This is mahonj's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following mahonj's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
mahonj
Recent Activity
EVs would make sense in urban areas for air quality reasons. They might be a bit expensive for more rural areas.
Well done Buderus Guss. Well done Gerhard. Keep our city air clean. Now you have to find a way to get people to pay the 3x to use them - or better still get Bosch to get their friends in the EU to mandate it. Next we need an electromagnetic brake - or maybe that is an in-wheel motor!
They have filed patents. That is the key thing. So they will try to extract money from these by either trolling other companies, or pumping the IP value of the company for a trade sale or another round of share sales. @Lad has said the same thing. Predicting anything about batteries 6 years out is a fools game (or believing anyone else's predictions is). (As DaveD says). Meanwhile, they are planning to use "21700 NCM cells from LG Chem" which is perfectly sensible.
It is a good idea, IMO. You could stick a solar cell on the roof to make it extra green, though when you think about it, it is not a good idea (adds weight, adds complexity and only works in Summer, certainly not in winter). None the less, it is good to use the smallest vehicle possible for any task, especially if you can replace a diesel one with an electric one. (Cheaper, much less pollution, easier in traffic + the driver gets exercise). Well done UPS!
A normal hybrid and mild hybrid would be nice. A PHEV might be very expensive for the smaller cars.
@Peter, The EPA testing methods are regularly updated and seem to give the lowest mpg ratings - many people can beat them, which you cannot say for NEDC. https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings.shtml also for example https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/PowerSearch.do?action=alts&path=3&year1=2017&year2=2018&vtype=Hybrid&srchtyp=newAfv the EPA seem pretty good to me.
@harvey, it would only need one, but I do not think they can be built for $250.
@peter_xx http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/08/20170831-wltp.html This states "It is estimated that fuel consumption figures using WLTP will be 10 to 20% higher than those under NEDC." OK + http://www.greencarcongress.com/2017/11/20171106icct.html states that NEDC is out by 42%. Subtracting 20 from 42 we get 22% out for WTC. I saw another paper (in the last month or so) which said as much and that the US EPA figures are about right. (Can't find the paper at present).
It sounds lovely, but how much will it cost in volume ? They are saying that solid state Lidar sensors will cost $250 in bulk. If it is too expensive, the market will be very small (Merc S class, BMW 7 series etc).
They need to begin by defining a way of measuring CO2 / km that is more realistic than the WLTP which is still to easy to fudge. It will have to be based on more realistic driving conditions. Then, they need to asses where they really are, and then they set the targets. The current NEDC is a joke, and even WLTP is too easy to fudge, so they need to fix the measurement problem. There is a related problem in that a lot of taxation in the EU is based on the CO2 levels, which will go way up if they go off NEDC, so they'll have to re-balance the taxation thresholds and levels to avoid making the cost of cars skyrocket.
I disagree with the 10% better scenario. Think of the headlines - every time an AV kills someone there will be a name and a crash image and headlines. Every time a crash does not happen, there is no notification. If you study the road death statistics, you will see a result, but this is far to subtle for most people. However, there is merit in not waiting for them to be 90% better as too many people will die in the meantime. So the question is - at what level do you allow them "out", or how do you introduce them - state by state, city by city? The advantage of getting a large number of cars out is that you will see the real system failures (which you may not anticipate) quicker, and get them fixed quicker. If you wait till you get to 90%, you will have waited too long, 10% and you'll have too many AV deaths. maybe there is a number between 10% and 90% that would be a good deployment trigger number.
Good work. People tend to assume EVs have 0 greenhouse emissions, but they don't - as this makes clear. (They are still way better for "local" pollution, such as NOx and HC - no question). I would like to see the raw data, or at least a list containing the mpg(ghg) for all countries studied.
@Lad, I would imagine the engine would run all (or much) of the time on the open road. In a city, it probably wouldn't run that much if you were stuck in traffic. But I agree, a larger battery would be nice - you could put 1 r 2 PC panels of about 400-500W and charge it in the sun (as an option). You might get 2-3KWh from it. Or maybe just plug it in if convenient.
Lets see how good it is. Lets see what mpg it really gets, and lets see if they move the drivetrain into any other vehicles. A 1.5 KwH battery sounds very small, but I'm sure Nissan have done their sums. You would think they could bring it up to 3 or 5 KwH without too much bother (and add a plug..).
If you want to tackle pollution, you have to remove the worst polluters, be they cars or power stations or factories. There is little to be gained from replacing a fairly new gasoline vehicle with a new EV. You need to get the worst polluters off the roads, not the ones owned by better off people.
@Harvey: yes, Start by classifying and removing the worst offenders. The problem is that you may put marginal companies out of business, so you might want some way of enabling them to buy cheap(ish) replacement vehicles. I think this is a key problem with reducing pollution - how to do it without killing loads of small businesses and poorer drivers.
@Harvey, Yes, the problem in cities is NOX etc and natural gas can largely solve this without the cost and range penalties of electric. Seems like a winner to me, they should try to extend it to other cities and countries, styling permitting.
There goes the value of 12 year old diesels (and petrols). They should try to get people onto hybrids or full electrics as soon as possible in large cities - it is not such a big deal out in the countryside.
I would have thought 400A was enough. We need action rather than ever higher specifications. Charging at 350KW would enable 23x charge - drive ratio (for a saloon car) which should be enough for anyone. We also need a standard connector.
Great, I am all for mild hybridisation- the more the merrier. Year by year, we can increase the power and energy storage capacity.
I think you have to ask what can be learned from this. It is very impressive, but it is very far from "family ready". It is presumably very light, low powered, aerodynamic and large. It is powered by its own solar cells. What parts could you take from it to (say) double the efficiency of current vehicles (say allowing you to drive 10 km / KwH). Lightness and aerodynamics and low speed design for one, I would guess. It is too large, but if you put some batteries in it, that problem goes away, and it can get small again. So if you made a small carbon fibre bubble that couldn't go more than 110 (or 90) KpH. Then, it has to be able to accelerate, climb reasonable hills and survive a crash. And be affordable and comfortable (maybe no A/C for power reasons), but a radio + music player, certainly. I would rate crash-worthiness as the biggest problem. + it has to look good (which it currently does) because people are fussy about what cars look like.
OK, It is cool, but it is not practical (by today's standards). I would not like to crash in one. I would not like to be in a hot or cold place in one. It demonstrates what can be done to move people with minimum energy, but it isn't practical as is. It is way too long and too much space. Imagine trying to use one of these in any city, say Amsterdam. You have to separate the solar power from the car so you can make it smaller and more energy dense, like say a Nissan Leaf (or any real electric car). There is not reason not to have a grid with a lot of electric battery powered vehicles and solar or wind on it. However, you DO NOT need to put the solar panels on the car, just use a battery.
The worry with a big consortium like this is that it will become very bureaucratic and slow and waste loads of taxpayer's money. Or, it could become like airbus, which I suppose is that they are hoping for.
It is nice to see a decent looking and practical e-bike - it even has mudguards, and the battery is nicely integrated into the frame. It is a pity it costs $4K. I would rather buy one from Ford for $2K that is just as good, or this one... http://www.gtech.co.uk/ebikes/bikebuilder?bike_id=536