http://www.a123systems.com/html/news...051102_pr.html

--
*Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:10:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

http://www.a123systems.com/html/news...051102_pr.html

Sadly no actual figures.

Still the non inflammable bit sounds good.

As I said, things are developing nicely in this area.
The RC boys are already discussing stripping these out of the new power
tools and flying them...prices are a fair bit lower we think than existing
cells..although actual performance has yet to be established.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 10:10:58 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

http://www.a123systems.com/html/news...051102_pr.html

Sadly no actual figures.

Still the non inflammable bit sounds good.

As I said, things are developing nicely in this area.
The RC boys are already discussing stripping
these out of the new power

tools and flying them...prices are a fair bit lower we think than existing
cells..although actual performance has yet to be established.

These batteries are only what is on the market 'now' - and that is
impressive enough. In the labs the performance is even better and the US
government is pouring billions into battery research. I can see well within
10 years full EV cars around, and quite quickly they will replace the
current polluting antiquate crocks. On 'currently available' technology the
EV is 100% feasible. If the decision to roll out the infrastructure for
charging, by the time it is in place battery technology will have improved
greatly.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

These batteries are only what is on the market 'now' - and that is
impressive enough. In the labs the performance is even better and the US
government is pouring billions into battery research. I can see well
within 10 years full EV cars around, and quite quickly they will replace
the current polluting antiquate crocks. On 'currently available'
technology the EV is 100% feasible. If the decision to roll out the
infrastructure for charging, by the time it is in place battery
technology will have improved greatly.


You don't get it, do you? The energy for these electric cars still has
to come from somewhere - where do you think that will be?

In other words, why is it better to burn the fossil fuel in a power
station than in a car engine?

Electric cars are only worth thinking about once a significant
percentage of domestic electricity is derived from nuclear or renewables.



--
Grunff

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:15:03 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

These batteries are only what is on the market 'now' - and that is
impressive enough. In the labs the performance is even better and the US
government is pouring billions into battery research. I can see well
within 10 years full EV cars around, and quite quickly they will replace
the current polluting antiquate crocks. On 'currently available'
technology the EV is 100% feasible. If the decision to roll out the
infrastructure for charging, by the time it is in place battery
technology will have improved greatly.


You don't get it, do you? The energy for these electric cars still has
to come from somewhere - where do you think that will be?

In other words, why is it better to burn the fossil fuel in a power
station than in a car engine?

Because it is much easier and effective to deal with emissions etc. when power is produced 'in
bulk', and the grid allows power to be sourced from a variety of different methods depending on
availability and demand.

Mike Harrison wrote:

Because it is much easier and effective to deal with emissions etc. when power is produced 'in
bulk'

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Compare the
efficiency of a car engine with the efficiency of an electric car
(end-to-end).



and the grid allows power to be sourced from a variety of different methods depending on
availability and demand.

Again, only in theory. In practice the source is gas, oil and coal.

Theory is great, the real world is different.


--
Grunff

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:45:09 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Mike Harrison wrote:

Because it is much easier and effective to deal with emissions etc. when power is produced 'in
bulk'

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Compare the
efficiency of a car engine with the efficiency of an electric car
(end-to-end).



and the grid allows power to be sourced from a variety of different methods depending on
availability and demand.

Again, only in theory. In practice the source is gas, oil and coal.

Theory is great, the real world is different.

If nothing else it moves the emissions from 'everywhere' to a few locations, so it has the potential
for huge improvements in air quality in built-up areas.

Grunff wrote:

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Compare the
efficiency of a car engine with the efficiency of an electric car
(end-to-end).

I'd be surprised if it works out that way. IC vehicle engines spend a
lot of time running at very low or zero efficiency in slow-moving or
stationary traffic. I've no idea what the overall real-world efficiency
of IC-engined vehicles actually is, but (guessing) I'd doubt it's more
than 20%.

Electric vehicles should win hands-down, as the standing losses are so
much less, and the power conversion efficiency through the inverter and
motors should be quite high (80%?). A modern combined-cycle gas-fired
power station approaches 50% thermal efficiency. AIUI electricity
distribution losses are 10-15%, so the overall efficiency is over 40%.
Now what's the overall efficiency of the battery charge-discharge cycle?
If it's higher than 60% (as surely it should be) then the electric
vehicle probably wins (YMMV).

--
Andy

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

These batteries are only what is on the market 'now' - and that is
impressive enough. In the labs the performance is even better and the US
government is pouring billions into battery research. I can see well
within 10 years full EV cars around, and quite quickly they will replace
the current polluting antiquate crocks. On 'currently available'
technology the EV is 100% feasible. If the decision to roll out the
infrastructure for charging, by the time it is in place battery
technology will have improved greatly.

You don't get it, do you?

More than what you will ever know.

The energy for these electric cars still has to come from somewhere -
where do you think that will be?

A power station.

In other words, why is it better to burn the fossil fuel in a power
station than in a car engine?

You didn't read did you:

The gripe by environmentalists is that electricity is dirty and inefficient
from power station to point use with latent heat and line losses. True when
looking at heating buildings and hot water, where natural gas can be burnt
at point of use at 90% efficiency. Heating your domestic hot water by
electricity is about 30% efficient end to end.

However power generation is now more efficient with energy reclaim measures
in place in the newer and more advanced stations - not to mention wind,
solar, wave hydro etc. However, the vehicle is another matter. It is more
efficient to pour fuel into an engine at a power station:

- with advanced stack scrubbers,
- that drives a genny,
- that sends the electricity down a line,
- then into a cars battery
- and then propels the car,

....than pour the fuel directly into a current car.

75% of energy stored in your tank is WASTED, while only a few percentage
points of energy is wasted from a battery pack - and the electric car is
100% clean at point of use, cleaning up cities at a STROKE.

Electric cars are also brilliant and super quiet to drive. The only thing
that will prevent this charge towards 100% electric is the vested interest
of auto and oil giants (who want to go hydrogen and fuel cell as well) and
lack of political will - and ignorance too. Interesting times ahead and the
back of filthy agricultural diesels we may see for good.

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Mike Harrison wrote:

Because it is much easier and effective
to deal with emissions etc. when
power is produced 'in bulk'

Yep.

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Compare the
efficiency of a car engine with the efficiency of an electric car
(end-to-end).

Yep, the efficiency of the electric is superior, and clean at point of use
reducing misery amongst millions of repertory sufferers because of pollution
by these vast inefficient pollution machines.

and the grid allows power to be
sourced from a variety of different
methods depending on
availability and demand.

Again, only in theory. In practice the
source is gas, oil and coal.

Theory is great, the real world is different.

You mean your perception of the world is different.

"Mike Harrison" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:45:09 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Mike Harrison wrote:

Because it is much easier and effective to deal with emissions etc. when
power is produced 'in
bulk'

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Compare the
efficiency of a car engine with the efficiency of an electric car
(end-to-end).



and the grid allows power to be sourced from a variety of different
methods depending on
availability and demand.

Again, only in theory. In practice the source is gas, oil and coal.

Theory is great, the real world is different.

If nothing else it moves the emissions
from 'everywhere' to a few locations,
so it has the potential for huge
improvements in air quality in built-up areas.

Which is 95% of us.

"Andy Wade" wrote in message
...
Grunff wrote:

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Compare the
efficiency of a car engine with the efficiency of an electric car
(end-to-end).

I'd be surprised if it works out that way. IC vehicle engines spend a lot
of time running at very low or zero efficiency in slow-moving or
stationary traffic. I've no idea what the overall real-world efficiency
of IC-engined vehicles actually is, but (guessing) I'd doubt it's more
than 20%.

Yep. Efficiencies are always quoted at full warm up and at optimum
conditions and speeds, etc. In practice millions of small cars are hardly
up to temperature as they only go a mile or to the supermarket, burning
excess fuel, and in that time doing about 8 mpg or so. Not to mention
polluting like mad while warming up.

Electric vehicles should win hands-down, as the standing losses are so
much less, and the power conversion efficiency through the inverter and
motors should be quite high (80%?).

95% plus now.

A modern combined-cycle gas-fired power station approaches 50% thermal
efficiency. AIUI electricity distribution losses are 10-15%, so the
overall efficiency is over 40%. Now what's the overall efficiency of the
battery charge-discharge cycle? If it's higher than 60% (as surely it
should be)

In the 90 percents.

then the electric vehicle probably wins (YMMV).

It wins hands down. Technology is here right now to move over car and light
commercials to electric drive. All it needs is political will to get the
recharging infrastructure in place - Toshiba batteries can take 80% charge
in 3 mins and full in 5. Mitsubishi have an all electric car designed with
a clean sheet, coming in a few years or so (motor in wheel hub). By the
time it is on the market, battery technology will have improved enormously
too. All win, win, all the way.

Fuel Cells may be viable for heavier vehicles. No need for them in normal
everyday cars at all, as full EV will more than do. And no regular
expensive servicing except tyre changes. Brakes will be regen with a very
low mechanical wear factor that will show up as a dash light when attention
is needed.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:15:03 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

These batteries are only what is on the market 'now' - and that is
impressive enough. In the labs the performance is even better and the US
government is pouring billions into battery research. I can see well
within 10 years full EV cars around, and quite quickly they will replace
the current polluting antiquate crocks. On 'currently available'
technology the EV is 100% feasible. If the decision to roll out the
infrastructure for charging, by the time it is in place battery
technology will have improved greatly.


You don't get it, do you? The energy for these electric cars still has
to come from somewhere - where do you think that will be?

Who cares, at least they would be tax free electrons...

Would be quite handy to have domestic microCHP though, just charge it
while the CH is running, at gas prices too.

Anyone know how many kWh/mile equivalent a typical car uses?

cheers,
Pete.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:45:09 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Mike Harrison wrote:

Because it is much easier and effective to deal with emissions etc. when power is produced 'in
bulk'

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Compare the
efficiency of a car engine with the efficiency of an electric car
(end-to-end).

and the grid allows power to be sourced from a variety of different methods depending on
availability and demand.

Again, only in theory. In practice the source is gas, oil and coal.

25% nuclear, and IIRC 3 or 7% wind, and a smattering of other sources. So
by no means all oil coal and gas.

Theory is great, the real world is different.

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 20:08:35 +0000, Pete C wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:15:03 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

These batteries are only what is on the market 'now' - and that is
impressive enough. In the labs the performance is even better and the US
government is pouring billions into battery research. I can see well
within 10 years full EV cars around, and quite quickly they will replace
the current polluting antiquate crocks. On 'currently available'
technology the EV is 100% feasible. If the decision to roll out the
infrastructure for charging, by the time it is in place battery
technology will have improved greatly.


You don't get it, do you? The energy for these electric cars still has
to come from somewhere - where do you think that will be?

Who cares, at least they would be tax free electrons...

Would be quite handy to have domestic microCHP though, just charge it
while the CH is running, at gas prices too.

Anyone know how many kWh/mile equivalent a typical car uses?


Small car about 600Wh/mile
cheers,
Pete.

"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 07 Jan 2006 14:15:03 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Doctor Drivel wrote:

These batteries are only what is on the market 'now' - and that is
impressive enough. In the labs the performance is even better and the US
government is pouring billions into battery research. I can see well
within 10 years full EV cars around, and quite quickly they will replace
the current polluting antiquate crocks. On 'currently available'
technology the EV is 100% feasible. If the decision to roll out the
infrastructure for charging, by the time it is in place battery
technology will have improved greatly.


You don't get it, do you? The energy for these electric cars still has
to come from somewhere - where do you think that will be?

Who cares, at least they would be tax free electrons...

Would be quite handy to have domestic microCHP though, just charge it
while the CH is running, at gas prices too.

Anyone know how many kWh/mile equivalent a typical car uses?

cheers,
Pete.

In the states, priuses are being converted to a 9kwh battery pack, this
gives the equivalent cost per mile of 180 mpg till it runs out (about 40
miles at sub 40 mph) then the standard system comes back in and you get 50
mpg , or of course if you need more than 40 mph it is available from the
start.
http://www.calcars.org/
However, lots of commutes are sub 20 miles each way on congested roads, so
the conversion must be very nice to have.

mrcheerful

In article ,
mrcheerful
. wrote:
In the states, priuses are being converted to a 9kwh battery pack, this
gives the equivalent cost per mile of 180 mpg till it runs out (about 40
miles at sub 40 mph) then the standard system comes back in and you get
50 mpg , or of course if you need more than 40 mph it is available from
the start. http://www.calcars.org/ However, lots of commutes are sub 20
miles each way on congested roads, so the conversion must be very nice
to have.

This '180 mpg' depends on using untaxed domestic electricity to charge the
battery and comparing the cost to that of taxed petrol. However, if you
run a diesel on free old chip oil you might get 1000 mpg + using the same
flawed comparison.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
In article ,
mrcheerful
. wrote:
In the states, priuses are being converted to a 9kwh battery pack, this
gives the equivalent cost per mile of 180 mpg till it runs out (about 40
miles at sub 40 mph) then the standard system comes back in and you get
50 mpg , or of course if you need more than 40 mph it is available from
the start. http://www.calcars.org/ However, lots of commutes are sub 20
miles each way on congested roads, so the conversion must be very nice
to have.

This '180 mpg' depends on using untaxed domestic electricity to charge the
battery and comparing the cost to that of taxed petrol. However, if you
run a diesel on free old chip oil you might get 1000 mpg + using the same
flawed comparison.

Knock on the neighbours door and ask them for chip oil because you are going
to work? Wow!

In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
This '180 mpg' depends on using untaxed domestic electricity to charge the
battery and comparing the cost to that of taxed petrol. However, if you
run a diesel on free old chip oil you might get 1000 mpg + using the same
flawed comparison.

Knock on the neighbours door and ask them for chip oil because you are going
to work? Wow!

I saw a TV program a month or two back (can't remember what it was)
where this was demonstrated, and the presentor went out in in the
car using chip oil. No mention that it might be illegal, etc.

--
Andrew Gabriel

In article ,
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
This '180 mpg' depends on using untaxed domestic electricity to
charge the battery and comparing the cost to that of taxed petrol.
However, if you run a diesel on free old chip oil you might get 1000
mpg + using the same flawed comparison.

Knock on the neighbours door and ask them for chip oil because you are
going to work? Wow!

I saw a TV program a month or two back (can't remember what it was)
where this was demonstrated, and the presentor went out in in the car
using chip oil. No mention that it might be illegal, etc.

It's not illegal but you have to pay tax on it. Same as will happen when
mains electricity charged EVs become common.

I have a pal at work that runs his car on waste commercial kitchen oil.
All really you need to do is to leave it to settle then draw the clean
stuff out from the middle. Fat floats on the top, solid waste goes to the
bottom.

--
*Ham and Eggs: Just a day's work for a chicken, but a lifetime commitment

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Andrew Gabriel" wrote in message
.. .
In article ews.net,
"Doctor Drivel" writes:
"Dave Plowman (News)" through a haze of senile
flatulence wrote in message ...
This '180 mpg' depends on using untaxed domestic electricity to charge
the
battery and comparing the cost to that of taxed petrol. However, if you
run a diesel on free old chip oil you might get 1000 mpg + using the
same
flawed comparison.

Knock on the neighbours door and ask them for chip oil because you are
going
to work? Wow!

I saw a TV program a month or two back (can't remember what it was)
where this was demonstrated, and the presentor went out in in the
car using chip oil. No mention that it might be illegal, etc.

It is suspect. It contains no cleansing additives etc. It is also like
following a chip shop it stinks so much. You have to pay tax on the fuel.
Rather you than me.

Grunff wrote:
Mike Harrison wrote:

Because it is much easier and effective to deal with emissions etc. when power is produced 'in
bulk'

In theory, yes. In practice, it doesn't work that way. Compare the
efficiency of a car engine with the efficiency of an electric car
(end-to-end).



and the grid allows power to be sourced from a variety of different methods depending on
availability and demand.

Again, only in theory. In practice the source is gas, oil and coal.

Theory is great, the real world is different.

And it never will be while people with attitudes like yours remain
wedded to the IC engine.

MBQ

wrote:

And it never will be while people with attitudes like yours remain
wedded to the IC engine.

??

What are you on about? Let me repeat, in simpler terms:

"It is not necessarily better to burn fossil fules in a power station
than in an IC engine."

Which bit of that do you disagree with?


--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
wrote:

And it never will be while people with attitudes like yours remain
wedded to the IC engine.

??

What are you on about? Let me repeat, in simpler terms:

"It is not necessarily better to burn fossil fules in a power station than
in an IC engine."

You didn't read did you!!

The gripe by environmentalists is that electricity is dirty and inefficient
from power station to point use with latent heat and line losses. True when
looking at heating buildings and hot water, where natural gas can be burnt
at point of use at 90% efficiency. Heating your domestic hot water by
electricity is about 30% efficient end to end.

However power generation is now more efficient with energy reclaim measures
in place in the newer and more advanced stations - not to mention wind,
solar, wave hydro etc. However, the vehicle is another matter. It is more
efficient to pour fuel into an engine at a power station:

- with advanced stack scrubbers,
- that drives a genny,
- that sends the electricity down a line,
- then into a cars battery
- and then propels the car,

....than pour the fuel directly into a current car.

75% of energy stored in your tank is WASTED, while only a few percentage
points of energy is wasted from a battery pack - and the electric car is
100% clean at point of use, cleaning up cities at a STROKE.

Electric cars are also brilliant and super quiet to drive. The only thing
that will prevent this charge towards 100% electric is the vested interest
of auto and oil giants (who want to go hydrogen and fuel cell as well) and
lack of political will - and ignorance too. Interesting times ahead and the
back of filthy agricultural diesels we may see for good.

Doctor Drivel wrote:

- with advanced stack scrubbers,

Scrubbers have nothing to do with efficiency - in fact, running them is
quite expensive energetically.

Electric cars are also brilliant and super quiet to drive. The only thing
that will prevent this charge towards 100% electric is the vested
interest of auto and oil giants (who want to go hydrogen and fuel cell
as well) and lack of political will - and ignorance too. Interesting
times ahead and the
back of filthy agricultural diesels we may see for good.

You misunderstand me. I'm actually quite pro electric vehicles, with the
following provisos:

1. That the energy used to charge them doesn't come from fossil fuels

2. That the battery technology is significantly better than what we have
today

We just aren't there yet. Electric cars simply don't make any sense
today. They may in 10-20 years time, or not. Depends.


--
Grunff

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
Doctor Drivel wrote:

- with advanced stack scrubbers,

Scrubbers have nothing to do with efficiency

But it negates your pollution theory.

Electric cars are also brilliant and super quiet to drive. The only
thing
that will prevent this charge towards 100% electric is the vested
interest of auto and oil giants (who want to go hydrogen and fuel cell as
well) and lack of political will - and ignorance too. Interesting times
ahead and the
back of filthy agricultural diesels we may see for good.

You misunderstand me. I'm actually quite pro electric vehicles, with the
following provisos:

1. That the energy used to charge them doesn't come from fossil fuels

But cars can gradually kill us and wasting 75% of the energy in the tank?
What odd logic.

2. That the battery technology is significantly better than what we have
today

It is clear you know sweet FA about current and in the lab battery
technology.

We just aren't there yet.

WE ARE. That is the point. WE ARE. All it needs is the manfactuiring to
be en-mass and the charging infrastructure in place.

Electric cars simply don't make any sense today.

Do some reading.

They may in 10-20 years time, or not. Depends.

Grunff wrote:
wrote:

And it never will be while people with attitudes like yours remain
wedded to the IC engine.

??

What are you on about? Let me repeat, in simpler terms:

"It is not necessarily better to burn fossil fules in a power station
than in an IC engine."

Which bit of that do you disagree with?

None of it, because that's not what you said:

Again, only in theory. In practice the source is gas, oil and coal.

Theory is great, the real world is different.

In simple terms, whilst people continue to deny the possibility of any
alternative to the *current* reality, then nothing will change.

MBQ