Quote:
Originally Posted by jadnashuanh
There has been some reports of improvements to battery tech as much as 10x current stock in both the energy density and the ability to accept a fast charge primarily based on nanotechnology. Now, when it comes out of the labs and can be mass produced at an economical price point is the big question. Until then, we get small incremental improvements. Optimizing all of them should produce a significant upgrade, and potentially the inclusion of cost effective super capacitors, overcome some of the instant energy transfer limitations of battery technology and augment their abilities.
Try driving your ICE 1/2-mile to the store, sit there, and back, with most other trips only in the 1-3 mile range, and see how long it lasts and what your average fuel usage is. An electric car doesn't really care about short trips, and when you never stress the battery, a good means of that sort of transportation. Certainly, not everyone's use pattern would allow many of the available EVs out there, but for me, the i3 would qualify for over 90% of my day-to-day use and save the ICE where it shines, on long-distance travel.
|
If I lived within a 1/2 mile of a store, I'd walk the 2,640 feet there, buy what I need and walk the 2,640 feet back home. Anything farther and I'd take public transportation; hopefully an electric bus or electric subway so the carbon pollution is in someone else's back yard. Either way I'm still going to die from GWCC (Global Warming Climate Change). Heck, my barn (where I fix my cars) is about a 500 foot walk from the house. On a good weekend I walk over and back at least 10 times a day. I'm doing my part.
I know I rant all over this i3 Forum, but it's just because I hate this crap about being "Green". You make great points, EVs are excellent solutions for city environments and electric motors are ideal since they consume no energy at idle, which is the whole point when compared to ICEs. And yep, ICEs are much better suited for long-distance travel (my need). And just to let you know, I was an "early-adopter" of the 1st electric garden tractor (the GE Electrac) in the early 1970's, so I'm no stranger to the benefits of EVs.
Battery technology will get better, but I'm not sure it will ever reach the energy density of carbon fuel. But if we're talking tech, then I think the R&D dollars could be better spent maximizing the efficiency of the internal combustion engine/vehicle drivetrain to get near the level of efficiency the electric drivetrain (i.e. little or no energy use at idle). It makes more sense to me, considering the level of energy density of carbon fuel. Unfortunately, the political incorrectness of burning carbon fuel will never allow for the volume of R&D dollars being spent to improve battery energy density to be shifted to improving the efficient use of carbon fuel in the automotive drivetrain. I think cars like the Volt are a better solution towards improving the efficiency of using carbon fuels. An automotive drivetrain that can consume carbon fuel at a 90 - 95% efficiency rate by converting the energy in the fuel to a storable form (like electricity in a storage battery) and then dispense that reformatted energy as dictated by the load of the mobility requirement is a better solution than carrying around a 500 pound battery that has the equivalent energy of 1 gallon of gasoline.