If a NiMH powered EV was they answer, why are ALL makers ignoring it? So massive conspiracy? Why isn’t some maker in some country, ANY COUNTRY, pursuing this “obvious” solution? They’d be BILLIONAIRS if it worked, right?
Sorry, just wishing it was true, and blaming every company in the industry for it not happening, just doesn’t make sense.
Just my humble 2 cents and I’m probably in the distinct minority but I’m not sold on Tesla, the cars, or the hype around them.
The S model is portrayed as the last word in EVs but in my opinion they’re a novelty niche car with the vast majority of buyers being people with a bit of money who want to make an exclusivity statement rather than having a love affair with the car or saving the planet.
If the cars are so loved by buyers then I wonder why so many of them end up on eBay with the majority not being sold. Most are extremely low miles and include the Roadster along with the S models. Sinking a 100 grand, give or take, into a car only to turn around a year or two later and unsuccessfully try to unload a 5k miles car at a 20 grand discount price smacks of some desperation to me.
As to the Edmunds test bed, those repeated failures means there’s a problem. That leads me to wonder how problematic the cars actually are, how many complaints on file, how many complaints get scrubbed, and so on.
While battery packs in lithium are failing in Teslars, the NIMH battery in the Standard Prius has a working life, according to CR, of over 200k and 10 plus years. They cannot be produced in sizes large enough to make an impact in EVs…
No, NiMH batteries may not produce quite as much storage for a given size, but they have proven longevity, loose no power in cold weather and are completely recyclable and much cheaper to manufacture. Even lead acid battery technology was shown workable in EVs up to 80 miles of storage. There is no profit in small scale production of electric cars and only auto companies can do it. Unfortunately there is little profit. Making electric cars will not make billionaires anymore then private enterprise makes billionaires making mass transit systems, building roads.
It requires govt. subsidies on a massive scale just like infrastructure and public transportation. Car making in general is only profitable when you consider the secondary incomes connected with it including maintenance, parts and service, used car sales and extended warranties on repairs. Cars in general, are very cheap because more then 60% of all new cars are dealer service by the original owner. That is minimal service with EVs. Car companies realize little to no profit from EVs and is the primary reason they are so expensive to begin with. Even their purchase price needs to govt. subsidized. EVs like other electronic gear, but unlike cars, has a high changeover rated. A completely new electronic can change ever few years. Gas powered cars are a constant while EVs will not be. The Leaf, the Spark and all auto company made EVs need heavy govt. Subsidies to realize a profit.
But, this is nothing that hasn’t been discussed adnausim and is there for anyone to research. Just making simple statements doesn’t require research. EVs will never make a big impact until either states force the issue or federal subsidies are used for their purchase to absorb the lost revenue. It’s financial. It is not technological. Other countries that subsidize EV production WILL take the lead like they have in solar cell technology.
Sorry I ruffled your feathersMJ, I wasnt dissing Jets,but if turbines are so great why dont we have them for cars? Wasnt saying anything about our military either(takes 5 gals to start an Abrams I hear) my point is Americans are spoiled and need to conserve a rapidly dwindling resource(peak oil is a reality,I’m afraid) Saddams little fiasco actually reduced the pressure in the Kuwait oil wells I hear-time to work on something different or maybe the spoiled americans will need to cool their heels a little bit.And how many private people own jets? For right now conservation is our best untapped resource,remember Ethyl groups mantra?“Drive more,it gets cheaper by the mile” not anymore,our love affair with the infernal machine is taking a serious toll on the biosphere.
@ BLE,you are right its called the law of “Diminishing returns” and it applies here to a certain extent,What MJ was referring to was the “Economy of scale effect"
MJ, I just thought of something a diesel electric train would be over 5 times more efficient then a 747, but the extra time I guess would bug some(but for the most part no TSA) and weather genrally doesnt shut down trains(notice I said generally) of course if worse came to worse we could"ugh” run our trains and coal,its also in the grapevine that the Military doesnt quite punch as many holes in the skies wearing Fighters out now(the Navy jets dont fly over here near as often as they used to. -Kevin
I wasnt dissing Jets,but if turbines are so great why dont we have them for cars?
They are ill suited for auto use. There is a large efficiency drop off as you throttle them down and car engines spend a lot of their life throttled down to less then 20 horsepower. Airplanes on the other hand, cruise nearly the entire trip with the engines at 70-80% maximum power or whatever power setting is the turbine’s thermodynamic efficiency sweet spot.
Also, a turbines high power to weight ratio is more important in aircraft than it is in cars. What good is the high efficiency of a diesel engine if the engine is so heavy that it is the plane’s entire payload?
From the info I could gather, the Chrysler experimental turbine cars that a few civilians were allowed to test drive would burn through 1.4 gallons per hour just sitting there idling.
If a NiMH powered EV was they answer, why are ALL makers ignoring it?
One word…SIZE. We almost bought an 07 Camry Hybrid which had the NiMH batteries. And the main reason we didn’t was because of trunk space. Those batteries took up half the trunk making the Camry impossible for us to use on a family trip with luggage. That has always been the main complaint about those batteries.
If you haven't bought an EV, you're just blowing smoke.
Oh come on. I haven’t bought an EV because they’re 20 years behind where they should be. Otherwise the 2007 in my garage probably would be an EV. The Model S is the first EV that’s actually decently useable if you don’t live 5 minutes from work and don’t only drive to work and maybe the corner store. And it’s out of my price range. I’m watching the less expensive car they’re starting development on with interest, and may well buy it if it turns out to be what I think it will be.
Suggesting that my not having bought a car with <70 mile range that takes hours on end to charge means I can’t talk about EV technology displays, generously, an incredible failure of logic.
@texases No one ever said NiMH is the final answer. I said it was a suppressed technology that stunted the penetration of EV into the marketplace.
@shadowfax - "I said it was a suppressed technology that stunted the penetration of EV into the marketplace. "
The only key technology lacking for EVs is effective batteries that are light and cheap. Batteries have been under intense, world-wide development to achieve those exact goals for the last 20 years, in response to the needs of the electronics industry. Those qualities (cheap, light, powerful, and quick to charge) are exactly the qualities needed for laptops, smartphones, etc, etc. There is no “suppressed technology” that has affected EV adoption. It’s the unfortunate fact that batteries are still expensive and heavy, even after decades and tens of billions of dollars of research and development.
@texases Again, I’m talking about market penetration, not just technology. Had EV’s been more viable 20 years ago as they would have been with the suppressed technology, more people would have bought them. This would have generated more income and more desire for further EV technological development.
The Corvette would never have been developed if automobiles hadn’t already achieved significant market penetration, not because we couldn’t have figured out the technology, but because we wouldn’t have wanted to.
The first cars were clunky, broke all the time, were hard to drive, you could break your arm starting them, and if it rained, driving them was an exercise in misery. But people still bought them.
Similarly, people would have bought more early EV’s if their range had been better. Those who drove the original RAV-4 EV, which used the adversely-patented battery technology before the patent became adverse, loved it. In fact, demand outstripped that predicted, such that Toyota ended up assembling the last units sold out of spare parts.
And then it stopped. Why? Because its EV-95 battery was no longer available. Why? Because Chevron owned the patent, and sued Toyota and Panasonic, winning 30 million bucks and shutting down the battery production line.
The technology was there. The people willing to buy the technology were there. But the oil company was also there and it stopped things cold.
As soon as they get that trestle built over the Atlantic, I’ll be taking the train instead of flying. Of course it’d have to be built in Alaska then a long long ride across Russia to get to any main points of interest. Then us spoiled Americans can see how life is with 30 hour work weeks, outdoor cafes, and month long vacations in the land where people are unspoiled with cheap gas. No one seemed to complain about spoiled Americans in Normandy though but guess times have changed.
Americans can see how life is with 30 hour work weeks, outdoor cafes, and month long vacations in the land where people are unspoiled with cheap gas.
You sure know how to put a positive spin on part time jobs and rotating unemployment.
My brother was on his way back to the Cincinnati area from Chicago when he was passed by a Tesla on the interstate just outside of Chicago. The Tesla had North Carolina license plates. We were wondering if the driver of the Tesla was on his way back to the state where his car was registered and when and where he would have to stop to recharge the batteries.
Battery powered cars aren’t for everyone. The weight of the batteries contribute to inefficiency just as the electric motor contributes to efficiency. I bought a rechargeable battery Black and Decker push mower. My wife thinks it is too heavy. It is heavier and takes more energy to push that the 18" Toro mower we own with a cast aluminum deck. The Black and Decker rechargeable mower has a rigid plastic deck. I got the mower at a good price from a friend who decided to have her yard mowed and I bought it as an experiment.
At one time, I wanted to experiment with an electric car and I found a used Citicar at a good price; The Citicar came on the market during the contrived oil shortage in the 1970s. However, at $1000, I decided it was an expensive experiment and didn’t pursue purchasing the Citicar.
Even the Nissan Leaf for me would be an expensive experiment.
@BLE,actually they produce viable Diesel aircraft engines now and if memory serves me correctly some dirigibles were powered by diesel,by the way there are turbines capable of burning coal dust(but dont know how you would use it for airplane fuel) Actually the turbine revolutionized air travel,And seriuosly are they contemplating the construction of the bridge across the Bering strait?(glad to stir the pot a little you Guys rise to the occasion with good info and ideas)
Actually the turbine engine knocked a huge turbo compounded HO Gnome-Fairey 10-12 cylinder diesel out of the running for big airplane power,dont think it was ever produced
Keep up the good work fellows-Kevin
Dont know sounds like long vacation and 30 hr weeks ,pretty appealing( A guy from Russia told me Americans work all the time,he didnt work near as many hours were He came from and was able to make it-Kevin
Average Car Buyer: I need a new car.
Car salesman: Here’s one that gets 100 mpg.
ACB: Fantastic, that’s just what …
CS: I should tell you the gas tank only holds one gallon.
ACB: 'Scuse me?
CS: And it takes 12 hours to refill.
ACB: That hardly seems…
CS: And it costs twice as much as a regular car.
ACB: NO THANKS!
It requires govt. subsidies on a massive scale ...[yada, yada, yada]
Oh, PUHLEEZE, @dagosa…this is the same old tired canard liberals ALWAYS trot out on parade. “Just give it a little more money and we’ll solve it!” When the truth is, superior products drive out inferior ones all by themselves; if a product FAILS to drive out the status quo…well, then, it wasn’t really superior after all!
Back at the end of the [19th] century, horses were a real problem in the cities. They produced more manure than could be dealt with, the excess piling up on curbs and vacant lots…until the next big rain. Vermin, disease, etc. The automobile was an environmental answer to the problems of 1899–and it succeeded without subsidies on gasoline, taxes on horseshoes, or anything “big oats” could throw into the mix!
Centralized planners try, and fail, to identify IN ADVANCE what is best or not best. Everyone stinks at prognostication–and if you’re not 9-figure wealthy, you can’t predict the future, either. E-cars might look like a winner, only to be nosed out by a dark horse in the home stretch. All subsidies and tariffs do is make it harder for the infinitely creative marketplace to asses winners and losers. (And it’s not just the US–one reason the Russkies failed to thrive was flamboyantly inefficient outcomes stemming from flawed 10-year plans…like Soviet women getting huge numbers of abortions due to the Politbureau’s inability to accurately plan for a sufficient number of 25 cent condoms. Dunno USSR medical costs, but that’s got to be a 1000:1 increase in expense!)
But would you want to live in Russia?
Sure, 30hrs/week and long vacations sound good
But I suspect the US is a little more stable
And I don’t think the stereotypical Russian lifestyle leads to a long life
On the other hand, the stereotypical American fast food diet and work 'til you drop culture leads to obesity, diabetes, stress, divorce, etc.
Dont know sounds like long vacation and 30 hr weeks ,pretty appealing( A guy from Russia told me Americans work all the time,he didnt work near as many hours were He came from and was able to make it-Kevin
What’s your definition of “making it”? Americans could easily work 20 hour weeks and take 8 weeks vacation, if they lived in small shanties, rode bicycles, and lived mostly on potatoes.
@db4690: Dunno about living in different places, but I’ve seen far too many elderly, enfeebled persons to want to join their ranks. I live so as to ensure my body fails prior to my mind; and to ensure both fail before enfeeblement.
I also am amazed at how fdarn lazy my generation (heck the last two or so) are; and you mean to tell me everybody else around the world is even lazier than that?
I wasn’t speaking about laziness
But we can get into that, if you like . . .