the Californian ruling, there are few full-feature
> models available to US consumers. One is the Toyota
> RAV4-EV-of which under 400 had been sold to date. The
> manufacturers say that there just isn't the demand. Around
> 1.5m new vehicles are bought every year in California alone,
> but there are only 5,000 or so electric cars on the state's
> roads. EV enthusiasts, however, claim that companies aren't
> really interested in selling them. The number of "clean
> cars" of all types on the roads is no more than, roughly,
> 45,000 in the US and 20,000 in Europe.
>
> Why does the challenge to produce a clean car exist at all?
> The one thing that everyone agrees on is that oil will not
> last forever. Whilst arguments continue over exactly when
> global oil production will peak, or how much oil might be
> hidden beneath the Alaskan tundra, or whether George W Bush
> covets Iraqi oil even more than Saddam's head, no one doubts
> that this is the century in which fossil fuels will begin to
> dry up. When even BP adopts "Beyond Petroleum" as its slogan
> (though the company subsequently disowned it) you have to
> suspect that something is up.
>
> There are two separate problems with oil: sources and
> pollution. US oil reserves may be dry within the decade,
> which will mean greater reliance on oil from the middle
> east-the world's most unstable region But even while there
> is still oil to burn, the consequences of doing so are
> unwholesome. When petrol is consumed in an internal
> combustion engine, the main products are heat and carbon
> dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas responsible for global
> warming. Car exhausts contribute about 14 per cent of all
> global fossil fuel emissions of carbon dioxide; in the US
> the proportion is closer to 20 per cent.
>
> That is not the only problem. Exhaust fumes contain a
> noxious cocktail: soot particles, which can cause
> respiratory problems; toxic and carcinogenic hydrocarbons
> such as benzene; and the deadly, poisonous gas carbon
> monoxide. Petrol burning also produces nitrogen oxides,
> which react in the atmosphere to form pollutants that cause
> breathing problems, eye irritation and the brown pall of
> smog. Air pollution smothers the world's big cities, choking
> the citizens to death. Every year, over 3m deaths are caused
> at least in part by air pollution, according to the World
> Health Organisation. California's legislative attempts to
> reduce car pollution may be heavy-handed and
> over-optimistic, but they are understandable in one of the
> US states with the worst air quality. (The objections of the
> car makers to legislation are also understandable, however.
> "North America is unusual in having the only regulations
> calling for zero emissions, but simultaneously having the
> lowest energy prices in the world, which provide limited
>
> But battery-driven electric vehicles such as the Th!nk City
> aren't the only solution. Ford claims that its decision to
> drop the Th!nk range-and indeed the entire Th!nk R&D
> division, intended "to exclusively develop, market and
> deliver a wide range of environmentally sensitive mobility
> solutions"-was made so as to focus on other low or
> zero-emission vehicles powered by devices called fuel cells
> or by a hybrid of the internal combustion engine and
> electric batteries. These two options-fuel-cell vehicles
> (which are also, in the end, electrically powered) and
> hybrid electric vehicles-now seem the most likely "green"
> cars to achieve wide commercial development. Another
> possibility is the use of cleaner fuels from renewable
> sources, such as methane from biological waste (biogas) and
> ethanol, which can be made from corn.
>
> The automobile industry is, in fact, entering a period of
> uncertainty and experimentation akin to that experienced in
> the audio and television industries over the past decade or
> so, and to that currently facing the microelectronics
> industry. That is to say, survival depends on making
> fundamental changes, and quickly, to the basic technology;
> but no one is agreed on the best solution, and some of those
> being explored will inevitably fall by the wayside. An
> optimistic view is that the apparent demise of battery EVs
> represents nothing more than this inevitable wastage and
> does not spell doom to all green vehicle technologies.
>
> Pessimists, however, point to a series of mountainous
> hurdles. Consumers will be reluctant to make a large
> investment in an untested new technology, no matter how good
> the environmental arguments-especially if they risk seeing
> their multi-thousand-pound cars become as obsolete in a few
> years as a Betamax video recorder. And car culture seems to
> be heading in the opposite direction, especially in the US,
> where a demand for gas-guzzling "sport utility vehicles"
> (big, fast and flashy) has driven the average fuel
> efficiency of cars and trucks to a 21-year low of 20 miles
> per gallon. The Bush administration has shown itself
> steadfastly opposed to serious efforts at improving this
> figure.
>
> And who can criticise consumer reluctance about clean
> vehicles when there is no infrastructure to support them?
> Fuel-cell cars need completely different types of fuel from
> those you will find at the local filling station-but where
> do you get it from? The oil companies wait for these new
> vehicles to find a mass market before they put in the
> relevant pumps, while the car companies wait for the fuel
> supplies before they risk mass producing the vehicles. How
> to break the impasse?
>
> GREEN MACHINES
> In an industry where marketing depends mainly on sex and
> speed, electric vehicles-redolent of milk floats and golf
> carts-were always going to be hard to sell. The car
> companies have not always helped matters. The low speed
> models such as Ford's Th!nk Neighbor or DaimlerChysler's GEM
> are indeed basically souped-up golf buggies. They are
> designed for short, local trips and have a range of about 25
> miles before needing to be recharged. They are classified as
> "low speed/neighbourhood electric vehicles," with top speeds
> of typically 25mph. The principle is sound enough-one needs
> little more than this for the school or supermarket run-but
> the reality is about as appealing as a Sinclair C5, and
> could never aspire to be more than a second vehicle for most
> people.
>
> The late Th!nk City was altogether a different beast. It
> could accelerate from 0 to 30 mph in 7.2 seconds, and the US
> version was produced with air conditioning and power
> steering. It looked sleek and neat and could be recharged by
> plugging into a normal mains socket. Admittedly this could
> take four to six hours, but doing it overnight at off-peak
> rates makes a full charge-up potentially cheap. GM's EV1,
> modelled on similar lines, cost its users no more in
> electricity than they spent on petrol (and that is at US
> fuel rates).
>
> The range of these EVs is, however, limited by their
> batteries. Some use nothing more than the old-fashioned
> lead-acid batteries that power the electrics on most cars
> today. The EV1 can run for up to 120 miles at a stretch when
> driven by a nickel/metal-hydride battery, first introduced
> in the 1980s. These batteries hold more electrical energy
> per kilogram of weight than a lead-acid battery.
>
> Weight is an important factor in EV battery technology: if
> the battery is very heavy it partly defeats its own
> propulsive object. This is one reason why rechargeable
> lithium batteries, like those used in laptop computers and
> mobile phones, are attractive for electric vehicles: not
> only do they hold a lot of energy but they are light. Early
> attempts to use lithium batteries were beset with
> hazards-they used lithium metal, a highly reactive
> substance, and one of Mitsubishi's prototype Chariot EVs
> burst into flames in 1996. But the new lithium batteries are
> safe, and are used in Ford's prototype e-Ka, which has a
> range of 120 miles at a cruising speed of 50 mph.
>
> With the simplicity of the plug-in recharging cycle,
> battery-powered EVs seemed well placed to corner the
> zero-emission market-until a combination of cost (these
> batteries are pricey) and overall consumer apathy persuaded
> the car companies otherwise. Purists could point out that
> these vehicles weren't really "zero emission" anyway because
> the electricity from the grid was, in all probability,
> produced from fossil fuel burning in the first place-the
> burden of greenhouse gases and pollutants was simply being
> shifted. But that was never really the issue. Sources of
> electricity are potentially renewable: for example,
> hydroelectricity, photovoltaic cells, or wind or wave power.
> And the pressing problem of noxious emissions in urban
> centres is avoided by EVs.
> [...]
> -
>
> =====
> ' ____
> ~/__|o\__
> '@----- @'---(=
> . http://geocities.com/brucedp/
> . EV List Editor & RE newswires
> . (originator of the above ASCII art)
> =====
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
> http://mailplus.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Bob Rice wrote:
> Thanks for sharing your website with us on the List. People,
cars an'
> stuff in your part of the world_Do keep us posted with EVents
in India. Fast
> charging capability for the Reva will make it very useful as a
daily driver
> vehicle. I have always said that a EV is only as good as it's
charger. I
> have run over 100 miles in a day, multiple trips, with charging
inbetween @
> 70 amps. Sure couldn't do it from a 15 amp wall outlet! If
there were a lot
> of Rivas in ,say, a city, they could have EV "Gas" stations
with REALLY big
> batteries, for dump charging, maybe use surplus submarine boat
batteries?Or
> at least locomotive starting batteries?
So now I'm getting curious as to some miles-traveled-per-day for
members on the list. COME ON, let's have some war stories!
EVDL member Nick Carter very recently put 125 miles on his Th!nk
in one day, using 208-240V Avcon charging on his Th!nk, doing a
roundtrip from Santa Rosa, CA to Vacaville (I-80 travel
included).
I think it was the silver Real Goods Porsche Spyder replicar with
120V of 6V batteries that did ~120 miles in one day back in the
mid-90s. I think that they may have had 240V/70A outlets
available at the Santa Rosa fairgrounds where the car was being
showed for a good part of the day at the Health & Harmony Fair
(? - it's been awhile).
For a showing at that same fair that same year, I pulled down 90
miles roundtrip in my 96V Rabbit for a Larkspur - Santa Rosa
trip. Charging on a single 120V K&W BC-20 (that was hot and
painful (charger and cordends) - ouch, don't want to do that
again!). With two 120V chargers (the K&W and a Zivan K2, total
about 22-27A into the pack, so about 2.5kW DC) for a roundtrip
(120miles, including 5 rally laps at 11 miles total) from
Larkspur to Stanford Rally (Palo Alto). I was a tired type, and
so was my battery pack, when I got back home at midnight after a
7AM start. But it makes me think there's a 200-300 mile one-day
potential with good charging infrastructure (I think a Rudman
PFC-50 and a well-spaced set of 14-50/50A outlets would fill the
bill); could throw in the isolated Zivan K2 from a lonely 120V
outlet on the side for a little extra juice. From some of the
threads I've seen on this list, a battery will take amperage
about what its amp-hr rating is. So a US125 6V would probably
take 200-300A if set at a constant voltage of about 7.20V (14.40V
for a 12V) for the bulk charge. YTs a bit better for their
amp-hr rating. So how does that compare with a current thread of
amps go as amps left - more heat production and gassing?
I'm sure Bruce has pulled down some long days with the multiple
chargers in his S-10. What, 120 miles?, that's nothin...
Then there's the multitude of OEM vehicles, such as the EV1,
Honda EV+, etc. I recall reading of 200-mile days for the EV1
and Level II (6.6kW) charging.
...And now we have our new ZAP vehicle claiming 240miles at
70mph, with a one-hour charge time, according to a ZAP press
release (if you believe it). Put it back on the road for another
240miles.
Kinda reminds me of the Georgia Power folks who ran their truck
EV for 800 miles in 24 hours using pulse charging (Norvik?).
Just seems like an investment in good charging infrastructure
would pay some real dividends in EV usability.
Chuck Hursch
Larkspur, CA
NBEAA treasurer and webmaster
www.geocities.com/nbeaa
http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/339.html
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Red Nose Day 2003: Comedy hilft!
Unter dem Motto "Tut was Verr�cktes und sammelt Geld" rufen Comedians,
Musiker und andere K�nstler zu Spenden f�r Not leidende Kinder auf.
Die verr�ckte Comedy-Spenden-Gala am 14. M�rz, 20:15 Uhr live auf ProSieben.
Mehr Infos auf www.rednoseday.de und im ProSieben Text S. 707
______________________________________________________________________________
Bought one of those last autumn and I'm quite happy with it, so far.
I could fix a minor technical problem myself (corroded wiring at and replacement of
aux 12V battery), only the licensing process was a little bit complicated because
these vehicles come without any car documents.
The batteries are included (no leasing).
Range is at least 90 km even at -15� Celsius, I expect more than 100 km at higher
temperatures and dry roads (it's winter now in "old Europe" ;-).
Top speed and acceleration may seem low, but other drivers don't expect much from this
kind of vehicle, the ICE version is definitely no race car, too!
One possible problem is that all EV components like motor controller, charger and
DC/DC (even the gasoline heater!) are controlled and governed by a proprietary
electronic management system, so you can't replace them with other parts if anything
breaks. You also need the Renault service computer to start the maintenance charge for
battery watering and resetting the Ah counters.
As far as I know, Renault built about 150 of these vans, most of them were sold to
public institutions or companies in France and Switzerland like EDF (Electricite de
France) who wanted to show a "green" image.
Renaults successor EV, the "Kangoo electrique" is at least officially available for
sale, please see my related post about this at
http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/think_ev/message/1991 .
Regards, Jens
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jim Coate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone know about the Electric Renault Express Vans?
> Seen at http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/331.html
>
> Some are for sale over in France (see the Tradin' Post) - complete &
> running for a little less than just the NiCad batteries would cost.
> Tempting in a way to get a couple of the packs for re-use (if can make a
> long string), but they are just too cute to scrap for parts. By American
> standards they are a bit lethargic (0-30 in under 10 seconds and top
> speed 55 mph), but for the intended use as an urban delivery van not
> bad. I don't exactly why the pilot program they were built for ended.
>
> Would the US allow such to be imported and put on the road?
>
> _________
> Jim Coate
> 1992 Chevy S10
> 1970's Elec-Trak
> http://www.eeevee.com
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Friday I was over to the office for a meeting, and ran into
Jan, the chief tech. I hadn't seen her for quite a while, since
I usually work in the hospital. "How's your electric car going
in this weather?", she asked (it had been -30C). I started into
my usual excuses: well, I still haven't finished putting the body
back together and there are a few electrical modifications to do.
"You took it apart?" "Yup, I took it down to the bare metal" She
had that look on her face, like I had just arrived from Mars.
"You took apart a NEW CAR?!!" "Oh, you mean the Insight. It's
not actually an electric car, it runs on gas, and it's fine in
this weather, especially since I got snow tires for it." The
other one is an old car that I'm rebuiling and converting to
electric. Yada, yada.
Sigh, it's a long uphill climb.
Mike Hoskinson
-still battling frozen pipes and septic tank. I've twice thawed
the septic tank with a 500W spool of pipe heat tape that I bought
for the car. Just tossed it in and plugged it into the outlet.
Next morning we could flush the toilet again (always a good thing
when you are trying to convince yur wife to come out to the
cottage so you can work on the car). I think I'll get a new
spool of heat tape for the car. That smell doesn't come out.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
I have a GE 5BC48JB141. 2HP. 36V. A52 3300 RPM. I am assuming that it
is speed limited simply by the voltage. (My A89 powered Lectra with a 1204
won't draw any more current on the level at 40 mph no matter how much I cram
the throttle. Unless I hit a hill it won't go faster or draw more current.)
It is a simple contactor controller. Rise or lower the voltage and it goes
faster or slower. I am thinking though there is only a current limit at top
speed on level ground no wind. With a hill or wind the current will go up
quite a bit. Does anybody know what a GE motor like this will draw up a
hill. Will there be spikes while going through the contractors & resistor.
I wanted to use a 300 amp ammeter but I am thinking that may not be enough
when hill climbing. Just going to use 6 Trojan or simular batteries.
Lawrence Rhodes....
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Hi everyone;
Awhile back some people were looking for orange color wire loom for the
high voltage wire system in there EV's, I was going through a catalog
preparing a order when I came across some.
F&R Manufacturing
Pleasant Hill, Oregon
541-747-1915
You may have already found a source but I thought I would share just in
case.
www.lasvegasev.com
Richard Furniss
Las Vegas, NV
1986 Mazda EX-7 192v
1981 Lectra Centauri 108v
3 Wheel Trail Master 12v
Board Member, www.lveva.org
Las Vegas Electric Vehicle Association
--- End Message ---
