Is anybody on this site capable to putting together their own car/vehicle cheaply, or perhaps not so cheaply? Ridge Runner makes a really awesome off-road vehicle. Perhaps one could buy their chassis, put on the bare minimum to make it road legal, and install a motor, controller and lots of good batteries. You could even quick swap wheels/tires to make a good on-road/off-road vehicle. (We can worry about refining it when Honda approaches us to build their own version.)

Man, just putting something like the 1.2 liter TDI from the Volkswagen Lupo into this vehicle would give it good performance and excellent mileage, and that's not even electric! The vehicle now only weighs roughly 950 pounds complete. I would love to try a project like this. I'm a graduate student and have no funds. That's my excuse, lame as it may sound! :) But is anyone else here attempting something like this? Share the wealth! (The Ridge Runner is just a suggestion, the best I can think of unless someone else can work with composit materials or knows of something better. A three wheeler would be good too.)

http://www.ridgerunner.biz/

It would take a good amount of planning and work, but it's not insurmountable if you have some knowledgeable and skilled tech people to help you out. With the tenor of our times, your electric vehicle/hybrid would be on the front cover of tons of magazines/papers, and people would clamour for more to be made. Perhaps you'd be a hero of sorts.

Best of all, it would be a ton of fun building and driving it, you'd actually be doing something instead of just complaining about it, you'd be making a huge statement, you'd save ton on fuel once it's finished, and perhaps the interest would be so great you could make more and sell them for profit. ??? Just please let me know if you start a project so I can check it out! We all want change: what better way than grassroots? Even with the best intentioned politicians, the system moves very slowly.

Now, do I sound like a "crazy Christian" opposed to "sound science?"

Let's celebrate Earth Day by saying thanks to this site for bringing us the good news of the technology that is coming. My local paper had only gloom and doom. I'm convinced that the creative talents and ingenuity of the American people are going to be the way we make out energy future. President Bush is not the problem or the solution. The people are both. If every driver in the US decided to forego one trip each month the reduction in demand would be very evident. Or if we all slowed our speed by 5 mph again, in the aggregate, the savings would be very noticeable and helpful. Let's take responsibility for the energy future we want.

I see a long stream of technical riposting on this forum on whether H2 and Ethanol are feasible or better than this or that. What increasingly strikes me is how some of this discussion, while technically astute seems to be missing the real issue here:

Bush says a lot of things, some true, some naive, many out and out lies as he demonstrated time and time again. He is now making the right noises about needing to address the problem, but the issue as always... Will he put his money where his mouth is? Or will he just cave into the very small group of wealthy private interests in the extractive industries to which he is beholden and try for the millionth time to crach open ANWR for the oil industry.

Gerald Earl... Ihope you are right about battery technology, but I'd like to see some proof!

cs1992,

Check out A123Systems new batteries being used by DeWalt in their new heavy duty 36V chordless power tools.

http://www.a123systems.com/html/home.html

They are just one example. There are a number of other competitors in this race as well.

Fred, thank you for giving us hope that other than 25mph EV is on the way.
Since it is from a new EV company, looks like it will be in the 100k to 200k price range. but that's okay as long, as it can blow the doors off a Ferrari, like the Tzero, then it may have a chance in the marketplace.

Hi... it's Fred again!

Actually, I forgot to mention/clear that the 60 seconds refers to re-charging time. Toshiba already has it and I personally tested it and it is quite amazing.
It means that 80%+ of the entire EV battery bank can be re-charged faster than pumping oil/ethanol/FC in the car.

There's also a new exciting EV/Ev-Hybrid concept. Batteries + Ultracapacitors to give the most of fast raw power/acceleration and long range capacity & speed.
Bush says that $31Mil are spent yearly on new battery research, and yet billions are spent every year on zero efficient technology and wasteful White House schemes.
Many world top scientists and engineers think/agree that having vehicles running on oil/gas {ICE} is the greatest waste and that is especially true for drivers who use their vehicles for short trips where the average speed is 25/45 mph and where a pure EV would do the job well; actually better!
But when the Saudis own/invested a trillion dollar in US businesses and are behind most of the oil and car biz [even though you can't see them due to their phony/front investment corps.], you tell me if making the US/Canada a pure EV, [or non-gasoline], society can be that easy! It could be however, if many US citizens and residents would stand-up and demand that Detroit and Big Oil be investigated and brought to justice [sort of like the cigarette scandals] for creating a society addicted to oil and to big gas guzzlers.

Also, I know for a fact that the new EV car company I mentioned on my previous post, has no tie with Detroit and that their vehicles will have a wide range of selections and prices. One of their management heads told us that they plan to sell their entry-level {ala Scion} EVs for about $20K or so.
If that [price] becomes a reality and their vehicles are in effect as good as any other vehicle on the roads at present [and future] time, then I would like to see a serious effort from the American public and corporations to adopt this old, and yet so refreshing, electric engine propulsion system.
If I was a governemnt official I would push hard to pass a law where all US businesses, [small and big], goverment fleets, utilities and people who own multiple cars must buy also pure EV/NEV vehicles [and I'm not talking golf-carts] in order to help the reduction of green-house gasses [global warming] and help to curb smog/noise pollution in our cities [sorry Harley Davidson but you bikes stink]. If there are enough people/drivers out there [US and the rest of the world] who do not care if their cars run with an inefficient gas based motor [ICE], but instead want to make a difference using/driving a super efficient and cost-saving EV, then I think we have something!!!

I am not allowed to mention the name of this new EV start-up, but I will ask for it and if they say yes, I will post it here for all to know.

Fred Sands, PhD.

PS: For that person who says Dubya is his hero, I suggest a quick and no-pain lobotomy, and/or relocation to a Texas ranch where clearing brushes it's all the brain is required to think about. Or even better, relocate to Iraq and enjoy the [Bush/Cheny] show of blood and daily carnage in the name of "freedom" and "democracy"!!!

See these links:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/04/toshibarsquos_f.html

http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm

Fred Sands, PhD.

Well, Fred though with all my heart I would love to believe to all you say about new car company and EVs in the making, I personally feel very skeptical that it will
see the light, unless some powerfull people are behind it.
Besides all this Toshiba stuff we heard last year: where is that battery? can we buy it? Its 1 year since they announced the one.
I do totally agree though on part that Bush & Co. is a bunch of criminals cause they definitely have much more overview of what is going on. My wild guess there is A LOT of Saudis money on the Wall Street which play their interest not ours.
The whole american society is based on cheap oil, cities with citizens traveling to work 100km one way, I personally know quite a few of such ones. I guess they will change their mind pretty quickly once gasoline price turns parabolic.
Unfortunatelly I think we are in quite a desperate situation from which the only way out is through tremendous crisis (recent gold movement over 600 $ per ounce might be a qlue).
Besides I feel the War in Iraq is fought not over oil directly but for Saddam Hussein trying to trade oil for
other currency then dollar (same with Iran btw) if that really happened, then many central Banks in many countries would start dumping dollars that might cause its crash, so Bush teached a lesson. My guess Iran is next. 75 $/barrel is very much in favour of that anyways.
So Fred I do hope that you are right and we will see a new EV in a year, though I wouldn't bet my hard earned on that.

Let me explain reality to you.

The reality is biofuels have one fatal flaw. They have to be transported from where its cheap to make it to where your gona use it. And no matter what we do most likely that involves a long trip.

The production of bio fuels also requires fertilizers and pesticides and blah blah blah.

This is a fatal flaw because low cost low quality fuels that transports use are endangered.

In simple terms the cost of getting the fuel to us may be more then the cost of making it within 20 years.

H2 can be made anywhere can be piped and can be made from a whole slew of sources that soon will be worthless as fuels themsevles because again they will cost far more to ship then they are worth as fuels.

Yes some of us will be able to use biofuels as the cheap source is very close to us. But alot of us will have to make do with whatever we can get to us cheapest. In alot of cases amazing and horrifying as it may be h2 will be the cheapest fuel people can get.

The world as we know it is based on fuels that cost less then water does. Think on that and what will change when that fuel goes away and is replaced by something far more expensive. Im talking bunker fuel and the various low grade oil fuels cargo ships and tankers use as well as trains and and and and and...

Even the fuel a passenger jet uses today is vastly cheaper then what they will be forced to use 10-15 years from now.

It isnt just Bush who deals with hydrogen alot of countries woke up to the fact our world as we know it is at an end and everything is going to change.

From EV World:

Why Not Switch to Electric Cars?

Source: Baltimore Chronicle
[Sep 02, 2005]

SYNOPSIS: There is more than enough off-peak electricity available to easily allow the transfer of all of our driving miles from gasoline- to electric-powered vehicles.
We hear a lot of empty talk about attaining energy independence and about reducing our need for overseas imported oil. But absolutely nothing is being done by our oily political leaders.

Yet there is something that people have found they can do, and which bears out the axiom "when the people lead, the leaders follow." There is a small but surprisingly unyielding number of people who adopt the "PV-EV" way of living, using solar Photo-Voltaic ("PV") panels to generate more electricity than they can use and driving a plug-in electric vehicle ("EV") to soak up some of that power. The only impediments to expansion of this small number are the loss of our solar panel industry to foreign companies and the failure of our leaders to make plug-in electric cars available for sale on the open market.

There is more than enough off-peak electricity available to easily allow the transfer of all of our driving miles from gasoline- to electric-powered vehicles. That's an exciting prospect, but for now let's just see how we can eliminate overseas oil imports.

Here's the math in California, which has the figures readily available, and which consumes 12% of the country's gasoline: California uses 280 million gallons of gasoline per week. At the fleet average of 20 miles per gallon ("mpg"), that's 5,600 million miles per week. On an average day, Californians drive 800 million miles burning fuel derived from petroleum.

The RAV4-EV-not even the most efficient EV-gets four miles for each kilowatt-hour ("kWh") of energy it holds. Dividing 800 million daily miles by four miles per kWh means we would need 200 million kWh to convert all miles driven in gasoline-fueled cars to miles powered by electric RAV4-EVs or other, even more efficient electric vehicles.

In California, our installed capacity is 60,000 megawatts and off-peak unused capacity is about 30,000 megawatts for 18 hours (integrating under the curve on the state website, caiso.com), or about 540,000 megawatt-hours. That's 540 million kWh of unused electric capacity per day.

That's more than the 200 million kWh per day it would take to convert ALL oil-fueled miles to electric-powered miles, by a substantial margin, and without building one new power plant.

Even replacing just a fraction, merely 40%, of our oil with off-peak electric power would eliminate the need for all overseas oil imports. Using only Canadian, Mexican, and Alaskan oil, we would be self-sufficient, no longer dependent on the Middle East, Nigeria, Indonesia nor even Columbia and Venezuela. We'd only need 80 million kWh per day to convert 40% of our oil used to electric power, enough to attain energy independence.

That can easily be done without building a single new power plant, even in the high-demand peak summertime period. Running at constant capacity is also more efficient, since big generators wear more quickly when ramped up and down every day. Using off-peak electric would actually improve production efficiencies. And as for pollution, our power plants are 97% cleaner than gasoline. It's a lot easier to control environmental impact of one power plant than one million tailpipes.

If we install rooftop solar power, it gets even easier to attain energy independence. Solar power, distributed throughout the city, provides a backup in case of grid failure, and becomes a helpful adjunct to the grid in meeting peak daytime demand.

Solar power decreases daytime peak usage, making the surplus even bigger. Even a small rooftop solar system can produce 25 kWh of electric per day, at the most critical time-peak summer daytime demand period.

Governor Schwarzenegger is planning to spend $20 billion on new out-of-state power plants and transmission lines. If that were spent instead here in California, it would provide incentives for homeowners to install rooftop solar power. At $10,000 per house, that money would enable 2 million houses to install solar panels, which would be an additional 50 million kWh per day. And the value would belong to the California homeowner instead of being spent on a coal plant.

This minimal use of solar alone would almost be enough to replace 40% of our oil usage. This is made possible by the fact that the EV is up to 10 times as efficient as a gasoline car, which enables so little electricity to replace so much gasoline and other oil-based fuels.

At 4 miles per kWh, the all-electric plug-in Toyota RAV4-EV travels about 140 miles on the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline (at 35 kWh per gallon). More aerodynamic EVs, such as the General Motors EV1, get 6 miles out of each kWh, or about 200 miles per gallon gas equivalent ("mpgge").

Compare the efficiency of an EV to a gas car over 100 miles. A Hummer, Suburban or Navigator, at 10 mpg, takes 10 gallons to go 100 miles. Our fleet average car gets 20 mpg, and requires 5 gallons to go 100 miles. Even a Prius, at 50 mpg, takes 2 gallons of gas to go 100 miles. The aerodynamic Honda Insight takes 1.6 gallons of gas to go 100 miles. But an EV goes 100 miles with no gasoline and no oil, on the energy equivalent of less than one gallon of gasoline. No smog checks, no exhaust, no tune-ups, no oil changes.

An EV is anywhere from twice to ten times more energy efficient than a gasoline car. But energy efficiency is only part of the advantage of EVs: the EV uses no gas at all, and can be sourced from a rooftop distributed solar photo-voltaic array.

This combination of "PV-EV"--a solar array providing seemingly unlimited power credits and an electric vehicle to use them--allows living essentially "oil- free." PV-EV practitioners sail past gas stations, and never worry about the cost of gasoline. When you drive free of cost and free of gasoline, buying gas seems like the rip-off that it really is, and paying the oil company seems like throwing money into the sewer.

We are proving this possible right now, and have been doing so for the past seven years. Our solar PV system produces more than enough kWh credits (we get a time-of-use benefit for charging off-peak), and we drive a lot--up to 40,000 miles per year on two cars, 20,000 miles for each RAV4-EV. Those miles are driven in kWh, meaning no oil was used for them (although some was used making the car), so instead of using 2,000 gallons of gasoline (producing 25 lbs. of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline) we used up 10,000 kWh to drive that distance, which was paid for by our peak production (and sometimes directly charged off the solar system). But even without the solar system, it only costs one cent a mile to charge up off-peak.

The real point here is that we need to move in this direction. We can't continue to rely on oil supplies from overseas dictators. The ancillary expenses are much too high--not to mention the human suffering and misery.

When will our leaders figure out that we don't need their oil and thus have no real reason to dominate the oil producing regions, no reason to subsidize protection of overseas oil supply lines, no reason to bomb Iraq. All it takes is the will to produce plug-in cars capable of driving 100 all-electric miles per day. Most of our driving is local: 80% of our miles are driven on round-trips less than 80 miles from home.

A serial plug-in hybrid that runs just like an EV at up to 80 miles per hour for up to 120 miles could be manufactured as easily and as reliably as the RAV4-EV. The serial hybrid has a small (40 hp) generator/engine that runs at constant speed to charge the battery on occasional long trips or if you forget to plug it in. We can do this: all it takes is the decision to allow people to join the "PV-EV" crowd, who vow to live essentially "oil-free."

Allowing more folks to drive all-electric cars lowers demand for gasoline, and should lower the price of gas for everyone else. So who, except the profit-bloated oil companies and their captive politicians, would oppose PV-EV?

We've got to do something; is there a better idea? Perhaps converting ALL cars to hybrids, increasing our fleet mileage to 40 mpg (let's say), would do the trick. But there are no hybrid mini-vans, and many hybrids from Ford and General Motors only get 25 mpg.

The attractive thing about driving all-electric vehicles is that we can eliminate the use of gasoline in our normal, car-oriented lifestyle without giving anything up. No one is going to abolish gas entirely; there will still be common tasks such as bringing supplies to the market which require gasoline-powered vehicles. PV-EV users are not judgmental about it; those who need to continue driving gas cars can do so.

Only a few were allowed to buy plug-in electric cars; but those lucky drivers who experienced the PV-EV lifestyle loved it, and fought hard to retain the EVs that made it possible. Yet powerful oil and auto companies, their trade associations, PR firms and captive politicians largely won and destroyed almost all plug-in electric cars. General Motors alone confiscated and crushed over 1200 gas-free cars. Oil and auto companies paid for campaigns to stop electric cars, and finally sued California to force an end to electric cars and destroy almost all of them.

Only Toyota allowed us to keep our EVs, honorably selling a plug-in electric vehicle. If there were more plug-in EVs on the market, more folks would be able to contemplate a move to the PV-EV way of living.

Only political leadership can force the oil and auto companies to allow plug-in electric cars, such as a serial plug-in hybrid, on the open market. We know the technology is viable because volunteer PV-EV engineers modified a Prius to enable it to plug in (struggling against the on-board computer, which seems designed to sabotage a bigger battery pack). But like all electric cars, the plug-in Prius runs better than a gasoline-powered car, and it gets up to 180 mpg. The true serial hybrid would get up to 500 mpg, and could allow drivers to generally avoid gasoline during the daily grind.

Dear Alex,

This is an email I received from Mr. Yamamoto at Toshiba Japan not too long ago:

********************************************************

"Dear Fred,

We have a plan to have the product on the market next year in Japan. But it will be difficult in the USA in 2006, because abuse tests in according with the recommendation of the UN regarding the transportaion of the battery will be necessary for the export of the battery and it will take a bit longer to carry such tests.

Best regards,

Keiichi Yamamato
Business Relations VP
Toshiba-Japan"

*******************************************************
That's why we are currently working here in the US with MIT to achieve the same goal and to keep the advancement within US soil.

Fred Sands, PhD.

Different Fred. This one drives GMs only 4 cylinder turbodiesel in NA. And Ive got no problem with PHEV. But hydrogen is at present a hoax and will not be close to viable until next-gen nukes or something like the sun (or some other tech that weve not heard on these pages)become available or make it off a drawing board. And ethanol will/does have its place and will get better, especially when it can be a part of BIODIESEL. Which was again conspicuously NOT mentioned. This planet moves on diesel and will not be replaced soon or easily. BTW W could make a big impression by parkin that 747 for a generic G5 while hes in country.

The reason they cant switch to all electric faster is only very recently have they started mass production of the batteries needed and its only just begining to steamroll.

You cant make a million cars with batteries if you only have 100k batteries. Specialy if each full ev car needs 20 of em.

Up until just last year or so they were hand making the batteries. Now they use hundreds of 123 cells ganged together in many of the designs each set combined into a pack and multiple packs used to power the car.

IF we are lucky ev cars will take over a signifigant percentage of cars we use. But unless they develope long haul battery powered tanker trucks or make bio dessel pipelines the transport of the fuels the other cars use is gona be a magor cost issue outside the states where the fuel crops grow.

And that still doesnt factor in climate change and what that will do to fuel crop production.

H2 can be produced cheaply enough so those that need it and cant get a cheaper fuel will be able to afford to use it.

Thats all thats needed of it.

We are oil dependent and have been for the better part of a century.Both dem and repub have licked the heels of the sauds.The sauds learned the limit of their power when the embargo resulted in ten dollar a barrel oil.The middle east zealots giggling over the ever increasing oil prices have not.The price of oil is indeed high and I welcome the increase.The high prices will advance the revolution of which I think most of us are hopeful.If the prices fall to far I would vote for a tax on oil that is applied to alternatives.{not if it goes into the treasury to be dispensed by our esteemed reps of both parties to distribute.} My hope for this site is that we can engage in civilized and productive discourse that exceeds that which our reps engage in.If we are enticed to left and right corners we will be just as noisy and unproductive as they have become.{both sides}p.s. write your rep to support american fuels choice and security act.It would switch support from suv's to hybrids and alternative vehicles, amongst other things.Get involved and be a part of the solution

As for refueling batteries:

Vanadium Redox cells

This generation for mobile apps is at 50kWh/kg

refuel in minutes. I know that it is not lithium but it's not a bad concept.

Comments?

http://www.vrb.unsw.edu.au/Magnam-VFuel%20website%20info.htm

Thank God for "In Love with Bush". This site very much needs a sense of humor. Thanks. If you are serious, I apologize before hand.

Notice to all commenters:

You are invited to discuss and to comment on the substance of a post. That adds richness and depth to the content, and it helps us all learn.

You are welcome to state your views on the adequacy or inadequacy of a particular policy approch, politician, business deal or technology.

Your are not welcome to attempt to turn this site into a blue-red foodfight with name-calling. All such posts, from whichever camp, will be deleted.

Mike Millikin, Green Car Congress

I'm glad to see people coming around to the idea of PV-assisted EV's or PHEV's, which I blogged in March '04.

The problem with mass conversion to EV in California is that most of California's electricity is generated with natural gas, and supplies are shrinking rapidly.  But you don't need to use natural gas to run a turbine.  If your powerplants are combined-cycle turbines at ~60% efficiency, you can take 1/3 of the oil now used for motor fuel and burn that in the powerplants instead of gas.  Even after the losses, you're going to come out ahead burning oil in a 60%-efficient combined-cycle plant instead of a 15%-efficient Detroit powertrain.

Your are not welcome to attempt to turn this site into a blue-red foodfight with name-calling. All such posts, from whichever camp, will be deleted.

I agree.

Now please delete the following, per your terms:
Posted by: Skip | Apr 24, 2006 7:04:04 AM
Posted by: Al Frankin | Apr 23, 2006 5:38:58 PM
Posted by: Howard Dean | Apr 23, 2006 1:13:02 PM

As well as this one:
Posted by: Paul Hilburger | Apr 23, 2006 4:17:48 AM

Thanks.

All right. Fine. I'll try to keep my posts closer to the subject of vehicle technologies, their advantages/disadvantages, potential, etc. I agree this is best for the site. I'm just extremely worried that the best laid plans oft go awry, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, etc, etc, and especially regarding etcetera.

Also in a way h2 cars help ev cars imensely as they both are purely electric propulsion and the push for one allows better motors for both.

Realy the only difference bewtween a purely battery car and a hs car is the size of the battery pack and the fact the h2 car will have a little fuel cell stack or 3 and some tanks down under the car nestled between the wheels... exactly where an all ev car would have its extra batteries....

In fact from the advanced designs ove seen most fuel cell cars are likely to be mostly plug in ev for short range trips...

"Your are not welcome to attempt to turn this site into a blue-red foodfight with name-calling. All such posts, from whichever camp, will be deleted."

I agree.

Agree to agree, I'd prefer to stick to the issues, forgive my insanity, but what about these post?

Posted by: Wells | Apr 23, 2006 11:23:47 AM
Posted by: t | Apr 23, 2006 7:48:36 AM
Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 23, 2006 10:09:48 AM

The jist of my post still stands, if you want to discuss the issues, stop blaming one man or one administration and stop waiting on the government to do everything for us, We have to change ourselves! This problem was brewing long before the current prez. and will be with us long afterwards.

respectfully,
-skip

"Your are not welcome to attempt to turn this site into a blue-red foodfight with name-calling. All such posts, from whichever camp, will be deleted."

I agree.

Agree to agree, I'd prefer to stick to the issues, forgive my insanity, but what about these post?

Posted by: Wells | Apr 23, 2006 11:23:47 AM
Posted by: t | Apr 23, 2006 7:48:36 AM
Posted by: tom deplume | Apr 23, 2006 10:09:48 AM

The jist of my post still stands, if you want to discuss the issues, stop blaming one man or one administration and stop waiting on the government to do everything for us, We have to change ourselves! This problem was brewing long before the current prez. and will be with us long afterwards.

respectfully,
-skip