760-HP Supercar Concept Runs on Electrolyte Fluids

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
This car may be the very definition of “concept” due to its novel fuel source, but it would be pretty cool to have to pay only a nickel a gallon, 40 of which could let you go for 600 miles. Aside from being electrolyte-powered, NanoFlowcell’s Quant 48Volt is trying to make a name for itself with its 760-HP engine and capability of reaching 62 MPH in under 3 seconds.

NanoFlowcell, which has been touting its electrolyte-liquid-powered sports cars, will premiere a concept version of its Quant 48Volt at this year's Geneva Motor Show next month. The Liechtenstein-based company is developing an engine powered by batteries that run on electrolyte liquid – otherwise known as flow batteries. They have some promise and purport to solve some of the issues of conventional batteries, but we've yet to see any proof beyond the company's estimates. Take the rest of this report with a pinch of salt, perhaps two. The numbers thrown out by NanoFlowcell are pretty impressive. The Quant 48Volt's motor will deliver 760 horsepower that will propel the all-wheel-drive car from 0 to 62 miles per hour in a tidy 2.4 seconds. And the car will have a top speed of about 180 miles per hour.
 
I already have a vehicle that runs off of electrolyte fluid. An EZGO golf cart.

Come to think of it, all of my combustion engine vehicles use electrolyte fluid batteries to start them.

The funny thing is that this press release almost could have been written in the 1800s.

NanoFlowcell, which has been touting its electrolyte-liquid-powered horseless carriages, will premiere a concept version of its Quant 48Volt at this year's Geneva Motor Show next month. The Liechtenstein-based company is developing an engine powered by batteries that run on electrolyte liquid – otherwise known as flow batteries. They have some promise and purport to solve some of the issues of conventional steam engines, but we've yet to see any proof beyond the company's estimates. Take the rest of this report with a pinch of salt, perhaps two. The numbers thrown out by NanoFlowcell are pretty impressive. The Quant 48Volt's motor will deliver 7.60 horsepower that will propel the all-wheel-drive carriage from 0 to 6.2 miles per hour in a tidy 24 seconds. And the carriage will have a top speed of about 18 miles per hour.
 
There was a city in Europe somewhere that did something similar with their buses about 10 years ago. Electric wheel motors in the rear, and the battery was a fluid tank that they filled with aluminum pellets and something else. When it ran down they just emptied the tank, filled it up with fresh stuff and took the old slush to get reprocessed back in to stuff they could use again.
 
same ending though. Big Oil wont ever let it see the light of day by buying it up and it disappearing.
 
If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is.
NanoFlowcell was pitching a model called the Quant F way back in the fall of 2015, saying that the gull-winged beast delivered more than 1,000 horsepower. At the time, the company said it was planning a Switzerland plant that would start producing vehicles as soon as 2018, which indeed is coming up pretty soon.
Click to expand...
Mmmhmm, so I have the technology to make a thousand horsepower using salt water (the most abundant fluid on Earth), and I somehow don't have every government in the world, military contracts, every major auto-manufacturer, and power plant industry offering me hundreds of billions of dollars for the technology.... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

*coughbullshitcough*

If it were true, it would render solar, electric, coal, natural gas, and nuclear power obsolete, would afford the first nation to gain access to this technology a massive military and economic advantage, and quite frankly probably start world wars to fight for who gets dibs.
 
The guy behind the "technology" is a known bullshit artist with no science or engineering background. The obvious indicator? Most of the electrical system specifications they have given for these "supercars" with supposedly 500-1000 hp actually give you numbers closer to like....40hp LOL. Electrolyte flow batteries have been around since the late 1800s and have inferior energy density when compared to modern lithium ions. I can't believe media outlets are still giving this snake oil salesman publicity...and idiots are still funding him.

Most of the cars you see him pitching at trade shows are non-functional and as far as I know nobody has been seen driving one of them. You COULD make an electric drive train with this tech, but it would have the 0-60 time of a golf cart.
 
Grahamkracka said:
I can't believe media outlets are still giving this snake oil salesman publicity
Click to expand...
They themselves are just as bad nowadays. Hell, they've been just as bad for probably two decades now. They don't care for validity of the "news", only the emotions and number of clicks they can get from running it.

The ultra sad part? That most people believe this shit as gospel. I'm so sick of hearing people think that technology will never end and its always going to go at the pace it had done for the last three decades. Now that "tech" is mainstream. Guess what? So is the bullspit!

hate to be a deby downer on this type of stuff and shatter peoples fantasies. But 99% of "tech news" for the last 10 years has bee nothing but pure fantasy.

even Musk's Hyperloop is pure fantasy. Talk about ignoring the laws of physics (multiple times over!!). And he generally does good work, don't get me wrong.
 
HoffY said:
They themselves are just as bad nowadays. Hell, they've been just as bad for probably two decades now. They don't care for validity of the "news", only the emotions and number of clicks they can get from running it.

The ultra sad part? That most people believe this shit as gospel. I'm so sick of hearing people think that technology will never end and its always going to go at the pace it had done for the last three decades. Now that "tech" is mainstream. Guess what? So is the bullspit!

hate to be a deby downer on this type of stuff and shatter peoples fantasies. But 99% of "tech news" for the last 10 years has bee nothing but pure fantasy.

even Musk's Hyperloop is pure fantasy. Talk about ignoring the laws of physics (multiple times over!!). And he generally does good work, don't get me wrong.
Click to expand...

Over promising is part of Musk's personal strategy. He wants the people working for him on technology to jump 5 feet, when they can really only jump 1 foot at the time. They will eventually be able to jump 3 feet with a lot of extra work....Which is what he wanted in the first place. I don't necessarily like the management/marketing strategy, but it's worked with Tesla and SpaceX so far. I interned at SpaceX and the demands placed on engineering are fairly insane. I loved working there to be honest.


The guy behind these cars is doing something criminal, pure and simple. He knows the technology is not feasible, he's just pumping investors. Several serious players in the industry have funded him only to pull their affiliation all together a while later. Wonder why???
 
NIVO said:
same ending though. Big Oil wont ever let it see the light of day by buying it up and it disappearing.
Click to expand...

Not this shit again.

EVs have been around a long time (one of the first cars was an EV), "big oil" didn't buy it and shelve it. EV was expensive and short range, battery tech was no where near ready, and gas was ungodly cheap, a few places tried to market EVs, but no one bought them, and for good reason. Hell, even today all but the highest end EVs are not practical for a majority of people, when only considering range, no less ROI and are out of the budget of most people anyway. We are only just now seeing practical, normal priced EVs hit the market and this is only the case because they are being subsidized with tax payer dollars.
 
BlueFireIce said:
EV was expensive and short range, battery tech was no where near ready, and gas was ungodly cheap, a few places tried to market EVs, but no one bought them, and for good reason.
Click to expand...
and lest not forget that the big "Save the wold" push behind EV is basically just rubbish. The majority of emissions lost are during the manufacturing of the damn vehicle to begin with. So making more vehicles is exactly doing the opposite of saving the planet. Want ot save the planet? Stop buying cars. Stop making more of them. Use the one you have. Fix the one you have. Drive it into the ground. Then, and maybe only then... buy a new car. But don't kid yourself... EV's wont be close even by then!

But they have the cool factor so they will be a money maker like anything "new" and "shiny". They are pretty cool! But i still prefer a V8. ;)

Love my electric heli's (but i also love my nitro heli's to lol) :D
 
HoffY said:
I dont like any marketing (fullstop!). Its just glorified lying nowadays.
Click to expand...
Uhhhh, they don't lie. There was an asterisk in the marketing.* You didn't see that?

*there may or may not have been an asterisk. If you are still reading this, there is something wrong with you. Every additional word you are reading now is another second of your life wasted. You should make friends or pick up a hobby or something if you are still reading this disclaimer. Seriously, evaluate the point in your life where everything went wrong that you have nothing better to do that to continue reading this dribble. Eggs are delicious.
 
Leaving aside the snake oil, both this electrolyte thing and hydrogen fuel-cells are an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Namely, "Electric car? But how will it fuel up!?" It's an attempt to force limitations of old technology onto new tech due to lack of imagination, not much different than trying to engineer an internal combustion engine to run on horse feed.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
Leaving aside the snake oil, both this electrolyte thing and hydrogen fuel-cells are an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Namely, "Electric car? But how will it fuel up!?" It's an attempt to force limitations of old technology onto new tech due to lack of imagination, not much different than trying to engineer an internal combustion engine to run on horse feed.
Click to expand...
Because charging for 10 hrs is not an inconvenience and running out of charge in the middle of nowhere meaning a tow and not your buddy showing up with a gas can is also not an inconvenience.

H2 on the otherhand is death in a bottle. That will never happen. Saw an experimental H2 filling station fire aftermath. Except it wasn't fire. There was no burned out building or scorched pumps. There was a crator were a filling station and pavement use to be.
 
jpm100 said:
Because charging for 10 hrs is not an inconvenience and running out of charge in the middle of nowhere meaning a tow and not your buddy showing up with a gas can is also not an inconvenience.
Click to expand...
Yup, my mom even hates fueling up at Costco and loved having a 500+ mile range between the inconvenience of refueling, a process that takes perhaps three minutes at the pump. Yet three minutes regularly while you're doing nothing counting the seconds standing there feels annoying.

If its a cold day (temperature matters) and you use the latest and greatest Tesla supercharger, you can refuel in 60 minutes... can you imagine the inconvenience of doing that regularly? Virtually all gas stations would pretty much have to become restaurants to kill the time, and think of the cost of having so many superchargers in use at once since unlike at Costco where its a couple minutes and another car rolls forward and then another and another where you've refuled dozens of cars an hour, you're talking about only one an hour. And that's the very best expensive technology available to date under ideal conditions.

And people say "well on average you don't drive that far"... well, that's true, but how common is it to forget to charge your car for the night? You think, well let me bring in the groceries or Jeff parked his car in the way so you'll move it later so you can get to the charger, or you're staying over the night at a relatives house, and now you didn't get a chance to recharge. Well, now what!?!!?

Even if it rarely happens, its enough to cause range anxiety, and people don't like that feeling... I know even when my low-fuel light comes on I can easily go 40 miles to make it to a gas station, I still don't like that feeling of possibly running out of gas or thinking should I try to make it to work because I'm already late and don't have time to refuel, yet alone the hours needed to charge.

And realistically, most people are just going to be on the non-supercharger regular chargers which is about 8 hours recharge time.

A hydrogen fuel economy would resolve that issue, but again problem is that requires a massive infrastructure change, whereas hybrids do not since the electrical grid and gasoline grid are already in place.

So IMO pure electrics are still dumb, and I believe plugin hybrids are the best smooth transition between technologies/infrastructures.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
Leaving aside the snake oil, both this electrolyte thing and hydrogen fuel-cells are an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Namely, "Electric car? But how will it fuel up!?" It's an attempt to force limitations of old technology onto new tech due to lack of imagination, not much different than trying to engineer an internal combustion engine to run on horse feed.
Click to expand...

Charging times and lack of being able to bring "fuel" to a car that ran out, are indeed major problems that people worry about with EVs. Run out of gas on the side of the road? Everyone has a gas can and a 5min trip to get fuel and you are on the road, EV? You need a tow. Long trip and running out of charge? Need to sit for an hour or more to hit a full charge. These are serious problems, that battery tech has not solved yet, and the kind of battery needed might never exist, so looking for other ways to power them is a good idea.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
Leaving aside the snake oil, both this electrolyte thing and hydrogen fuel-cells are an attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Namely, "Electric car? But how will it fuel up!?" It's an attempt to force limitations of old technology onto new tech due to lack of imagination, not much different than trying to engineer an internal combustion engine to run on horse feed.
Click to expand...
Ducman69 said:
Yup, my mom even hates fueling up at Costco and loved having a 500+ mile range between the inconvenience of refueling, a process that takes perhaps three minutes at the pump. Yet three minutes regularly while you're doing nothing counting the seconds standing there feels annoying..
Click to expand...
How much will your mom like it next time gas hits $5 ?
 
Last edited:
jpm100 said:
How much will your mom like it next time gas hits $5 ?
Click to expand...

Will not happen for some time, and will probably be due to inflation and regulation and not outright supply drops. Most EVs are also much more than ICE cars, even being that EVs are subsidized in manufacture AND sales, they are much more expensive to the country as a whole, even then, most base models run in the 30-35k range mid to top range are an easy 36-45k, not including cars like the Tesla that start in the 60's. While other base model cars of the same size can be had for 10k less. So lets assume gas goes up to $5 a gallon (worst case) and the electricity you use to charge your car is free (best case and unlikely), it would take you over 60k miles to just break even on the extra cost of the EV, assuming a 30mpg car, which is pretty normal if not on the low side for cars today, mine is not an eco car and does 32mpg and I drive the shit out of it.

Looking at only cost of driving is very short sighted, you have to look at total cost over the life of the vehicle. Along with other issues and practical reasons of the car. Remove these subsidies mfgs are getting and rebates/tax breaks people get for buying them and prices would be 20k+ on top of the already more expensive EVs. I should also note, I would love to have an EV, and I have the money to buy one...But I don't.

Ducman69 said:
Very much, but its not going to happen unfortunately.
Click to expand...

It probably will....At some point, but I am willing to bet it will be far down the line.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Charging times and lack of being able to bring "fuel" to a car that ran out, are indeed major problems that people worry about with EVs. Run out of gas on the side of the road? Everyone has a gas can and a 5min trip to get fuel and you are on the road, EV? You need a tow. Long trip and running out of charge? Need to sit for an hour or more to hit a full charge. These are serious problems, that battery tech has not solved yet, and the kind of battery needed might never exist, so looking for other ways to power them is a good idea.
Click to expand...
Surveys of people who have actually owned EVs show that range anxiety is blown way out of proportion and charging times are a non-issue. Most people don't think about the 10+ hours they waste every year going to gas stations, or that gas cars have their own range anxiety. Ever decided to skip fueling up in the evening, then remember you have to be somewhere in the morning and end up late because you had to stop at the gas station first? That would never happen in an EV, which starts out every morning with a full "tank". Like every change to the status quo, people blow the problems out of proportion and ignore the equally serious drawbacks to existing technology.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
Surveys of people who have actually owned EVs show that range anxiety is blown way out of proportion and charging times are a non-issue. Most people don't think about the 10+ hours they waste every year going to gas stations, or that gas cars have their own range anxiety. Ever decided to skip fueling up in the evening, then remember you have to be somewhere in the morning and end up late because you had to stop at the gas station first? That would never happen in an EV, which starts out every morning with a full "tank". Like every change to the status quo, people blow the problems out of proportion and ignore the equally serious drawbacks to existing technology.
Click to expand...

Those same exact problems with gas, are many fold worse with gas, not sure how you see that as a win for EVs.

the people who own EVs in most cases have researched and found they don't do much driving and the EV fits, for the largest portion of the US that rack up the most road miles, that is not the case however. One of my car friends traded in his 370Z for a Leaf, because hes into cars and thought it was cool. He researched and found it should work for him. Now all he does is talk about how he cant wait for the lease to be up. He often misses out on meet ups because the battery is almost dead by the time he goes from work to school and back home. No one is saying EVs don't work for some people, but charging is a huge issue that stops lots of people from buying and range is another. Myself, I do 120 miles a day JUST getting to and from work. Which means outside of a Tesla, I am SOL unless my work installed a charging station for me.

There are a number of new 200 mile range or close to EVs coming out soon, and almost all of them would be a down grade from my current DD in size and features, yet start at a BASE cost of 37k. So, I start by losing features and space, add more time to fill ups in a large way, I am limited to being local without adding hours to a trip, and have to plan out my day and what I am going to do around charging my car and it's range, and I get to pay significantly more for all of this trouble. All the while pushing off a significant cost of the car onto the tax payer, which includes billions in funds to MFGs to make EVs, tax breaks for having EV lineups, and massive funding for building charging stations.

So, for the 37k I get to pay 17k more for this EV in the same market as a ICE competitor. That 17k at current prices of $2.20 average in the USA, is 7727 gallons of fuel, or at 30 MPG, 231,000 miles at 15k miles a year (higher than the 12k average), it would be 15.4 years before I recovered the cost of the EV. Meaning I would have bought a new car in either case LONG before it ever paid for it self, this is also assuming free charging for the EV. If we take the normal rate of charging at home and assume no cost charging everywhere else, Tesla states cost for 15k miles a year would be about $600, over 15.4 years is $9,430, or another 4,200 gallons of gas or another 126,000 miles. It's simple ROI, but it seems many people are willing to just look past this when talking about EVs. If you want one, GO FOR IT, but don't act like its better than ICE cars, they still have a long way to go.
 
The Chevy Volt is the best current compromise between a pure EV and a traditional internal combustion engine. I've owned one for about 4 mo's and most of my driving is pure EV but I can still go anywhere and any distance via the ICE. I love that I still haven't had to put any gas in it. The pricing is way out of whack for this vehicle though since the Federal government is giving you $7500 in tax credits and states like California are giving $1500 rebates. If these rebates were gone, the vehicles would probably be $8-10K less expensive. At the very least, the vehicles would have a lower depreciation curve. So, that $37K car after $9K of government subsidies is currently $28K. The equivalent Chevy Cruze would probably be $23K so I think the difference in price is more like $5K. The Volt and Cruze's ICE get about the same MPG but the equivalent of the first gallon of fuel is on battery. If you typically aren't driving more than 50 miles per day then you aren't using any gas. Assuming it costs roughly half as much for the electricity as it does for the gasoline, you're getting around 100 Mpg when driving in EV mode and have the convenience of "filling up" at home via the charger.

If you're driving 120 miles per day to work, you have qualify of life issues and should really look at moving or getting a different job. A plug-in hybrid doesn't work well in this situation since your driving more on the ICE than in EV mode. There are new EV's coming out with extended range but they don't have an ICE. There will always be range anxiety when you can't easily "fill up" quickly and continue driving. The hybrid EV's give you unlimited range but aren't much better than a good diesel vehicle. The plug-in hybrid is currently the best compromise since the average driver will use the EV mode most of the time but it can run as a hybrid electric when the extra range is needed. These plugin-hybrids probably don't work nearly as well in cold winter climates but they are nice in California.

BlueFireIce said:
Those same exact problems with gas, are many fold worse with gas, not sure how you see that as a win for EVs.

the people who own EVs in most cases have researched and found they don't do much driving and the EV fits, for the largest portion of the US that rack up the most road miles, that is not the case however. One of my car friends traded in his 370Z for a Leaf, because hes into cars and thought it was cool. He researched and found it should work for him. Now all he does is talk about how he cant wait for the lease to be up. He often misses out on meet ups because the battery is almost dead by the time he goes from work to school and back home. No one is saying EVs don't work for some people, but charging is a huge issue that stops lots of people from buying and range is another. Myself, I do 120 miles a day JUST getting to and from work. Which means outside of a Tesla, I am SOL unless my work installed a charging station for me.

There are a number of new 200 mile range or close to EVs coming out soon, and almost all of them would be a down grade from my current DD in size and features, yet start at a BASE cost of 37k. So, I start by losing features and space, add more time to fill ups in a large way, I am limited to being local without adding hours to a trip, and have to plan out my day and what I am going to do around charging my car and it's range, and I get to pay significantly more for all of this trouble. All the while pushing off a significant cost of the car onto the tax payer, which includes billions in funds to MFGs to make EVs, tax breaks for having EV lineups, and massive funding for building charging stations.

So, for the 37k I get to pay 17k more for this EV in the same market as a ICE competitor. That 17k at current prices of $2.20 average in the USA, is 7727 gallons of fuel, or at 30 MPG, 231,000 miles at 15k miles a year (higher than the 12k average), it would be 15.4 years before I recovered the cost of the EV. Meaning I would have bought a new car in either case LONG before it ever paid for it self, this is also assuming free charging for the EV. If we take the normal rate of charging at home and assume no cost charging everywhere else, Tesla states cost for 15k miles a year would be about $600, over 15.4 years is $9,430, or another 4,200 gallons of gas or another 126,000 miles. It's simple ROI, but it seems many people are willing to just look past this when talking about EVs. If you want one, GO FOR IT, but don't act like its better than ICE cars, they still have a long way to go.
Click to expand...
 
mlcarson said:
The Chevy Volt is the best current compromise between a pure EV and a traditional internal combustion engine. I've owned one for about 4 mo's and most of my driving is pure EV but I can still go anywhere and any distance via the ICE. I love that I still haven't had to put any gas in it. The pricing is way out of whack for this vehicle though since the Federal government is giving you $7500 in tax credits and states like California are giving $1500 rebates. If these rebates were gone, the vehicles would probably be $8-10K less expensive. At the very least, the vehicles would have a lower depreciation curve. So, that $37K car after $9K of government subsidies is currently $28K. The equivalent Chevy Cruze would probably be $23K so I think the difference in price is more like $5K. The Volt and Cruze's ICE get about the same MPG but the equivalent of the first gallon of fuel is on battery. If you typically aren't driving more than 50 miles per day then you aren't using any gas. Assuming it costs roughly half as much for the electricity as it does for the gasoline, you're getting around 100 Mpg when driving in EV mode and have the convenience of "filling up" at home via the charger.

If you're driving 120 miles per day to work, you have qualify of life issues and should really look at moving or getting a different job. A plug-in hybrid doesn't work well in this situation since your driving more on the ICE than in EV mode. There are new EV's coming out with extended range but they don't have an ICE. There will always be range anxiety when you can't easily "fill up" quickly and continue driving. The hybrid EV's give you unlimited range but aren't much better than a good diesel vehicle. The plug-in hybrid is currently the best compromise since the average driver will use the EV mode most of the time but it can run as a hybrid electric when the extra range is needed. These plugin-hybrids probably don't work nearly as well in cold winter climates but they are nice in California.
Click to expand...

You can't say because the government subsidizes those rebates they don't count in the cost, they do, they are just spread out to everyone who pays in taxes. Again, this is about actual cost, not price.

The hybrids are something totally different, the whole reason for my posts are in response to them saying that there are no issues with batteries and trying to find something to replace or augment them with is a waste, which is just not the case. In your case, you are supplementing the battery with the ability to run gas.

I don't have quality of life problems, I have a job that pays well for the drive and I can travel often, which only increases my drive time, no matter where I live. And 60 miles each way is really nothing at all when you live in Texas, some people also enjoy not living in the city.
 
BlueFireIce said:
Those same exact problems with gas, are many fold worse with gas, not sure how you see that as a win for EVs.
Click to expand...
Because you can't fuel up at home, meaning you're saving a lot of time not having to go to the gas station, way more time than the occasional half-hour on a road trip, during which you probably would have needed to stop for lunch and bathrooms anyway.

the people who own EVs in most cases have researched and found they don't do much driving and the EV fits, for the largest portion of the US that rack up the most road miles, that is not the case however. One of my car friends traded in his 370Z for a Leaf, because hes into cars and thought it was cool. He researched and found it should work for him. Now all he does is talk about how he cant wait for the lease to be up. He often misses out on meet ups because the battery is almost dead by the time he goes from work to school and back home. No one is saying EVs don't work for some people, but charging is a huge issue that stops lots of people from buying and range is another. Myself, I do 120 miles a day JUST getting to and from work. Which means outside of a Tesla, I am SOL unless my work installed a charging station for me.
Click to expand...
Yes the 1st gen EVs wouldn't work for a lot of people, however the 2nd gen like the new Chevy Bolt with 238 miles of range covers almost everyone's needs.

There are a number of new 200 mile range or close to EVs coming out soon, and almost all of them would be a down grade from my current DD in size and features, yet start at a BASE cost of 37k. So, I start by losing features and space, add more time to fill ups in a large way, I am limited to being local without adding hours to a trip, and have to plan out my day and what I am going to do around charging my car and it's range, and I get to pay significantly more for all of this trouble. All the while pushing off a significant cost of the car onto the tax payer, which includes billions in funds to MFGs to make EVs, tax breaks for having EV lineups, and massive funding for building charging stations.
Click to expand...
It's true that EVs still have a ways to go to equal gas cars in cost and practicality, but the gap is a lot smaller than most people think. Depending on what state you live in and dealer incentives, that $37K can start looking more like $25K. While the Chevy Bolt may resemble a Honda Fit on the outside, it has a lot more power, handles better due to a lower center of gravity, and the cabin is much quieter. EVs inherently feel more upscale than gas cars for these reasons, so when you pay more it's like stepping up from a Toyota to the equivalent Lexus.

As for the taxpayer, all EV layouts are a fraction of the special tax breaks given to oil and gas companies every year. Without those tax breaks, the price of gas would almost certainly be higher. Now, if you want to argue that they shouldn't get those breaks, I'm with you! But even then it's still not a level playing field because gas engines burden everyone with significant environmental and health externalities that aren't paid for.

So, for the 37k I get to pay 17k more for this EV in the same market as a ICE competitor. That 17k at current prices of $2.20 average in the USA, is 7727 gallons of fuel, or at 30 MPG, 231,000 miles at 15k miles a year (higher than the 12k average), it would be 15.4 years before I recovered the cost of the EV. Meaning I would have bought a new car in either case LONG before it ever paid for it self, this is also assuming free charging for the EV. If we take the normal rate of charging at home and assume no cost charging everywhere else, Tesla states cost for 15k miles a year would be about $600, over 15.4 years is $9,430, or another 4,200 gallons of gas or another 126,000 miles. It's simple ROI, but it seems many people are willing to just look past this when talking about EVs. If you want one, GO FOR IT, but don't act like its better than ICE cars, they still have a long way to go.
Click to expand...
It's not as long as people think, and they don't need to get into the sub-$20k market before they start to make significant sales. The average new car buyer is spending more like $30K, and once they understand the gains in comfort and convenience, a lot of them will consider it. EVs don't show up on most peoples' radar until someone they know buys one and talks about it, so it's a snowball effect.

Anyway my point in the previous post was not that EVs are superior to gas cars in every way and we should all run out and buy one today, but to point out that range anxiety and charging times aren't a big deal for most EV owners and are way overblown by detractors.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
Yes the 1st gen EVs wouldn't work for a lot of people, however the 2nd gen like the new Chevy Bolt with 238 miles of range covers almost everyone's needs.
Click to expand...
People always say this, but that's not really how it works.

IMO, even cars like the Chevy Bolt do NOT work for everyone's needs 100% of the time. They work for 100% of people's needs often, but not always, and that's the rub. Even if only 1% of the time you'd make a trip from say Houston to Dallas because of some event, if you only have one car you're now SOL and are simply stuck and have to get a rental car. That's lame.

You're never going to go 238 miles, because you'll experience range anxiety at 200 max, and that 200 miles is really 100 miles because wherever you go you have to make it back to your house to charge.

238 miles is also a theoretical ideal range, not one that will be 100% consistent every drive, and unfortunately just as everyone has learned with their cellphones and laptops is that it may be a 238 mile range off the dealership lot, but it won't be that three years from now, especially in Texas heat! So now you're always trying to do some kind of vague math to figure out if you have enough range or not, and that's dumb.

That's why I always recommend plugin hybrids over EVs, or better yet something like the new Chevy Cruz hatchback diesel coming out next year, supposed to do 52mpg highway with a crazy range!
 
I like my Volt, but I also work for an employer that installed a bunch of free charging stations so I basically never use gas. Naturally we have a higher than average population of electric-only drivers where I work.
 
arthur_tuxedo said:
Because you can't fuel up at home, meaning you're saving a lot of time not having to go to the gas station, way more time than the occasional half-hour on a road trip, during which you probably would have needed to stop for lunch and bathrooms anyway.
Click to expand...

You can fuel up at home with gas as well. You are talking about another cost to EVs, that being a home charging station and its install cost. You can have a gas pump installed for the same, or less in the case of CNG cars. However you don't need a pump at home because fill up often takes as little time and effort as plugging in the EV. you are trying to use the very long charge times as a plus, which is laughable, if you have to go to a gas station on a trip, that means you would be long past the range of a EV. And half hour stop? Thats just the smallest fast charge you can get, that is NOT a full charge, which takes two hours. Driving Texas speed limits, I would not even be able to make it to my sisters place on a single charge, which is something I do once a month. She also lives in the country and has no public charging stations close and no station at their house. Things like this is a common theme for people and why they don't buy EVs.

Can some people live with this? Yes. And if you can GREAT! But that does not mean batteries are prefect and that we should not be looking at other powering options, I really don't understand the resistance to this, do you own stock in batteries or something?


arthur_tuxedo said:
Yes the 1st gen EVs wouldn't work for a lot of people, however the 2nd gen like the new Chevy Bolt with 238 miles of range covers almost everyone's needs.
Click to expand...

Great, and for those people, they are welcome to buy them. However, as we have seen, most people who even fit into this area still buy ICE cars, because in most states and for most people, it would STILL mean needing a second car for anything outside of town or road trips.

The best part about the reviews for most EV's, like the new Bolt, are the statements that "GM plotted our trip", that being to hit the full range rating, in one of the reviews, over 100 miles of the trip were on continuous road with 40mph speed limits. With almost none of the trip being done in stop and go city and very little at real highway speeds. If I drive my DD at 40mph I get 42mpg, want me to do my calculations again at those kind of mileages for ROI?


arthur_tuxedo said:
It's true that EVs still have a ways to go to equal gas cars in cost and practicality, but the gap is a lot smaller than most people think. Depending on what state you live in and dealer incentives, that $37K can start looking more like $25K. While the Chevy Bolt may resemble a Honda Fit on the outside, it has a lot more power, handles better due to a lower center of gravity, and the cabin is much quieter. EVs inherently feel more upscale than gas cars for these reasons, so when you pay more it's like stepping up from a Toyota to the equivalent Lexus.
Click to expand...

So you are comparing a $16k car to a $37k car, that you for some reason keep calling a $25k dollar car. Cost is $37k (or more as we subsidize manufacture as well), sticker PRICE, might be 30k, again, I don't know where this 25k is coming from, unless you live on one of two states that offer a state income tax credit high enough to bring that 37k down to 25k, with the federal credit. However, cost is still 37k, this costs everyone, not just the buyer, we are subsidizing these cars, without this, the current EV market would not even exist. And speaking of "stepping up", that EV cost will get you into a Lexus, Jag, Audi, Merc, BMW etc, NOT just a Honda Fit. Talk to me about luxury, features, and "quiet" ride then.

None of this btw, has anything to do with replacing or looking for other tech to replace batteries.

arthur_tuxedo said:
As for the taxpayer, all EV layouts are a fraction of the special tax breaks given to oil and gas companies every year. Without those tax breaks, the price of gas would almost certainly be higher. Now, if you want to argue that they shouldn't get those breaks, I'm with you! But even then it's still not a level playing field because gas engines burden everyone with significant environmental and health externalities that aren't paid for.
Click to expand...

Those so called tax breaks are not money given to oil companies, rather it is money they earned and are allowed to keep, battery tech, EV MFGs, charging stations are being out right FUNDED by tax dollars, not just tax breaks. Oil and gas has also seen new regulation and costs that far out weight what "tax breaks" they get. Environmental and health? Oh, you want to talk about that? Have you done any research into how toxic the manufacture of batteries are? In best cases, over the total life and impact, they break even. Again, another problem with looking at only the first step and not the whole picture, and problem every environmentalist I have run into does.

Most EV's are just pollution else where. A few that are cleaner than others and when only operated in locations that have 100% renewable power, do they break even or show to have less of an impact than ICE, however, lots of the manufacture of batteries is not understood on how much of an impact it will have, that is still unknown.


arthur_tuxedo said:
It's not as long as people think, and they don't need to get into the sub-$20k market before they start to make significant sales. The average new car buyer is spending more like $30K, and once they understand the gains in comfort and convenience, a lot of them will consider it. EVs don't show up on most peoples' radar until someone they know buys one and talks about it, so it's a snowball effect.
Click to expand...

That average price has to do with a large number of sales that are trucks and other utility vehicles, which currently have no EV replacement. Also, when looking in the 30-40k range, there is not comfort and convenience gained, where this convenience comes from I have no idea. These cars are already very nice, you still have the 16k Honda Fit in your mind, which you need to stop, and start thinking BMW. So you gain no features, or actually lose them, have to deal with charging for longer trips, lose size and space etc etc.


arthur_tuxedo said:
Anyway my point in the previous post was not that EVs are superior to gas cars in every way and we should all run out and buy one today, but to point out that range anxiety and charging times aren't a big deal for most EV owners and are way overblown by detractors.
Click to expand...

And again, for those people, who are a small percentage, they have worked it out already and it works for them, EVERYONE ELSE, is looking for other tech or changes to add range or reduce filling/charging time. If you don't like that, to bad, most of us who drive the bulk of the miles driven in the usa are not ok with the current battery tech. And why you have an issue with trying to improve that I have no idea.
 
Ducman69 said:
People always say this, but that's not really how it works.

IMO, even cars like the Chevy Bolt do NOT work for everyone's needs 100% of the time. They work for 100% of people's needs often, but not always, and that's the rub. Even if only 1% of the time you'd make a trip from say Houston to Dallas because of some event, if you only have one car you're now SOL and are simply stuck and have to get a rental car. That's lame.
Click to expand...
I did say "almost everyone". Even so, I don't know how the infrastructure is from Houston to Dallas, but the equivalent drive here in CA is SF Bay to Los Angeles or vice versa. You would have to stop once for 20-30 minutes with a Bolt or Tesla on a drive where most people stop for lunch at some point anyway. If you did it every week it would be a dealbreaker, but most people only do a drive like that once per year or so, and every Tesla owner I've talked to said that the charging stop wasn't a big deal and they take the Model S on that trip even if they have a gas car they could use instead.

You're never going to go 238 miles, because you'll experience range anxiety at 200 max, and that 200 miles is really 100 miles because wherever you go you have to make it back to your house to charge.

238 miles is also a theoretical ideal range, not one that will be 100% consistent every drive, and unfortunately just as everyone has learned with their cellphones and laptops is that it may be a 238 mile range off the dealership lot, but it won't be that three years from now, especially in Texas heat! So now you're always trying to do some kind of vague math to figure out if you have enough range or not, and that's dumb.
Click to expand...
238 miles is the EPA range, which is actually quite accurate. I've beaten the rated range by a good 10% every time I've driven an EV and my route took me over a mountain pass. The theoretical ideal range across flat ground at 55 MPH with no AC is more like 300 miles.

That's why I always recommend plugin hybrids over EVs, or better yet something like the new Chevy Cruz hatchback diesel coming out next year, supposed to do 52mpg highway with a crazy range!
Click to expand...
I have nothing against PHEVs and efficient ICE cars, and like I said before, my goal is not to convince everyone that they should run out and buy an EV today, but I see more misinformation and misconceptions whenever EVs are discussed than accurate info. A lot of buyers are a perfect fit for an EV and don't know it because they haven't heard the facts.


BlueFireIce said:
You can fuel up at home with gas as well. You are talking about another cost to EVs, that being a home charging station and its install cost. You can have a gas pump installed for the same, or less in the case of CNG cars. However you don't need a pump at home because fill up often takes as little time and effort as plugging in the EV. you are trying to use the very long charge times as a plus, which is laughable, if you have to go to a gas station on a trip, that means you would be long past the range of a EV.
Click to expand...
Oh come on! You can run a gasoline line to your house and have a pump installed for $1,200? CNG is a more realistic alternative if you already have NG running to your house, although home refueling is still fraught with difficulty since it's hard to get NG at a sufficient level of purity with a home pump. Most people vastly underestimate how much time they spend at gas stations because they're used to it, but it's 10+ hours per year absolute bare minimum and more like 20-25 for most people. Popping the charging cap and plugging in before going inside the house does not rate by comparison.

And half hour stop? Thats just the smallest fast charge you can get, that is NOT a full charge, which takes two hours. Driving Texas speed limits, I would not even be able to make it to my sisters place on a single charge, which is something I do once a month. She also lives in the country and has no public charging stations close and no station at their house. Things like this is a common theme for people and why they don't buy EVs.

Can some people live with this? Yes. And if you can GREAT! But that does not mean batteries are prefect and that we should not be looking at other powering options, I really don't understand the resistance to this, do you own stock in batteries or something?
Click to expand...
When I see false or overblown statements, I have an urge to correct them. Welcome to the Internet!

Great, and for those people, they are welcome to buy them. However, as we have seen, most people who even fit into this area still buy ICE cars, because in most states and for most people, it would STILL mean needing a second car for anything outside of town or road trips.
Click to expand...
A lot of families already have 2+ cars anyway, and EV charging infrastructure is relatively cheap to set up. Tesla has a pretty good network already and they're just one company. My problem is not with people who need an ICE car, it's with people who think they do and actually don't and then spread that misinformation.

The best part about the reviews for most EV's, like the new Bolt, are the statements that "GM plotted our trip", that being to hit the full range rating, in one of the reviews, over 100 miles of the trip were on continuous road with 40mph speed limits. With almost none of the trip being done in stop and go city and very little at real highway speeds. If I drive my DD at 40mph I get 42mpg, want me to do my calculations again at those kind of mileages for ROI?
Click to expand...
EPA Efficiency and range are very accurate in most use cases. I have confirmed this personally with a Chevy Spark EV. ROI isn't going to converge until around 2020 when battery cell prices drop below $100 / kWH.

So you are comparing a $16k car to a $37k car, that you for some reason keep calling a $25k dollar car. Cost is $37k (or more as we subsidize manufacture as well), sticker PRICE, might be 30k, again, I don't know where this 25k is coming from, unless you live on one of two states that offer a state income tax credit high enough to bring that 37k down to 25k, with the federal credit. However, cost is still 37k, this costs everyone, not just the buyer, we are subsidizing these cars, without this, the current EV market would not even exist. And speaking of "stepping up", that EV cost will get you into a Lexus, Jag, Audi, Merc, BMW etc, NOT just a Honda Fit. Talk to me about luxury, features, and "quiet" ride then.

None of this btw, has anything to do with replacing or looking for other tech to replace batteries.
Click to expand...
Those are exactly the cars I was talking about. Compared to its gasoline equivalent, EVs have much better torque off-the-line, a much quieter ride, and better handling from a lower center of gravity. It's a lot like stepping up to a luxury brand in many ways. Not so much on the interior materials, but very much so in perceived power output and moreso in quiet ride.

37.5K for the Bolt becomes 30K with the federal tax credit. If you're in CA, there's also a state credit of $2,500 so we're down to 27.5K. Depending on the time of year there can also be generous dealer incentives that can easily bring the price down to 25K or even less.

Those so called tax breaks are not money given to oil companies, rather it is money they earned and are allowed to keep, battery tech, EV MFGs, charging stations are being out right FUNDED by tax dollars, not just tax breaks. Oil and gas has also seen new regulation and costs that far out weight what "tax breaks" they get.
Click to expand...
Do you understand what a bottom line is? It doesn't matter whether you write a check or write-off money that is owed, either way you're out of the same amount of dollars.

Environmental and health? Oh, you want to talk about that? Have you done any research into how toxic the manufacture of batteries are? In best cases, over the total life and impact, they break even. Again, another problem with looking at only the first step and not the whole picture, and problem every environmentalist I have run into does.

Most EV's are just pollution else where. A few that are cleaner than others and when only operated in locations that have 100% renewable power, do they break even or show to have less of an impact than ICE, however, lots of the manufacture of batteries is not understood on how much of an impact it will have, that is still unknown.
Click to expand...
This is just a flat out lie perpetuated by the oil and gas industries. They don't even come close to breaking even, and in fact EVs have about half the lifetime environmental impact of ICE cars given a typical US grid with some coal, hydro, and nuclear, a small amount of renewables, and mostly natural gas. Even with a grid that is nearly 100% coal, which these days are a handful of states that don't buy EVs anyway, the impact is still smaller because it's a lot more economical to scrub one giant smokestack than tens of thousands of tailpipes. EV emissions also get cleaner over time as the grid becomes greener, while ICE cars must pass periodic smog tests because the opposite happens as their emission control systems age.

That average price has to do with a large number of sales that are trucks and other utility vehicles, which currently have no EV replacement. Also, when looking in the 30-40k range, there is not comfort and convenience gained, where this convenience comes from I have no idea. These cars are already very nice, you still have the 16k Honda Fit in your mind, which you need to stop, and start thinking BMW. So you gain no features, or actually lose them, have to deal with charging for longer trips, lose size and space etc etc.
Click to expand...
I listed 4 different areas where EVs are more comfortable and convenient than gas cars: Acceleration, handling, quiet cabin, and starting out every morning with a full charge. I used the Honda Fit as an example because its exterior and interior dimensions are very similar to the Chevy Bolt, but pointed out that driving the Bolt is more like driving a luxury brand than a Fit.

And again, for those people, who are a small percentage, they have worked it out already and it works for them, EVERYONE ELSE, is looking for other tech or changes to add range or reduce filling/charging time. If you don't like that, to bad, most of us who drive the bulk of the miles driven in the usa are not ok with the current battery tech. And why you have an issue with trying to improve that I have no idea.
Click to expand...
For every EV owner, there are 10 people who would at least consider one if they had better information. Overblown fears about range anxiety, underestimation of the benefits, and fossil fuel industry propaganda about "moving the emissions" muddies the waters, and I will continue to correct these misconceptions when I see them until EVs become mainstream.
 
I don't see the pure EV cars like the Bolt and Tesla ever catching on unless they can be fully charged in less than 5 minutes and there's a national infrastructure of charging stations built around them at your standard gas station. A plug-in hybrid with an EV range that's greater than 99.9% of American's total commute distance is what's needed. You then have ICE's being used only for long trips. Change the default fuel source to diesel on these plug-in hybrids and eliminate the current pollution restrictions or alternatively do a flex fuel option. The key though is increasing the EV range for commutes while still maintaining an ICE for unlimited range on trips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top