http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/28/phone.explosion.ap/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

-Batteries can have dangerously high fault currents.
-Batteries can explode or catch on fire if overloaded.
-In a car crash bus bars will likely short, and if internal protection fails, everybody dies. (tm)

11/29/2007 10:16:38 AM

Why we have gasoline cars

-Gasoline can explode or catch on fire
-Carbon monoxide can be deadly
-In a car crash everyone can die

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 10:19 AM. Reason : .]

11/29/2007 10:19:36 AM

i have a magic carpet that runs on pixie dust

11/29/2007 10:20:29 AM

I dunno, battery fault current scares me more so than gasoline.

11/29/2007 10:24:42 AM

yeah and the original gasoline engine scared people who had horses

whats your point?

11/29/2007 10:40:40 AM

I'm just saying, as we make batteries more powerful, such to the point that they'll charge in minutes and last for hours, we'll be sitting on bombs, much more powerful than a tank of gasoline. And everybody knows that horses don't explode.

11/29/2007 10:44:33 AM

11/29/2007 10:47:27 AM

HOLY SHIT, LOUIS NUTZZ IS BACK TOO

11/29/2007 10:50:02 AM

Yes a battery powered car could be dangerous in a crash. Yes they could implement safety features to avoid things like electrified car bodies in an accident. It's just another engineering problem that has a solution. They could also put in some safety features to determined when the battery is going to explode. Sensors that determine if the battery compartment is expanding, if the voltage is starting to become erratic/inconsistent or if a cell is malfunctioning. They aren't bad just because the early models didn't have the best safety features. Early models are never the best example of what a platform can really do.

Also, horses can too explode. I saw it on south park.

11/29/2007 10:50:51 AM

That's why you don't fuel your horse with high octane milkweed!

I'm just saying, you'll need a lot of batteries and copper or aluminum bus bars, in a bad wreck, there's nothing that can be done to prevent these from shorting together. We do have internal protection in batteries currently, but because of stresses of the crash, we cannot assume these will still be working all the time. If you have 1000 amps discharging from lithium batteries in a bus bar short, it will be catastrophic by any means. I think the future of cars would have to be in renewable fuels, which are almost always more likely not to go *boom* especially considering that for it to be an air-fuel bomb, there would have to be a great dispersal or boiling of the fuel.

Lead-acid batteries would be less likely to explode, but do we seriously want that many tons of lead on the road?

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 11:02 AM. Reason : car discussion]

11/29/2007 10:56:30 AM

Pyrotechnic charges can seperate the cable from the battery terminal in a crash. These already exist on some cars like the Mini.

I'm a noob when it comes to lithium (ion?) batteries, but could the batteries have the ability to vent to release high pressures and avoid explosion?

11/29/2007 11:49:06 AM

cars already have batteries...

and what about those damn hybrids?
"dont touch the big red wire"... and that's under normal operation...

11/29/2007 11:58:53 AM

The worst thing is not that the battery itself is sitting there with bus bars, but the fact that crash dynamics would have metal bending and twisting in all directions. If some metal bars just impaled multiple cells on the bank, there'd be the potential for explosion. I believe the problem would be that when you have a large potential in a small area, creating a large energy density, there's a huge risk for an uncontrolled reaction that will turn almost all the stored energy into heat.

Li-Ion batteries already have some anti-explosion devices in them, but even they can fail. There was a situation at a warehouse I worked at one time where an employee dropped his cell phone and ran over it with the reach he was on; there was a divot in the concrete floor where the battery exploded. Whether this was caused purely from the explosive force or the combined pressure from the reach and the cellphone is to be questioned. It's just anecdotal evidence of explosive powers of stored chemical energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Controversy

Hybrid cars aren't electric for a reason, they have less energy dense Ni-MH batteries. Batteries like this get nickel from smelters in Canada: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=Sudbury,+ON,+Canada&ie=UTF8&ll=46.48223,-81.046314&spn=0.022458,0.060768&t=h&z=15&om=1, never mind the dead fields around it. I know a Canadian up there, they get free car and house paintings around the smelter because of the staining and pollution.

If we were to have the range that we wanted without fuels, we'd need much higher energy density than perhaps even Li-Ion will provide. There is ongoing research into organic cells with much higher energy densities and volatility.

[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 12:14 PM. Reason : I don't want to troll too much on my thread.]

11/29/2007 12:05:55 PM

if you're scared of the explosion so much, then just don't get an electric car.

11/29/2007 1:16:03 PM

We don't have electric cars because batteries can't store [remotely] enough power.

Everything else you're arguing is so laughably stupid that a response to it isn't necessary.

Good job on making yourself look foolish.

11/29/2007 1:52:25 PM

attn: users with less than 1000 posts.

11/29/2007 2:08:42 PM

^^The whole purpose of this topic was to spur discussion in Tech-Talk on the current state of EVs. Good job at making yourself look like a dick.

The fact of the matter is that batteries can store enough energy for the common daily commute and errands, however they lack capacity to provide long distance driving. There have been ideas where charging stations would be able to automatically swap battery banks out in a car with a common module interface.

There's also the always impending problem that when we do have batteries that will have enough capacity for drivers (organic batteries have had some good research potential) and recharging times that would be similar to fueling a gas tank would be volatile devices with too much chemical potential energy that can be released too readily.

11/29/2007 2:45:12 PM

Quote :

"The whole purpose of this topic was to spur discussion in Tech-Talk "

get your forum straight, n00b.

11/29/2007 2:49:15 PM

^Get off my thread troll, if the mod hadn't moved this thread, it'd still be in Tech-Talk.

11/29/2007 3:11:29 PM

Who calls someone a troll? Get out fag.

Oh and we don't have electric cars because they suck ass.

11/29/2007 3:17:30 PM

Quote :

"Hybrid cars aren't electric for a reason"

uhm.. cus people dont want to plug them in.. and the whole range issue...

11/29/2007 3:19:28 PM

Fuckin' trolls.

11/29/2007 3:42:11 PM

Nobody cares, go argue in a electrical engineering class.

11/29/2007 3:51:32 PM

"omg you dont agree with me.. fucking troll"



[Edited on November 29, 2007 at 3:52 PM. Reason : fucking noob]

11/29/2007 3:52:07 PM

I'm calling you trolls because you're not discussing anything; y'all keep flaming me personally, making you trolls.

11/29/2007 3:59:00 PM

do you want us to tell you there is no risk of explosion or that is the reason that they're not widely available? what is there to discuss..?

i dont have an electric car because of the range issue, cost associated with owning (maint), and i dont want to have to plug it in.

there are lots of people that have done full electric conversions themselves and drive their ev car every day. obviously they havent all died yet.

theres not one reason for everything.. and if there was, i would guess its because GM scrapped the EV1 program, which made the masses believe it wouldnt work.. when, in fact, a lot of the owners wanted to keep the cars (they were lease only)

11/29/2007 4:07:59 PM

^ Exactly the discussion I wanted.

11/29/2007 4:16:18 PM

because nobody wants a car that can go 70-100 miles max without recharging, and noone wants to play 20k+ for a car that only can go 70-100 miles.

Completley battery based cards are pretty impractical i think for the average person, until they get better i dont see them going into mass production.

For electrics to take off you will need very high energy density batteries, ones that last at least 3 or 4 years without a major dropoff in capacity, and that can be charged enough in 10 minutes to go 60 miles (trips would suck but be possibly pheasable).

Ohh yea and these miracle batteries cant cost 100k

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 7:42 AM. Reason : dd]

11/30/2007 7:40:13 AM

Quote :

"dont touch the big red wire"

actaully all the high voltage wiring is in bright orange sheathing dumbass

11/30/2007 9:19:31 AM

oh whatever.. the excape hybrid can make a hot dog explode if you touch it to that wire.

11/30/2007 10:25:38 AM

Quote :

"because nobody wants a car that can go 70-100 miles max without recharging, and noone wants to play 20k+ for a car that only can go 70-100 miles. "

I would be interested in one.

I would wager I drive less than 70 miles a day almost 95% of the time.

11/30/2007 12:59:07 PM

Quote :

"because nobody wants a car that can go 70-100 miles max without recharging, and noone wants to play 20k+ for a car that only can go 70-100 miles. Completley battery based cards are pretty impractical i think for the average person, until they get better i dont see them going into mass production. For electrics to take off you will need very high energy density batteries, ones that last at least 3 or 4 years without a major dropoff in capacity, and that can be charged enough in 10 minutes to go 60 miles (trips would suck but be possibly pheasable). Ohh yea and these miracle batteries cant cost 100k"

there is so much wrong with this post i dont even know where to begin

11/30/2007 2:08:26 PM

the entire garage is trolls...

it should be called "under the bridge" so people will look out for trolls when they come here.

11/30/2007 2:30:45 PM

because electric cars are idiotic without a majority nuclear power grid...oh you weren't looking for a real answer, nevermind.

::backs out of thread slowly::

11/30/2007 2:36:51 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

11/30/2007 2:49:08 PM

A large nuclear powered grid would be good for everything though. We currently use way too much of our peak power generating stations too long to make ends meet. Everyone will be unhappy when frequency finally hits 59.1 hertz. While I was mainly wanting to discuss the powering of an EV, other criticism is welcome.

[Edited on November 30, 2007 at 3:30 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2007 3:28:59 PM

We don't have electric cars because they aren't economically feasible for the average consumer. This topic is more about economics than electrical engineering, doosh.

11/30/2007 6:34:04 PM

as expensive as gasoline is, at this point it's still the most cost-effective way to power vehicles. When, due to higher fuel costs or lower cost alternatives to petroleum-fueled vehicles, electric/fuel cell/some technology not yet developed will emerge as a serious alternative.

12/1/2007 11:21:55 PM

Quote :

"Why we don't have electric cars"

'cause they suck!!!



POUR GAS ON IT

12/1/2007 11:46:29 PM

honda's got your back brother

http://world.honda.com/news/2007/4071114All-New-FCX/

12/2/2007 4:30:15 AM

how is it you people are saying gas cars are still the most "cost-effective"....

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/~jarrett/EV/cost.php

granted some cars can cost more, but over time the costs of gas are going to outweigh that... and SOME ELECTRIC CARS are cheaper than gas cars which makes that point even more idiotic.

you guys really should watch that documentary b/c some of you really are ignorant... and I admit to being a bit overly opinionated, but really... be educated.

12/3/2007 9:32:39 PM

^That's funny, because I don't see ANY initial costs (purchase prices, etc.) for either one. And it's the initial purchase (or conversion) price that is the deal breaker. From a purely economical perspective, I'd be willing to bet that you'd fail to recoup your extra investment any sooner than 5 years after purchase. Most likely 10 years. Moreso, given our geographical constraints (this ain't Europe; population density is relatively low), there are some pretty big opportunity costs associated with owning an electric vehicle. It's been said no less than a half dozen times in this thread so far: energy density of economically viable batteries is very low...and consequently, electric vehicles have far less flexibility.

You really must consider the intrinsic costs to owning and operating an electric vehicle, especially given our lack of infrastructure to support them.

12/3/2007 9:50:36 PM

^^using someone's personal website with their own numbers to validate gas/electric isn't exactly getting educated in my book.

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 9:51 PM. Reason : damn zx, gettin all quick and smart before i can make a measly sentence]

[Edited on December 3, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : and yeah, dont make me go all 'civic HX' on this thread]

12/3/2007 9:50:49 PM

okay, then you both can google the cost of an electric car.... the us doesnt offer many, wonder why... but you might be surprised to find out they are equal or less than what you pay for any other gas auto that is new.

12/3/2007 9:52:15 PM

well then, how much is an electric? how much is a little gasser? how much is my civic going to save me the next 100000+ miles (or 5 years) I drive it compared to purchasing a new electric or hybrid? A SHIT TON

















A SHIT TON

12/3/2007 9:56:32 PM

Find me one electric car that offers what the baseline Toyota Corolla does...for the same price.

I'll buy you a pizza and a six pack of beer if you can.

A new, turn-key car. Not some used shit or a kit.

12/3/2007 10:01:09 PM

^ so amenities are better than trying to help our planet and stop a dependence? I didnt realize I was going to be limited to finding a 6 disc changer or something that makes my ass warm... that is surely more important.

12/3/2007 10:26:43 PM

What you're willing to give up and what the vast majority of the great unwashed (and often ignorant) are willing to give up...well, they're pretty much mutually exclusive.

I must admit, your ideals are rather noble...but I find them to be overly idealistic. And in a society where truth is relative and is mostly comprised of the opinion of the majority, your ideals are distinctly in the minority.

It doesn't mean that what you propose is wrong by any stretch of the imagination...it means that its fruition is most likely going to be impeded by other, what you consider to be peripheral, issues.

The typical two-career, suburbanite, family of four looks at personal comfort, safety, and convenience when shopping for a car. Unfortunately, with our present infrastructure, electric cars achieve none of those three affordably. Not well. Not yet. Sure, there are those that do, but at a price that only the wealthy can afford. Most of us can't afford the luxury of altruism when it comes to our daily transportation.

Our society is just not ready for that level of self-sacrifice.

12/3/2007 10:44:20 PM

its not the prettiest thing and not something I would ever drive.... but the reviews say its fun to drive, it will even squeal tires and it comes with some of your amenities:

• All-weather driving, fully enclosed and heated interior • heater, power windows, CD player • Single passenger • 3 wheels • disc brakes • 30 mile range • Built-in charger for pack of 13 Optima Blue Top batteries • 6 cubic feet of luggage space (about 1 grocery cart's worth) • 112 inches long, 52 inches wide, 57 inches high • 70-75 mph top speed • 0-30 in less than 3.5 seconds • weighs 1,400 lbs. • cost $24,900

Here is the most interesting specification. A gasoline vehicle that gets 40 mpg (think Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic Hybrid) costs 7.5 cents per mile in fuel when gas is $3 a gallon. The NmGs charging costs are an unbelievable penny per mile at typical utility rates (6 cents per kilowatt hour)! Take that, hybrid hypesters. Even a so-called plug-in hybrid getting an effective 120 mpg would still be more than twice as costly as the NmG to fuel. Impressive.

12/3/2007 10:49:47 PM

^^ I hear what you are saying, but the costs are so high for reasons that can be fixed...

the cars have less components/parts and not nearly as detailed...

right now most all electric autos are done by startups, no wonder prices are so high. If we could get the amount of corrolas made every year dont you think toyota could charge the same price?

another big factor is that most cars are only available to CA, if you had more people buying, more supply would follow and that equates to a lower price.

why is it CA is the only state that really has influence over environmental issues anyway?

12/3/2007 10:55:10 PM