I'm still convinced that solar is the way to go. About 121 petawatts of solar power hits the Earth's surface. That's about 3,850,000 exajoules in a year. As of 2002, one hour of solar energy is more is more than the entire World uses in a year. For comparison, the World's energy needs for electricity in 2005 were 56.7 exajoules.

Now, the problems I see are that we only have 29% of the Earth as land, so we can't possibly capture it all, but I feel confident that if we design a more efficient photovoltaic cell, or any solar device for that matter, then we can make much better use of the Sun's energy in a smaller space - maybe even in a small enough space to continuously keep your EV charged, rather than just minimal supplemental charging (at best).

Veering a little off topic, an idea I'd love to see implemented is placement of oceanic solar stations several (maybe hundred) miles offshore with the cells on self-leveling platforms with built in tracking devices. We already have the technology to run massive power wires underwater, so pipe it back to shore to a power plant. This is something that really wouldn't take that much R&D, and can be done with technology we have now, and wouldn't take up any inhabitable land space. Something like this would be especially beneficial for large coastal & semi-coastal cities like New York, New Orleans, Seattle, and pretty much all of Cali. These stations could even be as big as several barges or aircraft carriers, just covered in solar panels, and they wouldn't consume any needed space.

EDIT to do teh pwn teh page dance

[This message has been edited by fieroboom (edited 01-14-2009).]

Here's an article I just came across about solar power generation, 6 months after putting it into place. Interesting to see how it changed during the winter even without snow being a factor, just because of the position of the sun and the lower number of daylight hours:
http://www.extremetech.com/...,2845,2338834,00.asp
Quick comparison chart:

code:

---

Power Generation 	July 31st  	December 31st
First Non-Zero Reading 	6:20AM   	7:41AM
Peak Output 	        4,812W @ 2:20PM	3,158W @ 12:53PM
Last Non-Zero Reading 	8:07PM         	4:55PM
Total Output 	        38.58kWh 	8.05kWh

---

I agree that some sort of way using the sun solar energy is the way to go solar cells are expensive for the amount of power generated you can focus the suns power on a boiler then turn the water to steam and turn a turbine or steam engine and run a generator kinda old tech with a twist but low cost good power out put free after inital invest ment probly could be done for a few grand power the house and make hydrogen to burn in the car water is cheap. but only good for around town no place to fill up out on the high way . not sure but I think a steam engine would be the ticket in car with electric hybrid the steam engine turn a genorator that runs an electric drive motor and enough battreis to have extra power when needed and fast take off time no waiting for the steam engine to warm up . the boiler would be a diesil fuel fired and it can have a closed loop system you could even do a dual fuel boiler hydrogen and diesil just thoughts on how to have all the HP power you want plus have good fuel milage

Battery technology is advancing so quickly now I'm convinced it will be the best answer. No need for complex hybrids running two different systems, no inefficient use of electricity to create hydrogen, no insanely expensive fuel cells. Solar, wind, hydro, wave, and nuke charging long life, lightweight, fast charging batteries powering small, powerful, efficient, long lasting electric motors. That's the future, and the future is NOW! I've been actively researching EV's for the last 4 years or so and in the last 6 months I've seen more advances in battery technologies than ever before. BMW is testing a battery Mini, Benz is going to have EV's this year and has just bought an advanced battery company, Tesla is selling cars faster than they can make them and will soon be using a newer and better battery technology, A123 is showing their new fast charge and discharge batteries off in drag bikes, so much is going on I can't even keep up. This is a nice vid about A123 technology with some cool electric drag bike footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FezuB7R11A8

the battries are cool we wont see that stuff for years and it still needs to be charged and that electricity will eathe com from a power plant or your home genorator if we all need to plug in the power grid wont handle the load look what happens on hot summer days in major citys they have black outs and brown outs so i think that we will need to genorate electricty at home . I dont know alot about elctricity but why cant capacitors be used do they drain way to fast dont know much about them accept when your buddie charges one up and throughs it to you and yells catch rotten trick.

Just out of curiosity, what size/watt/volts/HP electric motor would you need to push a stock weight Fiero at a top speed of lets say 70?
Would it make a difference using a stick or auto?

Steve

[This message has been edited by JumpStart (edited 01-14-2009).]

quote Originally posted by JumpStart: Just out of curiosity, what size/watt/volts/HP electric motor would you need to push a stock weight Fiero at a top speed of lets say 70? Would it make a difference using a stick or auto? Steve

Auto's are generally less efficient than manuals but they can be used. 84 volts would probably be enough but you'd probably want 96 or higher. I'll probably be using an 8 inch diameter AC motor at 108 volts with lithium which should get me close to 70.

quote Originally posted by engine man: the battries are cool we wont see that stuff for years and it still needs to be charged and that electricity will eathe com from a power plant or your home genorator if we all need to plug in the power grid wont handle the load look what happens on hot summer days in major citys they have black outs and brown outs so i think that we will need to genorate electricty at home . I dont know alot about elctricity but why cant capacitors be used do they drain way to fast dont know much about them accept when your buddie charges one up and throughs it to you and yells catch rotten trick.

My whole point is that we are seeing these technologies right now and they are getting better and cheaper every day. There is plenty of electrical capacity in the grid right now to charge most vehicles at night, which is what will be happening most of the time. Charging at home at night will be the cheapest way to recharge, and all most people will need. Fast charging during the day will only be for those people who have to go more than 200 miles or so in one day and are willing to pay more for the fast charge.
Caps charge and discharge quickly, but they hold very little energy. In other words they are empty in a few seconds, unless you have a HUGE and expensive pack. EESTOR ultracaps may change all that if they can deliver as promised.

from the areo math and roll resistance i figure about 20 HP and there is 746 watts per HP so it would be 20 X 746 = 14920 now watts are AMP'S X Volts so you aer better off with a realy high voltage then you use less amps

True but higher voltage systems are more expensive and you need more individual battery cells to get that voltage which means more complex battery management systems. That's how the big manufacturers do it but for most of us DIY'ers it's not practical, and as long as you can mange the heat with big enough wiring lower voltage and higher amperage works out well.

quote Originally posted by JRP3: Auto's are generally less efficient than manuals but they can be used. 84 volts would probably be enough but you'd probably want 96 or higher. I'll probably be using an 8 inch diameter AC motor at 108 volts with lithium which should get me close to 70.

The guy on http://www.greenplanet3.org/ev/Home.html is using a 9" motor, and said he started with 108V, but found that 120 was better for highway cruising.

"These are all new prices and considerable savings can be realized by buying used. (example: I originally put a 8” motor in but it was working too hard and was running against it’s limit on heat so I updated it to the 9” motor. I sold the 8” motor for about 1/2 the original price but it was a perfectly good motor. Just remember “Caveat Emptor”.....or...”let the buyer beware”. Shop carefully!"

[This message has been edited by fieroboom (edited 01-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by JRP3: Auto's are generally less efficient than manuals but they can be used.

I don't know of anyone using an Auto. They are WAAAAY less efficient. The reason is that the motor would have to idle in order to keep the pressure up in the transmission. Having an electric motor idling is going to waste a lot of energy, not to mention how less efficient the auto is in the first place.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: I don't know of anyone using an Auto. They are WAAAAY less efficient. The reason is that the motor would have to idle in order to keep the pressure up in the transmission. Having an electric motor idling is going to waste a lot of energy, not to mention how less efficient the auto is in the first place.

Because a manual hits lockup when you release the clutch.

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: Because a manual hits lockup when you release the clutch.

I assume the clutch is just retained for shifting, because from a standing start the motor would have full torque instantly. You should be able to stick it in 1st and just drive off without the clutch.

While we're o/t, on this issue, wouldn't it be possible to shift clutchlessly at any rpm with a straight-cut race tranny, since it's getting full torque? That would make a fun 21st century hot rod!

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-15-2009).]

you could use a automatic just gota get rid of the torque converter and that can be done i have done it with power glides and th350 and th 400 for circle track racing and it would work better with the electric motor due to it would stop and not be turning

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-15-2009).]

There are a number of different ways to use automatics in EV's efficiently. One is to have a small electric pump and/or a pressure tank to keep the trans pressure up when you are stopped. Some people don't even bother and just say there is a slight lag when taking off before pressure builds. The 2 speed powerglide is also apparently adaptable for EV's. A few threads on www.diyelectricar.com discuss it in more detail if you want to search.
Manuals don't need clutches in EV's, I'm going clutch-less in mine, since the clutch is burnt anyway, but some people keep them to make shifting easier. Some manuals shift easier than others without clutches, I hope mine is one of them.

quote Originally posted by JRP3: Yes, but he's using a DC system with a lead pack. My vehicle will be lighter since I'm using Lithium, (I hope), and my 8 inch motor is going to be AC which is more efficient and has a flatter torque curve. It also has regenerative braking, which series DC motors don't. The controller I'm using is limited to 108 volts so I'm stuck there with this system but should be ok because of the points I've mentioned.

But you're not concerned with the wasted energy of converting to AC?
And isn't 75.6 Volts to the motor a little low?
By all means, good luck, but I personally think you're aiming a little low... And aiming low on an EV conversion can cost a lot... Also, what kind of charger will you be using? LIon batteries require a very specific charging cycle (for optimum capacity & life), because the voltage spike when charging is very small, and the larger ones really need to be charged at no more than .8C...
A charger for that big of a LIon pack is going to be hella expensive... (at least I would think, haven't really looked into it yet... )

when you get rid of the torque converter on the automatic it then works like a standard but with automatic shifting and it would have about a split second of lag and that would depend on how fast you applied the gas if you jump on the throtel it would pressur up so quick i doubt you would know it if you roled into the throtle it would leave a bit softer but the main thing is to make up a drive to take place of the torque converter.
I would think it would be a big advantage to use the largest diamater motor you could fit why i say that is if you applie 50 lbs of force at 6 inches out from center you would only have 25 ft lbs of torque and if you take the same 50 lbs put it 12 inchs out from center you 50 foot lbs only thing is you need a 24 inch diameter motor to be 1 foot from the center

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-15-2009).]

quote Originally posted by engine man: I would think it would be a big advantage to use the largest diamater motor you could fit why i say that is if you applie 50 lbs of force at 6 inches out from center you would only have 25 ft lbs of torque and if you take the same 50 lbs put it 12 inchs out from center you 50 foot lbs only thing is you need a 24 inch diameter motor to be 1 foot from the center

I don't think it works that way... Torque of a motor is applied at the shaft, not some distance out based on the diameter. Unless I'm missing something

quote Originally posted by jscott1: I don't think it works that way... Torque of a motor is applied at the shaft, not some distance out based on the diameter. Unless I'm missing something

I think he's talking about the larger armature having more leverage on the shaft, therefore, larger motor = more torque at the shaft... I think... (could've totally missed the point though)

yes i mean a larger armature more leverage on the shaft the longer the lever you have the more torque will be applied like they say give me a long enough lever and i can move the earth i think that building a moror for a car they would want to use as much leverage as posible it would be more efficant

[This message has been edited by engine man (edited 01-16-2009).]

quote Originally posted by engine man: yes i mean a larger armature more leverage on the shaft the longer the lever you have the more torque will be applied like they say give me a long enough lever and i can move the earth i think that building a moror for a car they would want to use as much leverage as posible it would be more efficant

You are right about the torque, but the larger armature in turn requires much more electricity to power the field and make that torque, so it's not necessarily more efficient to have a larger motor. More powerful, yes, but there is always going to be a middle ground between power & efficiency, just like there is in engines between a 3 cylinder & v12. The middle ground will be different for each vehicle also. For instance, here is a 300V AC powered Geo Prism. 300 VDC in at the controller, 240 VAC to the motor. It uses 50 12V Lead Acid batteries (2 banks of 25), and has a range of 50 miles. It requires TWELVE kilowatt-hrs to recharge after a 50 mile trip!?!

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: But you're not concerned with the wasted energy of converting to AC? And isn't 75.6 Volts to the motor a little low? By all means, good luck, but I personally think you're aiming a little low... And aiming low on an EV conversion can cost a lot... Also, what kind of charger will you be using? LIon batteries require a very specific charging cycle (for optimum capacity & life), because the voltage spike when charging is very small, and the larger ones really need to be charged at no more than .8C... A charger for that big of a LIon pack is going to be hella expensive... (at least I would think, haven't really looked into it yet... )

AC systems overall are more efficient than DC systems. The conversion losses you cite aren't accurate. I don't know enough to be able to explain it. Remember, the motor can still see full pack voltage at lower amperage. AC systems allow regen as I mentioned, which can give you back 10-20% of your energy through braking. Yes I'm aiming a little low on voltage, but I don't have a choice. Higher voltage AC systems cost way more and require many more individual cells, more interconnects, more complex battery management system, and more complex and expensive charger, no matter the cell chemistry. Just not in the budget at this point. The next larger system up from the one I'm considering takes me to 312 volts and $8 grand for the motor and controller.
I could do a more powerful DC/lead acid system without regen cheaper but it would be much heavier, which I'm trying to avoid. I don't want to end up with the typical lead sled.

quote Originally posted by fieroboom: For instance, here is a 300V AC powered Geo Prism. 300 VDC in at the controller, 240 VAC to the motor. It uses 50 12V Lead Acid batteries (2 banks of 25), and has a range of 50 miles. It requires TWELVE kilowatt-hrs to recharge after a 50 mile trip!?!

This has to be one of the least effective conversions I've seen. The 12 kW-h of storage is not the problem. The problem is that this vehicle has a ridiculous number of batteries for such a small range. 12V lead acids have about the lowest energy density of any battery on the planet. Probably would have done better with 6 volt batteries.

quote Originally posted by jscott1: This has to be one of the least effective conversions I've seen. The 12 kW-h of storage is not the problem. The problem is that this vehicle has a ridiculous number of batteries for such a small range. 12V lead acids have about the lowest energy density of any battery on the planet. Probably would have done better with 6 volt batteries.

Storage = weight. To get that voltage you'd need twice as many 6 volt batteries, I doubt there is room in that car or the weight capacity.
12 Kwh for 50 miles = 240 watt hours per mile, about average of most conversions

quote Originally posted by JRP3: AC systems overall are more efficient than DC systems. The conversion losses you cite aren't accurate. I don't know enough to be able to explain it.

Luckily, I do, so I will...
The car with the solar panels you referenced in your last post is using 108VDC on a DC motor, not AC...
AC is measured on the mean (Root Mean Square, aka RMS), not the peak of the sine wave, meaning that the peak of your DC square wave is NOT the AC voltage you will get. Take your DC and multiply it by .707, and that's your AC voltage. 108 VDC * .707 = 76.356 VAC.
It's the same in reverse too... If you're using a bridge rectifier to convert AC to DC, then you divide by .707. So if you were to convert 120VAC directly to DC, you have 169.73 VDC.
I'm not just trying to shoot you down and say it won't work, and be an A$$ like so many responses on here can be, I'm actually trying to help you by knowing what you're putting in so that hopefully you won't get it all in only to find out that your motor is melting, or your range is like 12 miles... Just trying to help man.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternating_current

quote Originally posted by JRP3: ...DC motors tend to have very little torque at full RPMs but are great for massive torque at take off.

I wanted to build a high performance EV and for that ^^^ reason I wanted to run a big DC motor that I could push to its limits in short acceleration spurts.

quote Originally posted by JRP3: ...The biggest DC I know if in use is the Warp 13:

That's the motor I really wanted to run, or maybe their Warp 11, actually the TransWarp series of the two.

quote Originally posted by JRP3: ...It's 377lbs and costs $4765

Both of those numbers SUCK! Add to that the weight and cost of batteries, either way (Lead or Li), and the vehicle gets prohibitively heavier and costlier. For performance uses, unless the point if just to prove an EV point, it's hard to compete with an ICE. An LS motor is around the same weight as the electric motor by itself. For $15K you could build one heckuva LS-series motor...

quote Originally posted by JRP3: ...unfortunately since the Zilla controller is no longer in production there is no current controller that can really power it.

Triple sucks!

I'm not trying to be overly pessimistic, just expressing my frustrations with trying to find a suitable EV solution. From my perspective, it seems like it's going to be a l-o-n-g time before this whole "movement" really pans out for anything more than green image marketing. The only uses I see that really seem to make sense are for mass transit. The plans the automakers have are just too expensive. Even the DIY conversions don't really pan out when you add the numbers - the cost of the conversion, compared to the cost of just maintaining and operating the original ICE vehicle. The there's the fact that the battery pack is going to have to be replaced, eventually. My daily driver has 215+K on it, and I am not afraid to drive it anywhere in the country. The engine still sounds like brand new, and if by chance something should happen to it I can replace it with a professionally rebuilt one for nowhere near the cost of buying a new battery pack.

I feel like I'm riding on a yo-yo reading these threads because every time I see a post that seems to promise new developments and ideas that could make this a reality, the resulting posts (and my subsequent limited personal research) say "not really". They're all good ideas, on paper, that don't make (financial) sense yet.

I'm so frustrated because I really wanted to do an EV, but when I dig deeper than my emotions it looks like a dumb idea for me. I think we're going to end up going to some alternative fuel, as a first step away from "big oil". The way I see it, IF there is a massive investment in electric for mass transit apps now, about twenty or thirty years from now it would "trickle down" into a feasible avenue for personal transportation. I capitalized "if" because I don't see anyone that would seriously make the investment. Big oil is confident they have enough to last for many more years, and natural gas, bio fuels, etc, are a better option for them as a next step. Our government is talking big talk but when you add up the numbers they propose to spend it's just not there. The near trillion dollar package they are trying to get on Obama's desk next month is divided up between so many things I don't see any of them going very far - let alone personal transportation.

Just venting...

[This message has been edited by toddshotrods (edited 01-16-2009).]

quote Originally posted by jscott1: This has to be one of the least effective conversions I've seen.

The electric water heater & water pump instead of a small electric element wasn't a clue?

nanotechnology is the best current hope for efficient cheap solar cells and batteries.. It is in the future, but promises much hope. December Automobile magazine mentions one I hadn't thought of. Air is compressed to 4500 lbs in special tanks to give a range of 125 miles and 68 mph top speed with a compressed air engine.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 01-16-2009).]

quote Originally posted by toddshotrods: Just venting...

I feel your pain, Todd. Been there, done that Run away before it drives you insane!

Edit:

quote Originally posted by dratts: Air is compressed to 4500 lbs in special tanks to give a range of 125 miles and 68 mph top speed with a compressed air engine.

Not to get too much into the air engine debate again, but one point for consideration I'd like to make:
In other methods of transportation, your physical "push" energy comes from potential energy stored chemically. In an air engine, it's stored physically. What this means, is you need the entire force necessary to move you 125 miles stored in those special tanks. Think for a moment how much energy that is. If you get in a wreck and the tank ruptures, it releases all of it physically, not just a chemical spill like other energy sources. I know they talk about using special materials to shatter and not puncture (carbon fiber, etc), but it's still got to release it all.

[This message has been edited by kwagner (edited 01-16-2009).]

quote Originally posted by kwagner: Not to get too much into the air engine debate again, but one point for consideration I'd like to make: In other methods of transportation, your physical "push" energy comes from potential energy stored chemically. In an air engine, it's stored physically. What this means, is you need the entire force necessary to move you 125 miles stored in those special tanks. Think for a moment how much energy that is. If you get in a wreck and the tank ruptures, it releases all of it physically, not just a chemical spill like other energy sources. I know they talk about using special materials to shatter and not puncture (carbon fiber, etc), but it's still got to release it all.

That's what my first thought was when I read 4500psi! Of course they would be pushed off as "safe" until a few hundred go ka-BOOM! Real world implications are afterthought to emotional and financial gratification. As for the advanced materials, the Titanic was never supposed to sink either. A better/safer train of thought is what happens when the impossible DOES happen?

Since the title of this thread is "Advanced Propulsion", let's take a step back, name all of the possible methods we can think of to store energy, then attempt to list some pros & cons. No matter how ridiculous, let's name them. Here's what I can think of:

- Electrical (batteries)
- Compressed Air
- Gasoline
- Compressed Hydrogen/Propane/Methane (as in buying the tanks)
- Water (electrolysis)