 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / November 2009Tesla roadster, not on my buying list
I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent alternative/ECO vehicle race from Darwin to Adelaide. This was the old solar powered race revamped to include other types. There was a Tesla roadster entered and they are claiming a new world record for 501km from a single charge. What is more telling is what they don't say. They don't say at what average speed that was achieved and therefore time taken as well as time to recharge. From what we heard up this way, it was at a very ordinary speed and that it also required a 3-3.5 hour recharge. To me it seems that they achieved only 500km for a days travel. I don't know about anyone else but I'd expect to easily make Tennant Ck at around 1000km in the same time in an average vehicle. At their rate you're talking around 6 days to Adelaide for the 3147km. When I last did that trip it was in a Ford Laser with a 1.5L engine in 2 days. I think battery power isn't there yet as an alternative. PhilD > I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent > alternative/ECO vehicle race from Darwin to Adelaide. This was the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I think battery power isn't there yet as an alternative. I commute 50km per day. An electric car would suit me down to the ground for commuting, and I suspect those of a mere 98% of the rest of the population. I suspect that solar panels fitted to the roof would just about manage to fully replace the charge used to get me to work. A few cents worth of electricity would fully recharge overnight. The day of the polluting, non-renewably fueled vehicle is rapidly ending. -- > I suspect that solar panels fitted to the roof would just about manage > to fully replace the charge used to get me to work. A few cents worth > of electricity would fully recharge overnight. > > The day of the polluting, non-renewably fueled vehicle is rapidly > ending. Electric vehicles have made some astounding advances in recent times, but the days of fossil fuel powered vehicles are nowhere near their end in my opinion, and I suspect no one alive today will ever see a day when they don't exist. Electric powered vehicles only offer an alternative (albeit a hideously expensive one) to low mileage commuter cars. For everything else they're not an option. -- Regards, Noddy. >> I suspect that solar panels fitted to the roof would just about manage >> to fully replace the charge used to get me to work. A few cents worth >> of electricity would fully recharge overnight. >> The day of the polluting, non-renewably fueled vehicle is rapidly >> ending. >Electric vehicles have made some astounding advances in recent times, but Most of theose advances have been cosmetic. Few fundamental changes have happened. The introduction of high-current/voltage semi-conductors was just about the only "leap". Rapid switching under microprocessor control, reacting also to the magnetic flux in the motor/generator gives only amarginal, overall saving in energy. Battery technologies have delivered only one more viable chemistry for automotive traction power: LiFePO4. And that isn't far ahead of NiMH. >the days of fossil fuel powered vehicles are nowhere near their end in my >opinion, and I suspect no one alive today will ever see a day when they >don't exist. Electric powered vehicles only offer an alternative (albeit a >hideously expensive one) to low mileage commuter cars. For everything else >they're not an option.  Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire > The day of the polluting, non-renewably fueled vehicle is rapidly > ending. Personally, I don't think we are anywhere near it. Where does the electricity come from for charging your Tesla? Non-renewable coal burning. >I commute 50km per day. An electric car would suit me down to the >ground for commuting, and I suspect those of a mere 98% of the rest of >the population. > >I suspect that solar panels fitted to the roof would just about manage >to fully replace the charge used to get me to work. You clearly haven't done the maths on the recharge requirements. > A few cents worth >of electricity would fully recharge overnight. You *definitely* haven't done the maths on the recharge requirements. >The day of the polluting, non-renewably fueled vehicle is rapidly >ending. except that all the currently available (aka production) "electric" vehicles - including hybrids - are still reliant on fossil fuels. As others have commented, the day of the fossil-fuelled car is far from over. > > I commute 50km per day. An electric car would suit me down to the > > ground for commuting, and I suspect those of a mere 98% of the rest [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You clearly haven't done the maths on the recharge requirements. Really lets check that out in a moment. > > A few cents worth > > of electricity would fully recharge overnight. > > You definitely haven't done the maths on the recharge requirements. Ok seeing as you think I'm wrong, let's work it out together. > > The day of the polluting, non-renewably fueled vehicle is rapidly > > ending. > > except that all the currently available (aka production) "electric" > vehicles - including hybrids - are still reliant on fossil fuels. Only becuase our electricity production is currently predicated on using fossil fuels. It woun't be for much longer. There is this really, really neat fusion reactor situation a few million kilometres away that produces lots and lots of photon energy. Photon energy can be directly converted to electricity by solar panels. The traditional achillies heel of direct solar power, the fact that they don't generate at night or on cludy days can be met by using photon energy to create steam and drive a "conventional" power plant. Heat energy can be stored and used when the sun don't shine. Or photon energy can be indirectly converted to electricity via Wind, Tide, Hydro power generation. Best of all, photon energy will last as long as the Sun survives. > As others have commented, the day of the fossil-fuelled car is far > from over. There will be dino fuelled cars around for a long time, in fact I agree with Noddy that nobody alive now will see their end. But, their time is gone - peak oil will nice take care of that. But I digress, let's get back to costings. Now I'm going to cheat and use some power calculations from a US site http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080721114053AA2vLr5 I'll quote the relevant bits directly. "I must commute 12 miles to work (and 12 miles back). It takes 20 minutes each way. Most of that travelling is on a freeway at a steady speed. I own a car with a 100 HP engine, so I could probably get by with an electric car with a power in the range of 50 to 100 HP, BUT, that does NOT mean that all of that power is utilized, all the time. When at highway speed, I am using approximately 5 to 10 HP of the maximum (I know this from materials and calculations I have done in the past -- way beyond the scope of this answer). 10 HP * 20 minutes * 2 ways = 18 MegaJoules of energy. That's just the energy it takes for me to commute back-and-forth to work every day. That isn't much -- it's the same as 5 kWhr A 1 hour trip to a nearby city (and back) might use as much as 100 MegaJoules (27.7 kWhr)." Now in Queensland my power bill is calculated as follows:- I pay a fixed charge of $11.95 per month for my electrictity supply, I then pay 19.20cents per kilowatt hour of electricity used. So based on the 40minute daily commute above using 5 kilowatt hours I will be up for the grand total of a little under $1. But wait, let's assume I have 200 watts of solar cells on the roof of the car. In 5 hours I'll generate 1 kilowatt/hour. Now seeing as I am actually at work for around 8 hours, let's call it 1.5 Kw/h just to be fair., that means I'll (assuming lots of sunny days) be buying about 3.5Kw/H to recharge at home, or about 60cents. Now what was that about maths you were talking about? How much does petrol cost for the same 40 minute commute? -- >> > I commute 50km per day. An electric car would suit me down to the >> > ground for commuting, and I suspect those of a mere 98% of the rest [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Only becuase our electricity production is currently predicated on >using fossil fuels. It woun't be for much longer. Apart from the "renewables" you cite later - which are all expensive to establish at any sort of size to meet grid loads - the only light I see on the horizon is local fission. >There is this really, really neat fusion reactor situation a few >million kilometres away that produces lots and lots of photon energy. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >photon energy to create steam and drive a "conventional" power plant. >Heat energy can be stored and used when the sun don't shine. Exactly *how* are you going to store the Gwh used in a decent city overnight? One farking big thermos? >Or photon energy can be indirectly converted to electricity via Wind, >Tide, Hydro power generation. > >Best of all, photon energy will last as long as the Sun survives. The main reasons for the slow takeup of those sources are cost, cost, and irregular supply. The first is being addressed, the second will take a bit longer, and the third isn't going away. >> As others have commented, the day of the fossil-fuelled car is far >> from over. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >A 1 hour trip to a nearby city (and back) might use as much as 100 >MegaJoules (27.7 kWhr)." Assuming that we blindly accept what that author "knows" ... >Now in Queensland my power bill is calculated as follows:- > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >fair., that means I'll (assuming lots of sunny days) be buying about >3.5Kw/H to recharge at home, or about 60cents. Apart from assuming sunny days, it also assumes that your day destination isn't a covered city car park, where the sun don't shine. >Now what was that about maths you were talking about? How much does >petrol cost for the same 40 minute commute? For me, about $1.20. With no extra capital outlay for the technology. Apart from greed, there is a reason why Pryarses cost about $10K (last time I bothered to look) more than a Corolla. I suspect the life cycle owning costs are in my favour. IMNSHO, electric vehicles will be taken seriously when, and only when, we have: (a) a nuclear-powered grid; or (b) fuel cell technology which doesn't rely on hydrogen from electrolysis powered by ... the grid; or (c) batteries are cheap, green, and recharging can be effected safely away from base in the time required without a massive infrastructure program. But don't let that stop you and a small number of others pursuing the dream in the meantime. > > Only becuase our electricity production is currently predicated on > > using fossil fuels. It woun't be for much longer. > > Apart from the "renewables" you cite later - which are all expensive > to establish at any sort of size to meet grid loads - the only light I > see on the horizon is local fission. You need to take th eblinkers off then. "Renewables" are not overly expensive to scale, in fact the European experience is showing just how well scaling does work. As far as that olf furphy "base load" goes - if you aggregate your grid wide enough, as they do in Europe, the sun is alwys shining, or the wind is always blowing - somewhere. Local nuclear power is almost as bad a blind alley as the often trotted out hydrogen power, with the exception that small scale nuclear plants may have a role in base load top-up > > There is this really, really neat fusion reactor situation a few > > million kilometres away that produces lots and lots of photon [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Exactly how are you going to store the Gwh used in a decent city > overnight? One farking big thermos? Pretty much Liquid salt has worked well in test, as has Lead, Copper, Aluminium and Steel. All habve the capacity to store an amazing amount of heat energy. > > Or photon energy can be indirectly converted to electricity via > > Wind, Tide, Hydro power generation. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > and irregular supply. The first is being addressed, the second will > take a bit longer, and the third isn't going away. No, dog in the manger, dog in the manger, dog in the manger would be a more accurate answer. Coal and gas fired generation plants have had quite some time to become relatively good at what they do. The same degree of indistrial innovation applied to other means of electricity generation can be reasonably expected to produce the same (or better) yield in terms of cost economics > >> As others have commented, the day of the fossil-fuelled car is far > >> from over. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Assuming that we blindly accept what that author "knows" ... Well, I could ask "Do you know any better", but that would not be a fair tactic. Nobody refuted the guy's calculations and given the strength with which people tend to hold their views on this topic, the fact that nobody took issue is good enough for me. > > Now in Queensland my power bill is calculated as follows:- > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Apart from assuming sunny days, it also assumes that your day > destination isn't a covered city car park, where the sun don't shine. Given the choice and the fact that it would save me a whole 60c of electricity, would I care? > > Now what was that about maths you were talking about? How much does > > petrol cost for the same 40 minute commute? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > time I bothered to look) more than a Corolla. I suspect the life > cycle owning costs are in my favour. If we were to go back to the approximately the same stage of IC vehicle development I wonder if the local Surrey hirer said the same thing....And look how that played out. > IMNSHO, electric vehicles will be taken seriously when, and only when, > we have: > > (a) a nuclear-powered grid; or Why? Actually electric cars are a godsend for the existing electricity grid's economics. Contrary to somebody else's input, Bernard iirc, electric cars will not present a terrible bogey man load on the grid. In fact if people were charging cars at night when the grid has an enormous unused capacity compared to peak day load, iot would give the generators much better economics to work from. > (b) fuel cell technology which doesn't rely on hydrogen from > electrolysis powered by ... the grid; or I don't think fuel cells will have much more than a boutique appeal until a whole lot of problems can be ironed out. Toshiba promised me a fuel cell for my laptop "next year" in 2004. I'm still waiting. > (c) batteries are cheap, green, and recharging can be effected safely > away from base in the time required without a massive infrastructure > program. Current battery tech will work quite well. As weight decreases and capacity increases things can only get better. > But don't let that stop you and a small number of others pursuing the > dream in the meantime. The Southern California experience shows that electric cars are a right now, available solution. Without wanting to buy in to the silly end of the conspiracy theories, download a copy of "Who killed the electric car" and listen to teh practical on-the-ground experience of people who used electric cars in place of ic powered ones. -- > The Southern California experience shows that electric cars are a right > now, available solution. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > practical on-the-ground experience of people who used electric cars in > place of ic powered ones. I've no doubt that they have their place, but that isn't in cross country trips yet by a long way. My comments were about people who have managed to portray the Tesla as being great for a trip across Australia. They've been selective in their information and have hailed the 501km range on a charge without providing the other side of the story. The useless main stream media has largely gone along with the grand achievement without delving deeply in to the full story. Most people will only have heard about the plusses, not the minus's. Over the years that the solar challenge has been run I've been impressed with the improvements the more serious competitors have achieved with better solar panels and motors. Even though this is the first time that the organizers have included the wider range of vehicles I feel that they got it wrong. Vehicles like the Tesla should have had a requirement to only refuel/recharge etc when stopped at existing facilities to properly demonstrate their true capabilities and should have included some night driving. Then potential buyers would have been able to consider where their money would be better spent. To me the real telling result is that the winner of the purely solar powered vehicle did the trip in just under 30 hours (4 days) at an average of just over 100kph. Contrast that with the Tesla which took 6 days and the section which they are all crowing about was done at an average of 50kph. Yes I know one is a proper road going car and the other is barely road going, but 6 days to do a trip that an average person in an economical normal car can do in 2 days says that battery power has some way to go to become viable. A manufacturer crowing about a vehicle having a range of 501km is much like an airline offering a $1 fare from Sydney to Melbourne. It's only when you do it that you find that the extras add up to more than you were prepared for. PhilD > I've no doubt that they have their place, but that isn't in cross > country trips yet by a long way. I could not agree with you more on this point. At this moment electric cars are about as impractical for a cross country trip as a bicycle is. THe point being that you could use either but its a lot of hard work and pretty slow. But. Electric cars are aimed at commuters and short journeys like taking kids to school or doing the shopping. In this role a range of say 60~`100km is more than adequate and would meet the needs of all but a very few people. >> I've no doubt that they have their place, but that isn't in cross >> country trips yet by a long way. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > say 60~`100km is more than adequate and would meet the needs of all but > a very few people. No doubt an electric car would work in those applications but most people can't afford to own multiple vehicles that can only be used for a few tasks. A small economical IC car can do anything that an electric car can plus it can travel longer distances when needed on the odd occasion making it much more versatile. Daryl >> > Only becuase our electricity production is currently predicated on >> > using fossil fuels. It woun't be for much longer. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >wide enough, as they do in Europe, the sun is alwys shining, or the >wind is always blowing - somewhere. yebbut ... To hook (for example) Western Australia into the SEAust grid would be a tad costly. Geographic diversity isn't a grid freebie. And unless we planned on hooking up Aus to SAmerica or Africa/Europe/MidEast we aren't going to have "always sunshine", sunshine. >Local nuclear power is almost as bad a blind alley as the often trotted >out hydrogen power, with the exception that small scale nuclear plants >may have a role in base load top-up I wasn't referring to "local" fission. Think "replace the coal-burners with nukes". Other wise EV's are simply relocating the greenhouse emissions, not being the green thing they are touted to be. >> > There is this really, really neat fusion reactor situation a few >> > million kilometres away that produces lots and lots of photon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Liquid salt has worked well in test, as has Lead, Copper, Aluminium and >Steel. All habve the capacity to store an amazing amount of heat energy. Ah, the old "worked well in tests". Righto, how often have we heard that one? >> > Or photon energy can be indirectly converted to electricity via >> > Wind, Tide, Hydro power generation. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >reasonably expected to produce the same (or better) yield in terms of >cost economics when the takeup rate is higher, yes. But the issue is getting up past the knee of the curve. Energy use is based on cost at the business end at the time the purchasing decision is made. >> >> As others have commented, the day of the fossil-fuelled car is far >> >> from over. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >strength with which people tend to hold their views on this topic, the >fact that nobody took issue is good enough for me. You probably accept as fact that everything published via the web is 100% true. Wanna buy a bridge? I can show you a picture of it. >> > Now in Queensland my power bill is calculated as follows:- >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >development I wonder if the local Surrey hirer said the same >thing....And look how that played out. As Noddy and others pointed out, "in our lifetimes" .... >> IMNSHO, electric vehicles will be taken seriously when, and only when, >> we have: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >compared to peak day load, iot would give the generators much better >economics to work from. Wrong tangent. Think fossil fuelled grid. >> (b) fuel cell technology which doesn't rely on hydrogen from >> electrolysis powered by ... the grid; or > >I don't think fuel cells will have much more than a boutique appeal >until a whole lot of problems can be ironed out. Toshiba promised me a >fuel cell for my laptop "next year" in 2004. I'm still waiting. I agree, But if they do ever become more tha vapourware, they *may* help the EC become viable, which was my point. >> (c) batteries are cheap, green, and recharging can be effected safely >> away from base in the time required without a massive infrastructure >> program. > >Current battery tech will work quite well. As weight decreases and >capacity increases things can only get better. You may have missed the "green". And the infrastructure required to have a power outlet in the parking meters of the world. >> But don't let that stop you and a small number of others pursuing the >> dream in the meantime. > >The Southern California experience shows that electric cars are a right >now, available solution. The SoCal experience is predicated on by legislative force. Dealers had to sell at least one EV in every ten sales. So they had to "rearrange the economics" to get that result. Contrived results don't represent free market takeup. >Without wanting to buy in to the silly end of the conspiracy theories, >download a copy of "Who killed the electric car" and listen to teh >practical on-the-ground experience of people who used electric cars in >place of ic powered ones. >> I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent >> alternative/ECO vehicle race from Darwin to Adelaide. This was the >> old solar powered race revamped to include other types. There was a >> Tesla roadster entered and they are claiming a new world record for >> 501km from a single charge. What is more telling is what they don't Probably not valid. More than 200 metre drop in altitude. >> say. They don't say at what average speed that was achieved and >> therefore time taken as well as time to recharge. They also failed to complete most of the stages of the Challenge in the allowed time. Big FAIL. >> From what we heard up this way, it was at a very ordinary speed and >> that it also required a 3-3.5 hour recharge. To me it seems that they >> achieved only 500km for a days travel. I don't know about anyone else Recharge is at 70A @ 240V. IIRC, there are 6831 Li-Poly cells in the battery. They can't be discharged or charged when at above 35 degrees C or thereabouts. >> but I'd expect to easily make Tennant Ck at around 1000km in the same >> time in an average vehicle. At their rate you're talking around 6 >> days to Adelaide for the 3147km. When I last did that trip it was in >> a Ford Laser with a 1.5L engine in 2 days. >> >> I think battery power isn't there yet as an alternative. >I commute 50km per day. An electric car would suit me down to the >ground for commuting, and I suspect those of a mere 98% of the rest of >the population. Still requires about 10 kWh, plus 50% reserves. >I suspect that solar panels fitted to the roof would just about manage >to fully replace the charge used to get me to work. A few cents worth You suspect wrong. You'd need about 30 square metres of PV and a tonne of batteries along with an array of charge and MPPTs. That's NOT a cheap solution. You're looking at more than $200,000 in PV cells and double that again in supporting infrastructure. And half of that infrastructure has to be replaced after 3 to 5 years. And that is going to cost more than a few cents. >of electricity would fully recharge overnight. Well, that's the theory ... but it only scales to about 5% of the population before the whole electricity distribution grid becomes a steaming mess. You see; whne the sun doesn't shine on your roof, it probably dosn't shine on your neighbours'. You're all going to be sucking the grid to brownout. >The day of the polluting, non-renewably fueled vehicle is rapidly >ending. Rapidly? I give it another 30 to 50 years before they reach peak. China still wants another 300,000,000 cars. By that time, we'll be able to use new, high-density energy sourcesto synthecise fuels, storing the energy source chemically in the bonds of the fuel, for direct conversion of energy in e.g. fuel cells. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire >> I suspect that solar panels fitted to the roof would just about manage >> to fully replace the charge used to get me to work. A few cents worth [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's NOT a cheap solution. You're looking at more than $200,000 in > PV cells and double that again in supporting infrastructure. What type of PV cells cost $200,000 to cover 30 square metres? Did you add one too many zeros? Panels designed to be installed on a building wouldn't be suitable for a vehicle but I can't see why panels specifically designed for a vehicle should cost 10 times more? And > half of that infrastructure has to be replaced after 3 to 5 years. Why? Daryl >>> I suspect that solar panels fitted to the roof would just about manage >>> to fully replace the charge used to get me to work. A few cents worth >> You suspect wrong. You'd need about 30 square metres of PV and a >> tonne of batteries along with an array of charge and MPPTs. >> That's NOT a cheap solution. You're looking at more than $200,000 in >> PV cells and double that again in supporting infrastructure. >What type of PV cells cost $200,000 to cover 30 square metres? Good ones. (>20% efficiency) If you buy really large quantities, you can buy the cells at about half that price. You need more area (double) for cheap ones. Try to find that much unshaded, ideally-oriented space within the average property. No ideal orientation possible? Add more cells. Partial shading? Add more cells. Which means more area. >Did you add one too many zeros? Well, you're not going to get reliable (>99%) energy supply from less than about 15 kWp for a reliable yield of 5kWh (allows for 50 to 100km of total commute under favourable conditions) to put into a car. >Panels designed to be installed on a building wouldn't be suitable >for a vehicle but I can't see why panels specifically designed for >a vehicle should cost 10 times more? They do. Ask the guys building solar cars. Using 35% solar cells (not commercially available), cars like Nuna collected got 2kW from about 6m^2 of spotlessly-clean cells. Which IIRC, was enough for a car that uses that amount of power to cruise at 100 km/h. The estimated cost, if you could buy the cells, would have been, IIRC, "a hundred thousand Euros". If you want to put PV on a car, then you must keep that order of magnitude in mind. And also that the practical area limit for PV in a real car is less than 2 m^2; with practical cell efficiency, after encapsulation, at about half of the GaAs cells on Nuna. If the sun is shining, and the car always remains in the mid-summer sun for the 8 hours that it's parked (near e.g. Perth) those 2m^2 will yield approximately SFA. You're better off finding (or bringing) a bit of shade under which to park so that you won't have to use the airconditioner on full blast for the whole drive home. The SFA is calculated based on the insolation onto a horizontal surface, 4 hours either side of noon, at 32 degrees South. declination at solstice is d = -23.45 degrees latitude p = -32 degrees slope b = 0 (horizontal) azimuth g = 0 (horizontal) The angle of beam incidence (t) at a given hour angle (w) is in general given by cos(t) = sin(d) sin(p) cos(b) - sin(d) cos(p) sin(b) cos(g) + cos(d) cos(p) cos(b) cos(w) + cos(d) sin(p) sin(b) cos(g) cos(w) + cos(d) sin(b) sin(g) sin(w) which, taking into account the horzontal orientation reduces to cos(t) = sin(d) sin(p) + cos(d) cos(p) cos(w) We need to take the total of that with hour angles from -60 to +60 degrees giving a total incident angle multiplier of about 6.82 Multiply that by the estimated solar radiation of approx 1300 W/m^2 on 2 clean m^2 to give insolation of 17.7 kWh ... but the PV only provide about 17% of that (at best - cell efficiency also drops quickly for hot PV) so 3 kWh is the maximum that can ever be collected by on-car PV under those ideal-day conditions. Meanwhile the windows on the car have probably allowed for more than 10 kWh of heat to be accummulated in the passenger compartment. You'll not only want to get rid of that heat, but need to get rid of it to lower and maintain the battery temperatures below "critical" so that traction power may be drawn without damage. About 5 kWh will be needed just to get rid of that excess heat. In winter, you can't even count on 10% of the PV collection. The equipment approximates ballast. During summer, you have to ensure that the PV area is kept clean. Small amounts of dust significantly reduce the cell's efficiency. >> And half of that infrastructure has to be replaced after 3 to 5 >> years. >Why? Because PV cells get HOT in the sun. And high temperatures accelerate the degradation of a semi-conductor. It is generally accepted that a temperature in excess of 85 degrees C will lead to an "early failure" of cells; reducing their efficiency as reverse currents increase. (Hence IEC 61215 and IEC 6164) For reference, domestic solar hot water system temperatures would exceed 100 degrees C if they didn't have a safety valve to the pops at 99 degrees C. Commercial systemsmay be more sophisticated, allowing for a solar-steam-boiler providing low-quality heat for industrial processes. 130 degrees C is not impossible but needs special plumbing (boiler) and lots of high-maintenance safety equipment. Similarly the other semi-conductors in the system; the trackers and the battery chargers and state monitors. And especially the storage battery. If you think that you can park a solar car in the summer sun for a quick charge, consider that a recharge is NOT feasible if the battery temperature exceeds about 40 degrees C; especially for most lithium chemistries; in which it's even unsafe to draw current when they get too hot (above about 45 degrees C). At the very least, it will degrade the battery, reducing the total charge that it can recover. That's permanent damage. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Politics is the art of looking for trouble, X against HTML mail | finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly / \ and postings | and applying the wrong remedies - Groucho Marx >I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent >alternative/ECO [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > PhilD I think you have to remember is that electric vehicles are still in their infancy, remember that it used to take a couple of days to get to Sydney from my side of the Blue Mountains, now it takes just under 4 hours. The first cars with IC engines were slow and unreliable, now we take them on holidays across the country. Give the Electric car a while and the problems it currently face will be solved I'm sure :-) Another thing about the Tesla they forgot to mention was the support truck full of diesel generators and specialist gear that was used to recharge the car, sort of makes it redundant as an ecological alternative ;-) Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi > >I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent > >alternative/ECO [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > full of diesel generators and specialist gear that was used to recharge the > car, sort of makes it redundant as an ecological alternative ;-) Are you saying that electric vehicles are developmentally delayed then? They've been in commercial production since before petrol engined cars were and had about 40% of the US market until sales of the Model T took off. A lot of the relatively recent city/commuter electrics haven't really offered significant utility advances over what was around 90 years ago as far as range and recharging goes, although I agree that primary & secondary safety is mostly heaps improved. In contrast, IC engined cars have improved massively over the same period, so the challenge now is to match or better their performance at a much swifter rate. The other real problem, at least for Australian motorists, is finding a viable source of recharge electricity that doesn't just transfer the emissions their previous car would have caused to another location. >> >I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent >> >alternative/ECO [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > were and had about 40% of the US market until sales of the Model T took > off. and then the market just fell to nothing by comparison so yes, they have been developmentally disabled in that respect :-) > A lot of the relatively recent city/commuter electrics haven't really > offered significant utility advances over what was around 90 years ago as > far as range and recharging goes, although I agree that primary & > secondary safety is mostly heaps improved. indeed, I was talking to a bloke who converted a Triton to all electric and he charges it from solar panels on the back and has another set of panels that charge a battery bank for charging over night. Didn't ask him about range as he used it primarily for his farm. > In contrast, IC engined cars have improved massively over the same period, > so the challenge now is to match or better their performance at a much > swifter rate. exactly, and that gets back to popularity, I suppose the availability of fuel for the IC car far outweighed the availability of electricity when the Model T was introduced giving it greater range and more desirability, I think cars like the Tesla will invigorate the market into more research and I suspect that the Gen 3 or 4 version will make this one look like a model T :-) > The other real problem, at least for Australian motorists, is finding a > viable source of recharge electricity that doesn't just transfer the > emissions their previous car would have caused to another location. See above, how hard would it be to put some solar panels on your roof with a battery bank for re-charging. I have often thought about turning the old Laser into an electric car when the engine finally dies, it just doesn't look like ever dying !! Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi > indeed, I was talking to a bloke who converted a Triton to all electric > and he charges it from solar panels on the back and has another set of > panels that charge a battery bank for charging over night. Didn't ask him > about range as he used it primarily for his farm. Which is probably all that it's capable of doing. > exactly, and that gets back to popularity, I suppose the availability of > fuel for the IC car far outweighed the availability of electricity when > the Model T was introduced giving it greater range and more desirability, > I think cars like the Tesla will invigorate the market into more research > and I suspect that the Gen 3 or 4 version will make this one look like a > model T :-) I think it's more a case of them being stuck at the limit of what the battery capacity allows them to achieve rather than making the electric drive systems of the cars more efficient. The Tesla is a pretty impressive car when you take a quick glance, but once you get down to the nitty-gritty of the thing it ain't so hot. It's advertised as having blistering performance *and* impressive mileage, but that's not entirely true. You can have either, but not both at the same time. Drive it like you stole it and the range is about as far as you can throw the average yonnie, but if you want a decent range you have to drive it like a golf cart and that kinda defeats the purpose of buying a $100+ grand carbon fibre bodied sports car. It's certainly an interesting idea, but like the current crop of hybrids they're little more than expensive novelties that don't really do much other than offer a bit of "gee whiz" value. -- Regards, Noddy. > The Tesla is a pretty impressive car when you take a quick glance, but once > you get down to the nitty-gritty of the thing it ain't so hot. It's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it like a golf cart and that kinda defeats the purpose of buying a $100+ > grand carbon fibre bodied sports car. which is the case when Clarkson got his hands on it and how quickly he flattened the batteries >See above, how hard would it be to put some solar panels on your roof with a >battery bank for re-charging. Not hard at all. But it's much easier simply to take the money out of your wallet and to set light to it with an oxy torch. It'll give you a warm glow that's just as useful. >I have often thought about turning the old Laser into an electric car when >the engine finally dies, it just doesn't look like ever dying !! Whydid God invent level crossing? :-) Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire >>See above, how hard would it be to put some solar panels on your roof with >>a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Whydid God invent level crossing? :-) I want to be able to drive it away, and not in the back of a box trailer in hundreds of small bits :-) 370,000 k's on the Laser and it still starts every time (well except for last week when the OE alternator finally shat itself) Its had nothing more than the usual servicing and the only thing to be removed on the engine was the tappet cover so a new gasket could be put in for rego one year. just starting to blow a bit of smoke on startup but it disappears in a few seconds, and I would still drive it to Queensland and back if needed (might not be the most comfortable trip as it has no AC but I would bet good money on it making the trip without so much as a hiccup :-) Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi > Are you saying that electric vehicles are developmentally delayed then? I'm not speaking for AC, but if you were asking *me* I'd say they were far more limited by the current technology which has a far greater impact on their practicality than any particular limitations do on petrol powered cars. > They've been in commercial production since before petrol engined cars > were and had about 40% of the US market until sales of the Model T took > off. That's true, and I'd think the main reason for that is because their limitations became obvious to anyone who compared them directly. > A lot of the relatively recent city/commuter electrics haven't really > offered significant utility advances over what was around 90 years ago as > far as range and recharging goes, although I agree that primary & > secondary safety is mostly heaps improved. Absolutely. > In contrast, IC engined cars have improved massively over the same period, > so the challenge now is to match or better their performance at a much > swifter rate. Indeed. > The other real problem, at least for Australian motorists, is finding a > viable source of recharge electricity that doesn't just transfer the > emissions their previous car would have caused to another location. And we won't have that until we have a power grid fed by nuclear production, and like it or not we will most likely end up with that as the mainstay. -- Regards, Noddy. >> The other real problem, at least for Australian motorists, is >> finding a viable source of recharge electricity that doesn't just >> transfer the emissions their previous car would have caused to >> another location. >And we won't have that until we have a power grid fed by nuclear >production, and like it or not we will most likely end up with that >as the mainstay. That won't fix anything. The daily energy requirement for commuting per household is about 10 times greater than domestic electricity delivery. If cars are charged off the grid, then there has to be a drastic change in electricity distribution. And that simply isn't practical. The distribution system is what doesn't scale. I've mentioned elsewhere that the only viable alternative is energy-based synthesis of chemically stable, (probably liquid) fuels that are subsequently used in fuel cells to produce the power requirements for traction within the vehicle. Synthesis can be at a plant attached to any reasonable power source, minimising transmission losses and maximising e.g. the nett efficiency of electricity generation. Such a system scales well and mimics the supply chain of present fuel distribution. It also avoids bumping one's head against electrolyte chemistry limits that prevent the requisite energy densities (in volume and mass) as well as being able to handle refuelling and power delivery in the real world; without the energy storage medium over-heating and becoming chemically unstable. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire > Another thing about the Tesla they forgot to mention was the support > truck full of diesel generators and specialist gear that was used to > recharge the car, sort of makes it redundant as an ecological > alternative ;-) A trifle compared to the support given to the gasoline-powered vehicles! Fark me; there was whole buildings with pumps and replacement parts every 100km-or-so entirely dedicated to just keeping them running! Talk about unfair ..... SignatureElsie. >> Another thing about the Tesla they forgot to mention was the support >> truck full of diesel generators and specialist gear that was used to >> recharge the car, sort of makes it redundant as an ecological >> alternative ;-) >A trifle compared to the support given to the gasoline-powered vehicles! >Fark me; there was whole buildings with pumps and replacement parts >every 100km-or-so entirely dedicated to just keeping them running! >Talk about unfair ..... Tesla could have driven the whole distance non-stop had they been permitted to run a cable between the generator truck and the car while on the road. The cars participating in the Challenge only needed to stop every 1000 km or so for fuel. Could have done it with 2 stops between Darwin and Adelaide. Not one every 100 km. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire >> Another thing about the Tesla they forgot to mention was the support >> truck full of diesel generators and specialist gear that was used to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 100km-or-so entirely dedicated to just keeping them running! > Talk about unfair ..... not so, the Tesla is sold and an environmentally friendly vehicle, I believe they even call it "clean" we all know how cars require service stations to be dotted about the country side and that's the purpose of these environment runs, to find alternatives, but don't you think it a bit dishonest that the Tesla has to drive its "service station" around with it on a filthy big truck while it competes in a cross country alternative energy run, the only thing alternative about it was that it still relied on combusting hydrocarbons to produce it "clean" electricity. Signature[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of Scientology International] "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ." Gandhi >> I think battery power isn't there yet as an alternative. >I think you have to remember is that electric vehicles are still in >their infancy, remember that it used to take a couple of days to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >the Electric car a while and the problems it currently face will be >solved I'm sure :-) Electric cars were on the road before IC-engined ones. The fastest car in the world around the turn of the century was a "hybrid"; well actual a petrol-electric (Lohner-Porsche). As soon as IC engines and gearing became semi-reliable, it was the death-knell of the electric car. Electric cars were still relatively common until the 1930's. But IC engines provided the flexibility and freedom to venture far from the electricity supply ... keeping in mind that that was spotty in much of the western world at the time. Now, cars are so ubiquitous and fundamental to many societies, that they cannot do without that flexibility and freedom. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire >>> I think battery power isn't there yet as an alternative. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Now, cars are so ubiquitous and fundamental to many societies, that > they cannot do without that flexibility and freedom. Indeed,..the large country town I live in, had a diesel generator up until the early '40s Jason > I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent alternative/ECO > vehicle race from Darwin to Adelaide. This was the old solar powered race > revamped to include other types. There was a Tesla roadster entered and they > are claiming a new world record for 501km from a single charge. What is more > telling is what they don't say. They don't say at what average speed that > was achieved and therefore time taken as well as time to recharge. http://blog.internode.on.net Has all the info you want. Matt. >> I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent >> alternative/ECO vehicle race from Darwin to Adelaide. This was [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> was achieved and therefore time taken as well as time to >> recharge. >http://blog.internode.on.net >Has all the info you want. Except that the record run was a downhill stage, decending more than 200 metres. Note that the VW Lupo 3L that was driven across Australia some years ago in basically unmodified form, used less than 2 litres/100 km on some long stages as well. That's a proper 4-seater sedan. That can be refuelled in 5 minutes instaed of 3.5 hours. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Those who can make you believe absurdities X against HTML mail | can make you commit atrocities. / \ and postings | -- Voltaire > I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent alternative/ECO > vehicle race from Darwin to Adelaide. This was the old solar powered race [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > PhilD http://blog.internode.on.net Has all the details you want. Matt. >> I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent >> alternative/ECO [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Has all the details you want. Actually, it doesn't. It tells me nothing that may indicate what would be achieved under normal driving conditions. This includes the use of lights especially that would have quite an impact on range on a charge. Their desire to exclude in stage recharging time in calculating average speed is quite humorous. A true test of the capabilities would have been to require recharging to only take place where there were commercial power available. This vehicle is marketed as an alternative so should have had real world requirements placed on it. PhilD > I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent alternative/ECO > vehicle race from Darwin to Adelaide. This was the old solar powered race [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I think battery power isn't there yet as an alternative. Huh? Are you saying the 501km claim was false? (If not; just what ARE you saying?!!?) SignatureElsie. >> I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent >> alternative/ECO [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Huh? Are you saying the 501km claim was false? > (If not; just what ARE you saying?!!?) Sure they did it, but at an average of 50kph. http://blog.internode.on.net/2009/10/31/tesla-roadster-ggc-2009-performance-resu lts/tesla-roadster-ggc-2009-results/ Having done that trip many times, and especially that section when it was still dirt and corrugated, a 50kph average for any section is a joke. I could honestly say that the only times I ever saw someone averaging those slow speeds or lower they were on a bike, roller skates or walking. If you look at the comments at the bottom you'll see that there was a recharge done to then complete the leg. Not mentioned is how/where they did the recharge. If done by generators from support vehicles, instead of how an ordinary person would have to get it done then their claims are irrelevant to real world. If you read the article mentioned by the previous poster http://blog.internode.on.net/ you will also see that they want the recharge time removed from calculations. Quote "Had recharge time been subtracted, we would have easily met all other scoring criteria for all stages, including achieving the required minimum speeds". I don't know about you, but in any long distance trips I've ever taken I found it impossible to remove fuel stop times from what it took to do the trip. That's the real world. Looking at the Tesla website at http://www.teslamotors.com/media/press_room.php?id=2022 a reading of the article fails to detail anything that might detract from the achievement, such as real world conditions. Not mentioned is time taken, average speed, recharge times and how done & done only in daylight. Remember, this is the company and its loud supporters that threatened Top Gear and Clarkson for what they had to say about the range of the Tesla. Sure what was said and did was over the top a bit but their point was that at the end of the charge, you're stranded if there's no power supply nearby. If this car was charged by other than a local normal power supply then the achievement is irrelevant. If charged by local supply then it's associated use of resources counts to fuel used especially as many of those small places are run off of a diesel generator. Sure they are getting better, but to portray this car as being capable of crossing Australia is stretching credibility. Regardless they still took 3 times what a normal person in a normal car can do it in. If you are going to take so long to get anywhere then the extra overnight stops also come in to any calculations of fuel & other resources used. If you were to do a trip in a car and the manufacturer told you that vehicle range would be somewhere between 200-500km and that at every fuel stop it would take up to 3.5 hours to fill the tank, and maybe there wouldn't be a fuel stop within that range anyway, would you do the trip in that car? Even an Amoco Final Filter didn't take that long to fill a tank. PhilD > >> I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent > >> alternative/ECO [quoted text clipped - 70 lines] > > PhilD Assuming that the person in the street doesn't have access to a fleet of support vehicles, then the most practical way of crossing Australia by Tesla at present seems to be coasting down from Cairns/Brissie/wherever to Sydney, recharging as necessary, then putting the thing on the Indian Pacific before enjoying a leisurely 3 day rail trip to Perth. It'd still be cheaper than the way they did it and probably quicker too. BTW, what's the longest wheelie anyone else ever got out of a Lansing Bagnall electric tow tractor or similar - the Toyota powered railway ones don't count. >>>> I don't know how people here know, or care, about the recent >>>> alternative/ECO [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > Bagnall electric tow tractor or similar - the Toyota powered railway ones > don't count. Used to have lots of fun with LB tow tractors or we did till some idiot lost one playing on wet concrete and rammed it through the paint shop door, boss wasn't to happy seeing as it was new and due to be delivered the next day:-) Daryl |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.