I want one of these things, E-box electrified Scion

[madokie]

http://www.acpropulsion.com/releases/02-15-2007.htm

[China_cat]

1. Ok, nice for around home

But what if I want to go more than 150 miles? And, although the car itself doesn't use any gasoline, what's its carbon footprint in terms of the electical generation needed to charge the batteries?

[madokie]

4. who knows, you're the only one to know that

Myself an auto that goes 150 miles would take care of most of our driving needs. I would think its carbon footprint would be somewhat smaller than an ICE, but thats just me thinking, sorry

May I ask a question. Whats the purpose of this forum if its not to share ideas

[China_cat]

5. Whats the purpose of this forum if its not to share ideas?

To ask questions and get answers?

Ok, in LA, this car makes a lot of sense. (Or any urban area) But if you live in someplace like Ten Sleep, WY where you might have to drive 75 or 80 miles to go to work, it might not be the most practical thing. Yes, you could charge it while you work...IF your employer is going to be ok with the idea of you using his electricity for personal reasons. (Hey, in today's economy you can get fired for checking your personal email on a computer that's already on, so it's something you have to think about)

Then there's the eventual problem of battery disposal. Even Li Ion batteries don't last forever. Do we know what kind of impact that's going to make?

Too many of us have jumped on too many bandwagons that sound really good at the outset and turn out to be horrendous down the road, not to want to really think through some of the potential problems.

[madokie]

6. Electricity as a medium to power our auto's to me is the future

how we generate the electricity is another story. We know what we are doing to the world with ICE isn't good for us or the earth so we have to make changes. Not all electric is generated with Coal or Nuclear power, which I might add I don't think is in our best long term interest. We have to start thinking out of the box so to say and explore the many options we now have and in the exploration maybe just maybe we discover something new. I apologize to sound so snarky but when I post about possibly using gasification instead of direct burning I hear the same tired rhetoric, whats the carbon footprint. Our footprint is pretty big now. A series of little steps equal big steps sometimes. So I salute the ones who are trying to wean us from carbon and nuclear based energy.
A chain is the most efficient way to transfer energy long distances but not always feasible, electric is.

Oh, and yes an electric car is not the answer for all people but it sure is for a lot of us

[elocs]

7. One size does not fit all, but what is the population of Ten Sleep, WY?

The vast majority of drivers are not driving 150 miles in a day. I might drive 150 miles in 3 weeks. You need to start somewhere, so a car with a 150 mile charge range would be acceptable. So the car is a modified Scion xB--I have an xA which is the hatchback version of the Scion and it is a neat little car. The xB little box is certainly a unique looking vehicle and even most kids could probably identify it like a VW bug when I was a kid.

[kestrel91316]

17. Has anyone proposed requiring your straw man in Ten Sleep

to drive an electric car??????????

These sorts of SOLUTIONS are obviously best suited for the VAST HORDES OF DRIVERS in large cities. NOT for a few folks in some hick town in WY.

But you knew that, right?

[China_cat]

21. The thing I see is everybody jumping on this type of

vehicle as the ONLY solution for everybody. It's not. But I've already said that it would be good for urban areas, which I guess you decided to ignore.

[kestrel91316]

29. If you read many of my posts you will find I am the LAST person who

would ever jump on a solution as the ONE AND ONLY solution, to the exclusion of all others, lol!

The only way we are going to get out of our energy and GW mess is to DIVERSIFY. We need a wide variety of solutions to deal adequately with our wide variety of situations.

[piedmont]

32. An 80 mile commute will soon not be possible by ANY means

Energy won't be cheap forever. People will have to live locally instead of regionally.

[Porcupine]

46. Take a good look at the condition of your roads....

every linear mile of pavement requires thousands of $$ per lane/year to maintain. That price has just taken a major jump as road building is VERY energy intensive. So your city and your state have cut back on the number of miles of road repaired even if they are spending the same money as last year.

The road network is falling apart. It certainly is in my town.

[piedmont]

52. For that matter, take a good look at ANY component of modern life...

they're almost all subsidized heavily by the energy of fossil fuels. Unfortunately, there's enough coal left to last us quite a while, but at a HUGE cost, global-warming wise.

[kestrel91316]

16. Any of the electric cars would be perfect for me. I drive under 5 miles

one-way to work, and live in a city, and years ago decided I had seen most the sights I cared to here. If I want to drive distances, say for a vacation, I can RENT A GAS CAR.

Thinking outside the box really isn't hard.

Once again we have useless comments by someone who thinks because some development does not solve 100% of a problem that it should be dismissed out of hand. Don't let the naysayers and killjoys get you down. I suspect many of being paid oil company operatives.

[China_cat]

22. If you only go 5 miles, why drive at all.

A bicycle would be a lot cheaper and easier on the environment all around.

[madokie]

23. maybe like in my case thats out of the question

as if that might matter. any step in the right direction is a step we need to take imo. being complacent gets us nowhere

[kestrel91316]

28. I would LOVE to ride my bike to work. HOWEVER, I live in

Los Angeles. The only way to get to work from home without going MILES out of my way, is Ventura Blvd. It's THE main drag in the San Fernando Valley, and you have to be suicidal to bike on Ventura during commuting hours. I have done it on the sidewalks rather than the street, but that is a PITA and only slightly safer, what with all the driveways and cross-streets. Drivers in LA pay no regard whatsoever to bikes, and it is extremely dangerous to bike anywhere but on a bike path. We don't have bike lanes here.

I'm moving soon, and my goal is to find an apt within reasonable walking distance of work. There aren't many to choose from. My favorite pick is 4 blocks away! But it rarely has vacancies.

I could take the bus, but the schedules are surprisingly inadequate at times, the buses can be REALLY late, and I can do a hell of a lot of driving for what a monthly pass would cost. I know. Lame excuses. I drive an 18 yr old gas miser Honda, and only put 2000 or so miles a year on it, so I refuse to feel too guilty.

[Ready4Change]

39. Have you suggested a bike for 10 Sleep WY?

You criticized an electric car because it wouldn't suit a person in Wyoming. Then you criticized an electric car because it wouldn't suit a person living inside a city. All I'm getting is that you don't like electric cars.

Personally, my daily, 2 way commute is around 40 miles. Fifty if I drive somewhere for lunch. An electric would be great for me. But, since that wouldn't suit the guy in Wyoming (because it doesn't have enough range) and wouldn't suit the city dweller (as it's not a bike) I should just give up on it because it is Clearly so gosh darned impractical for people who aren't me.

[China_cat]

41. Where did you ever see me criticizing an electric car

for someone living inside a city? My words were that it would work in urban areas but not in a place where you might have to drive 75 or 80 miles to go to work...as is common if you live in rural areas of lightly populated states like Wyoming.

If you're referring to my question about why not use a bicycle when you only have to go 5 miles, the person answered that it he lived in LA. Hell, I don't want to go through LA traffic in a tank, let alone on a bicycle.

As for Ten Sleep, you don't even need a bicycle. It takes about 10 minutes to walk from one end of town to the other if you take your time. The library is open 3 half days a week and, with cable, you can get -1- tv station.

Lovely little town. But if you want to pay the bills, there is no such thing as working locally. People are not going to give up land that's been in their families for years to move to where the jobs are. They'll find a way to commute. They always have.

[Ready4Change]

44. From seeing nothing but posts that say an EV doesn't fit.

I see nothing but glass half empty regarding EV's.

LA:
Can't use an EV, because that would be wasteful, compared to a bike. But a bike is dangerous.

Ten Sleep WY:
There's no work in town to can walk to, and EV's don't work outside of town because they lack range.

The Solution:
Well, you don't propose anything.

Since EV's get nothing but criticism, we're stuck with SUV's. Despite the fact that the Tesla offers a range of 250 miles right now, which should be enough to handle a daily WY commute, and that LA freeways wouldn't be so frightening if most people drove 2,000 lbs EVs rather than 7,000 lbs SUV's.

Now, if you have a better alternative than EV's to offer, I'm all ears. But until then, for me, an EV offers an ideal solution.

[China_cat]

45. I see

Ok, in LA, this car makes a lot of sense. (Or any urban area)

Becomes: Can't use an EV, because that would be wasteful, compared to a bike. But a bike is dangerous.

And again ignoring the fact that I said I didn't realize the person lived in LA and don't blame him for not wanting to ride a bike there. Cherry picking what you want to have been said, not what the words actually were.

My husband rode a bike to work (approx. 12 miles one way) for 22 years.

The other strawman you've built is that it is ONLY EV's or SUV's and nothing in between when there are a whole host of alternatives including public transportation, hybrids and even ICE's that get top mileage and are kept in proper maintenance. Not to mention walking, mopeds, the scooters that get people around Europe so efficiently, roller skates and the horse.

[IDemo]

11. Well to Wheel energy efficiency analysis

Not from AC Propulsion, but Tesla, another battery-electric car company. The chart below compares efficiency between various low emission and ultra-low emissions vehicles versus the 'pure' electric Tesla roadster:

[kestrel91316]

15. It's perfect for commuting. If you want to drive longer distances for

a vacation or whatever, rent a gas car.

[pstans]

18. If you go more than 150 miles, you rent a car

[China_cat]

42. If I have to make the payments on that car, I can't

afford to rent one for pleasure jaunts.

[POAS]

2. "the only reason I'll need to stop at a gas station is for beef jerky and lottery tickets."

Tom Hanks buys lottery tickets?

Now that's news.

Seriously a 150 mile range between charges is good enough for most commuters. If it's your only car and you need to take a trip you could rent a hybrid for the weekend!

[Catch22Dem]

3. Ol' Tom is a great guy. It's been a long road from Bosom Buddies!

But seriously, he's been a proponent of EV for a long time and I love him for it.

[IDemo]

8. ZAP is collaborating with Lotus on an EV with much greater range and performance

ZAP and Lotus to Build High-Performance In-Wheel Electric Vehicle

ZAP and Lotus Engineering are beginning the first phase of an engineering project to use the British consultancy’s APX ("Aluminum Performance Crossover" - pictured to right) as a basis for designing a production-ready electric all-wheel drive crossover high performance vehicle for ZAP- the ZAP-X in the US market.

A combination of the lightweight aluminum vehicle architecture, a new efficient drive and advanced battery management systems is intended to enable a range of up to 350 miles between charges, with a rapid 10-minute recharging time. An auxiliary power unit is planned to support longer distance journeys.

The APX’s supercharged gasoline 3.0-liter V6 engine will be replaced by in-hub electric motors, delivering 644 horsepower in all-wheel drive mode, theoretically capable of powering the ZAP-X to a potential top speed of 155 mph. A new strong, lightweight and highly efficient structure based on the Lotus technology is planned to give the car a very attractive power-to-weight ratio.

[madokie]

9. I like that, especially the auxiliary power unit for when it's needed

possibly rented

[IDemo]

10. I like this quote at the end of the article:

Regardless, these Tesla, ZAP and Pheonix EVs continue to make me question all the fuss GM is making over Lithium ion battery technology not being ready for prime time yet. Either Tesla and ZAP are overly optimistic, or GM is dragging it's heels. Given GM's track record, I bet it's more likely the latter.

[madokie]

12. ;-)

so would I

[n2doc]

13. Well, if it didn't cost $55,000 to convert from gas it would be great

I know the whole deal about "economies of scale" and "prototype" and so on, but I would buy one of these things if they could get it down into the mid 20K range (basic gas model is around 15K). And I suspect a lot of others would as well. At 70K it just ain't in my price range...All of these electric vehicles seem to be targeted in the same price range. Oh well, guess I will have to wait until the early adopters have been milked.

[madokie]

14. theres lots in that last sentence of yours

but yes all things good come with a price. as more are sold the price will come down I'm sure. A person has to look at the big picture for sure, like when we purchased our first pellet stove we paid a lot of money for it much more than what our fuel bill would be for that year but the stove has paid for itself many times over since and continues to for our son now.

[Ready4Change]

40. Economies of scale.

So far electric cars have been small production runs. Just about anything produced in in small numbers has a higher per-unit cost. They make millions of gas burning cars a year, compared to (maybe) a few thousand electrics? Of course there's going to be a huge jump in price.

In 50 years, when most cars are electrics and gasoline costs $50 a gallon the tables will be turned. Rich eccentrics then will be paying a $50,000 (inflation adjusted) premium for the nostalgia of driving a 2050 Honda Civic.

[SCDem]

19. Need to watch Who Killed The Electric Car

This is the same battery that was in the GMs that everybody complained about because it only went 150 miles. So the guy then built a battery that went 300 miles and then Chevron or Shell bought 53% of the guys company and shut it down - Where is the 300 mile battery and why aren't they putting it in this car?

I think it's great that the EC are coming back but what about that poor man's improved battery?

[madokie]

20. a good summation

let me see, the last I heard the answer to your question is one of the oil companys, like exxon/mobile maybe, can't remember, have to check

[Moby Grape]

43. why did Toyota kill off their electric pickup?

the Rav4E, or something like that?

I haven't seen the movie, is there a transcipt somewhere?

[SCDem]

50. Not sure

But I'm sure you could rent it at your local video store - or netflix if you have that

[GliderGuider]

24. I've put up a page of analysis on electric cars and CO2.

The results may surprise some of you.

Electric cars and Carbon Dioxide

[madokie]

25. what studies does this refer to

curious as to the origins

[GliderGuider]

26. I've added reference links to the page.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn268.pdf

[madokie]

27. thanks,

[IDemo]

30. There would seem to be some disagreement from the Union of Concerned Scientists and others

From your Wiki link: "A 55 % to 99.9 % improvement in CO2 emissions takes place when driving an EV over an ICE (gasoline, diesel) vehicle."

And:

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) estimates that EVs operating in the Los Angeles Basin would produce 98 percent fewer hydrocarbons, 89 percent fewer oxides of nitrogen, and 99 percent less carbon monoxide than ICE vehicles.

In a study conducted by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, EVs were significantly cleaner over the course of 100,000 miles than ICE cars. The electricity generation process produces less than 100 pounds of pollutants for EVs compared to 3000 pounds for ICE vehicles. (See Table 3)

Engine Type__CO____ROG____NOx____Total
Gasoline_______2574___262_____172_____3008 lb.
Diesel_________216____73______246_____835 lb.
Electric________9______5_______61______75 lb.

EVs recharging from fossil-fueled power plants such as coal and oil have unique efficiency advantages over ICE vehicles. As a system, EVs and power plants are twice as efficient as ICE vehicles and the system that refines gasoline (Table 4 -not reprinted here). Although there are losses associated with generating electricity from fossil-based fuels, EVs are significantly more efficient in converting their energy into mechanical power.

Also, from the Electric Vehicle Association of Canada:

Full Fuel Cycle Emissions Reductions
through the replacement of ICEVs with BEVs

Computer Modeling of Full Fuel Cycle Battery Electric Vehicle Emissions
vs
Current Internal Combustion Engine Vehicle Emissions in the Lower Fraser Valley


Following is a summary of the key findings of the analysis:

1) Electric Vehicles provide significant Greenhouse Gas reduction benefits of between 55% and
99.9% reductions (CO2 equivalent) depending on the energy source used for generation of electricity.

2) Operation of an electric vehicle will result in significant reductions of non-renewable energy
ranging from 100% reductions to 55% reduction depending on the energy source used for
electricity generation.

3) Battery electric vehicles operating in provinces which rely primarily on electricity which is
generated by hydro sources will produce between 98% and 99.9% less Greenhouse Gas emissions
(CO2 equivalent) as compared to a gasoline ICEV and will produce less than 0.1% of the total other (non-CO2) emissions.

4) Battery electric vehicles operating in provinces which rely primarily on electricity generated from
combined cycle natural gas generating systems, will produce approximately 85% less Greenhouse
Gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) as compared to a gasoline ICEV and will produce less than 0.5% of the total other (non-CO2) emissions.

5) Battery electric vehicles operating in provinces which rely primarily on electricity generated from
Conventional natural gas generating systems will produce approximately 74% less Greenhouse
Gas emissions (CO2 equivalent) as compared to a gasoline ICEV and will produce approximately only 0.5% of the total other (non-CO2) emissions.

6) Battery electric vehicles operating in provinces which rely primarily on electricity generated from
coal burning generation systems, will produce 55% to 59% less Greenhouse gas emissions as
compared to a gasoline ICEV and will produce between 80% and 92% less total other (non-CO2) emissions depending on the specific type of coal used.

[GliderGuider]

35. The 50 to 99.9% figures are not supported in the Wikipedia article.

Given that a 99.9% reduction in life cycle emissions is ridiculous on its face (the electricity has to be generated somehow, and most techniques produce some CO2), the article must be referring strictly to emissions while driving. It's impossible to tell, since no context or support is provided in the article. I suspect they may have been lifted from the EVAC article, but there's no way to be sure.

The CARB report you cite does not address CO2, which is the thrust of my analysis, and the real source of concern for Global Warming. Their comment about relative efficiency of power conversion in ICE and EV is already taken into account by the methodology of the analysis, given that it compares CO2 generated per kilometer traveled in each case.

Regarding the EVAC article (PDF here), there are several aspects of their analysis that make it difficult to compare directly to mine. The main one is that their assumption of EV energy requirement is half what mine is: 0.115 to 0.171 kWh/km vs. my figure from Wikipedia of 0.2 to 0.3 kWh/km. Other than that all I can really say is that their article supports one of my points, which is that the advantage of an EV depends entirely on the underlying generation mix.

There are many reasons to be positive about EVs. Expecting them to be a general GHG panacea at this time doesn't seem to me to be one of them.

[IDemo]

36. EV's are no panacea

I am not claiming that electric vehicles will provide a panacea for climate change, I don't believe most EV proponents do either. EV's and PHEV's do however offer the potential for some GHG reduction over the next couple of decades as we transition away from the age of personal transport. Given the situation in Cantarell and Ghawar, that transition may occur much more rapidly than two decades anyway, and yield more carbon reduction than Amory Lovins ever dreamed of.

Your analysis mixes electrical power sources of all types from coal to nuclear and distills them into an average CO2 output value. I believe the facts support a significantly lower CO2 (and C02 equivalent) levels for EV's operating in areas of the country with cleaner powerplants, such as hydro and nuclear. The bulk of what I am seeing online seems to support that scientists also believe GHG's would be reduced even in areas using coal or natural gas power.

From the Union of Concerned Scientists: - " As with air pollution, electric power plants are the only source of global-warming pollutants from BEVs. When BEVs recharge using renewable energy sources, they do not cause any global warming emissions at all. Even if BEVs are recharged using fossil fuels, they can cut global warming emissions by as much as 70 percent."

More from my above link:

CO2 emissions are also significantly lower. Over the course of 100,000 miles, CO2 emissions from EVs are projected to be 10 tons versus 35 tons for ICE vehicles (5).

Many EV critics remain skeptical of such findings because California's mix of power plants is relatively clean compared to that in the rest of the country. However, in Arizona where 67 percent of power plants are coal-fired, a study concluded that EVs would reduce greenhouse gases such as CO2 by 71 percent (6).

Similar comparisons to those in California and Arizona can be found in the northeastern part of the country where the majority of power plants are coal-fired.

A study conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that EVs in the Northeast would reduce CO emissions by 99.8 percent, volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 90 percent, NOx by 80 percent, and CO2 by as much as 60 percent (7).

According to the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) study, use of EVs results in significant reductions of carbon monoxide, greenhouse gases, and ground level ozone in the region, with magnitudes cleaner than even the cleanest ULEV.

Just the reduction of CO (carbon monoxide) and NOx would make a pretty good case for EV's, CO2 reduction notwithstanding.

-- Regarding the efficiency of the refining process for crude to gasoline, the chart marked (b) Petroleum Refining Efficiency: 340 ppm S Conventional Gasoline shows about an 85 percent average. With a 97% "recovery efficiency" (a) Petroleum Recovery Efficiency, this would seem to put the overall well-to-refined product at about 83 percent efficiency.

[GliderGuider]

37. I've just updated my page with more analysis that supports your points

The key is the regional generation mix. Being Canadian I added a section on the Canadian situation, and it's much different from the "average" US conclusion. Especially for Quebec, that gets 97% of its electricity from hydro...

If BEVs are viewed as a regionally sensitive transition technology, I'm fully in favour of them. I hope their commercial potential is realized within the next ten years, because as you point out the state of the world's oil supply makes this a very immediate and urgent question.

Thanks for the link to the refining efficiency of gasoline.

[piedmont]

33. Flawed analysis:

1) You compare energy losses for the entire production, distribution, and use of electricity in EVs to only the usage part of ICE cars. The gasoline doesn't magically appear in the tank! It takes energy to extract, pump, refine, distribute, redistribute, and haul around in the vehicle itself. So every gallon actually burned represents more than a gallon's worth of energy. Not to mention other drawbacks of ICE cars: non-CO2 pollutants like oil, antifreeze, gasoline, NOX, etc.

2) You overlook the fact that electrical production in the future won't necessarily be dominated by the same technologies as now. It's a two-step process and they can be run concurrently: develop efficient, attractive, affordable EVs; and ramp up electricity production from clean technologies. ETA: just saw at the bottom of the page that you do take this into account, so nevermind.

[GliderGuider]

34. It's always difficult

arriving at comparable energy efficiencies for fundamentally dissimilar processes. Thanks for the reminder about including the distribution costs of gasoline. A quick look at the energy required to produce and deliver gasoline shows an EROEI of about 10:1, meaning 90% efficiency. I've added an even more generous margin to the gasoline figures (an efficiency of 85%). I've also taken out the electrical losses attributed to the charger and motor, since these are presumably included in the vehicle figures given in the Wikipedia article. All these changes give advantage to the EV in the comparison. Unfortunately they do not alter the conclusion.

Of course there are other pollutants for ICE vehicles, just as there are SOx, NOx and heavy metals (including radioactive ones) emitted from coal electrical plants. However, that's not the point of the analysis, which is limited to comparing CO2 generation under current conditions.

I don't overlook the fact that the grid generation mix will evolve over time. That's the point of this sentence in the second-last paragraph on the page: "If the electrical grid evolves to include higher proportions of wind power, tidal power and possibly more nuclear, the CO2 advantage of electric cars will improve.

The point of the analysis is simply to point out that the GHG emission ranges of EVs and ICEs overlap enough that there seems to be no clear winner on that front at this time. As technology changes in the world of EVs and electricity generation, that of course will change too. But right now, there is no reason to prefer an EV over an ICE because of a GHG advantage. That advantage does not exist.

[GliderGuider]

38. I'll back off from my dogmatic final statement

But right now, there is no reason to prefer an EV over an ICE because of a GHG advantage. That advantage does not exist.

A more even-handed analysis concludes that there is an advantage to BEVs in some places, depending on the regional generation mix. In Quebec, for example, BEVs would be a total no-brainer when it comes to GHG reduction due to their almost exclusive use of hydro power.

they're still not a global or universal solution, because the world's aggregate generation mix is so heavily weighted towards coal.

[piedmont]

53. I agree that we MUST get rid of coal-powered plants...

I see the way out as: get EVs affordable, attractive and practical; make electricity production cleaner; consume less energy overall (fewer trips, shorter commutes, etc.).

[eppur_se_muova]

31. Should have put PLUG-IN in your title for real attention!

A lot of people are waiting for plug-in hybrids, whick would solve the problem of extended range while still using electricity part of the time. This shows the electricity can be used for a much larger part of the time than the hybrid mfgrs are allowing.

Are there any hybrids out there where the driver has the option of switching off the gas motor altogether, i.e. a manual override of the power manager? I can foresee situations where that might be desirable.

[GliderGuider]

47. Dual-mode vehicles are going to be the hot property

I'd like to see a car with a battery as the "first stage" that gets you 150 miles range, then when the battery is drained to a threshold level a small diesel engine "second stage" automatically cuts in to replace the battery power. Most trips would be done on the battery alone, but the range restriction is lifted by having the ICE available if needed. With regenerative braking to recharge the battery a bit it should make for a very practical and low-impact system. In an urban region whose electricity is generated primarily from hydro or nuclear it should prove to be very popular.

[madokie]

48. You're describing the Prius I think, except for the battery size

but with li ion battery technology I think that is or will be here any day now. The idea is getting a lot of interest from a lot of people right now too. the prius in its present battery state would do a large percent of our driving if only we could plug it in.

[GliderGuider]

49. For me there would be two key features

Plug-in recharging, and never having the ICE run if there is sufficient battery power to drive the car.

A company in California named CalCars is doing plug-in conversions for the Prius, but plug-in recharge capability is proving slow to deploy commercially, probably because the recharge time on a high-capacity battery is too long. I'm no expert on battery technology, so I'm not sure about the lifespan of high capacity batteries under the repeated deep-discharge conditions that such a configuration would present.

[madokie]

51. just off the top of my head I believe li-ion batteries can be recharged to 80% in 10 minutes

they can be safely recharged for a 1000 plus cycles, if my memory serves me right. Nichol metal hydrid batteries are in the same ball park as the li-ion's rate of recharge and numbers of times.

[orleans]

54. sign me up for one of these cars!

it sounds great to me....(too bad i can't afford one...)