Talk:Electric car

Not Objective

The Intro section of this page is too pro-electric vehicles. That kind of information needs to go in the section near the bottom which details the arguments that BEV supporters use, not in the introduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.23.251.224 (talk • contribs) 01:36, May 28, 2007 (UTC).

What do you prefer it say? Daniel.Cardenas 03:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what could possibly be construed as "pro EV" in the intro, care to elaborate? --D0li0 10:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty very pro-BEV myself, but I think I see what 24.23.251.224 is getting at. The first paragraph is fine, but the second and third read like someone started out trying to balance advantages (in the second) and disadvantages (in the third) of BEVs vs. ICEs and then someone else went into the third paragraph and countered the anti-BEV arguments there. I agree that this intro section should not be mostly about advantages and disadvantages anyway, although certainly a mention of why BEVs are significant to both global warming advocates and oil dependency advocates might be in line. If I weren't on vacation I'd take a stab at rewriting this myself. I'd be inclined to put a bit more about how they work in the intro and a bit less about why they're a good or a bad idea. My 2c, anyway. --Steve Pucci | talk 13:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I read in the first paragraph as: "BEV's are electric, don't use ICE, those with both are hybrids, PHEV are like BEV's in that they plug in. BEV's come in a number of forms" In the second "BEV's have existed for a long time and are more efficient than an ICE, produce no CO2 emissions, can use renewable, can be fast and powerful, and are quiet, produce no SMOG. They can help mitigate CO2 (Greenhouse Gasses and Global Warming) and oil dependency." To which I might also add improves national security. I don't think any of this is out of line, it's all true and helps to dispel many of the commonly held beliefs based on anti-EV dis-information. The third "batteries are advancing, and have historically been blamed for limited adoption, production, and use. All the major manufacturers produced EV's not so many years ago when pressured to do so by CARB. These manufacturers have been accused of sabotage, new production EV's are planned to be produced." Again, all true and important information to bring a reader up to speed quickly on the current state of EV's. To this I might add that the auto industry is still claiming that batteries are not good enough which would seem to be disproved by vehicles such as the 80-120 mile RAV4 EV, some of which are still on the road with 100,000 miles and no degradation. There are also dozens of examples of Lithium powered EV's. But alas I will concede that the statement in the third paragraph are accurate and unbiased in that that is what they claim, batteries are advancing, they have produced good vehicles in the past, and there is some controversy surrounding this, All very factual and very worth mentioning at the top of the article. There is very little content that I feel needs changing, perhaps some pro/anti wording, but it's all indisputable facts and import aspects regarding Battery electric vehicles. --D0li0 22:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

After another reading I found it was only the third paragraph I had issues with, and only with the wording. I've attempted to rewrite that paragraph so it sounds less (to me) like it was written by a BEV proponent; I'm not sure I succeeded. I think references throughout the intro would help alleviate any NPOV criticism, but I'm not up to it at present.

There is one question I had: Is the "noxious fumes" referred to in the second paragraph different than "no exhaust fumes"? It seems redundant to me, but I left it in place for now in case I'm missing something. --Steve Pucci | talk 04:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Quiet cars cause safety issues

Pedestrians are less aware of quiet vehicles, and are more likely to collide with them.

I call Bull Shit on that statement. By the time you hear the car, it's kinda too late to be looking for it. I'm not even sure how this makes sense. Are you in danger because you're going to cross the street WITHOUT LOOKING? I'm not sure how this problem is related to noise instead of common sense.

I'd going to go ahead and remove it. It's completely irrational. See Jaywalking for more information. --Can Not 06:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

What about blind people? In a quiet parking lot, I think people don't bother looking if they can normally hear a car coming. A pedestrian can react instantly to the noise of a car, they can just stop walking and start looking. Daniel.Cardenas 15:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if people aren't smart enough to look both ways to cross the street, what's the point of blaming quiet cars? You've made it clear enough that the pedestrians are putting themselves at fault. Also, we seem to be ignoring the driving side of the issue. Drivers actually hit a small fraction of the pedestrians that they could have hit. Pedestrians make almost no noise at all, but drivers still hit close to none of them. The only remotely logical risk is when a blind man walks alone between columns of cars, and the blind man is in the car's blind spot. The fatal flaw, however, is that the blind man should not be walking around without a seeing-eye pet or a friend, and the blind man can't drive cars so he would almost never have a need to be in a parking lot without someone else to drive. Blind people walking alone in itself is a problem. I will not let electric cars be a scapegoat for problems related to human error and disabled people.--Can Not 13:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

With that line of thinking, cars shouldn't have seat belts. Also why bother with 15 mph school zones. Its the childrens fault anyways. They deserve to get run over if they don't watch out for cars. Daniel.Cardenas 17:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the driver would be held responsible for not watching the road. --Can Not 19:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. You win. GMA has official decided to add loud huming speakers to the headlights and tail lights of their car. Source[1] --Can Not 23:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

A very small speaker can be added to the front of the car and used as a noisemaker at low speeds, sort of like putting playing cards in the spokes of a bicycle wheel, but using less power. Simulate a Ferrari if you want. 199.125.109.31 03:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nrcprm2026's Highly Aggressive Editing

Nrcprm2026 has done a large number of edits today. I haven't looked at all of them, but one was outrageous - he removed the sentence in the safety section that pedestrians are less aware of quiet vehicles - which is without doubt their most significant safety factor.

Please keep a sharp eye on any edits this highly aggressive Wikipedia member makes to this article. --New Thought 12:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

On the surface I agree with edits made. The safety sentence your pointing out is under the section batteries and doesn't belong there. It is also speculative and or original research because this article is not about quiet vehicles and there is no research that says it is true. Daniel.Cardenas 14:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - I apologise - I hadn't noticed that the safety section was a subsection of batteries. However, I profoundly disagree that the point is speculative or original - every city that has electric trams or any warehouse that uses electric fork lift trucks will be familiar with the problem. --New Thought 16:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me just say that much of the noise created by automobiles with Internal Combustion Engine or Battery Electrical Engines comes from the tyres, transmission and air resistance. The BEV is not totally silent.

Accident and insurance cost advantage

The "Controvery" section doesn't seem like a NPOV. This article is also overwhelming, and could use splitting up.

Strongly agree. This article needs to be split.203.199.213.67 13:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I trimmed the article some. Daniel.Cardenas 14:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Accident and insurance cost advantage

Battery electric vehicles have a cost advantage when it tomes to automotive accidents. Unlike ICE components battery cells can often be partially or completely salvaged to be reused. Because they don't have combustible matterial, the batteries can usually be reused even in the most extreme accidents.

With batteries making up to 90 percent of materials cost, this spells a a significantly lower collision repair costs, as the batteries can usually still be reused. When it comes to cost, battery electric vehicles are actually beneficial as some supercars range in the hundereds of dollars per month in accidental insurance coverage.

In any case, batteries could in no way be as harmfull as a combustible fuel not as complicated to repair as delicate movable mechanical parts. These advantages are undisputable and they are to be documented.

Split into two articles

I've moved the old content from Electric vehicles in Battery Electric Vehicles as there was far too much detail and not enough general picture. Electric vehicles has been rewriten mostly from scratch and needs references. njh 13:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Can we remove the disputed tag now? I think I've made a reasonable effort to moderate the claims and remove much of the confusion. I'm tempted to remove a lot more text if we can't find some decent references. To really clean this article up I think we need to split out some more of the detail, perhaps separating into an overview and specific details such as history, efficiency (probably could be efficiency of transport in general, if it doesn't already exist) and controversy. I think we need bigger and more pictures, especially of things like people plugging in chargers and battery pack designs. Someone needs to go through the links and check for relevance. I personally would like a link or two to someone's experiences owning a BEV as I get the feeling that this article was written mostly by people who want such a vehicle *wink*.

I think it is important to keep in mind the distinction between battery electric cars and say nuclear submarines. Which issues can we move to other articles? Electric boat has some common ground, as do Electric_bikes(Moped), the various hybrid articles and Diesel-electric. I've heavily pruned the 'fans' section as I don't feel that that kind of material belongs in wikipedia. It would be better to present facts rather that your feelings of what BEV owners might feel.

I think the controversy section could do with some work, especially finding any evidence of the claims made in reliable press (speculation on usenet is not evidence ;). It would be good to list the major failings of existing designs - being upfront about problems is usually a better approach than pretending that it's all a big coverup.

njh 03:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I would be very interested in more information about the controversy over electric cars. The movie seems interesting, but I think the controversy section could use some hard facts as well. Why don't foreign companies make these cars? If it's simply the United States auto makers' faults, why are they not extremely pervasive in other countries? There are many details that could be addressed. Nicholasink 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

YES please remove the fan section - the article is to long and to tendentious... What I really miss is the economic aspect. Toyota has pushed the voltage beyond thinkable limits up to 500V - they have 10 Mio. USD or € to develop a new engine - that makes the difference to SME's developping BEVs. Also the battery management including continous cell conditioning and avoiding to high currents via supercaps should be described better. --Gerfriedc 19:21, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's unfortunate that when people search for "Electric Cars" or even "Electric Vehicles" they get a page with just general fluff. This page is the "real" page, but I think most people miss it since it's not obvious to go here, yet this is what most people want. *sigh. 11 February 2006 18:40 . . 70.136.198.121

I agree about electric car, and I've changed the redirect to come here. I disagree that EVs should point here. There are lots of electric vehicles that are not battery electric vehicles, many of which are far more common, and make much more economic sense (such as hybrid cars, diesel electric locomotives, nuclear submarines, electric trams). Is there a way to indicate this page better on the EV page? njh 08:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Um I think there are several BEV's using Lithium Ion, including the Tesla, and several in China.rxdxt 00:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Old electrics

This page needs a section on all the early electric cars. They were once more popular than gas cars! Rmhermen 15:18 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd be more than willing to add that, but the history of the EV is so long that it deserves another page unto itself. I'm a bit busy right now, but I will get around to it, and eventually, I will move all the info in this article to a new topic entitled "Battery Electric Vehicle", or BEV so I can eventually go in-depth on BEVs without leaving out NEVs, FCEVs, NHEVs, ect. without making everything appear cluttered and what not. I will also get around to covering as many highway capable full-size electric vehicles as possible on these articles. I believe that they deserve a few looks given that the technology for them is here and we should be driving around in them right now. I want to above all, dispell the common EV myths with these articles, and I figured this site gets lots of visitors, so what better way to expose what these cars are capable of than getting the information into a comprehensive set of articles here, and for free at that? I eventually hope to add a lot to this site, as I have a lot of things to add, and the links/ documentation to back the info up. ~terrorist420x

Please add more. But at least a mention of the old cars needs to be here if you put them in another article. Rmhermen 16:34, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Lithium batteries

From page: Lithium ion cells approaching energy densities of 250 watt hours per kilogram, power densities approaching 3,000 watts per liter, and costs as low as $200 per kilowatt hour. These figures are expected to occur as the technology continues to mature. It is often said that under normal use, a lithium ion battery pack may last up to 200,000 miles due to their high level of maximum discharge cycles.

Where is this information from? Is any of it actually currently true or is it pie-in-the-sky predictions of a possible future. The history of electric cars is full of those. Are there any current electric cars using lithium batteries. What are their statistics? Rmhermen 17:56, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

I find the Ford eKA in the year 2000 using Li-ion batteries with a density of 100 Wh/kg and getting only 95-125 miles on a six hour charge. In 2002, Electrovaya which claims to have a car with a range of 230 miles, claims an energy density of 200 Wh/kg but only 525 Wh/l and no claims of battery life or price. Rmhermen 18:30, Nov 5, 2003 (UTC)

Removed from article:

"Rescent developments in Lithium_ion_battery technology has removed these and other limitations. Such batteries can deliver more than 300 miles of range, 20 thousand cycles or about 6 million miles, and reduce charge times to as little as 10 minutes for a full charge or 60 seconds for an 80% charge! "Rescent lithium ion advancements have resolved power density, cycle life, charge time, cold temp sensetivity, and safety issues.

More extraordinary Litium battery claims. Extraordinary claims require... Well at least let us have some evidence to support this. What vehicle has these capabilities? Rmhermen 14:18, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Please see:

• http://www.acpropulsion.com/LiIon_tzero_release.pdf
• http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/ev-list-archive/message/8059

D0li0

This claims a 300 mile range but requires "several hours" to recharge and uses commercial computers batteries with a life of a couple years. And it cost $220,000 US! Rmhermen 13:44, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

This IS a demonstration of 300 miles per charge, no? And the entire vehicle costs $220K, It's an hand built exotic level sports car with 0-60 in sub 4 seconds. The pack alone cost aproximately $25K, $500/kWh with 50kWh. I'll search for more references, but I don't see what the problem is? This vehicle demonstrates that it is possible for a BEV to travel a 0.16kWh per mile for 300 miles.

Why are you removing my high rate lithium updates? Are the Sony and Toshiba press releases not valid? Were my power/energy density figures incorrect? I fully expected the removal of the indented calculations, can we please put the specifications for these new batteries back?! D0li0

The claims needs to be moderated. Li-ion *is* promising, by all means. The main problem now afaik is the price and the number of charge cycles (which makes the price per km even worse). The tzero shows great promise, the performance and mileage is superb. But the batteries are very expensive, and they are specified for max 300 cycles. Purpose built Li-ion batteries for vehicles may very well improve this, but as of yet we've just seen promises... -- Egil 11:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we should give too much, if any, consideration to the press release for a company's new battery which they might release a year from now and which will likely not be considered a pure Li-Ion type. Rmhermen 14:16, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ. Toshiba has demonstrated (For the electronics industry) that Li-ion cells can be manufactured with high power density and much higher cycle life. ACP used 6800 laptop cells to prove that current level lithium cells (for laptops) are up to the task. The single, no strike that, multiple aspects of Li which have made them "no ready" for electric vehicles are no more: Power Density which relates directly to Charge-time, 20,000 Cycle life, and resiliance to low temperatures! WHERE ARE OUR GOVERNMENT MANDATES? Off giving GM $80Mill, which they will match, to build 80 HFCEV's by 2010, so that's $2million per vehicle, and you're complaining about a private company producing a porche munching $0.22 Mill BEV?! The EV Battery of the Future HAS ARRIVED! Just imagine had the auto industry taken the initiative to develope this chemestry years ago, which was instead left to the much smaller electronics industry. I'm placing the new Power/Energy Density Specs back on the page if there are no objections, I don't see how they can be objected to? --D0li0 19:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Not directly related, is the fact that ACP in the T-Zero has installed 6800 standard laptop 18650 cells and demonstrated that such a much lighter battery (compaired to Lead or NiMH) is already capable of providing 300 miles per charge. This new development in the chemestry simply means than 300 miles range is no longer the Minimum required to deliver 0-60 in 4 second levels of Performance. Such power levels can now be accomplished with a 30 mile battery 1/10th the size. And with 1% loss per 1000 cycles even such a small (30 mile) battery would last for 600,000 miles. Let's figure that cost, $2,500 for 5kWh pack is $0.004/mile, so a half cent per mile. Even in less exotic, more "Production" level vehicles at 3miles/kWh a $5,000/10kWh pack delivering the same 30 mile charges and 600,000 miles comes to $0.008/mile, still not a single cent per mile. --D0li0 19:01, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I object strongly. We are not an advertizing arm of Toshiba. If these batteries are ever sold and are independently verified as to there specs, than the are an appropriate addition to an encyclopedia. Until then they are just advertising claims. And since Toshiba doesn't even claim that it will sell any until 2006, they cannot therefore have had any impact on electric vehicle yet.Rmhermen 21:26, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Toshiba had simply demonstrated the reality of this new battery technology (http://www.batteriesdigest.com/HTMLobj-2641/Bd109d.pdf), it's not just theory. What about the impact such new battery technology may have on future EV's? Could I at least get a link from the Lithium_Battery page to the Electric_Vehcle page, per the ACP T-Zero and other ( http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/461.html http://www.proev.com/TLog/TLP0000.htm ) Li-ion powered EV's? --D0li0 01:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yes, if these ground breaking batteries were on the market and ready all the laptop manufacturers would certainly be drooling over them. i've yet to see this kind of ground breaking battery spread through the market. at the very least theyd show up in ipods or their competitors. and yes press releases should never be a solid source of information. its an arm of marketing, and they are never accountable for not delivering on press releases. look to sony on their previous press release claims on such things as the ps2/ps3 where absurd claims were made and later forgotten or revised. press releases sometimes rely on the general publics short memory for a bit of temporary good press.

--Anonymous

Bias

I think that the entire first paragraph in the "Fans' Arguments" sections is really POV; It says things like "Owners of electric cars usually leave their ICEs in the driveway", etc... Either they have a souce for this, or they've interviewd every single owner of an EV themselves, or it should be removed.

Whoa

"*When combined with household photovoltaics, electric vehicle users point out that they are not assisting through (their fuel purchaces) despotic governments in oil-rich countries, nor the politically powerful companies that prepare and distribute their products, nor the politically powerful coal interests, nor the domestic politicians that serve and protect these companies and countries. Many electric vehicle owners and operators express great satisfaction in this aspect of electric vehicle use, even while realizing that this use can have little effect on these matters at the present time."

I mean, the point is valid, but may be going a bit overboard with the bias, eh? Krupo 19:00, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

In response, please note that this is specifically stated to be a bias of EV fans, and is not couched as a bias in the article itself. (I will rephrase for even greater NPOV) Leonard G. 19:30, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Now reads:

• Some EV fans with a left of center political bias or of an extreme "green" inclination claim that when combined with household photovoltaics, electric vehicle users are not assisting through (their fuel purchases) despotic governments in oil-rich countries, nor the politically powerful companies that prepare and distribute their products, nor the politically powerful coal interests, nor the domestic politicians that serve and protect these companies and countries. Many electric vehicle owners and operators express great satisfaction in this aspect of electric vehicle use, even while realizing that this use can have little effect on these matters at the present time.

Fair enough? Leonard G. 19:36, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

P.S. As a left of center liberal bias greenie (and proud of it), household PV owner (4800WDC on-grid) and ex lessor of a Ford Ranger EV (four years, 25K miles), I feel somewhat qualified to express this (decidedly non-neutral) POV, and welcome comments on couching for Wikipedia NPOV. Leonard G. 19:49, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That's quite fair, well done. :) Krupo 02:03, Jun 6, 2004 (UTC)

I liked the first one. --71.141.107.127 09:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The whole article is very biased: very Pro-BEV. There's plenty of mention of the benefits of BEVs, and scarce mention of the countless drawbacks and limitations. BEVs may be practical in 10 years, but they won't be a replacement to ICE vehicles at least until then. If they were comparable, companies would be making them, and people would be buying them. The whole "everyone who owns one loves it and throws away their old car" tone needs to be changed, and the comments like that deleted.

The reason they're not selling is because pf the $100 billion dollar profit left in fossil fuels. they're far better, but the reason they're not being sold is because of greedy corparate biggots, not your logic of them not being comparable. I suggest you see the movie Who killed the electric car? Pure inuyasha 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is what the comment you replied to is saying - compared to the '$100 billion dollar' (sic) reserves of crude, batteries are not economical. If they were, people would buy them. I suggest you ride your bike. --njh 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what i'm saying is that companies are too greedy to care about people heath. it costs $6000 canadian to get a BEV around here. they can go 200KM per charge and are as fast as a ferrari Pure inuyasha 02:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah tragedy of the commons eh? I think you must be smoking something if you believe $6000 will buy a BEV that will go 200km per charge and as fast as a ferrari (whatever that means). $6000 might buy the materials for the chassis. I'd believe any two of those features, but not all three at once. Please give credible sources for your extraordinary claims. --njh 05:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cripes. Having just read this article for the first time, this just reeks of bias. My general impression was that the writer are all very much in favor of battery-electric vehicles, and uniformly damn the circumstances that tend to favor gasoline-combustion vehicles. Also, I feel as if I am being told that auto manufacturers are nefarious and evil in regard to their EV pilot projects. I expected something a bit more geared towards explanation of the technology, and less of an environmental propaganda piece. For instance, a single-motor EV would have significantly different design than a 4-motor EV.

The current interest in the article is motivated by a certain film that has, or is about to, come out. The only way to oppose bias is to actively contribute and seek consensus. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, when I first looked at this article some years back it was suitably tempered with intelligent commentary on the practicalities and economics. Now everything is slanted to imply that the lack of commercial BEVs is purely a conspiracy. I don't have the time or energy to fight this one, but I agree with your feelings (whoever you are..) --njh 23:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, if these ground breaking batteries were on the market and ready all the laptop manufacturers would certainly be drooling over them. i've yet to see this kind of ground breaking battery spread through the market. at the very least theyd show up in ipods or their competitors. and yes press releases should never be a solid source of information. its an arm of marketing, and they are never accountable for not delivering on press releases. look to sony on their previous press release claims on such things as the ps2/ps3 where absurd claims were made and later forgotten or revised. press releases sometimes rely on the general publics short memory for a bit of temporary good press.

links to largescale EV deployments

There are a couple projects in europe, where EVs have been implemented at large scale in urban transportration, a short insight is provided in this article

La Rochelle city especially deserves some mention, for its implementations of pilots like ELCIDIS and LISELEC

ELCIDIS has 55 vehicles spread over a half dozen European cities while Liselec appears to have 165 vehicles only 19 of which are available to the public. Not really large-scale implementations. Rmhermen 21:18, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

Well, London is quoted to have around 700 G-Wiz electric cars by now. Kathmandu once had ( still has ? ) countless Safa Tempos link titlerunning on their streets. I think the section should be there, sooner or later.

IC engine

from old page: Electric vehicles were among the earliest automobiles, and before the preeminence of internal combustion vehicles, electric automobiles held many vehicle land speed and distance records in the early 1900s.

from new page: Electric vehicles were among the earliest automobiles, and before the preeminence of light, powerful internal combustion engines, electric automobiles held many vehicle land speed and distance records in the early 1900s.

I think that a link to the IC engine page is more appropriate, plus made a point as to why IC engines were impractical for vehicles. ChrisJMoor

Variety and Comparison Rework

The majority of the Variety and Comparison sections appear to have serious issues stating points and counterpoints, far to much POV for non pro/con sections. I would prefer to focus on adding more technical discussion of the components which make up an EV at the head of the article instead of all this typical anti-ev disinformation which should be moved here for discussion or intigrated into the pro/con sections of the article. I'd like to rename the Variety section to Technology and expand at the point of the NPOV banner into Motors, Controllers, Chargers, etc. .oO(Perhaps tomorrow, must sleep soon) --D0li0 7 July 2005 09:36 (UTC)

Well I didn't write the variety section, but it and the comparison section are both fairly factually written. Even if they are POV, which I grant anything can be improved, adding section NPOV tags without discussing specifics of what you find POV is just cluttering up the article. No reader needs to see those tags, just discuss in talk. Especially when compared to the Fans section for example. Look at the POV there. And why would you bother adding a [Sic] instead of changing it? I'm not seeing the error at the moment anyway.

I obviously object to renaming the comparison section, because that is needed, not just a technology section. The section offers the very important, and often ignored lifecycle analysis. I don't think point, counterpoint is nearly as bad as having two polar opposite horribly POV pro and con sections. Especially if written factually which for the most part it is. What would be much better than slapping section NPOV tags on just because it doesn't fit your POV would be detailing what is not NPOV about them here. In other words the whole article is fairly poor, so removing certain sections that are better than the article average doesn't make sense. What is needed to fix some of the problems is greater research and citation of sources which I am prepared to do for what I've added, and you would need to be willing to do the same. - Taxman ^Talk July 7, 2005 12:44 (UTC)

Sorry about not mentioning specific POVs in the comparison section, here goes... Is there a link to a cradle-to-grave page so as not to have to explain how an overall lifecycle comparison as I see a fare dire result from not addressing the managability of BEV's as opposed to the total lack of control with traditional transportation and electricity.

I couldn't find any Wikipedia page covering the topic, but it is a fairly standard way to analyze the environmental impact of alternatives when it is done carefully.

It's the lack of the same scrutiny towards traditional (FF,Nuclear) finite fuels, and as such the injustice which is done when only the (Solar Nuclear, "Sustainable") infinite (reletively) are laid out fully. I'm all about a page chuck full of lifecycle analysis, perhaps some already exists. As such this is not the place for renewable energy depate, it's a page about Vehicles, Electric ones, the most effecient automobile types use Batteries. How about an Electric Vehicle (Lifecycle) page for this type of information.--D0li0 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

No, in those pages we simply state the problems. FF we just say polution from emmissions is believed to cause X problems. The EV issue is more complicated as this comparison demonstrates. Leaving the lifecycle comparison off is POV as I have mentioned because it ignores important facts regarding the issue. Many people share your misunderstanding of wanting to push important topics off to subpages, but it is improper. A topic should cover all all important facets of the subject and not leave any out. Sub articles like Electric vehicle lifecycle analysis would only be used if so much detailed information was written on the subject that it shouldn't be in this article. As it is a comparison of the total environmental impact of EV's is central to the EV topic, because that's the whole issue anyway. And besides if the EV is actually the better overall environmental choice, why would you resist so much including the analysis that shows that? - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 13:31 (UTC)

Let's go! I'm fully confident that I can convince anyone with an open mind that BEV's, even/especially when considering the entire lifecycle, are bettery than our current FF and ICE transportation implamentations.
The way I see it stating problems is not comparing technologies, and just saying that we believe emmissions do X,Y, and Z don't take into accound the solar nature and cyclic results of re-converting HC chains back into the CO2 they once were. This whole situation (FF energy) has grown quite out of hand yet opinions and facts on the matter vary widely depending on who you talk to (ie: Abiotic oil, Bush, Carbon Sequestering, etc) --D0li0 8 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Speaking to the lifecycle analysis, I found one for CO2 at least. [2] The study itself doesn't appear available on the web, so I don't know what assumptions for things fuel mileage or electric range were used, but it basically clearly shows for coal powered electricity, there is nearly no advantage, though for NG there is a significant one, and of course for hydro (and presumably wind) there is a major improvement. But taking the numbers for the gasoline ICE engine in the study and reducing them by the 78% lifecycle C02 reduction that biodiesel has makes that combination approximately equivalent to the electric car under the hydro scenario. - Taxman ^Talk 18:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

There does not appear to be a way that non polluting renewables can provide enough energy for all electricity needs, let alone enough for all transportation needs too.

I beg to differ. Wind power#Yield 2 Wind alone has 5 time current global consumption, excluding offshore which is even greater. 40 Time current electric consumption, So you see that we could in fact quite easily have a renewable grid. The wind figure is some 72TW, Electricity 1.8TW, all Energy Consumption of some 14.4TW. Passanger transportation energy requirements could be meet by doubling current grid capacity this additional 1.8TW would directly displace some 3.6TW to 7.2TW of gassoline, plus it's production and transportation. Freight transportation would idealy be meet by meglev, one of the most effecient modes of transportation which also happens to be electric, though no contriversial batteries.--D0li0 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The MIT wind power paper looks pretty well done and does agree approximately with what I think you are saying. Now whether it is feasible to use 12.7% of the earth's land area for wind power or whether off shore wind generation is feasible are other issues entirely. I also didn't go look for any other papers analyzing the issue, so maybe the MIT paper is ignoring important issues, but lacking evidence of that, I'm satisfied. - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 13:31 (UTC)

Great, don't get to confertable, I hope to do it a few more times.

Also noting that many locations with low solar irradiation are not suitable for solar and many do not have enough wind to make that effective, no rivers that can be dammed, etc.

The earth is influenced by some 174 petawatts, these are the renewable, available in the form of light/heat, wind, hydro. We've been over winds potential at our current level of technology, which tends to increase over time. These are dispersed reletively evenly accross the globe. A far cry from the nature of FF.--D0li0 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but how much power the earth recieves does not necessarily have anything to do with whether that can be harnessed efficiently, though as mentioned above the wind argument is sufficient. - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 13:31 (UTC)

I feel it's is of critical importance, if you are truely interested in looking at the entire lifecycle, then you have to consider Sun's 10Billion year lifecycle, FF's ??? Million year cycle and solar origins, and you should also consider humans past transportation tech and our very short 100 years of "Modern" vehicles. So from one POV considering the original solar energy one may come to discover the ICEs are some 12,000 to 48,000 times less effecient than a vehicle using batteries powered by PV or the wind, but the 2x to 4x I use for the vehicle itself is far easier to explain and accept. --D0li0 8 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

But again, the total energy reaching the earth does not matter if it cannot be utilized. That is completely separate from the long lifecycle of the sun. - Taxman ^Talk 18:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I thought that was pretty well known that batteries are inneficient. The chargers lose electricity to heat, the battery loses power to heat when charging, the battery loses power over time with no draw on it, and they don't release all the power they store. All facts.

It's a widely held misconception. PFC chargers are better than 90% effecient. Most Batteries have better than 80% cyclic storage effeciency, many chemestries are up to 90%. Some Li have demonstrated 20,000 cycles, till 80% original capacity (The standard way to rate cycles), and at the end of their usefull life, be it another 40K, 60K, or 80K, they can be recycled. Effeciency, Power and Energy Density, cycle life, cost, environmental impacts all vary with battery chemestry. I can hardly simply sweepingly call them all and their chargers ineffecient based on "well known" "facts".--D0li0 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

Ok, but these need some sources to back up your claims. Those numbers are easy to say, but from what I have read those do not come through for currently produced and available batteries. Experimental batteries are ok to discuss as such, but not as if they can be obtained today. Also cost cannot be ignored. If the 20000 cycle battery costs $100k, then it may not matter. - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 13:31 (UTC)

Sorry about using prototype Li tech in my examples, I can make the same points using current off-the-shelf Li but the new tech simply wipes clear any question that this BEV's are or will become far superiour.--D0li0 8 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

That's just a small example of the problem. You keep repeating these numbers like 20,000 cycles and 300 mile ranges, but you have yet to produce any reliable, verifiable information to back those claims up. Even worse, after I've pointed out that you are using non reliable numbers, you go and add a slew of them to the article. - Taxman ^Talk 18:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the Pro/Con section is pretty POVish, but it allows the very polarized sides of this debate to say their piece without stepping all over the other dance partners toes in the body of the article, which is what this comparison section has done. I would rather see something like this for a comparison Gas-Electric_Hybrid#Other_Considerations, looks like I need to add a battery paragraph, good thing they are highly recycled! --D0li0 7 July 2005 20:10 (UTC)

No offense to those that wrote it, since discussing the positives and negatives of a subject that has as much emotion and misinformation or lack of information tied up into it (for many people at least) is difficult, but separating into pro and con sections is a cop out to avoid the harder work of building balanced prose. Separating is done because it is easier, but it is bad style and can never produce a great article. So in summary, you're going to have to get a lot more specific about how those sections are POV to justify the section NPOV dispute tags. I wrote the comparison section because I'm honestly interested in finding the real facts, and I was hoping people could help me fill them in. I've started the framework, but of course it needs more. Yes, its going to take research, but any good article will. - Taxman ^Talk July 7, 2005 23:37 (UTC)

None taken, but it appears to me that you haven't done your homework. Pump-to-Pavement effeciency of BEV's is as low as 0.16kWh per nuke. From here many conversions achieve 0.2 to 0.5kWh per mile. A 70mpg Insight achieves 0.48kWh per mile, Pump-to-Pavement. This includes charging and battery effeciency. RAV4 EVs have demonstrated 150K miles with little loss in range, unfortunently most of the other production BEV's have been crushed, I mean Recycled well before we could know the lifespan of various components of these cars. A 20,000 cycle[3] 300 mile quick charging (80% in 60 seconds) equipt BEV might run of 2,000K miles or some 50 years till the batteries reach 80%. Current 1000 cycle 300 miles lithium runs about $500/kWh or $20K per pack [AC Propulsion TZero]. A pack might cost as little as $5K at higher production levels required for production automobiles. You may be seeing localized and systainable resources as ineffecient because we come from a spoiled system based on cheap but dirty energy, when in the end that energy is a result of solar energy input, the same I would like to see us utilize via somewhat more direct methods .oO( Solar Condencers, PV, Solar Stirling, Wind, Hydro, etc. )--D0li0 8 July 2005 08:58 (UTC)

Again, lots of claims that need evidence. A press release is about as far from reliable evidence as one can get. For example the tzero FAQ notes 50-100 miles per charge and a lifespan of 15-20,000 miles. That's a far cry from what you've quoted. And what unit is a "kWh per nuke" and how is that an efficiency rating? The insight is gasoline, so what meaning does the 0.48kWh per mile have? The insight is a hybrid, so basically it is only an efficient gasoline vehicle. - Taxman ^Talk July 8, 2005 13:31 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it's tough to find the updated ACP T-Zero Li-ion info as they haven't updated their main page to reflect this new revision of their car. It now utilized 6800 18650 cells configured into 68 parallel cell modules with 100 such modules in series. I believe they are 2.0 Ah cells, making each module 136Ah, at 3.7v (nominal) each 100 in series brings the total system voltage up to 370v for a total energy content of about 50kWh, which at 0.16kWh per mile delivers 300 miles per charge. The stats you got from the main page are from the old Lead-Acid version, the new Li-ion version is far lighter, quicker, and has better range, at a minimum of 500 cycles this battery will last 150K miles till 80% capacity (240 miles range). Dig arround their white papers and you should find some of this, guess I need to do that and update the ACP_TZero page here. The whole point of mentioning the 0.48kWh per mile for the 100% gassoline powered Insight, with the highest mileage of any production vehicle, is for you to notice that this figure is about the same as the worst case home build EV conversions, the Insight as an EV would achieve that of the T-Zero or better, ie: 0.16kWh per mile, 3 times less energy. --D0li0 8 July 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Well actually the VW Lupo is a pure ICE diesel engine and gets 78 miles per US gallon. And again you're claiming a lot of numbers with nothing to back them up. For example, what is needed is what range and what number of cycles to 80% of original capacity is available in batteries today for purchase, and at what cost. The 0.16kWh per mile number is also in desparate need of a reliable source. - Taxman ^Talk 18:09, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Variety, Comparison, Critics, and Fans Rework

I would like to see all of the valid points made in the first four topics better intigrated. Perhaps the most important aspect of BEV's is that by using electricity as fuel it allows such vehicles to use a wide variety of energy resources, which includes economical and effecient locally available systainables. While Bio-fuels and Hydrogen are potentially renewable they introduce more conversion losses over more direct solar resources. Fossil Fuels are obviousely entirely out of human controll, as in their creation/availability and major bi-product which try as we might are not managable. This coupled with the eventuality of requireing that our grid electricity be sustainable, brings me to the conclusion that in the near to long to very long term EV's are the best option for the most effecient implamentation of transportation technology, batteries required when leaving the relm of grid/rail/overhead lines. The last major issues involves batteries or more accurately the onboard storage of electricity. I would point out that batteries are currently the best way and I expect them to remain the best and become better in the future. All the while I would point out that their creation, utilization, and recycling are completely managable and well within our control.

So, I would like to see the reworking of this article instill a sense of potential and hope rather than it's current dizzing array of doubt and dispair. In making these point I think

This is the problem. That is not what wikipedia is for. You want to use Wikipedia for advocacy, and that is not allowed under the NPOV policy, which is considered non-negotiable. If you can't conform to the NPOV policy, please don't edit here. Your editing shows a near complete lack of willingness to find reliable sources to back up what you write. Please understand that everything added to Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Many of the sites you use to back up your material are completely unnaceptable as they are press releases or pure advocacy pieces such as the 21stcenturysciencetech.com article that is linked in the efficiency section. Many other statements you've added to the article have no support whatsoever such as this: "The latter Li and Zinc have demonstrated energy densities high enough to deliver range and recharge times comparable to conventional vehicles." If this was so well known, it wouldn't be hard to find reliable, independant sources to back it up. There are so many specific examples of these problems that I am adding an NPOV dispute template to the whole article. Please do not remove it until we are both satisfied these issues are resolved. - Taxman ^Talk 13:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

My full advocate and total POV come through strong on this Talk page I will admit, but I have attempted to reamin NPOV in my edits of the article. Let's see if we can work our way through this as I felt the article was mostly useless before and you agreed the pro/con sections were a bad idea. I've modified some of the hidden comments within the article, replying to the Maglev reference and bad Li-Zn setence. I am searching for better references, please mark specific disputes within the articls, if you've left out any other problems, so we can work them out. Are you satisfied with the 100K RAV-4 references, probably not some of them, huh. Gotta run, more later, I was sure I wouldn't get it perfect the first time. <G>rin --D0li0 16:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Point is, the POV is coming through loud and clear in the article. But recent work seems to be on the right track at least. The Rav-4 bit is a good start, but basically only one of those (The SCE paper) was acceptable. You've really got to reallize that things like forum posts, press releases and press articles that take press releases as gospel are not reliable. Also the comment that the Rav4's had little degradation after 100k is an exaggeration and it implies the car can keep going like that for a long time. The SCE paper showed what was about an 80% degradation in range for the vehicles, and noted that Toyota expected the vehicles would be able to be driven for 130-150k miles total. They also only looked at 5 cars, which brings small sample size problems, and this is the best of the references I've seen added so far. None of the ones for the tzero appeared to be reliable enough so far, but the one at least looked like it could point to a way to back up the 300 mile claim. That number was even reported with steady 60mph driving, so maybe a number with a more realistic driving profile would be better. And it's better to not put extended comments in html, the ones I did were just examples of the problem. I'll try to get through noting where the other places that need referencing, but it really is for just about everything there. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence, and claims of 300 mile range and 20,000 cycles are certainly exceptional. - Taxman ^Talk 19:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

it's imparative to point out the errors and glutiny of our current use of ICE. An Insight hold 10Gallons, 336kWh worth of energy in it's fuel tank and can travel 700 miles with it. An equilly optimized BEV would travel some 6 (or more) miles per kWh or some 2016 miles! Most of us don't even require a 1/10'th of our current gas range, nor would we feel the need for fast refueling if we could refuel in the comfort of our own homes each evening. That's not to say that long range and fast recharging are not already technically possible with BEV's, it's just so unnessecary that it's rarely implamented. For those minority who do require long ranges and for those rare times when the majority needs them there are a vast array of more appropriate and responsible solutions.

The moral of the story? This may just be the solution we are looking for, especially in light of rescent battery development and systainable resource availability surveys. I don't see any better way to make the world a safe place for everyone than to ensure everyone has the ability to tap and utilize their own locally available systainable resources. Rather than our current attempts to stabilize things with force and conflict.--D0li0 21:09, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll be gone for a week, didn't want anyone to think I had given up. L8r --D0li0 06:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Charge efficiency

The EV1 is considered one of the most efficient, the vehicle gets .179kwh/mi when charged, but counting the charge cycle, the total is .373.

That doubles It's energy consumption, and it implies that all BEVs charging cycles consumes as much energy as is required to drive it down the freeway! The EV1 charge cycle is considered one of the least effecient due to the magnachargers poor PF and probably more importantly it's poor battery cooling and ventilation design, especially in the NiMH version which actually ran the air conditioner durring charge for battery cooling, how insane is that. Surely had they gone into production with a third generation this rather major flaw would have been addressed. What was the RAV4's charge effeciency? It has similar NiMH batteries, but a conductive Avcon (unsure of PF) and had proper passive cooling, I believe. PF Chargers and proper passive cooling are of utmost importance in a BEV with such large energy transfers taking place, especially the closer you get to high rate quick charging! It's not so important on your cell phone and laptop so their power supplies can go ahead and run hot wasting energy due to poor PF. --D0li0 17:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

All well and good, but again, we need verifiable facts, and solid references to back them up. The EV1 stuff I just put in comments because that is what the government fact sheet showed. If you can find one of them that has an efficiency (including the charge cycle) of better than .3 then we can support a different range for the efficiency. But we must include the charging in the efficiency. Ignoring that would be the equivalent of buying 10 gallons of gas but only 8 making it in the tank, ignoring the lost 2 gallons when figuring the efficiency. It is only the fact that 2 gallons are not lost every fillup that makes the mpg number the useful one. The efficiency for each vehicle also depends on the driving cycle. For the Rav4 the "driving cycle" range lists an efficiency of .245 and a charging efficiency of .432. Ok, here is their charging efficiency specification. It is made over the whole testing procedure, including different driving tests. You can debate the numbers all day long, but certainly the more important thing to refer to is: how much power does the charger draw per mile driven. And the fact is these are verifiable numbers we have, from controlled government testing. Unless you have numbers of similar quality to use, the DOE numbers are the ones we have to go with. The EV1 is the most efficient vehicle in their tests. Here's a comparison chart, the last page shows the charging efficiency comparison. - Taxman ^Talk 21:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Finally found it 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum, [4]. This is the Li-ion version of the T-Zero which they rate at 280 to 300 miles of range (280 "Rated" and 300 In real life trips). 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, 5.41 recorded at the event. 153.2 mpg (33.8kWh/gal) for 0.2206 kWh/mile @ 50mph. Well-to-wheel 0=min, 23.09=max.

Here's some more ACP gems [5]. It's the PbA version, 28 12v Optima YT with 44Ah new drive cycle capacity, ACP peaks them to 600A. NEDRA drag racers way they "Pop" at arround 2000A! 20kW to 40kW charge rates, 60% charge in 30 minutes. Page19, 160, 200, 145Wh/mile, 171Wh/mile at 64mph so that's in the same neighborhood of the EV1 I guess. Page20, BTU/mile figures including NG electricity production makes them come out equal to the Insight, a similarly "Best Case" vehicle.

Here's the 2004 Bib, [6], Volvo 3CC anyone? How about this quote "As a complete car, the Li-ion tzero has higher specific energy, in Wh/kg, than the RAV4 EV battery pack alone."

Finally, [7] [8] [9], Charge effeciency! Looks like >93% at 240v line voltage and 10kW rate.

Here [10] is a line of >90% eff PFC chargers which is popular in many conversions.

So what does that come out to? 0.18 kWh/mile and 90% charging for about 0.2 kWh/mile from the wall?

I'll have to look for references to the poor EV1 charging effeciency and overall poor implamentation, I'de rather point out better methods and technologies. --D0li0 08:08, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, all of that is from press releases. We need reliable references for material, and those don't cut it. Even from the press release they don't claim the .2206 kwh/mi is counting from what energy the charger drew, and their well to wheel efficiency, they only refer to "over 50mpg equivalent". And I'm not sure where you go the .18 kwh/m number from, but just multiplying that by a claimed charging efficiency is useless. The only useful number is what power the charger draws over a given distance traveled, and preferreably for a real life driving, not a steady 50mph. - Taxman ^Talk 20:56, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

The how about considering this in the fuel cycle for FF transportation. How about this? http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/byfueltype.htm It compairs the lifecycle CO2 emissions, so would include the grid-mix CO2 emissions from power production, charging, and drive effeciency. Unfortunently the EV1, Ranger, EVPlus, and others are missing from this site.

EVs
2000 Nissan Altra EV  3.5 tons CO2
2000 Toyota RAV4-EV   4.1 tons CO2 (104 mpg)
2000 Toyota RAV4 2wd  7.2 tons CO2 (26  mpg)
2000 Nissan Altra EV  3.5 tons CO2
2002 Toyota RAV4-EV   3.8 tons CO2
2002 Ford Explorer    7.8 tons CO2 (USPS)
Hybrids
2000 Honda Insight    3.0 tons CO2
2001 Honda Insight    3.1 tons CO2
2005 Toyota Prius     3.5 tons CO2
2005 Ford Escape H 2x 5.8 tons CO2
2005 Ford Escape H 4x 6.2 tons CO2
Standard
2005 Ford Escape 4x   8.0 tons CO2
2005 GMC Envoy XUV 4x 11.7 tons CO2
2005 Dodge Neon 2.0L  6.0 tons CO2

Keep in mind this is the worst case for BEV's which will get cleaner as our grid power becomes cleaner, by whatever means that may be. It's also cleaner if you have Hydro resources like me, or if a wind farm goes up in your area, or you install your own wind or PV resources. So, if your electricity is very cheap, or free then charge effeciency is meaningless, simply invest more in systainables to increase your net-zero impact range.

Sorry, couldn't find this online anymore (http://www.eren.doe.gov/)...

File:Fcvgc.gif

And this is what it might look like at current gas prices...

So it appears that we're already past the break point at which BEVs are more economical. But it's not so much about "Price" but rather energy and resources. And here I sit, watching the news about energy bills, energy dependency, Fool Cells, Hydrogen, More Coal, and Nuclear, and 100% gassoline fueled Hybrids! (Blah blah blah) No Wind, No EVs? --D0li0 09:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Batteries cost example: 1 kWh capacity 1000x charged (then lifetime runs soon to end) that are 1000 kWh (1MWh) runned through. Cost is about $100 per 1 kWh (85Ah 12V). That means battery is around 10ct/km or 16ct/mile. To this you have to add the cost of electric power for charging. Then batteries tend to discharge. In one month 30% are not uncommon. Some parameters will increase with developpment. 68.37.133.158 03:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC) Dieter

Modular batteries?

Which kind of batteries are the easiest to change and recharge at a service station? Are there any such recharging service stations in existence anywhere? --171.66.111.15 09:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I imagine most service stations or truck stops wouldn't be opposed to you simply pulling into the parking lot and running an extension cord to the nearest outlet. I don't know of any stations that officially provice recharging services, but some were mentioned in the article. 65.95.157.80 22:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Transmissions, gearboxes, etc

Parts of the article gave the impression that the traditional gearbox/transmission was still a necessity for EVs. This is not so. The physics of the electric motor show that it gives maximum torque at zero rotational speed, and can be designed to cover a wide range of speeds and still give the same overall power. Certainly, a motor that can take a car from 0-120 mph is easily obtained. The need for gearboxes, clutches, differentials, etc are all entirely dictated by the limitations of the IC engine, which is big and heavy for the needed power (hence you cant't put a small IC at each wheel), cannot run at zero speed and give power (hence the need for a clutch), and the output power varies widely over its narrow speed range (1000-6000 rpm), hence the need for gears, as well as compromise in the design of other parts such as camshafts. In fact, if the IC engine were invented today, nobody in their right minds would consider it a suitable powerplant for a car. Electric motors are far more suitable. Putting a motor in each wheel (possibly inboard mounted via a short drive shaft to lower unsprung weight) is the sensible way to go. Current hybrids are a joke because they are still utterly compromised by the way the IC component is used. A better hybrid would be to use a fixed-speed diesel to turn a generator, with some on-board battery to act as a short-term charge store (more like a super-capacitor). Since motor and generator efficiencies far outstrip the IC + transmission, it makes sense to get the IC out of the direct drive train, and in the process ditch the transmission altogether. The weight saving will allow bigger batteries to be carried. A back of the envelope calculation shows that this could be up to 400% more fuel efficient than the current attempt at a hybrid, and still work with the existing fuel-based infrastructure. I'm assuming manufacturers are working on this, but it seems amazing how unwilling they appear to be to really "think outside the box" by which I mean FORGET connecting the IC to the wheels mechanically. Graham 06:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

AC motors have sufficient power over a wide range of speed to allow use of a single speed transmission - eg: the Wrightspeed X1 vehicle using the AC propulsion motor driving a gutted Honda transmission that uses only second gear. This is not true with the common DC motor (a modified fork lift motor) used in home conversions. These require a transmission. I am driving a converted light truck using 96 Volt lead-acid flooded cells, 9 inch Advanced DC, and the original 5 speed, and I use all five speeds in cruising up to 55 mph and greater. Second gear starts are OK on level or downhill, but I use low gear for uphill starts. An attempt to start on the level in third is unsatisfactory, and higher gears at speed are required to avoid overspeeding the motor. Other than the low end torque and starting with the clutch out, driving/clutching/shifting is quite similar to an ICE and shifts are done by "feel" (no tachometer is installed).- Leonard G. 03:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Current hybrids aren't compromised at all. a prius gets 600+ miles on a tank.

Strange statement under Fuels

Under Fuels: There are no currently available technologies which can provide all of the energy required for the life of a BEV car. This means that all BEV cars must be refuelled by periodic charging of the batteries.

This statement is strange, as it implies that other forms of cars exist which have infinite energy supplies. As far as I know, the perpetual motion machine hasn't been invented yet. This is hardly a unique weakness to battery powered cars.

It would be better written simply as BEV cars are refuelled through periodic charging of the batteries.

Done. LossIsNotMore 12:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that "refueled" is technically incorrect with respect to rechargable batteries, becuase no fuel is consumed. AnAccount2 16:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Large chunk of potential copyright infringing text redacted from EV article.

Could someone please rewrite this into encyclopedia style and merge? --njh 02:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Frank X. Didik, who has designed and built almost 20 alternate evergy and electric vehicles over the past 25 years, and who is the founder of the Electric Car Society makes the following realistic and somewhat critical comments regarding electric vehicles: Overview: Electric cars are in many ways similar to gasoline powered cars. They can be comfortable, reliable and handle well. Electric cars are very quiet. So quiet that you can barely hear the motor run, even at top speed. This silence can be a danger to pedestrians crossing the street since pedestrians can not hear the car coming. An electric car operator must be constantly aware of this problem while driving in populated areas. Until recently, most electric cars fell into two categories--cars converted from gasoline power, such as a VW or a Chevy Chevette or tiny cars such as Citi-Car and CommutaCars from the mid 1970's to the early 1980's. . In the case of the Citi-Car, the normal range in the summer of about 40 miles and in the winter time about 30 miles per charge. With intermittent charging throughout the day, the range can be extended up to 70 miles per day. The average driver drives an estimated 28 miles per day. Most electric cars today have built in battery chargers and all that is required to recharge is a long extension cord and plug into a regular 110 Volt home outlet. It takes about 7 hours to fully recharge the batteries. It is possible to greatly reduce the charging time by increasing the charging voltage, however by doing this, the life of the batteries is shortened. The Citi-Car uses eight special 6 volt "deep cycle" batteries, which are also commonly known as marine batteries. These batteries weigh more then normal car batteries and are designed to endure up to 2000 charges. Under normal conditions, this translates to about two years of use. A set of eight deep cycle batteries can cost as little as $800. When the cost of replacing the batteries and the cost to recharge the batteries are considered, the cost to run a small electric car (non-hybrid) is about three times more than a conventional economy gasoline car. Since the cost of electricity tends to more or less follow the cost of fuel, it is unlikely that this ratio will change in the future. Electric cars are fun to have and drive, but you will not save money, nor will you really help the environment.

Converting a car from gasoline to electric: It is possible to convert any vehicle to electric, however the frame of a convention car would have to be greatly strengthened in order to sustain the weight of the batteries. I would have to say that the vast majority of conversions, which I have seen would have seen, would have to be considered almost unacceptable. In most cases, the end result is too heavy, underpowered, very short range and low top speed. From what I have observed, the person converting the vehicle has a conventional gasoline powered car that has a bad motor or the person has access to a smaller car at a very favorable price. After removing the existing gasoline engine, the chases is strengthened and a rather heavy (and expensive) load of batteries are installed, in most cases in the trunk and under the rear seat of the vehicle. The gasoline engine being replaced by a 10 to 20hp dc electric motor or an ac motor with a power inverter. The result is a vehicle that is now anywhere from 700lbs to 1500lbs (300kg to 600kg) heavier than the original gasoline powered car, even taking into consideration the removal of the heavy gasoline engine. In many cases, the original car was only 2000lbs and is now 1/3 heavier. Since the original vehicle was never designed for such a heavy weight, the stability and handling are often adversely effected. Conversions often seem to have a range of 25 to 40 miles and a top speed of 50mph. These dismal figures are rarely exceeded ... from what I have observed. Sadly, I have noticed many exaggerated claims in the press, regarding top sped and range. Prior to converting the vehicle, most people had expected far greater performance. Another factor in home conversions is that the projects are often not completed, since the person converting either loses interest or runs into minor technical problems or can not find specific parts. I have seen a wide variety of conversions including a Porsche 914, Saab, fiat 850, Chevrolet Vans, Renault LeCars (R5), VW Beatles and VW buses. Perhaps surprisingly, the most successful conversions seem to be the VW bus. I think that the reason is that the frame is relatively strong to begin with, so that the batteries have a relatively good base and the VW bus is a rather light weight vehicle.

Cost of operating an electric vehicle (non-hybrid): On average, a straight electric (non-hybrid) car, which uses standard deep cycle lead acid marine type batteries and is charged from the mains, costs about 3 times more to run than a conventional gasoline car. From a financial point of view, a diesel car, running on something like filtered, used vegetable oil, such as the discarded oil from restaurants, might be a better solution, however, the effort in doing the conversion and in acquiring the used oil might not be worth the effort. Perhaps buying an economy car such as a Ford Aspire (43mpg), Honda Civic or one of the hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, might also be a solution. If gasoline should ever become difficult to obtain (which, for the moment, seems unlikely), it may be possible to use an electric car charged from such local sources as wind power, or less likely, because of the high price of solar cells, solar power.

Do electric vehicles pollute?: Electric vehicles do pollute, though most of the pollution is at the point of electric generation. Though the electric car itself does not burn fuel, most power plants use "fossil" fuels to generate electricity, so we must consider the pollution created at the power plant. Another issue that is rarely addressed is the fact that most electric cars use batteries which themselves have the potential to pollute if they are not disposed of correctly. In many cases, batteries, while they are being charged, gives off gasses, which can vary depending upon the type of battery. This can be hydrogen and oxygen or sulfur fumes or other gases. Hydrogen and Oxygen themselves are not considered pollution of course, however the mixture can be explosive if they are allowed to reform water. Another type of pollution that may be of concern is the electro-magnetic emissions that some people feel can cause various human ailments. Electric motors can be shielded with special alloys, such as a highly tempered copper/nickel alloy, creating a type of Faraday cage, however this adds weight to the vehicle and it is not conclusive that all emissions can be contained.

WHAT ABOUT SOLAR POWER? With current technology, it is not possible to effectively run a car directly from the sun. So-called solar powered cars are in reality solar charging battery powered cars. The sun is used to charge the batteries. Nevertheless, there have been remarkable developments in the area of solar cells and in the development of ultra light weight solar charging battery powered cars. For example, the GM Sunraycer, weighs 390 lbs, is 3.3 feet high, 6.6 feet wide and 19.7 feet long and averaged 41.6 miles per hour over a total of 44.9 driving hours. The GM Sunraycer is considered one of the most advanced "solar" cars in the world and in 1987 won the Solar Challenge race in Australia--a 1,950 mile race. Other solar cars have attained speeds of over 110 mile per hour.

Are Electric vehicles safe?: These days, some people are concerned with the electromagnetic emissions of cell phones. It should be pointed out that the electromagnetic emissions emitted from an electric car is many times greater than that of a cell phone. Please also refer to the paragraph above entitled "Do Electric Vehicles Pollute?". There are many different types and sizes of electric cars. Most electric cars are much heavier then they look, due mostly to the weight of the batteries. The Citi-Car for example, weighs about 1600 lbs. Since most electric cars are limited production cars, they are built the same way as most racing cars--with tubular steel frames. As a result, most electric cars are structurally very strong--stronger then most conventionally produced gasoline cars!

Acceleration: An electric motor has what is known as continuous torque and therefor has almost the same horsepower at any speed, though an electric motor is more efficient at high rotational speeds. For this reason, an electric car normally has better acceleration from standstill of then the acceleration of a gasoline powered car! The Citi-Car can out accelerate most cars from 0 to 20 miles per hour. The top speed of the Citi-Car is however only 40 miles per hour.

What kind of DC motors you use? To save weight, I use low HP (horse power) motors, usually between 3 and 6HP to power a car that has a total weight of 1800pounds (including batteries). This is enough power to move the vehicle between 35 and 55 miles per hour. This means that the car weighs about 800kg and can travel between 50km and 90km per hour. A normal small gasoline car, such as the old (1972) VW 1300cc Beatle has about 18hp and can travel up to 110km hour. An electric motor has continuous torque and has different properties than a gasoline engine. At 100km per hour, a normal car weighing 1000kg, only needs to have a 7hp motor to keep going at 100km an hour. The problem is acceleration and the time it takes to go 100km per hour.

What is the average speed that can be reached with such a motor? See above.

Should I use 4 separate motors (1 for every wheel) to get the best in performance or would it be better to use 1 in the front and 1 in the back of the car and linking the two together? This system of using motors in every wheel was first used over 100 years ago. The problem with this setup is that it is difficult to keep each wheel at an exact constant speed. It leads to an instable car, in most cases.

Can I recharge the batteries by placing a generator or an alternator on the electric motor, so that I can drive indefinitely? No. This setup will not work since there is a concept of conservation of energy and therefore, it would take the same (or more) energy to recharge the batteries, thus the car would not move. This is also known as perpetual motion and is contrary to the know and established laws of physics. It should be noted however, that while braking the car, you can slow it down by converting the forward motion of the car into electricity that can be redirected to the batteries. This is known as regenerative braking. From my perspective, the added weight and complexity of the regenerative braking system, plus the low absorption efficiency rate of conventional batteries, ultimately provides for little if any gain in range for the vehicle. In the case of long range driving, with little braking required, the added weight of the regenerative braking system, probably reduces range somewhat.

How many batteries will I need to run a small two person electric vehicle? In general, to run a small electric vehicle, weighing 700lbs, without batteries, you will probably use between 8 and 10 6 volt batteries for a combined voltage would be from 48 to 60 or more volts.

Should I use a gearbox, if I build an electric car? Hard to say, though most car companies use gear boxes. Perhaps a bicycle transmission or a transmission from an old DAF car would be a good idea. You may also be able to adapt standard machine tool components that have variable speed Vbelt adjusters. For optimum efficiency, it is better for an electric motor to spin at a higher rpm (revolutions per minute) so that gearing, when starting from a standstill, can measurably increase performance and duration. In the case of a gasoline engine, the opposite is true, in that for maximum mpg (miles per gallon), it is important to keep the engine running at a relatively low rpm.

Should I use an electronic voltage control system or an electro-mechanical system? I use all types of systems, but I find that the electric savings using a fully electronic system is so small, that it is not worth the effort and expense of the equipment.

Should I make the body out of fiberglass, carbon fiber, aluminum or what else? These are basic car design issues. I think that fiberglass is too heavy. Perhaps a lightweight frame and then use shaped Styrofoam covered with a very thin coating or thin plastic. UV sunlight can destroy many types of plastic in just a year or two. I believe that carbon fiber is vastly over rated for a number of reasons. Though in theory, carbon fiber is extremely light and at the same time, is substantially stronger than steel, I have noticed that all too often, parts made of carbon fiber are not well designed and thus the potential weight advantage is not achieved. Further, if a carbon fiber component is not well engineered, it can, in fact, fracture. In general, the material that you feel most comfortable and most experienced to work with is probably the best material to use, but you should always, at all phases of both design and construction, keep weight down, but at the same time, do not compromise safety. I have seen strong, effective vehicles made out of a light weight tubular frame with stretched and shrunk thin film mylar used for the side and rear panels. The problem of mylar is that it is greatly effected by UV light and degenerates, under normal conditions, in less than two years. I have also seen the same using thin canvas.

The list of production vehicles is long and incorrect

Also the prototype section can be lumped together. It is also has errors and limited value to an already long article. Any suggestions for cleaning it up?

• Move the section to a separate article?
• Replace with a section of current production vehicles?

Daniel.Cardenas 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Prototypes need to be clearly marked "future" (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so statements about the future need to be clearly indicated and made sparingly.) I changed the list of production vehicles into two colums, which seems to help the visual flow. LossIsNotMore 12:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes two columns is better, but it does not address the problem of correctness. I'm going to delete the ones I'm not sure of, and people can add them back in. Perhaps a table format would be better with production dates and how many were produced. Daniel.Cardenas 19:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are good sources on info on BEVs actually for sale right now [1] 2 Savuporo 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another good source on technical capabilities of current crop of BEVs can be found in Challenge Bibendum technical result sheet on this page. Note that BEVs spank other "green" transportation methods in most every competition category. Interestingly Challenge Bibendum does not have its own Wiki page yet. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savuporo (talk • contribs) 19:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Should plug-in hybrids be included in the selections? 66.201.48.26 09:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

My opinion is that hybrids have their own article. This article is not intended for hybrids. Daniel.Cardenas 14:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

They could be mentioned: plug-in hybrids behave largely like battery-electrics with a range extender, and share the same energy storage and drive technology. LHOON 18:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Terminology

I study physics and as far as I know "power density" only applies when talking about a Poynting vector (i.e. power/unit area, passing in a certain direction) and can't really be used to describe a battery. As energy flows from one location to another (which we call power, the derivative per unit time of energy), the density must be per unit area, not per unit mass or volume. In a colloquial sense power is equated with energy, but they are not the same thing. I think Wikipedia should strive to be consistent with common usage in physics and engineering.

The terms power density and energy density are often used in electric vehicle engineering and describe indeed two different parameters of a battery:

• the energy density is expressed in Wh/kg. It is a measure for the amount of energy stored in a battery of a certain mass. For the vehicle, it is interesting in determining the range.
• the power density is expressed in W/kg. It is a measure for the power that a battery of a certain mass can deliver. For the vehicle, it is interesting to determine vehicle performance.

Batteries with the same electrochemical couple (e.g. lithium-ion) can be designed either focusing on energy density (for use in battery-electric vehicle) or on power density (for use in hybrid vehicle)

LHOON 05:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Featured article status by movie opening?

What would we need to do to make it to featured article status by the time Who Killed the Electric Car? opens on July 21st? AnAccount2 23:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Do the sections flow well? 71.132.151.74 10:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please see the new to-do list from peer review at the top of this talk page. AnAccount2 19:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Table formatting problem

I added a column for "green" energy (I am currenty driving an electric vehicle powered by an on-grid photovolatic system). I am viewing with Macintosh Safari and see a "1" at the bottom of the conventional energy column title header. This does not appear in the source text. Can any expert determine the fix for this (without deleting the green column)? Thanks, - Leonard G. 03:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed 70.137.155.70 03:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Fast charging info

This is from Anderson, C.D. and Anderson, J. (2005) "New Charging Systems" Electric and Hybrid Cars: a History (North Carolina: McFarland & Co., Inc.) ISBN 0-7864-1872-9, p. 121:

As early as 1995 some charging stations were offering a "short" charge of one hour.... In November 1997 the Ford Motor Company purchased a fast-charge system produced by AeroVironment called PosiCharge. This would be used to test its fleets of Ford Ranger EVs. The time required for a charge by this device was between six and fifteen minutes.... In February 1998 GM announced a new high-speed version of its Magne Charge system. The unit could recharge a ... nickel-hydride battery in about 10 minutes, and would provide a range of sixty to one hundred miles.

70.137.155.70 03:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Added to article. LossIsNotMore 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Who's Reviving the Electric Car?

Nice blog post by Joel Makower very well-researched. I think even the long list is missing some of the production vehicles mentioned -- some of them produced in the 1,000s. AnAccount2 08:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, its mostly pre-production announcements. Although, this story about a GM plug-in hybrid is encouraging. LossIsNotMore 08:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

What is a ZEBRA battery?

"ZEBRA battery from MES-DEA in Switzerland. Equipped with such a battery (325V/60Ah/160kg)" [11] -- that is certainly not the one I guessed from a Google search; does anyone have a better source? LossIsNotMore 08:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

ZEBRA is a trade name for high-temperature sodium-nickel-chloride batteries. See documents on [12] LHOON 08:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! LossIsNotMore 08:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there any link talking about their de facto standard modular form? LossIsNotMore 08:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

CEI press release argument

I removed this from the end of the first paragraph in "Controversy":

Some critics, however, contend that lack of consumer response and protection of copyrights were the reasons why the cars were destroyed and taken off the market. [See http://www.cei.org/gencon/003,05415.cfm]

"Protection of copyrights?" Anyway, the arguments in that CEI press release about consumer demand are addressed in EV1 -- the waiting list was five times as long as the number of vehicles produced. Furthermore, this is not an argument with which GM has responded to the Who Killed the Electric Car? movie. I note that edit came from the House of Representatives. LossIsNotMore 21:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we really be linking to an argument that GM isn't even using? If it's as an example, perhaps there should be prose explaining it. LossIsNotMore 07:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No Pollution Claim

The claim "They produce no pollution while being driven, and none at all if charged from most forms of renewable energy, barring battery leakage and improper disposal," appears to be inaccurate. First, even proper recycling of batteries produces some pollution, albeit much less that improper, so it is wrong to imply that proper disposal produces none. In addition, the normal degredation of the car, and the required replacement of parts due to it, is bound to be responsible for pollution (particularly since many auto parts likely incorporate plastics). I will profess semi-ignorance on my final point, but I know that electrical discharges can create ozone (a pollutant at ground level). While I know that electric motors (which include brushes) do produce ozone, I do not know enough about EV's to know if this is possible. I am going to change the sentence to reflect that they produce nearly none at all with renewable energy, and I hope someone can comment on possible ozone production. Not my leg 21:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The ozone production by electric motors is extremely limited for electric vehicles. Brush-equipped motors produce ozone when sparks occur due to bad commutation, as is inherently the case when such motors are fed by a.c. current such as in household appliances. With d.c. feed as in a BEV, sparks and ozone are negligible since the commutation is much better. Furthermore, most advanced EVs are fitted with a.c. motors which do not have brushes.

As for the pollution due to battery recycling, a good source of information is the SUBAT report available at [13]. The environmental impact of the recycling is to be considered in a life cycle analysis of the vehicle. The claim made about the pollution is related to the use phase of the vehicle only, and there it is indeed none, although one should consider indirect emissions too. I'll update the article in this sense. LHOON 21:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The intro section is supposed to be a summary of the other parts of the article, so we shouldn't have anything in there which doesn't appear in other sections, especially not details and citations. AnAccount2 03:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Does "In urban traffic, due to their beneficial effect on environment, electric vehicles are an important factor for improvement of traffic and more particularly for a healthier living environment." really summarize anything else in the article? Should it be moved from the intro to another section? AnAccount2 14:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to the environmental impact section. LossIsNotMore 01:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

World's first battery-powered manned plane flies in Japan

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/japanairbatteryplane

"Powered by 160 AA [yes, AA; non-rechargable] 'Oxyride' batteries." LossIsNotMore 21:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

link is dead

Deleted Umweltbrief electro4 paragraph

I deleted this:

German Umweltbrief want to convert an old-timer car into full electric drive with 4 wheel hub motors; a retro car for the 21th century called electro4. This drive is nearly free of abrasion and maintenance and very reliable. Further advantages are optimal capability of acceleration and best traction through individual control of the wheels. Also the power is generated in the place where its used. Gearbox, kardan shaft and drive shaft become unnecessary, which means less weight. Even an old car can get a torque of 1000 N·m. This 4WD is very silent. There is no vibration and no motor cold-running, the full energy is available immediately. Also small cars can get this system. All is combinable with anti-block system, anti-slip system, stability system, etc., climate control with a/c, heating/cabin, pre-conditioning etc.

In addition to being speculative and not very grammatical, I couldn't find any support in the external link source. LossIsNotMore 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BEV --> "electric vehicle"?

As I was reading the article, I kept asking myself "What is a BEV again?" I took the trouble of changing BEVs to electric vehicles. It reads a lot better. Jerry G. Sweeton Jr. 21:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts, and your other good edits, but "electric vehicle" has a slightly different meaning, and the current practice is to try to preserve the distinction. Frankly, I would be happier eliminating the unusual "BEV" abbreviation (and I think the style guidelines would support this.) We might be able to make some kind of a note at the top, e.g.:

Note: In this article, the term "electric vehicle" is used to refer to battery-powered EVs, and not electric vehicles in general.

However, the existing usages of "electric vehicle," which mean EVs in general, would have to be changed to "any kind of electric vehicle," or something. What do other people think of that? LossIsNotMore 08:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Eh, lets see if it bothers the FAC reviewers. AnAccount2 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that 'electric vehicle' has an obvious definition (basically, the one in the electric vehicle article). If anything, BEV is not what this article is talking about, but rather battery electric automobiles(BEA?). A RC car toy is a BEV, those battery powered microhelicopters are ELVs, the mars rovers are battery electric vehicles, even many submarines are battery powered. The battery electric automobile is actually a fairly small market compared to these other BEVs, and certainly compared to the non battery electric vehicle market (I bet NASA has spent more on BEVs than all the public BEVs put together). However, the BEA market/fanbois tend to be vocal and dominate internet discussions. So I would actually push to change the title to battery electric automobiles (or battery electric cars) and make BEV etc disambiguation pages. --njh 23:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also support Battery electric car or Battery electric automobile and note that BEV is already a disambiguation page. LossIsNotMore 21:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed my mind when I remembered the light trucks, bikes, and scooters. LossIsNotMore 04:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Battery-electric vehicles are a subset of electric vehicles. However, particularly before hybrid and fuel vehicles entered the scene, the term electric vehicle was taken as a synonym for battery-electric vehicle and is still often used as such.

Generally also, in common usage within the electric vehicle industry, vehicle is considered as road vehicle, excluding trains and the like. Abbreviations like EV or BEV are commonplace, however I hever heard the term battery electric automobile or electric automobile, nor its abbreviations LHOON 21:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Really bad paragraph

During copyedit of the "Lifespan" section, I removed this second paragraph:

New scientific and empirical evidence from running individual EV conversions shows that most of these negative factors linked to batteries connected in series for traction application can be mitigated with good DC/DC based battery management system, thermal insulation and venting, and proper care. That also includes selecting a well balanced mix of components oriented towards specific performance properties, i.e. range, speed. For instance a recombination type of lead-acid battery with C1 hour discharge rate about 120Ah (equals to 220Ah C20 "marketing rating") should be used accordingly. Therefore the EV overall consumption of particular low/mid voltage vehicle should not often exceed in this example 80-100% of this C1 hours rating — this applies for more advanced battery chemistries like Li-ion with slightly higher discharges C3-C5 as well. In this particular example, longevity of the lead-acid battery pack will be preserved by not discharging it in a prolonged or continuous regime above 120Ah currents.

If someone wants to re-write that in understandable English which would be appropriate for the context, please do. LossIsNotMore 08:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Toyota and UC Davis

While mulling around for the best Toyota PHEV announcement sources, I came across this interesting tidbit:

"Fans of such ultra-efficient cars like the plug-in hybrid can thank Andy Frank, a professor at the University of California at Davis, who led a group of engineering students in making a plug-in hybrid. They swapped out the hybrid's large gasoline motor and small electric motor for a small gasoline engine and big electric motor. The result is a 325-horsepower Ford Explorer that achieves 100-plus miles per gallon and can go 50 miles without starting the gasoline engine.

"Frank initially tried to interest Detroit in his vehicle but Toyota was the manufacturer that ran with the idea: It 'borrowed' Frank's SUV, shipped it to Japan and had its technicians minutely analyze the vehicle."

AnAccount2 07:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

FAC

"someone else suggested at least one per paragraph! That would be about 80." He also suggested using the Cite.php citation mechanism to reduce the size of the references section when 1 source can be used in multiple places to cite the facts of the article. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. In my limited experience, using {{cite}} templates increased the length of the citations quite a bit. How do you use them for redundant citations? I thought that was the <ref name="refname">...</ref>...<ref name="refname" /> format -- is that what you are referring to? So far, we don't have any such multiple-use references. AnAccount2 00:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, to clarify - cite.php is <ref name="refname">...</ref>...<ref name="refname" /> and can be found at WP:FN. It is used for multiple references - what I was suggesting - if you are trying to achieve a min. of one citation per paragraph is that you may well end up with multiple citations and this method would help reduce the size of the reference section.It can also be used in conjunction with {{cite book}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and any other referencing template you might care to use.--Mcginnly | Natter 08:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"D" cells

I can not remember were I read that the patent situation would allow a 100% NiMH solution without restriction if each battery was "D" size or smaller. For those of you who have access to patent case law or similar databases, please look in to the situation. LossIsNotMore 06:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Future of electric vehicles today

You may have seen the Tesla electric sportscar http://www.teslamotors.com

You may have even seen the T-Zero electric sports car http://www.acpropulsion.com/ACP_FAQs.htm

These two cars show that it is now possible to build electric cars that can out-accelerate a Ferrari, and go 250 - 350 miles on a single charge. But both these cars are very expensive.

So who else is working on electric cars?

Would you believe China? They have to work on EVs. There won't be enough oil to support China's future economic growth.

I drive an old electric vehicle. I also have friends with electric vehicles. Some of them have recently been able to buy some amazing, cutting-edge EV batteries from China - example:

http://www.everspring.net/product-battery.htm

These batteries are better, and cheaper than the ones in those $100,000+ sportscars above. If you look at the chart, you'll see they are as cheap as lead-acid batteries, and they hold up for 1100 charges, twice as many charges as the other LI-Ion batteries on the chart.

Now, look at this car:

http://www.milesautomotive.com/products_xs200.html

It's a Chinese electric car, which will be imported into the USA next year. The driving range is almost as good as those sports cars above. But it only costs $28500. And that price could get a lot cheaper.

Speaking of which, I added this line regarding Eliica:

"However, current models cost approximately $300,000 US, about half of which is the cost of the batteries."

This was mentioned on a show about it on the Discovery Channel a while ago, unfortunately I can't find any price info on the car's web site. 65.95.157.80 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Claims about everspring batteries need to be substantiated. all we see right now is an amateurish website that does not give anyone confidence in their claims.

Today's Prices

In the table of production vehicles, their cost is listed, but due to inflation the costs of old cars is much lower while proportionally about the same. Perhaps someone should add a column listing how much that price translates to in today's economy? 65.95.157.80 22:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Commentary: Which company is going to be first with practical...

Phoenix Motorcars, Zap, Mitsubishi, Smart EV, and who knows who else said they are bringing low cost freeway capable electric cars to market.

• Mitsubishi to sell electric car in the U.S.
• Smart EV
• ZAP Manufacturing plant to be completed by Summer 2007, Obvio EV
• Phoenix Motorcars - all-electric sport utility vehicle (SUV) [14]

All based on li-ion technology. Who do you think is going to win the race to bring a practicle electrical car to market? Who ever it is, my prediction is that demand will far exceed supply if it has the quality and warranty of a Toyota Prius. Looks like end of 2007 is going to be an exciting time for EV fans. Daniel.Cardenas 01:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Battery Costs, we need hard numbers not dodges around the issue

In the section about rav4 ev it is claimed that the cost of the battery is partially or fully covered by the lower maintenance cost of ev vs ic vehicle upkeep costs. but where are the numbers? am i to take your word for it? it seems wishful without the hard numbers and so is hard to trust. what is the cost of the rav4's nimh pack, if that is unknown what is the cost of its main components, the cells. one can't talk about how cheap ev's are to operate and dodge this central issue without looking dishonest. people want to know what are the true costs before they make up their minds. and well while we are at it what are the costs of a liion pack? never mind one for something light weight like a tesla 2 seater, but one that could power a real car. it must be part of the equation or it is just the elephant in the room that undercuts any arguement made for evs. people can sense when they are not being told the whole truth

Claims of demand based on telephone surveys need further evidence

talk is cheap. claiming you would buy the electric vehicle of your dreams is different from paying for what is on sale and at a very high price. such surveys are irrelevant. if you asked someone if they would buy a 100mpg suv, what do you think they would say? no? but it has no bearing on reality.

Patent controversy needs serious proof

Where is the link to the patent? patents are publicly accessible.

how much were these large format nimhs? how much power could they hold compared to li-ion? all this needs to be shown and verified, it has to be more than a manufacturer claim. If this is a conspiracy and the reason why the electric car fails in the us, why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable? that section seems to be based on the assumption the nimh's were the magic bullet for viability. this needs proof to be more than conspiratorial mumbo jumbo.

I'm just talking below. Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with anything.

>Where is the link to the patent?

I read a news story that chevron or some oil company threatened a lawsuit on Toyota because of the batteries in their hybrids. They settled out of court where Toyota agreed to keep their batteries small.

>how much power could they hold compared to li-ion?

Li-ion is better, but car manufacturers are very conservative with new technology. If you studied new technology trends in the auto industry you might see that it takes 5 years before the technology is in showrooms. Lots of safety concerns, durability concerns, and then time to mass produce. Right now they are concerned about cold weather power. Would be nice if they just started selling them to warm weather areas.

>why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable?

Keep in mind that the U.S. is the worlds largest car market. You'd be surprised how many cards get sold in the U.S. compared to over seas. I've read that a manufacturer has to produce at least 40K cars per year in order to make it profitable.

Daniel.Cardenas 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

only 40k? because the markets in europe and japan are just simply huge as well. and they have plenty of cars models that we do not have. so simply not having an american market is not enough to sink a car at all. in fact some european car brands aren't even sold in the us;) think french/italian...

>why does it not work over seas where the patent is apparently not applicable?

Actually they claim worldwide patent rights. Daniel.Cardenas 22:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

actually there are limits to patent holders rights. it would seem to be a case where companies could sue over violation of antitrust laws. and in other countries i'm sure the laws against such stuff is even stronger.

and well i'm pretty sure the eu or japan have the power to basically ignore this patent limitation if they so choose. i do remember hearing about different patent laws over things like software in the eu, so its not all the same.

I see the discussion of pressure from Cheveron's NiMH patents has been completely removed. When it was in there, it looked like it was fairly well-documented. Could that be put back in, please? 75.18.201.56 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Detractors arguments

I deleted some pro arguments added to detractors arguments. The detractors need to state their arguments without counter point. Otherwise it will be an endless game of point and counter point. Positive points for BEVs need to be made in the appropriate section.

However, the cost of operation per mile is greatly lower in BEVs (roughly one cent per mile);

Not relevant to the point that coal produces much of this countries electricity.

However, the Tesla Roadster goes 250 miles per charge and the average american only drives 60 miles per day. ;

Tesla costs $100K. Any problem can be solved with money, but doesn't mean it is practicle.

However, this is in a limited production scenario and when mass manufactured, they can be sold at massively reduces prices than this.

Mass production lowering prices isn't a given. Li-ion batteries require cobalt. GM said there isn't enough cobalt in the world. Similar situation with NiMH batteries and nickel I think I'll stop here unless someone wants me to continue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel.Cardenas (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm a bit new to Wikipedia, but it seems that this pro/con is very one-sided. The detractors must have better arguments than the ones listed here, and more importantly, the detractor arguments should not be countered within the detractor section. The pro arguments in the previous section do not have a similar treatment, leaving an implication of bias.

ZENN

Should we add ZENN to the production model list, or does it not meet the "sold to fleet" market criterion? ZENN's home page states that "The ZENN is now in full production." Note that this is the lead-acid battery-based car.

My opinion is no. It is not a notable BEV. It is a golf cart type vehicle, not allowed on major streets. Daniel.Cardenas 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The legal categorization is low-speed vehicle (LSV), which is distinct from golf carts. LSVs are street-legal on roads with speed limits up to 35mph in all but 6 U.S. states. That would include many "major streets", but of course almost no major highways.

If LSVs don't belong on the list, then other LSVs such as the ZAP Xebra and REVA should be removed, don't you think? In the meantime, I've added REVA to the examples list in neighborhood electric vehicle (ZAP and ZENN were already there).Jfinlayson 17:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

ZAP and REVA are not limited to 25mph top speed so there is a big difference. REVA is 45mph in England and allowed on major streets. Similar with ZAP in the U.S. Daniel.Cardenas 19:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If the answer to that is yes, the next question is: When they start making their EEStor-powered cars later this year, would that belong here? EEStor is a supercapacitor, not a battery, so perhaps not. Opinions? Jfinlayson 20:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I hope we can use the loose definition of battery, something that holds electrical energy. "An apparatus for generating voltaic electricity." - 1913 Webster

Daniel.Cardenas 21:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that the EEStor-powered ZENN will also be a low-speed vehicle (LSV), just like their current lead-acid model. If being an LSV means the latter doesn't belong on the list, I imagine the EEStor version would also not belong. Or are you opining that the fact that it is uniquely EEStor-based rather than lead-acid-based pushes its notability up, even though the performance specs and road restrictions are the same? A similar argument could be made to keep the first two vehicles on the BEV list (historically notable, even though low-speed). Jfinlayson 17:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That is contrary to reports that I read. I remember reading the ZENN people saying the EEStor will allow them to produce highway speed vehicles. If it is still going to be limited to 25mph then it is not notable. Daniel.Cardenas 19:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that's about right. The most reliable-sounding report to me is from an interview with ZENN's CEO, who apparently indicated that they would initially install it in their LSV, then "seriously look at a high-speed platform and make a highway-ready vehicle if the technology is as good as the hushed rumors suggest" [15]. So the LSV is first up -- that's what's on the assembly line -- then maybe a yet-to-be-designed highway-capable vehicle. Of course, it's entirely possible that neither vehicle ever makes it to market. After all, we're talking about an unproven technology from a shadowy company (EESTOR). Jfinlayson 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

I reverted an insert to a link that claims that the Tesla is the fastest electric car. Actually the Eliica is the fastest electric car. Also the Tesla is not in production yet. If you disagree with this revert, let me know. You may also want to read wp:el before insterting external links Daniel.Cardenas 18:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Bias Part II

What the hell is this, indymedia? On future section it saids that US auto makers and oil companies are conspiring bla bla bla with no citation and obviously very (liberal POV) What the US auto make has to do with supressing the Lithium Ion batteries? Wikipeida is not a hotbed for FoxNews and indymedia rubbish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbrian80 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Where do you see indymedia? What is it? I couldn't find it. I couldn't find the word conspir... Please be more specific. Daniel.Cardenas 19:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

POV problems

While I'm all for BEV's becoming available, this article is not close to NPOV. Looking back in on the article after a couple years I see that there are still numerous uncited and unsupportable statements, and many that are exaggerated. As soon as I get a chance I'll pull out a bunch of it to point out the specific problems. Further examples are using press releases to cite facts, which don't count as reliable sources. It would be better to not have distorted information that to leave it in. - Taxman ^Talk 22:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are four diffs to show examples of what I've referring to. There's lots more to go. [16] [17] [18] [19]. - Taxman ^Talk 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy effeciency and carbon dioxide emmisions

The current revision says:

Production and conversion BEVs using NiMH battery chemistry typically use 0.3 to 0.5 kilowatt-hours per mile (0.2–0.3 kWh/km).[6][7] Nearly half of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries. The US fleet average of 23 miles per gallon of gasoline is equivalent to 1.58 kWh per mile...

This is very misleading because it is comparing two different forms of energy: chemical and electrical. There are inherent losses in converting chemical energy into electrical energy (e.g., burning coal at a power plant). I think there should be a note in this paragraph explaining this, but I'm not sure how best to integrate it with the following paragraph discussing "well-to-wheel" efficiency. As a side note, there seems to be a lot of misdirection in the article with respect to renewable/sustainable electrical energy production. There are suggestions that if a BEV were recharged from renewable energy sources, there would be a lot less pollution. Well, if homes and businesses were powered by renewable energy sources, there were be a great reduction in pollution too. Why not first examine BEVs in the status quo, and then mention the possibilities for improvement if they were coupled with renewable energy sources? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.215.101 (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Speculation and original research

There is a lot of speculation in this article and people writing up their theories. While most of it is interesting, it is against wikipedia policy. I ask that this type of discussion not be put in the main article. Perhaps this discussion page would be a better place. An example of this is the "battery swap" talk. If there are no citations then it can be considered speculation or original research. Daniel.Cardenas 14:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You weren't kidding. Let me know if I missed any. James S. 02:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Using old batteries

User Robsahl editing the article adding information about using old batteries in 6 places. I wasn't sure were it should go so I removed them all. Please suggest where is the single best place in the article where this information should go, if it should go anywhere. Daniel.Cardenas 05:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did nobody notice a glaring spelling error on the second word?

I noticed the article said "attery electric vehicle" not "battery electric vehicle" - it's the second word in the article, and nobody noticed it was misspelled? I'm surprised. Anyways, my first minor edit on a wikipedia article . . . CobraA1 00:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Some newly registered user, Alexinm, vandalized the page less than an hour prior to your edit. Daniel.Cardenas 00:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I looked through the history of the article, and you're right. Odd that a vandal would change a single letter. Accidental edit by a newcomer, perhaps? CobraA1

Superceded gif by svg - removed from TODO list

I moved the gif image to the commons and converted to SVG. Could someone please check the license is correct? I've kept the original (PD because US gov work) but I'm not sure I should have made it that way. Note I've updated Electric vehicle, Plug-in hybrid and Hybrid vehicle drivetrains to use the new svg version on the commons.
MaxDZ8 talk 07:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Vehicles in use

Nice chart. Since it is semi log you can see that growth up until about 2002 was exponential. New data is expected June 2007 (originally projected January 2007). Previous data went up to the current year (2000 data included 2000, 2004 data included 2004). 199.125.109.120 17:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

BEVs and kinetic energy

BEVs are currently the ONLY type of vehicle able to capture and reuse kinetic energy. A vehicle MUST have an electric motor/generator and battery to store kinetic energy in ways such as regerative braking. There is no other known mechanism.

The energy is sometimes stored in a flywheel, not a battery. Dicklyon 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hybrids can capture kinetic energy. U.S. government is experimenting with hydraulic system to capture energy. Ultra large capacitors are being researched too. Daniel.Cardenas 17:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

I tagged every sentence in the third paragraph with "fact" and "dubious" tags. Please discuss here if you want to remove either of them for a sentence.

• "The price of an EV is set by market factors not cost." Huh? Maybe the claim should be clarified, because on the face of it, that just doesn't make sense. I suppose the price of anything could be similarly claimed, but cost is also a factor; if price is less than cost, you go out of business.

I think it was just an introduction to the paragraph. Many items such as CDs and gasoline are priced by market factors and not cost - CDs cost a few pennies at most to make, and even with all the fancy packaging are less than a quarter, yet they sell for $15. Throw in a buck for the artist and you still have a whopping profit. Perceived value sets the price, since the supply is effectively infinite. Gasoline has never cost more than a dollar a gallon, but supply and demand make the price very sensitive, plus the Europeans have always been sensible in taxing it up to 4 bucks a gallon - the US takes the silly approach of letting the oil companies pocket the profit. The airlines have defied logic by operating at a price less than cost for years and still survived. Right now you could buy all of General Motors for a penny if you agreed to take on all of their debt, as they have no net value. 199.125.109.77 07:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• "For equivalent production volumes battery EVs should be cheaper than internal combustion engine vehicles because they have many fewer parts." The logic is just flawed here. BEVs could be said to have fewer parts, in general, depending on how you count them, but different parts cost different amounts of money, so fewer parts doesn't necessarily mean production volumes of EVs would be cheaper.

Fewer parts usually results in lower cost. Since no EV has been mass produced there is no benchline to demonstrate. GM clearly pulled the plug long before the answer was known. 199.125.109.77 07:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• "This also means they are cheaper to maintain." Again, this is flawed logic. Maintenance costs are not directly correlated to the number of parts. With very few parts, if they're breakage-prone and very epensive, that could cost more than a vehicle with more parts. I'm not saying that's the case with BEVs, just that the logic here is false.

The movie Who Killed the Electric Car shows a raft of maintenance items not needed in an EV, and says that the EVs were brought in every 5,000 miles, the tires rotated and the windshield washer filled and sent back out again. I would call that a whole lot cheaper to maintain. 199.125.109.77 07:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• "They are less expensive to operate by a factor of ten over gasoline." I just doubt it; needs a citation, with an explanation of the assumptions (electric vs gasoline costs, whether it's including maintenance estimates, etc.)

There is extensive information in the Tesla Roadster article about operating cost. Typically operating cost of an EV is about 2-3 cents/mile vs 20 or more for a gasoline car (unless you are driving a Prius). 199.125.109.77 07:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Using regenerative braking, a feature which is standard on electric cars, allows hybrids to get about double the fuel efficiency of regular cars." Regenerative braking helps, but the combustion engine also charges the battery. Double the fuel efficiency is arguable, but even granting that, I really doubt it's due entirely to regenerative braking. Source?

-Agyle 10:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is information that the Prius has too small a battery to absorb all the energy recoverable from regenerative braking and that when the battery size is increased by making a plug-in one of the advantages gained is added fuel economy from regenerative braking. There is an online view of Google's fleet of plug-in hybrids. Since highway driving involves almost no braking, clearly it is unaffected by hybrid technology. 199.125.109.77 07:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Less emissions et al

I love EVs and even I found this article far too "pro-EV" to be a realistic portrayal of where we're at with the technology.

Of issue:

(1) Bias. The article sounds like a political campaign. Talk the facts, talk the tech, leave opinions out of it. The science reporting is so poor and quite opinion tainted. The bad thing is I SUPPORT EV's and whatever we have to do to get them, that opinion has no place here.

(2) Most of the "over 60 mpg" vehicles for fuel economy belong to diesels. Stating "twice the average" isn't apples to apples. Take a look at EVs as a vehicle. Compare them equivalent vehicles, not the "fleet average".

(3) Mostly supplement lack of engine power with electric power. The fact that they can run their small engine in the high efficiency band (about 60% full power) when it runs, use regen braking (in town) and shut off the engine when possible is what makes them so efficient.

(4) I've seen a few powerplant to wheel discussions in my magazines. I didn't look any up but the burn-wheel efficiency is nothing like the 7:1 or 3:1 ratios you discuss (this is purely from memory so it's very prone to error). Best I recall the fuel->wheel efficieny for power plant charged EVs was about 1.5:1 over stock IC powered vehicles (non-diesel) and pretty close to 1:1 for diesels (same sized vehicles).

(5) We can use "low environmental impact" renewable fuels for IC engines too. The popular ones are "carbon neutral" (or nearly so).

(6) Operating costs 10:1 cheaper? I'm not sure what's being considered here in "operating costs", but I seriously doubt that's anywhere close to correct. That's only an opinion. But fuel, in my C5 Corvette (which I get over 30 mpg in for most tankfuls during the warm months, 26ish during the winter) accounts for 21% of my operating cost. I drive it about 25,000 miles per year and include all vehicle costs in that figure. Premium gas is about $3 a gallon in my area.

(6) Battery life claims are yet to be determined, but are being achieved by using only a small fraction of the battery's capacity rather than discharge it. That's a major "kluge" in my opinion and not one worth mentioning. Putting 50KWH worth of battery in a car to use only 10KWH of its capacity isn't a battery storage solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.104.37.18 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The book "Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy" states that Phoenix is coming out with a pickup truck this year with batteries that have been tested to last for 15,000 deep discharge cycles (pg. 66), making this battery excellent for V2G applications. 199.125.109.29 23:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)