And where does this Mini come from? Made in Britain under guidance from BMW, Germany.

You super brains in the US are not even able to construct such a cart by yourself. Sometimes the parallels between the US and Iran are more than obvious. Both countries are too fanatic and are not able to produce the simplest items.

Cheers
Jan from Switzerland.

'Autonomy' obviously means the range of the vehicle. It depends on whether you use batteries, or additionally an internal combustion engine to reload them.
As of carbon emissions: The car can be run on batteries only, but recharging them means using electricity that today mostly will not be produced carbon-free.

Autonomy is range, zero emmissions are possible when the car's fuel is derived from a zero emmissions source, such as methanol created from sustainable forestry or if it is a directly electric vehicle, electrictity generated by solar or wind power.

I am not a technician so I can't explain why more than 640 brake horse power is possible, if you want to know just call or send an email to PML Flightlink who states this on their website. I have been in contact with them, and see this information as reliable.

http://www.pmlflightlink.com/archive/news_mini.html

Please allow me to take the liberty to answer for Rembrandt.
'Autonomy' is the range the vehicle has without stopping for fueling or servicing.

With the Mini the first 400 km's (approx, since it depends of driving conditions ofcourse) are all electric. After that a small generator kicks in (which is now a gasoline version, but can be any fuel and any type of generator (including fuel cell [ideally methanol, since this can be produced efficiently and sustainably]).

'Zero emissions' apply for the first 400 km (on a charge of RES). For the remainder: when using short-cycle carbon fuels, or other sources (hydrogen, but that has 25% well to wheel efficiency, when used in a fuel cell)

The power concept doesn't stem from the Prius. This car is a based on a traditional concept of ICE under the bonnet, assisted with an electric motor, regenerative braking and a relatively small battery. The plug in version comes closer to the all electric vehicle, since it is able to go -almost- all electric all of the daily commute km's (and charge overnight with cheap grid electricity). When hooked to the grid during daytime, these vehicles can be used for balancing of the grid (and earn the owner some cash).

The Mini is of a different ilk.

Currently they have not been tested in such environments, I will have to ask some technicians I know whether that would be a problem or not.

Let's put our efforts in finding out asap & start producing these cars by the millions. Which is rather easy, when one takes a closer look; don't let main stream spokesmen mystify this issue.

So China, India, Brazil, Russia and the rest are seriously tempted to take the all electric route as the standard for their booming car industries, rather than the ICE. For them it's relatively easy to do so, with relatively little vested interests with ICE.

If we can charge these cars with electricity from Concentrating Solar Power (which is a political issue and not a technical one) and [as soon as the DMFC becomes available] methanol from sustainable forestry, we're heading for a clean horizon.

I know that recently serious tests have been done with the Tesla Roadster at Arvidsjaur in the north of Sweden, located 110 kilometres from the Arctic Circle. The tests were very succesful. So, don't be worried, harsh winter conditions won't be a specific problem for electric vehicles.

hi Petropest

I am clamouring!

I am not American but would not feel much sadness if the encumbent large American motor companies bit the dust as they just might. They are just holding us back. It's all the workers I worry about though e.g. in Michigan.

I have never bought a new car, the newest was 8 years old. Only a new generation in development would tempt me.

Carbon - UK

*POP!*

James Kunstler's head just exploded. The happy-motoring utopia lives on!

Petropest is correct, this won't see significant play in the US for many, many years and by then, it will be too late. The free market-US government complex does not provide the correct infrastructure for an idea of this type to flourish. The only hope here is that some super-rich individual makes it his or her personal priority to make these vehicle types common on US roadways.

Again, it seems, Europeans will make use of this technology far more appropriately than their fat American counterparts.

Petropest
They can fight he tech as much as they wish but will fail. Mostly this is simple stuff. Not ready for DIY yet, but close.

Hi Joule,

I think Driveshafts count (at least partially) as unsprung weight. I don't think the effect on handling will be as bad as you think, manufacturers have managed against the odds to get some pretty nasty heavy vehicles to handle well. My EV handles really well as all the weight is low down in the lead acid batteries. Weight distribution can be improved from it's present state.

Also, how often have you damaged a brake drum or disc in a pothole? I think that these are non-problems. I think the problems are with the fact that manufacturers are not ready to change paradigm because it will necessarily be quite expensive. Better sooner than later I say. Toyota has shown that pretty well with the Prius.

Carbon - UK

Joule,
Its not meant for race cars. "Unsprung weight" is a term i have only encountered in Hot-Rod magazines, and probably is of little importance to an urban commuter car. Wheel inertia is an issue in stop-and-go driving, but the regenerative braking takes care of that.

The potential I see in wheel-motors is that they leave more room inside the car for a "black box" area. The chassis maker can manufacture a common reference design, without power source, and ship it to various power-plant integrators who add their own particular product before selling it. Fuel cells, ICE gensets, various batteries, supercapacitors, Mr Fusion, whatever.

This potential for a "boutique" car industry, somewhat like the Harley-based chopper, is the greatest chance to apply American ingenuity to solving the problem, and of course scares the shit out of Detroit.

My first thought was also about the unsprung weight aspect, It has been my understanding that it is something the automanufacturers take very seriously. Driving vehicles on-road with no suspension apart from their pneumatic tires, like most tractors, gets really annoying (and really dangerous, not that I really care myself) really quickly as the speed increases up to about 20-25 kph. (I like extrapolating to the extremes to try to gain an understanding of physics.)

In Norway a tractor needs brakes on all wheels to go faster than 30 kph, and in addition frontwheel suspension to be allowed to go up to 40kph. Adding suspension effectively moves a huge mass from the unsprung to the sprung category. This suggests, if the road authorities know anything about road safety, that it is important to take the unsprung weight into consideration.

Adding enough batteries as ballast to the car would serve to get the ratio of sprung/unsprung weight back into proportion, and would give increased range as a side benefit. On the other hand, driving slower would remove the need for an EV that handles like a sports car.

Without ever having driven an electric car, let alone one with in wheel motors, it's hard to imagine what it would feel like. One thing is certain, if Mitsubishi is looking into it it can't be a total dead end, japanese manufacturers aren't afraid of trying new engines. (Wankler, hybrid, and now the in-wheel electric motor).

The effect of a larger rotating mass would be interesting to know more about aswell.

The wonders of Technical Writing and Salesmanship make it difficult to impossible to decipher the copy in Rembrandt's links. But it's just motors and switches. A few simple sensors. Obvious routes to technical progress have languished because fuel was cheap and lead-acid batteries heavy. Now the gearheads are playing catchup.

A better example is ow detroit has allowed japan the huge lead in hybrid tech, to the point that ford complained that japan auto companies were 'rationing' hybrid components to ford... well, it is pretty unfair.

The two busses that I have mentioned have been driving around for more then 2 years now. They are still in perfect shape, and within a few years more then 100 will drive around in the Netherlands. Your instigations are not based on facts.

Many of the current stake holders have little to gain from adopting this technology, so it is logical that they do not do so. Mitsubishi has a vision, others do not.

Hi Ener Ji,

You might be being a little bit defeatist here. The in-wheel motors are not just the wheels but the engine as well. Generally speaking, electric motors require much less attention than internal combustion engines and stand up well to most punishment, including cold and damp.
I would rather have 4 electric in-wheel motors than one internal combustion engine, which probably only has a life of 150 - 200 000 miles. Electric motors used in vehicles generally don't wear out in the car's lifetime. Brushes may need to be replaced.
I have an electric vehicle and the motor is one of the most robust parts. It's the batteries that are the weakest part of an electric / hybrid vehicle.

You'd have 2 or 4 motors too, if one went down you'd still be able to get home. That's got to be worth something.

What I always say is: If all cars were now electric, just think how expensive and impractical an internal combustion Otto-cycle engine would seem by comparison, it's so much harder to achieve technically! There would be safety implications too, with as poisonous exhaust and flammable fuels.

Carbon - UK

I cannot provide direct evidence of this, but it is all too logical. A) There are numerous examples throughout history that have been killed by companies and/or governments. The public transport system in the U.S., the efficient light weight car, propulsion by biomatter/biofuels (example: Brazil), Solar Thermal power.

The reason is a set of incentives that do not promote to change the world vision of such companies, to explore and innovate. Instead they try to mitigate risks, and continue the old ways for as long as it is possible.

This is not a blame game, it is a way in which companies behave. The larger the company, the more difficult it is to change. In Japan this is different because the incentives are different due to limited resources.

Hi Cherenkov

I am inclined to agree with you, but it's a case of baby steps. I see the EV as car - lite, potential for lots less CO2 and FF usage while we decide to get our butts into action in the way you describe. Don't forget how many people there are who will not be convinced by your (our) arguments and will not let go of their penis extension without being given some sort of path away from it.

I am an avid EV proponent and EV owner, I still believe that in the end I should let it go altogether and embrace powerdown, just no quite yet! It's a stepping stone in the right direction while we don't have the transport systems in place.

It's all a bitter pill to swallow for Mr and Mrs Normal, who have been investing in 'normality' you gotta give them some face-saving options!

Carbon - UK

Population MUST be reduced else we will still find a catastrophe at the end of the road, a road choked with useless chunks of metal, formerly known as automobiles.

Don't forget that simplistically population must be multiplied by "consumption per capita" to work out the actual impact. This is captured by ecological footprinting which illustrates the tremendous range:

Afghanistan (0.31 global acres/person)
Bangladesh (1.28)
Pakistan (1.49)
India (1.86)

United Kingdom (13.82)
New Zealand (14.67)
Canada (18.80)
United States of America (23.68)

Source

The range of ecological footprints suggests that raw the population number isn't even the most important, let alone the only factor to consider.

Walkable communities might be nice but we will have our current communities for quite some time. We have already invested enormous sums and energy in building the infrastructure we have. To rebuild the whole country in this fashion would require enormous amounts of money and energy again. I think we need to figure out how to maintain our population given the infrastructure we now have.

Personally, I don't think we'll know what that is till we meet it. Once gas prices go through the roof and we start to see which things people will give up and which way the political winds blow then we'll get a better idea of how we'll manage this.

Ahh, Cherenkov, it's nice to see a true-blue, fire-breathing, fist-clenching leftie spout off now and then. Brings back old memories....

What you propose is impractical and will not work. Population cannot be reduced voluntarily, nature will have to take its course and which course that will be, cannot be foretold.

I agree that controlling growth, and not growing unless there is supportive capacity, is the goal (comparable to first looking, then crossing). However, that kind of conceptual thinking goes right over the heads of most people. So if we can get them interested in EV's instead of SUV's, that's better than nothing. The other options are apathy, and active encouragement to bring on the crash. Choosing the latter option would mean getting a job in a marketing department, but not everyone is suicidal and/or evil by nature.

There have been some promising results in bringing the message on population growth to the people. There has been an experiment in several South American and African places (with a control group) where soap series were broadcasted with as theme the misery resulting from fast and furious breeding. It brought out the message. This is a relatively cheap way to spread the word, the problem now is turning it into a campaign rather than a loose cannon.

I agree that controlling growth, and not growing unless there is supportive capacity, is the goal (comparable to first looking, then crossing). However, that kind of conceptual thinking goes right over the heads of most people. So if we can get them interested in EV's instead of SUV's, that's better than nothing. The other options are apathy, and active encouragement to bring on the crash. Choosing the latter option would mean getting a job in a marketing department, but not everyone is suicidal and/or evil by nature.

There have been some promising results in bringing the message on population growth to the people. There has been an experiment in several South American and African places (with a control group) where soap series were broadcasted with as theme the misery resulting from fast and furious breeding. It brought out the message. This is a relatively cheap way to spread the word, the problem now is turning it into a campaign rather than a loose cannon.

Supercapacitors have at present an energy density of about 10% of the best batteries and even those that are the twinkle in the eye of some manufactures are two or three times worse. They may have a role to supply high peak currents for brief surges that batteries cannot give but there is very little prospect of them forming the main storage.

Sony had a systemic manufacturing flaw in their LiION batteries. There are several order of magnitudes more LiION batteries out there that have NOT exploded like Sony. But as typical, we look for the worst case scenario without addressing the best, or even the most likely cases!

Hi Solar One

I agree, it's all about The batteries. My personal favourite contender is the Firefly lead acid battery. It has between 2 and 3 times the charge density of a standard lead acid and uses less of the horrible lead. It can also be recycled in the normal way lead acid batteries are. It is simple and does not suffer from thermal runaway. It has lower internal resistance and a much better cycle life than standard lead acid, it can be charged and discharged faster. It doesn't suffer from sulphation. There's enough lead for everybody, they are probably a drop-in replacement for lead acid cars. They'll give EV's a reliability and range to compete with petrol vehicles.

But I can get them!

Carbon - UK

Thanks, I realise that there are still some modifications necessary but these are not very large. They can be handled by modest research efforts. What is necessary is the will to increase the efforts that are already here today. Batteries have evolved a lot in the past 10 years.

There are two ways to look at such a problem, you could say it is the cost, it has to be cost effective and so on.

But this is the chicken and the egg production, once we start investing in such technology, costs will come down. But if we wait to invest before costs come down, they will never come down.

The problem is therefore more on the point of having a vision and the will to invest a rather small sum compared to what is annualy spend on for instance research in new make-up, better packages to sell more consumer products and so on.

I assume your MPG is Imperial Gallons rather than US gallons?

I have copied out below a list of fuel efficient cars in the UK.

Note there are hybrids, but the majority are diesels.

By and large, diesel cars are not sold in the US due to stricter air pollution requirements. Also GM had some very bad diesels in the late 70s, and this has left a lasting image of slow, unreliable, noisy, smelly, in the mind of the American consumer.

http://www.dieselforum.org/where-is-diesel/cars-trucks-suvs/diesels-for-...

list of US diesel cars.

Americans inevitably will want more horsepower from their cars than these engines offer, so the ones eventually sold in the USA will have bigger engines and lower mpg than their European counterparts.

For the same reason, microcars such as the Punto are rare or almost nonexistent in the US market.

New diesels which do meet the air pollution standards are being introduced in new model years (the Mercedes technology which burns urea aka urine in the exhaust). And US refineries are switching to low sulphur diesel fuel.

I think the California pollution control standards remain an obstacle.

http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/93338/article.html

outlines some of the obstacles.

http://www.dieselforum.org/where-is-diesel/cars-trucks-suvs/diesels-for-...

I don't see diesel cars becoming big in America in a hurry. It is a (global) tragedy that their vast fleet of pickups and SUVs is not diesel powered.

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/index.asp

allows a search for UK cars by fuel efficiency.

http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=18229

there's your Punto.

http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/discussion/uk-petrol-prices/1027866/
Fuel efficient cars

Honda Insight 2 seater (petrol) 80.0 mpg
Toyota Aygo 1.4 D-4D 3 & 5 door (diesel) 68.9 mpg
Toyota Prius 1.5 VVT-i Hybrid (petrol) 65.7 mpg
Toyota Yaris 1.4 D-4D 3 & 5 door (diesel) 62.8 mpg
Toyota Aygo 1.0 VVT-i 3 & 5 door (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Peugeot 107 1.0 (petrol) 61.3 mpg
Renault Modus 1.5 dCi 80 (JP0D05) (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Mitsubishi Colt 1.5 AMT (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Skoda Fabia Hatch 1.4 TDI PD (75 bhp) (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Skoda Fabia Estate 1.4 TDI PD (75 bhp) (diesel)61.4 mpg
Renault Clio MY 20061.5 dCi (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Ford Fusion 1.6 Duratorq TDCi (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Seat New Ibiza 1.4 TDI (80 PS) (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Renault Megane 1.5 dCi (diesel) 61.4 mpg
VW Polo 1.4 TDI PD (80 PS) (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Nissan Micra 1.5 3/5 door (65 PS) (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Smart forfour 1.5Td (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Honda Civic Hybrid 1.4 IMA ES (petrol) 61.4 mpg
Suzuki Swift 1.3 GLZ 3 door DDiS (diesel) 61.4 mpg
Vauxhall Corsa MY2005 1.3CDTi 16v5Door (diesel)61.4 mpg
Vauxhall Astra MY2005 1.7CDTi 16v 5Door(diesel)61.4 mpg

Saildog, Very astute. I am aware of two people ,in Hawaii of all places, doing just that. One has already completed eight conversions.

Cherenkov, one needs to approach a problem from several angles. Your approach is not practical and will not work because it looks at one angle one. Technology is needed, just like good regulation, and to some extent down scaling.

We have had plenty of innovation in the last 30 years with respect to increasing horsepower and efficiency of the ICE. All this impressive technological progress has resulted in more polluted cities, more automobiles, bigger automobiles, trivial increases in gas mileage, more sprawl, more resources destroyed, more pavement, more noise, less convenience, and a runaway global warming problem. If we were capable of making technological progress and then applying that technology to actually making our overall situation better, then I would welcome better technology as a partial solution to our problems. As it is, we will use any improvements as a way to have even bigger, faster vehicles which consume even more farmland and living space. In short, we are incapable of setting limits and, therefore, even new technological gain is swamped and even larger increases in consumption and resource depletion.

The society and the world addicted to more cannot solve its problems. Coming up with newer and better technology will do nothing to change that mindset.

As soon as we unlearn the paradigm that bigger is better, we will be on the pedestrian lane to progress.

Roger;
Was it anyone besides Cherenkov? I didn't notice many other wild-eyed rants on this one, but his certainly is good for a handfull of Outragers. I'm sure that those who lurk through can pretty much see the range of posters for who they are, and aren't going to be all that surprised to find the regular clump of people being fanatical. In a way, letting people see the chaff lets them know it's not being pre-slanted for them.. get the full-spectrum right from the get-go.

Back on target.. Did you ever hear of a hybrid using this turbine/generator link? (Or is this the common way?) - I vaguely recall a Volvo Prototype/PR release in the early- 90's that was multifuel-turbine, with a single shaft from turb to gennie. Said to be very efficient.. Haven't seen word of it again. I wasn't sure if the motions of a car would be incompatible with the gyroscopic forces of a high-speed rotor like that, or the spinup/down was inconvenient, etc.

Bob Fiske

My two EV's ......

http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/994

http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/1025

Ofcourse I asked why, I have had contact with e-Traction. The system is perfect for busses since the cost reductions over time are not very large. As I state before:

There are two ways to look at such a problem, you could say it is the cost, it has to be cost effective and so on.But this is the chicken and the egg problem, once we start investing in such technology, costs will come down. But if we wait to invest before costs come down, they will never come down.

The problem is therefore more on the point of having a vision and the will to invest a rather small sum compared. Why it is not done is what you state:

"These companies would simply like to preserve their current profitability and market position. As long as no competitor is successful in offering our technology, they have no compelling reason for change it is that"

It is not a question of money, it is a question of a paradigm shift.

As explained at two other sites in this post, there are not so many technical hurdles, it is more a problem of economy of scale which will bring down costs. I do not have information on the price of the mini, it will be too expensive for costumers in this setting, since only 2 have been built.

1) That really depends on the battery size, 400 kilometers is attainable.

2) The limit is not the tire but the battery lifetime, which is around 10 years.

3) Do you refer to the wheel including the motor? I don't have direct data on costs, and such figure are not really interesting. Calculations with respect to the costs need to be made if 10.000 of such systems are produced on an annual basis.

In a utopian world u would be correct, but the realities are that likely 20% of present car travel is outside busing/train hours in the burbs or involves rural destinations.

EV's serve an immediate purpose for commuters and the 20% factor above. Are they for everybody? No. Is there a market niche? Absolutely. And it will be mostly filled by the present day auto manufacturers that are the early adopters (because they have the infrastructure and brand recognition) and several intensely capitalized first-to-market entrepreneurs.

I disagree, the total lifecycle needs to be taken into account. Fuel costs are the largest portion of costs for the average driver, and also are relevant for production since this also costs fuel. Secondly your solution for getting rid of the car is impracticle and will never work in such a way given human psychology. Therefore it is necessary to redesign the car, to make it more efficient and less polluting. If efficient cars can be made that are far less polluting without a reduction in comfort then they will be bought.

"Also we make due to a single car and I commute by bicycle and that is something that people will consider doing as the financial squeeze starts."

I love it....with the average age of the population heading toward triple digits, what America needs is a pack of grey hairs out there on bikes in driving rain storms...half of these ole gents are overdue for knee replacement surgery and bypass now, (myself included), and a couple of falls off of a bike at 15 plus miles per hour aught to jar their old constitution back into shape....geesh, do Americans live in a fantasy....

And yet, technical solutions are laughed off the block....
"Mind you I don't believe that I've got one engineer co-worker who takes peak oil seriously. They all expect a technical solution to fall from the sky."

Well, they might not fall from the sky, what if, just hear me out on this, what if.....THEY ACTUALLY CAME OUT OF SOMEBODY'S FREAKIN HEAD!

Gee, we wouldn't want American engineers to accept the possibility of some good engineering.....and your right, that would GO AGAINST THIS WHOLE ENGINEERING GENERATIONS TRADITIONAL HABIT, WOULDN'T IT??
The can't do nation....

Sorry, couldn't help myself...:-)
RC

The Carrier MVP series of gas furnaces (94% to 96% efficiency from memory) use a very efficient variable speed fan. Fan senses back pressure and delivers the volume requested using as much or as little electricity as needed and no more. On average, it uses half the electricity of a standard fan. Other brands use the same GE motor.

Best Hopes for efficiency,

Alanicient

You are correct but I was not referring to rail systems in my comparison. Rail systems will not be practical on many occasions and in addition you lose the possibility to have your own vehicle. In this sense the car will survive, because of human psychology (car preferred over rail). So in that sense, it is wise to developed more efficient car systems, because in the near term future at least (coming decades) the car will still be the main mode for transportation.

If GW is real and accelerating we had better hope we understand it. If the 10% possibility that this has nothing to do with us is true, that is to say if we reduce CO2 to 1900 levels and the temperature keeps on increasing ... well that I would say is a real problem.

At least here, on the States side of the pond; a new government has taken over. They are holding public hearings on Global Warming.

They are bringing out the Talking Point guns.

One of them is a lady named Joy Hassol.

She has a slide (I haven't found it, but read this) showing the differential between straotosphere and toposphere temperature rise. That scientific "fingerprint" slide shows in one swell tide that: (a) the sun is not getting hotter, and (b) it is the CO2 trapped in the stratospher that is responsible for temperature climb.