In reply to Horace Heffner's message of Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:44:30 -0800: Hi, [snip] >The specs state or imply the e6 uses about 18 kWh per 100 km, has a >range of 400 km, and can "quick charge" to 50 percent of capacity in >10 minutes. > >The e6 thus requires 72 kWh for a complete fill up. At their fill >stations this would take at least 20 minutes plus queue time for a >fill up, given 50 percent of capacity charge in 10 minutes. This >would be intolerable for many people.
Perhaps, but even now many gas stations combine with a restaurant. People stop for lunch or a snack while getting gas. This could be adapted to getting a recharge while eating lunch. (car recharges when driver "recharges" ;) >Charging stations would have >to have a lot more area than current filling stations to support the >same traffic. The quick charging "premium" would have to be fairly >high for the charging stations to break even. > >Charging the full 72 kWh at the 120 V 10 A home outlet they suggest, >i.e. a 1.2 kW outlet, what they call a "normal charge", would take 60 >hours, and to half capacity 30 hours - not too effective for a 5 day >a week commuter who travels over 200 miles a day, which is not >unusual in various California or New York City areas. These vehicles may not be suited to everyone. However the average commute is considerably less than that, so I think they would be suited to the majority. > >Using the biggest socket typically available in the US, a 240 V 50 A >socket, a 12 kWh socket, charging full capacity would take 6 hours, >which is feasible. However, for a typical home with a 100 amp >service, this would take 50 percent of the home's current capacity >for one car and preclude use of home appliances like an electric >dryer or electric oven, which also take a similar socket, during the >charging period. A family with two or three commuters and a 100 amp >service would likely require a major home capacity upgrade. The >alternative is some home form of energy storing and quick charging >station. > >The ad conveniently ignores some of these implications. Most ads do. :) The cynic in me says that's what advertising executives are paid for. >That is not >to say such a car would not have great utility for some people. I am >glad to see that. However, the advertising appears at minimum to >create false expectations, and that should be fixed, for the sake of >potential investors and customers, and the company's own image. It >taints an otherwise apparently good thing. > >Best regards, > >Horace Heffner >http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/ > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
