jps wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:13:52 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:50:59 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:14:31 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 11:16:42 -0700, jps wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:57:34 -0500, Richard Casady
wrote:

On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:42:17 -0700, jps wrote:

They concentrated on SUVs and Trucks until it went bust wihle others
who saw the 1000 point writing on the wall designed more efficient
vehicles.
The Ford F-150 pickup truck has been the best selling vehicle in the
country for about thirty years. Ford didn't make people buy them.

Casady
If they'd have stuck with the F150, Ford would be in fine shape. But
they're not in trouble for building F150's are they?

And you knew that.
The F150 and E150 are still their bread and butter. They dress up that
chassis to make the luxury SUVs and fancy vans but they are still
F150s when you look under the skin.
This old truck is still doing fine for me (1985)
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Brownie.jpg
It's amazing how many of the F-150s of that era are still on the road and
run well.
Cars of that vintage didn't, due to all the emission control stuff, but
trucks were exempt and as a result run well and long.

Eisboch
F150s are half ton, you had to be over a ton to get the exemption.
This has the air pump and the cat converter.
Emission control really became a non-issue in the 80s when they
started using electronic fuel and spark management systems. The bad
reputation came from the 70s vehicles that were just adding emission
control devices to old technology engines.
Your right. I am a decade off.
I used to have a '87 Ford F-150 with the 300ci six. It was a great truck
and very reliable.

Eisboch
That is what this one has. 180 k miles.
The only problem we had with it was it was a northern truck that moved
south and it overheated when I was pulling my boat. From my experience
with an E150 I knew the fix was a 3 core radiator instead of the
standard 2 core. I found a guy who paid me $50 for the old 2 core so
it wasn't that big a deal.
This is our spare vehicle, only used for hauling stuff and moving the
boat. Like my old E150, everyone I know has borrowed it for something.

I have a 1967 Chevy C-20 with a 327 and a dump bed. Three speed
column shift had a seizure 10 years ago so I cut a hole in the floor
and installed a hurst shift kit. Three on the floor. Truck looks
like crap but runs like a champ and does whatever I need.

I keep the old shift lever on the dash board just in case I need to
disarm a rabid gun owner.

If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk
by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have
heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use.
With that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know
the cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop.

On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:26:44 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk
by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have
heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With
that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the
cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop.

Geez, if everyone was as negative about new technologies as you are, we
would still be driving horse and buggies, and forget computers. Still,
they are now getting 100,000 miles out of present battery technology, and
with standardization, and future innovations, battery life will improve
and cost will come down. Remember the cost of those older laptops?

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:26:44 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk
by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have
heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With
that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the
cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop.

Geez, if everyone was as negative about new technologies as you are, we
would still be driving horse and buggies, and forget computers. Still,
they are now getting 100,000 miles out of present battery technology, and
with standardization, and future innovations, battery life will improve
and cost will come down. Remember the cost of those older laptops?


What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or
Chrysler could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the sort
of batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and
practical. Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would have
made a real difference for us by now.

On Fri, 01 May 2009 11:41:34 -0400, HK wrote:


What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or
Chrysler could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the sort
of batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and
practical. Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would have
made a real difference for us by now.

Well, if we are talking past history, imagine if Reagan hadn't dismantled
Carter's initiative to be energy independent by the year 2000. It
probably would have saved us from three wars, and prevented the largest
transfer of wealth in human history. But hey, history is a bore.

"HK" wrote in message
...



What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or Chrysler
could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the sort of
batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and practical.
Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would have made a real
difference for us by now.


Research and development of high density batteries for the automotive market
has been going on for at least that long Harry.

Technical breakthroughs come from many sources other than the automobile
manufacturers, although they often help fund it.

In the business I was in I visited two private research facilities that were
working on high output density lithium batteries for the automotive market
and promise of electric and hybrid cars. This was in the early 80's. One
company was a relatively new start-up, the other an existing large battery
manufacturer.

I remember it well because the clean rooms in which the batteries were made
and assembled had to be kept at 5 percent relative humidity or less because
lithium is so reactive with water or water vapor. After putting on the
"bunny suit" and entering the clean room area, you involuntarily gasped for
a breath, the air was so dry.

The scope of development is better done within organizations that specialize
in the technology.

Lithium batteries have come a long way, but they are still not really
practical unless we all radically change our driving habits. And they
still have to be charged which requires energy.

Fuel cell technology is the future.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...



What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or
Chrysler could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the
sort of batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and
practical. Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would
have made a real difference for us by now.


Research and development of high density batteries for the automotive
market has been going on for at least that long Harry.

The USA only has one battery manufacturer. The EPA has been successful
in chasing all of the others out of the country.

Technical breakthroughs come from many sources other than the automobile
manufacturers, although they often help fund it.

Mass markets reduce the price of technology. The laptop you own today
out classes the super computer of the 1980's.

In the business I was in I visited two private research facilities that
were working on high output density lithium batteries for the automotive
market and promise of electric and hybrid cars. This was in the early
80's. One company was a relatively new start-up, the other an existing
large battery manufacturer.

I remember it well because the clean rooms in which the batteries were
made and assembled had to be kept at 5 percent relative humidity or less
because lithium is so reactive with water or water vapor. After putting
on the "bunny suit" and entering the clean room area, you involuntarily
gasped for a breath, the air was so dry.

The local fire department near my wife's job knows how to handle lithium
fires.

The scope of development is better done within organizations that
specialize in the technology.

Lithium batteries have come a long way, but they are still not really
practical unless we all radically change our driving habits. And they
still have to be charged which requires energy.

Lithium has a heat problem when being discharged. All of these Lion
laptop battery recalls are due to heat problems. Compare their size to
the size that would be in an automobile.

Fuel cell technology is the future.

Not with hydrogen, it costs too much.

"BAR" wrote in message
news
Eisboch wrote:

Fuel cell technology is the future.



Not with hydrogen, it costs too much.




Plenty of hydrogen in water.

It may take a few more years to perfect, but I think it has real promise.
So does the government and the automobile manufacturers (what's left of
them)

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e.../fuel-cell.htm

Eisboch

On Sat, 2 May 2009 10:36:30 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:

Plenty of hydrogen in water.

It may take a few more years to perfect, but I think it has real promise.
So does the

Water is burnt hydrogen. You can burn ten pounds of coal in a
efficient power plant and make a pound of hydrogen from the juice, and
water. It is nuts to make it from oil or natural gas. The hydro is in
use and there are no more good dam sites. In Iowa wind is supplying 5%
of the juice and they make most of the hardware right here. Hydrogen
is more promising than batteries, but what is going to actually
happen, is gasoline made from coal.

Casady

On Fri, 01 May 2009 12:47:35 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 01 May 2009 11:41:34 -0400, HK wrote:

thunder wrote:
On Fri, 01 May 2009 08:26:44 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote:


If you had a gasoline electric a 30 year old truck would be in the junk
by now because of the cost of replacing the battery. From what I have
heard they have to be replaced every 6 to 8 years depending on use. With
that rate of depreciation they become disposable. Every one know the
cost of replacing batteries in your old laptop.

Geez, if everyone was as negative about new technologies as you are, we
would still be driving horse and buggies, and forget computers. Still,
they are now getting 100,000 miles out of present battery technology, and
with standardization, and future innovations, battery life will improve
and cost will come down. Remember the cost of those older laptops?


What's really sad to me is that in the late 1970's, GM or Ford or
Chrysler could have decided to allocate enough funds to develop the sort
of batteries we need now to make "electric" cars affordable and
practical. Twenty five years of solid, advancing development would have
made a real difference for us by now.

Battery technology has moved about as fast as the "battery" industry
can move, not for cars but for portable electronics. Cars can
bootstrap off of that. The real problem is electric cars only move
that load from the gas pump to the electrical grid where we burn coal.
Cars are cleaner than coal.

Probably not for CO2. Coal power plant efficiency is about 40%.
Gas engines are about 20%.
Those figures are from
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index...3 &Itemid=102
There are other cites out there that might conflict, but because IC
engines are so inefficient in converting fuel to power, there are
"surprising" advantages to electric power.
In the U.S electric power transmission losses are about 7%.
That's pretty well established.
There are misconceptions about this because most people don't realize
how inefficient gasoline engines are compared to modern electric
generation plants burning fossil fuels.
Even though mileage is way up from older cars/engines, IC is still
real inefficient.
I remember reading about a possible cure for heat loss 40 years ago in
Pop Mech. High-temp ceramic engines. Guess that was just a
pipe-dream.
As a former boilerman, I can tell you that even the Navy burning cheap
black oil took heat conservation very seriously in the design of steam
powerplants. The Navy mostly gave up on steam for propulsion, but I
bet their fuel costs are much higher than in the past.
Steam is still king for power generating plants.
Of course there are other emissions from coal/gas plants, but
scrubbing can eliminate most of them.

People think electric cars are "free" but your typical little electric
econobox will take somewhere between 20kwh and 40kwh depending on
typical battery packs (14 or 28 6v batteries @ 240ah each). My
electric bill would be $5 for the 28 battery "100 mile" car. Since the
same Honda Civic (a popular electric conversion) would get about 30MPG
on gas, it is pretty much a wash ... I didn't pay the road tax yet.
Some states are already trying to find a way to road tax electrics.
Better batteries might extend range by storing more energy but you
still have to pay for the energy.

I don't think anybody that puts a plug in or flips a switch thinks
electricity is free. They've paid plenty of electric bills.

Current lead batteries, a very mature technology, are only expected
to have 600-800 charge cycles and they are $100 each. That adds $3.50
to your $5 charge or 8 1/2 cents a mile for the 100 mile car.
The Li/on batteries in the Tesla are so expensive they don't even like
to talk about it.
I know these are off the cuff numbers but I have been looking into
converting my old Prelude (a Civic in a sport jacket) to electric and
I have been looking at what is out there. Even if I am off by a factor
of two it is still hard to get the numbers to come out.

It all depends on the electricity and gas prices.
If gas goes to 5 bucks a gallon and the electric rates stay constant
it's a new ball game. With the nukes in Florida I think your rates
are low, aren't they?

When you read the web sites that cater to electric car enthusiasts
they all tell you, "don't plan on this being a cheap hobby".

I think the Prius batteries have proven to go well over 100k miles.
Aren't the newer models plug-in? If they are, can't they be used for
retrofitting the home-mades?

--Vic

On Fri, 01 May 2009 15:49:28 -0400, wrote:


If golf cart batteries cost $2800 a set, how much do you figure high
tech batteries cost? If you could really get 100 miles out of a charge
(go slow and you can) and they will take 600-800 charge cycles that
works out to 60,000-80,000 miles a set.
That is where I got my numbers.

Yeah, I did a bit more googling. The Prius plug-in isn't out yet, and
has a 6-mile range as EV only. NiMh. 220 pounds of battery.
Didn't see how many recharge cycles it's good for.
Think I once saw the current hybrid battery is about $3k, and this one
probably costs more.

I have really looked at this. I have a cam belt that they say will go
some day. It is $1000 at the dealer to get it replaced and I am really
thinking about just running it till it blows and going electric
($4,000-5000). The problem is the thing will never pay for itself in
savings unless gas goes to $10 a gallon and I keep the car for 60,000
more miles only driving in a 30-40 mile radius. (never going over
about 45-50 mph)
It just seems unlikely that could happen.
Maybe if I win the lotto

$1000 sounds high for a cam belt change. Is that a 4-wheel steering
'lude? If the engine is decent, I'd get the belt.
Put the golf cart batteries in a golf cart.
You're in a good place for solar cells. Doing any of that?
With a small home-made EV you can do all your local driving on Sol's
dime.

--Vic