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

"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.

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 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