Focus Electric Test Drive

[transitman]

Many rare earth metals simply are not available in the USA. They are called rare for a reason.

That's very true. The Chinese Government recognized this and began buying into or buying outright copper mines around the world and in South America.

[Biker16]

Those proven reserves are mostly in China, Russia and the U.S. But China is by far the biggest miner of rare-earth minerals on a commercial scale, making it a dominant supplier with around 95% of the global market. Recent moves by Beijing to restrict exports of rare-earth materials have pushed prices of these minerals up around tenfold from a year ago, spurring searches for alternative sources of supply.

 

 

The U.S. used to produce rare earth metals at the Mountain Pass Mine in California, but it was shut down in 2002 largely because of lack of demand and environmental issues (the mine spilled a large amount of radioactive water into a neighboring lake). In 2008, Chevron sold the site to Molycorp, a company interested in reviving the old mine. Molycorp is currently expanding and modernizing the mine--a process that will yield 40,000 metric tons of rare earths by 2013, or 25% of the world's supply.

Edited April 18, 2012 by Biker16

[Noah Harbinger]

Because we can't create, distribute or store hydrogen safely and efficiently.

 

We can - many whose experience with hydrogen extends beyond the Hindenberg claim hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline (which to be fair is a pretty dangerous fluid). We just don't currently have an established distribution infrastructure of a scale necessary to support automobile transportation.

 

(Well, I shouldn't say 'just' - it would be a massive undertaking)

Edited April 18, 2012 by Noah Harbinger

[Noah Harbinger]

That's very true. The Chinese Government recognized this and began buying into or buying outright copper mines around the world and in South America.

 

But if the US government did that, it would be called "communism" or something.

[transitman]

But if the US government did that, it would be called "communism" or something.

You wouldn't want the Government getting into the business of securing America's future, that would be Socialism.

[akirby]

We can - many whose experience with hydrogen extends beyond the Hindenberg claim hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline (which to be fair is a pretty dangerous fluid). We just don't currently have an established distribution infrastructure of a scale necessary to support automobile transportation.

 

(Well, I shouldn't say 'just' - it would be a massive undertaking)

 

I have no doubt it could be done safely but the infrastructure to do that doesn't exist today and would have to be built from scratch. Then there is the issue of how you generate the hydrogen to begin with and whether it's cheaper or more cost effective or a more effective use of the energy. E.g. if you're using coal-fired power plant generated electricity to produce hydrogen, is that more efficient than using the same electricity in an electric vehicle?

 

That's what I meant by efficient.

[2b2]

Many rare earth metals simply are not available in the USA. They are called rare for a reason.

there was an "Elements" show on PBS recently,

they said the ore(s) aren't really rare

but the refining process is expensive & complex

[NickF1011]

there was an "Elements" show on PBS recently,

they said the ore(s) aren't really rare

but the refining process is expensive & complex

 

Well, there could be significant stockpiles, but that still doesn't mean those stockpiles are in your own back yard.

[Biker16]

We can - many whose experience with hydrogen extends beyond the Hindenberg claim hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline (which to be fair is a pretty dangerous fluid). We just don't currently have an established distribution infrastructure of a scale necessary to support automobile transportation.

 

(Well, I shouldn't say 'just' - it would be a massive undertaking)

 

hydrogen unless it is being burned in an ICE is an energy storgae medium, that said, using hydrogen as a storage medium involves alot of energy obth to produce and to transport. this is the beauty of using batteries, the infrustructure already exsists, and by removing the fuel cell and all te expense that goes with it from the equation it is far simpler and cheaper than an hydrogne powered electric car.

 

For hydrogen I feel the best use for it as a fuel is in fueling jet aircraft. batteries don't work for jet planes.

 

for prodcution the most effective waty to produce it is from waste heat from nuclear power plants it the onlt man made process that can efficently deliever the heat needed to use thermo chemical process to make hydrogen from water.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120326112500.htm

 

but we need alot of new power plant to do so, and the most efficent way to delvier electricity is by using wires not pipeline, trucks or trains.

 

It is better to invest in better electrical grids, and better battery technology, than Fuel cells, unitl we have a better way to produce it

 

But if the US government did that, it would be called "communism" or something.

 

Damn communist governemnt inventing fracking to reduce the cost of energy.

 

You wouldn't want the Government getting into the business of securing America's future, that would be Socialism.

 

Damn Socialist investing in the future, what a boondoggle

[GTwannabe]

We can - many whose experience with hydrogen extends beyond the Hindenberg claim hydrogen is no more dangerous than gasoline (which to be fair is a pretty dangerous fluid). We just don't currently have an established distribution infrastructure of a scale necessary to support automobile transportation.

 

(Well, I shouldn't say 'just' - it would be a massive undertaking)

 

Flamability of hydrogen isn't the problem; it's that you need a large high-pressure cylinder to store enough energy to make the vehicle go 100+ miles. Also, the tank needs to survive severe crashes. A ruptured gas tank leaks. A ruptured hydrogen tank goes BOOM.

 

Then there's the issue of production and storage (hydrogen molecules are so small they leak past seals).

[akirby]

Flamability of hydrogen isn't the problem;

 

A ruptured hydrogen tank goes BOOM.

 

If flammability of hydrogen wasn't a problem then a ruptured tank wouldn't go BOOM.

[GTwannabe]

If flammability of hydrogen wasn't a problem then a ruptured tank wouldn't go BOOM.

 

BOOM as in mechanically rip itself open, not explode.

[akirby]

BOOM as in mechanically rip itself open, not explode.

 

Never mind - I thought you were saying hydrogen gas isn't flammable. I get it now.

[Noah Harbinger]

I have no doubt it could be done safely but the infrastructure to do that doesn't exist today and would have to be built from scratch. Then there is the issue of how you generate the hydrogen to begin with and whether it's cheaper or more cost effective or a more effective use of the energy. E.g. if you're using coal-fired power plant generated electricity to produce hydrogen, is that more efficient than using the same electricity in an electric vehicle?

 

Oh probably not. Battery-electric vehicles have some distinct advantages: The existing distribution system suffices to jump-start the system, and can be extended incrementally to meet new demand. But cars do use a LOT of power - the required grid improvements will be very expensive, on a scale not faced by the grid since it was built.

 

The big questions I see with electricity are, can charging be sped up to be on par with gasoline, and can range ever be improved to match gasoline? Both of those are also faced by hydrogen, though (I think) to a lesser degree.

 

Consider what happens if you could magically wave a wand at the Leaf (range: 73 miles, battery capacity: 80kWH) to give it a 500 mile range by dropping in a 550 kWH battery. To charge that in 15 minutes, you would need 2MW of power - a current of 9166 amps at 240 volts! My naive calculations say that would require a copper conductor about 2.5 inches thick. Did I say one? Forgot about grounding and neutral or second phase... better bring out out 3 of them. That's $400 of copper - can't leave the charging stations unattended, or copper thieves will steal 'em.

 

So then you end up having to use many kilovolts, which brings its own concerns...

 

Well! It will be interesting to see what ends up happening. For all the challenges we face, I do think electricity will be the future. (Or biofuels...)

[Noah Harbinger]

By the way, the thing about "doing the same thing as china = socialism" thing was a joke. Not sure if it fell flat or flew over everyone's head.

[Biker16]

Oh probably not. Battery-electric vehicles have some distinct advantages: The existing distribution system suffices to jump-start the system, and can be extended incrementally to meet new demand. But cars do use a LOT of power - the required grid improvements will be very expensive, on a scale not faced by the grid since it was built.

 

The big questions I see with electricity are, can charging be sped up to be on par with gasoline, and can range ever be improved to match gasoline? Both of those are also faced by hydrogen, though (I think) to a lesser degree.

 

Consider what happens if you could magically wave a wand at the Leaf (range: 73 miles, battery capacity: 80kWH) to give it a 500 mile range by dropping in a 550 kWH battery. To charge that in 15 minutes, you would need 2MW of power - a current of 9166 amps at 240 volts! My naive calculations say that would require a copper conductor about 2.5 inches thick. Did I say one? Forgot about grounding and neutral or second phase... better bring out out 3 of them. That's $400 of copper - can't leave the charging stations unattended, or copper thieves will steal 'em.

 

So then you end up having to use many kilovolts, which brings its own concerns...

 

Well! It will be interesting to see what ends up happening. For all the challenges we face, I do think electricity will be the future. (Or biofuels...)

 

I think we will began to see the use higher line voltages that were once dedicated to industrial uses being routed to HV charging stations, 4kv -16kv could be taken from the exsiting grid to power those stations.

 

.

[SoonerLS]

You wouldn't want the Government getting into the business of securing America's future, that would be Socialism.

Actually, I don't want it because it would be a cluster***....

 

Back on topic, cnet's Car Tech recently drove the Focus Electric, and it sounds like they liked it. They also point out that the Focus Electric is well-optioned, and Brian Cooley specifically noted the lack of gear whine in its drivetrain.

 

The review: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57414918-48/2012-ford-focus-electric-the-strong-silent-type-first-drive/?tag=centerColumnArea1.0

Cooley's video review is about half-way down the page.

[aneekr]

Preparation for Focus Electric retail sales is underway! Certain dealerships in California, New York, and New Jersey have attained the appropriate certification from Ford Motor Company as of April 30, 2012. Oddly enough, it will be late 2012 until the Focus Electric's sales launch takes place in Pennsylvania and Delaware.

 

 

More details here.

[rfruth]

Texas is 1B (summer of 2012) ((grin)) :angel:

[Hugh]

I wonder how the roll-out in Canada is going to work?

[rfruth]

summer is here and the time's (almost) right - hey that would make a good song