TheEEStory.com

I have been trying to find out how many battery cars are actually driving around with little success. As I live in the UK, my interest is mainly here, and the lack of information seems to indicate they are not popular.

The only hard figures I have found are for 2008, and these show a big drop on sales in the previous year - down by 58% - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8127757.stm The bad publicity attending the G-Wiz (see teh article) may well have had a disproportionate effect however.

Does anyone know a source of more up-to-date figures for either the UK or indeed the US please?

I would say the lack of a lot of EVs is more about vehicle availability, supporting infrastructure, and practicality based on current EV range. I would buy one in a second (regardless of EESU) if I could do so and meet my needs.

I think the only way to get a true picture would be to query each company (Zenn, etc.) directly for sales numbers. I think I remember something about 300 cars in Canada, US, and Mexico from Launch to April 08. I'm sure they have sold more as they were working on some fleet deals etc. Of course this is from memory from various press releases over time.

Thanks for that bitslider.

Tec, 2008 was where we saw the current recession really get rolling. Could the drop in sales have been caused by people just keeping their wallets in their pockets?

much of the buzz on electric cars is concurrent with the current state of auto sales. In North America, current automotive production is half the numbers from a year ago which follows linear declines. At this point, we are scrapping more cars than we are producing. The fleet size requirements are still rising so the current situation is clearly not sustainable. The economics and infrastructure of EV's is still in it's infancy but with this fleet size deficit, the opportunity to gain market share will be limited only by the capacity, infrastructure, and cost of the new propulsion method.

The chances are very high that the world economy will recover before the EV industry is ready to deliver in huge volume. In the meantime, the great advances made by automakers in ICE tech will find faster and deeper penetration than EV's in the 5-10 year term. Refineries are a little behind the curve in retooling for diesel to the extent that Western Canada suffered a huge shortage in 2008 (some of that from the incredible boom from tar sands production). As the North American fleet turns over, those that cannot wait or afford EV's will seek out the clean diesel. Natural Gas new cars and conversions are another loss vector for ICE but these too are in infancy to provide a market that will need replacement vehicles in large volume in short order.

The ICE is not dead, but it is certainly poised for one great big last hurrah. 50 years from now, this period from 2000 to 2020 will be regarded as the technological pinnacle of internal combustion transportation. Enjoy it while it lasts.

No idea. They are likely only to be bought by people seeking to avoid the congestion charge, who live in central london, and who have garages.

These folk are generally described by the words 'millionaire' or 'billionaire' so are not likely to be feeling the pinch too much I wouldn't have thought.

To be honest I don't think EVs are on people's radar much here.

keep in mind that UK and European transportation needs on a per-capita basis is provided in part by mass transportation. In North America, our portion of mass transportation is very much less than that of you lucky travelers over the pond.

We built these interstates and proceeded to create a suburban residential housing situation that makes public transportation much more difficult. I have many friends who view this as some kind of "Typical American Excess." Maybe so. The system predates most of the people who use it.

EEventually wrote:

much of the buzz on electric cars is concurrent with the current state of auto sales. In North America, current automotive production is half the numbers from a year ago which follows linear declines. At this point, we are scrapping more cars than we are producing. The fleet size requirements are still rising so the current situation is clearly not sustainable. The economics and infrastructure of EV's is still in it's infancy but with this fleet size deficit, the opportunity to gain market share will be limited only by the capacity, infrastructure, and cost of the new propulsion method.

The chances are very high that the world economy will recover before the EV industry is ready to deliver in huge volume. In the meantime, the great advances made by automakers in ICE tech will find faster and deeper penetration than EV's in the 5-10 year term. Refineries are a little behind the curve in retooling for diesel to the extent that Western Canada suffered a huge shortage in 2008 (some of that from the incredible boom from tar sands production). As the North American fleet turns over, those that cannot wait or afford EV's will seek out the clean diesel. Natural Gas new cars and conversions are another loss vector for ICE but these too are in infancy to provide a market that will need replacement vehicles in large volume in short order.

The ICE is not dead, but it is certainly poised for one great big last hurrah. 50 years from now, this period from 2000 to 2020 will be regarded as the technological pinnacle of internal combustion transportation. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I own an all electric vehicle, a 2007 Zap Xebra PK, that I purchased new June 13th, 2008. The two Xebra models the SD (sedan) and PK (Pick-up) have a lively following at http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/Xebra_EV/ the group has around 500 members with several EV dealers providing regular support to Xebra owners. The total number of Xebras in NA is probably in the 1-2000 range across three model years 2006, 2007, 2008.

I purchased mine after my 1991 Honda Accord EX was rear-ended and totaled on May 2nd, 2008. The local price for regular unleaded gasoline was at about $3.70 and my wife and I saw an opportunity to experience what an all electric vehicle was like. Our choice centered on the fact that several of my friends had started an electric car and truck dealership. They had the Xebra on hand and after a brief test drive we decided to go for it. We paid $12,000 and I have added about $1000 dollars worth of accessories (softer springs) and enhanced instrumentation (PakTrakr, battery balancer and desulfation electronics).

The vehicle provides about 18 miles range (25 advertised) over moderate terrain with a top speed of about 35 mph. It is powered by 6 Group 31 12 volt 100 AH deep cycle batteries driving a 5KW DC motor. It charges from a standard 20 amp electrical outlet and requires about 8 hours for a full charge. It seats two with a payload capacity of about 250 lbs. Stock instrumentation is limited to a voltage meter with a low voltage warning light. The speedometer is 10-20% optimistic. The vehicle is made in China and the build quality is low.

I live in a town of about 10,000 persons in southeast Iowa and drive it almost exclusively from April through October. Last year between June 13th and sometime in early November I drove it about 1000 miles. My typical weekday mileage is in the 5 to 7 mile range increasing to 2 to 3 times that on Saturday and Sunday.

As the temperatures started to dip towards freezing I parked "Casper" as our Xebra is known to save the batteries. Cold weather significantly limits battery capacity and limiting discharge to 50% of capacity is key to maximum battery life.

I picked up driving Casper this year at the start of April and only use the Honda for out of town trips that occur about once a month. My wife continues to drive her 1999 Honda Accord.

Would I make the same choice given my experience so far: No. The money would have been better spent on a late model Honda Civic DX or similar Toyota. I am glad that I got the experience of owning an all electric vehicle. But the current state of the art in economy electric vehicles is way below the style to which I have become accustomed.

I do enjoy passing the service station and estimate my per mile cost at about 5 cents. This doesn't include that cost of replacement batteries (about $2400 list) a specter lurking on the horizon. I think it is optimistice to expect the ones I have to last through more than 3 or 4 years. Assuming that the 1000 mile per year usage holds that will put the most optimistic cost per mile at about 65 cents. This is over 3 times my Honda when gas is at $4/gallon and over 5 times at current gas prices. This assumes a 14 cents/KWH electricity price.

Last edited Wed, 01 Jul 2009, 10:44pm by voxelman

Interesting to hear some first hand experience of owning one. It seems a fair account of the plusses and minusses of owning one.

It would appear these things have a long way to go before they can equal ICEVs.

What would the experience be if the same Zap were powered by a 25kWh EESU?

Never have to worry about replacement. Instead of 7.2 kWh of lead acid battery (not all of which is usable, I don't think discharging to 0V soc is good for lead acid) weighing around 430lbs the EESU should be less than 1/2 the weight with at least 5x the usable energy. Range would be about 100 miles, and the reduction in weight should increase efficiency a few percent thus reducing the cost/mile for electricity.

I did notice, that voxelman didn't state charge time as an issue, doesn't seem to be an issue for his use.

Last edited Thu, 02 Jul 2009, 3:48am by Cobraphx

Why not tell us how a magic wand would transform this car?

Neither EESUs nor magic wands exist yet. Until they do, this sort of speculation is pretty futile.

Although as an investor in Zenn I'm optimistic about the future existence of EESUs, given an expected cost in the $7000 range of the EESU upgrade package, I don't think upgrading Casper to EESU's is a likely event.

More likely would be replacing the 450 lbs of Discovery AGM Group 31s with Firefly Energy Group 31s possibly as soon as this fall. The Fireflys are expected to be as much as 40% lighter, allow significantly deeper discharge, have 5 times the life, perform better in cold weather and cost in the same range as the replacement alternatives ($2000-$2400). See http://tinyurl.com/58bset for more info on the Firefly technology.

Cobraphx, your right, for the most part I charge Casper whenever I return to the garage. On weekdays this is in the evenings, on weekends whenever I return home. A full charge requires about 8 hours but opportunity charging does benefit.

If and when the EESUs do become available I will be looking for a Honda civic class automobile that has all of the creature comforts to which I've become accustomed.

Last edited Sat, 04 Jul 2009, 7:51am by voxelman

Tec wrote:

Why not tell us how a magic wand would transform this car?

Neither EESUs nor magic wands exist yet. Until they do, this sort of speculation is pretty futile.

I saw "would" and "should". In my books, this is fine to say. This is the issue with you folks. You have to piss on people's parade. You have a problem with the science, then go discuss science. Somebody talks about potential positive outcomes, leave em alone!

voxelman wrote:

Would I make the same choice given my experience so far: No. The money would have been better spent on a late model Honda Civic DX or similar Toyota. I am glad that I got the experience of owning an all electric vehicle. But the current state of the art in economy electric vehicles is way below the style to which I have become accustomed.

Thanks very much for your report, vox! This is very much in line from what I've read elsewhere: That current EVs cannot compete with gassers. Batteries are currently too expensive for the power they hold to compete with the internal combustion engine.

I know quite a few people who would rather be driving EVs *if* there was one they could buy which was practical and which they could afford. Here's hoping that the day Joe Average can buy one will come soon!

http://gm-volt.com/2009/07/03/gm-orders-enough-...

Tec wrote:

Why not tell us how a magic wand would transform this car?

Neither EESUs nor magic wands exist yet. Until they do, this sort of speculation is pretty futile.

At one time lithium ion and NiMH batteries didn't exist either. But I'm sure plenty of people speculated how those technologies might change things when they first heard of the research being done in those fields. If everyone lost the ability to envision the possibilities, the world would be a very boring place.

Vox's experience is with a Low speed Neighborhood electric vehicle. same kind Zenn builds. this is Not the EV that competes with ICE vehicles. these use Lead Acid batteries, DC motors and "Do Not" represent current "state of the Art" in EV technology.

There is Only one company that currently produces pure Electric, Highway class vehicles in the US. Tesla Motors.

Tesla represents current state of the art in EV tech. 8 hours to charge, 250 mile range. and is very fast with the AC Motor and Controller.

Of course, not many can afford $125K USD for a car. so the Only way to have a State of the Art EV Today is to Build it yourself. but it isnt cheap.

a good donor car and about $15K USD, you can design and build a conversion EV with 8 hour charge time and 80 miles range. you want more range? must buy more Lithium cells. Lithium is what makes the EV so expensive.

The EESU would make the DIY conversion very affordable with 3 times the range. and Directly compete with ICE.

seslaprime wrote:

Lithium is what makes the EV so expensive.

Not really. It's the lithium cells and not the lithium itself, which makes the EV so expensive.

For a LiFePO4-battery you need 80 grams of metallic lithium per kWh, with lithium-cobalt or lithium-mangan batteries you need about 140 grams per kWh.

Lithium is made from cheap lithium minerals (lithium-carbonate costs about US$ 4.50/kg) in a similar way like silicon is made from sand. Unfortunately the production capacity for metallic lithium could not keep up with the growing demand, and so the price for metallic lithium rose from US$ 50/kg in 1998 up to US$ 550/kg in mid 2008. Today it's about 400.

For a 50 kWh battery in the Tesla roadster you need 4 kg of metallic lithium, which costs US$ 1600 today.

Last edited Sat, 04 Jul 2009, 8:06am by chacha

The Xebra is not an NEV. NEVs are limited to 25 MPH. On a fresh set of batteries it can reach 40 MPH on level ground, 45 MPH when upgraded to an 84 volt pack and 50 MPH with a 96 volt pack. Zebras have been upgraded to Li packs and they then have over 100 mile range. But at a cost of $8000 it is not in the cards for mine. In Iowa where I live it is licensed as a motorcycle because of it's three wheel chassis.

seslaprime wrote:

Vox's experience is with a Low speed Neighborhood electric vehicle. same kind Zenn builds. this is Not the EV that competes with ICE vehicles. these use Lead Acid batteries, DC motors and "Do Not" represent current "state of the Art" in EV technology.

chacha wrote:

seslaprime wrote:

Lithium is what makes the EV so expensive.

Not really. It's the lithium cells and not the lithium itself, which makes the EV so expensive.

For a LiFePO4-battery you need 80 grams of metallic lithium per kWh, with lithium-cobalt or lithium-mangan batteries you need about 140 grams per kWh.

Lithium is made from cheap lithium minerals (lithium-carbonate costs about US$ 4.50/kg) in a similar way like silicon is made from sand. Unfortunately the production capacity for metallic lithium could not keep up with the growing demand, and so the price for metallic lithium rose from US$ 50/kg in 1998 up to US$ 550/kg in mid 2008. Today it's about 400.

For a 50 kWh battery in the Tesla roadster you need 4 kg of metallic lithium, which costs US$ 1600 today.

When ever I say "Lithium" in context with EV conversation, it is meant "LI-Ion Cells". and Li-Ion Cells are what makes the EV so expensive. this is common knowledge.

voxelman wrote:

The Xebra is not an NEV. NEVs are limited to 25 MPH. On a fresh set of batteries it can reach 40 MPH on level ground, 45 MPH when upgraded to an 84 volt pack and 50 MPH with a 96 volt pack. Zebras have been upgraded to Li packs and they then have over 100 mile range. But at a cost of $8000 it is not in the cards for mine. In Iowa where I live it is licensed as a motorcycle because of it's three wheel chassis.

seslaprime wrote:

Vox's experience is with a Low speed Neighborhood electric vehicle. same kind Zenn builds. this is Not the EV that competes with ICE vehicles. these use Lead Acid batteries, DC motors and "Do Not" represent current "state of the Art" in EV technology.

Well, if it cannot reach Highway speeds, it is not a Highway vehicle. so whatever you choose to call it, it is not a vehicle that can compete with ICE.

Cobraphx wrote:

Tec wrote:

Why not tell us how a magic wand would transform this car?

Neither EESUs nor magic wands exist yet. Until they do, this sort of speculation is pretty futile.

At one time lithium ion and NiMH batteries didn't exist either. But I'm sure plenty of people speculated how those technologies might change things when they first heard of the research being done in those fields. If everyone lost the ability to envision the possibilities, the world would be a very boring place.

Well, when you look at these technologies in comparison with other battereies such as lead acid, they look briliant, and so does the EESU (asssuming it were to acrtually exist)

But compared to ancient clunking diesel they are all rubbish - orders of magnitude worse in terms of the energy contained either by volume or weight.

Tec wrote:

Well, when you look at these technologies in comparison with other battereies such as lead acid, they look briliant, and so does the EESU (asssuming it were to acrtually exist)

But compared to ancient clunking diesel they are all rubbish - orders of magnitude worse in terms of the energy contained either by volume or weight.

Except for the fact that Gas and Diesel engines cannot convert much of the available energy into propulsion. I think Gas is up to like 20% now.

Also, the main Product of the ICE is CO2 gas and hard carbon particles. Propulsion is actually only a small biproduct of the conversion process.

Electric Motor propulsion, on the other hand, is like 95% efficient. in other words, you get about the same amount of Work compared to the ICE. except electricity is Cheaper with zero emissions. on top of that, the AC Powered EV even performs better than a equally equipped ICE vehicle.

There is no comparison for someone familiar with "State of the Art" Electric Vehicles.

Tec thinks that the world would be a much better place if every vehicle on the planet were diesel. Of course, Tec just ignores the fact that the EU standard for diesel emissions allows diesels to release nearly three times the hydrocarbons and three times the NOx per km than a gasoline motor. Diesel also contains 15% more CO2 for any given volume than gasoline. So anytime a diesel isn't delivering 15% higher fuel economy than an equivalent gasoline powered vehicle, it is releasing more CO2 as well. So, the higher mileage of diesel comes at the price of triple the harmful emissions of gasoline.

Oh by the way, a diesel powered auto costs more than a gasoline powered one. So, the increased fuel economy is offset by the premium for the diesel motor.

If you don't care about emissions, and you like paying for imported oil, diesel may appear to be the fuel of the future. Of course, it's a bit difficult to make diesel out of clean energy like solar, wind, wave, tidal, hydro or nuclear power.

But Tec is right about the energy density of diesel being higher that current batteries and the theoretical EESU. Of course a BEV is about three to five times as efficient as a diesel powered vehicle, so it only needs to carry one third to one fifth the energy to achieve the same range.

When I challenged Tec to give his motivations for promoting the use of a polluting and unsustainable technology ( http://theeestory.com/topics/2289?page=1 and http://theeestory.com/topics/2289?page=2 ) he was evasive to the point where one could only conclude that his motives were of the most selfish nature. Tec doesn't care how many people suffer and die from the effects of pollution. Tec doesn't care if his country goes bankrupt importing oil. Tec is either a troll or paid oil shill with a scripted set of talking points which he will continue to return to, ad nauseum, thread after thread.

Oneil

I have pointed out - on several occasions - that with the use of synthetic diesel one could have the performance of current cars AND be carbon neutral, and in my opinion this is the way to go.

Primary power can be from solar, wind, tidal and any other renewable source you fancy. It renders your country independent of oil producing countries which is - given its manipulation of these countries over the years - every bit as much in their interests as it is yours.

How this promotes the interests of the oil companies, or proves I am a troll baffles me, but your thinking is evidently deeply confused as is proved by the logic that - given a choice of two ways of storing energy to drive a vehicle - directs you to choose one that is one percent the efficiency of the other and requires a wait of hours to refuel it, or to choose one that doesn't seem to exist at all!

Last edited Sun, 05 Jul 2009, 6:44am by Tec

seslaprime wrote:

Tec wrote:

Well, when you look at these technologies in comparison with other battereies such as lead acid, they look briliant, and so does the EESU (asssuming it were to acrtually exist)

But compared to ancient clunking diesel they are all rubbish - orders of magnitude worse in terms of the energy contained either by volume or weight.

Except for the fact that Gas and Diesel engines cannot convert much of the available energy into propulsion. I think Gas is up to like 20% now.

Also, the main Product of the ICE is CO2 gas and hard carbon particles. Propulsion is actually only a small biproduct of the conversion process.

Electric Motor propulsion, on the other hand, is like 95% efficient. in other words, you get about the same amount of Work compared to the ICE. except electricity is Cheaper with zero emissions. on top of that, the AC Powered EV even performs better than a equally equipped ICE vehicle.

There is no comparison for someone familiar with "State of the Art" Electric Vehicles.

In fact a modern diesel can turn 50% of the thermal energy in the fuel into torque, although around 40% is more realistic for normal driving. Electric motors are twice this. Again this sounds brilliant until you go back to the energy density of diesel. Instead of batteries being 1% of diesel this means it is now 2%!

You also neglect to consider that the 'waste' heat is in fact often put to use in heaing the vehicle. The effect of this is to give an even bigger advantage over electric cars where turning on the heater immediatley impacts on the range of the vehicle.

The 'hard particles' of which you make so much are in fact carbon. These can easily be converted to CO2 by a catalytic converter following the engine. As to the CO2 emissions, I have pointed out on many occasions how this can be got round, given a primary energy source (see the post to Oneil for the last one) I will not go into it again.

Last edited Sun, 05 Jul 2009, 6:43am by Tec

Tec wrote:

In fact a modern diesel can turn 50% of the thermal energy in the fuel into torque, although around 40% is more realistic for normal driving.

This is ridiculous!

A 2-stroke diesel engine of the size of a house - beasts like that are built for big cargo ships - can indeed achieve an efficiency of about 50% under certain conditions. Most modern small 4-stroke-diesel-engines can achieve up to 42% when they are used under perfect conditions in a lab. Under real-world-driving conditions they can not achieve more than 35% efficiency, and even this would imply that you use a driving style which would not comply with ordinary traffic.

Tec wrote:

Oneil

I have pointed out - on several occasions - that with the use of synthetic diesel one could have the performance of current cars AND be carbon neutral, and in my opinion this is the way to go.

The most likely sources of synthetic diesel are 1) liquids from coal (definitely not carbon neutral). 2) liquids from NG (more of the same) 3) algal oil (better, but still relies on the CO2 output of burnt coal) and 4) a process being developed by Sandia which uses solar which is still in its infancy (15 to 20 years out) and once again requires a concentrated CO2 source.

Tec wrote:

How this promotes the interests of the oil companies, or proves I am a troll baffles me,

Who do you think is going to produce and distribute this synthetic diesel?

Tec wrote:

but your thinking is evidently deeply confused as is proved by the logic that - given a choice of two ways of storing energy to drive a vehicle - directs you to choose one that is one percent the efficiency of the other and requires a wait of hours to refuel it, or to choose one that doesn't seem to exist at all!

Complete BS! Batteries may store less energy but is far more efficiently used than diesel. Bully for diesel for having so much energy ... too bad you waste 70% to 80% of the energy in it. BTW. I don't wait for my EVs to charge at all. Every morning I get up I have a full charge and I never have to waste time driving to a gas station. I spend less time fueling my ride than you do.