Electric Car Conversion Companies: Alternatives To Gas Powered Cars

"Morgans" wrote in message
news
How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt"
Harleys.

Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter, but
did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat).

I suspected that, but didn't know that Harleys had done that in the past.
--

Oh you bet. Three speed on the tank and a rocker pedal clutch. I think
that's what a lot of folks used to call the "suicide clutch". Wasn't too bad
on the three wheeler and side car models, but the early two wheel (including
police) bikes had them too. Can't imagine trying to operate a three speed
hand shift, foot clutch motorcycle - with a conventional hand held
microphone Motorola police radio, during a chase. Keep a guy busier than a
one armed paper hanger.

This is no troll, I've been on and off this group for years, building a Glasair 3 since
'91, but I can get frustrated when a good idea like electric cars crops up, and others
just can't wait to publish their long laundry list of reasons not to do it. Your view is
too large, quit tyring to solve the worlds problems. The fact is, for many years to
come, electric cars will only be bought in very small numbers, and never create enough
demand on "the grid" like your doom and gloom prospects paint the picture. So tinkerers
like homebuilders will probably be the select few that will mess with them. Being
retired from the airlines, I rarely travel far from home, and my car sits for days
sometimes and doesn't move. I'd love to have an electric car for short trips. And I'm
not going for some new expensive new one either. A converted conventional car is what
I'm looking into.My local dump takes batteries, so their disposal isn't a problem. Plus,
batteries are recycled, so your fear of disposal is groundless. Ideas never get off the
ground by people that suffer from analysis paralysis. Now, if you had ever owned an
electric car, and then posted some first hand knowlege of it's use, I'd be inclined to
listen. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I'm sure an electric car could be
made that could make trips a maximum of 10 miles and back. Which is about as far as I
need to go. Now it would be interesting to see if they can be air conditioned for the
summer. But I'd be happy to just use it the rest of the year.

I'm trying to figure if this is for real of just trolling:-)) it
comes on just a bit heavy to be real, but??

You are taking what I see over all as being a personal impact
statement and it's not. My statement was as to how "in general" it
would affect our society, not me as an individual. I happen to be in
an area with relatively cheap electricity and tend to be an "early
adopter" of technology.

where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
your coal

Isn't this kinda centrist thinking?
I'm talking about the general population and you are talking about ...
you.

fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
which fuel makes a

Stop and read the papers. The general population is up in arms about
the price of gas. Wait until their electric bills are scaled up
proportionally. I still pay (per month) for electricity about what I
paid in 1976. Actually for a while I had an all electric home heated
with ceiling cable where the bills were about $290 a month and that
was somewhere in the 77-78 range. It's also several times what I pay
now. Remember too, that all alternative energy sources come with some
side effects. Alcohol/corn/food supply. Electric car/cost of
electricity/overall cost of living "nation wide"


certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy or
not is going

Again, I'm talking about the general population and what they consider
acceptable. Unless you believe conspiracy stories about the press and
news in general, the population in general appears to be unhappy about
the cost of energy and pollution. At least there are a lot of stories
on the news about some one complaining.

to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
get one anyway,

Go for it. I'm not trying to influence any ones car buying.

strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
company polutes

Which is unfortunate as the bigger the mess we make now the more
expensive it'll be to clean up and the bigger the impact on the
overall economy when it's done. Sooner or later the clean up will have
to be done. Resistance to conventional, coal powered plants has been
high nation wide. Just in the last year plans for a big expansion of
new plants was abandoned down in Texas. Resistance to running new
transmission lines has been even higher. Even the governors of some
Eastern states are fighting the planed "Eastern Transmission Corridor"
making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big
picture
minded about the

Not everyone, but it's a substantial number and growing. It's also
this kind of thinking that has gas prices where they are now and what
in a few years may be considered "the good old days. It's also more
than likely to affect those who are now isolated and feel protected.
Centrist thinking is why gas costs as much as it does.

I do happen to believe in Nuke power as one of the alternatives, but
it takes about 20 years to get any new plants on line and there are
none proposed that I know of. So you could probably add about another
5 to 10 years of paper work to get one started to that 20 year build
time.

whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
area and never
pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.

So would I, but you are unlikely to do that very far into the future
as other areas start pulling more power from your area and prices
reflect supply and demand. Also, like a good hybrid you will probably
pay enough more for a good all electric car that even if power remains
cheap for you the over all cost of driving that car will likely be
higher than it would have been using the expensive gas.
However as demand goes up the power grid will start drawing power from
your area into other areas. They did that to us in Michigan with
natural gas a couple years back when California screwed up. They sent
our reserves of cheap gas to California where they could make much
more money which resulted in higher prices here. When the power
companies can make more money by shipping your electricity to other
areas you will be seeing new, high voltage transmission lines running
out of the plant.


IMHO, Roger's points were well taken. Most of the "solutions" we see
bandied about are scams.

And the ones that aren't come with "side effects",don't scale well, or
are regionally dependent. Many of those side effects are unlikely to
be anticipated. Rarely does anything come with less side effects than
expected.


OTOH, this is a great time to play around with both electrics and
hybrids--before the limitations and problems become well known and also
before both money and permits are required to turn the batteries back in.

Even now the cheapest way to get rid of a big battery pack it to take
it to an auto dealer. Notice how auto parts dealers now also serve as
used oil collection places.


BTW, there is another form of hybrid that works quite well--using an
internal combustion engine and an electric drive system. The railroads have
been using them quite successfully for the past half of a century. They have
tremendous pulling power at low speeds, but don't have the high speed
acceleration and hill climbing power that we currently demand from our cars.
So, some infrastructure changes would be needed--mostly in the form of
longer acceleration ramps on the expressways.

Peter

Roger (K8RI)

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On another note, and back to this groups subject, did you notice the electric Sonex in
Kitplanes? That thing looked neat, and for local flights around the pattern, it would be
fun to use. But the owner would have to strain "the grid" to charge it up. Probably hard
to find a plug at the airport with the capacity to do that. My house has a 400 watt
service, so even with both A/C units running, and the stove on, I can charge up an
electric car just fine. Plus my shop has a 200W service added to the houses. So charging
problems may be a problem for those in those old houses with 100W service, or even 60
watt if they still exist. But just about any modern house has 200 watts available.
Actually, all houses should be wired for 400 watts, it cost nothing if you don't use it,
but is nice to have if you need it.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:51:14 -0500, Ted Striker wrote:

This is no troll, I've been on and off this group for years, building a Glasair 3 since
'91, but I can get frustrated when a good idea like electric cars crops up, and others
just can't wait to publish their long laundry list of reasons not to do it. Your view is
too large, quit tyring to solve the worlds problems. The fact is, for many years to
come, electric cars will only be bought in very small numbers, and never create enough
demand on "the grid" like your doom and gloom prospects paint the picture. So tinkerers
like homebuilders will probably be the select few that will mess with them. Being
retired from the airlines, I rarely travel far from home, and my car sits for days
sometimes and doesn't move. I'd love to have an electric car for short trips. And I'm
not going for some new expensive new one either. A converted conventional car is what
I'm looking into.My local dump takes batteries, so their disposal isn't a problem. Plus,
batteries are recycled, so your fear of disposal is groundless. Ideas never get off the
ground by people that suffer from analysis paralysis. Now, if you had ever owned an
electric car, and then posted some first hand knowlege of it's use, I'd be inclined to
listen. But that doesn't seem to be the case at all. I'm sure an electric car could be
made that could make trips a maximum of 10 miles and back. Which is about as far as I
need to go. Now it would be interesting to see if they can be air conditioned for the
summer. But I'd be happy to just use it the rest of the year.

I'm trying to figure if this is for real of just trolling:-)) it
comes on just a bit heavy to be real, but??

You are taking what I see over all as being a personal impact
statement and it's not. My statement was as to how "in general" it
would affect our society, not me as an individual. I happen to be in
an area with relatively cheap electricity and tend to be an "early
adopter" of technology.

where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
your coal

Isn't this kinda centrist thinking?
I'm talking about the general population and you are talking about ...
you.

fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
which fuel makes a

Stop and read the papers. The general population is up in arms about
the price of gas. Wait until their electric bills are scaled up
proportionally. I still pay (per month) for electricity about what I
paid in 1976. Actually for a while I had an all electric home heated
with ceiling cable where the bills were about $290 a month and that
was somewhere in the 77-78 range. It's also several times what I pay
now. Remember too, that all alternative energy sources come with some
side effects. Alcohol/corn/food supply. Electric car/cost of
electricity/overall cost of living "nation wide"


certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy or
not is going

Again, I'm talking about the general population and what they consider
acceptable. Unless you believe conspiracy stories about the press and
news in general, the population in general appears to be unhappy about
the cost of energy and pollution. At least there are a lot of stories
on the news about some one complaining.

to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
get one anyway,

Go for it. I'm not trying to influence any ones car buying.

strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
company polutes

Which is unfortunate as the bigger the mess we make now the more
expensive it'll be to clean up and the bigger the impact on the
overall economy when it's done. Sooner or later the clean up will have
to be done. Resistance to conventional, coal powered plants has been
high nation wide. Just in the last year plans for a big expansion of
new plants was abandoned down in Texas. Resistance to running new
transmission lines has been even higher. Even the governors of some
Eastern states are fighting the planed "Eastern Transmission Corridor"
making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big
picture
minded about the

Not everyone, but it's a substantial number and growing. It's also
this kind of thinking that has gas prices where they are now and what
in a few years may be considered "the good old days. It's also more
than likely to affect those who are now isolated and feel protected.
Centrist thinking is why gas costs as much as it does.

I do happen to believe in Nuke power as one of the alternatives, but
it takes about 20 years to get any new plants on line and there are
none proposed that I know of. So you could probably add about another
5 to 10 years of paper work to get one started to that 20 year build
time.

whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
area and never
pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.

So would I, but you are unlikely to do that very far into the future
as other areas start pulling more power from your area and prices
reflect supply and demand. Also, like a good hybrid you will probably
pay enough more for a good all electric car that even if power remains
cheap for you the over all cost of driving that car will likely be
higher than it would have been using the expensive gas.
However as demand goes up the power grid will start drawing power from
your area into other areas. They did that to us in Michigan with
natural gas a couple years back when California screwed up. They sent
our reserves of cheap gas to California where they could make much
more money which resulted in higher prices here. When the power
companies can make more money by shipping your electricity to other
areas you will be seeing new, high voltage transmission lines running
out of the plant.


IMHO, Roger's points were well taken. Most of the "solutions" we see
bandied about are scams.

And the ones that aren't come with "side effects",don't scale well, or
are regionally dependent. Many of those side effects are unlikely to
be anticipated. Rarely does anything come with less side effects than
expected.


OTOH, this is a great time to play around with both electrics and
hybrids--before the limitations and problems become well known and also
before both money and permits are required to turn the batteries back in.

Even now the cheapest way to get rid of a big battery pack it to take
it to an auto dealer. Notice how auto parts dealers now also serve as
used oil collection places.


BTW, there is another form of hybrid that works quite well--using an
internal combustion engine and an electric drive system. The railroads have
been using them quite successfully for the past half of a century. They have
tremendous pulling power at low speeds, but don't have the high speed
acceleration and hill climbing power that we currently demand from our cars.
So, some infrastructure changes would be needed--mostly in the form of
longer acceleration ramps on the expressways.

Peter

Roger (K8RI)

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 14:01:49 -0500, Ted Striker
wrote:

On another note, and back to this groups subject, did you notice the electric Sonex in
Kitplanes? That thing looked neat, and for local flights around the pattern, it would be
fun to use. But the owner would have to strain "the grid" to charge it up. Probably hard
to find a plug at the airport with the capacity to do that.

My house has a 400 watt service, so even with both A/C units running, and the stove on,
I can charge up an electric car just fine.

400 watt service, eh Ted?

Interesting.

That's FOUR light bulbs worth @100 watt ea.

Wanna' correct yourself?


- Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I like my dog...
and George Carlin humor.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:53:06 -0600, Barnyard BOb wrote:

Typo, 400 amps.. But there are always those that catch every typo. Do you read every
last word in the newspaper also?


400 watt service, eh Ted?

Interesting.

That's FOUR light bulbs worth @100 watt ea.

Wanna' correct yourself?


- Barnyard BOb -
The more people I meet,
the more I like my dog...
and George Carlin humor.







Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

On Nov 28, 10:15 am, "Peter Dohm" wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...



On Nov 26, 10:19 pm, Ted Striker wrote:
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:12:51 -0500, "Roger (K8RI)"
wrote:

Blah blah blah, now why is it your entire dissertation is all about the
negatives of
driving an electric car. The obvious is that you worry if electric car
use becomes more
widespread, you might have to pay more for your electricity. Too bad. I
live in an area
where the cost is 7cents a kwh, and is generated by a nuke plant. So goes
your coal
fired worries. And why do you think anyone else is so concerned about
which fuel makes a
certian amount of polution. You think whether or not it makes you happy
or not is going
to have any bearing on the decision to use an electric car? I'm going to
get one anyway,
strain the power grid charging it up, don't care how much the power
company polutes
making the juice to charge it up either. Not everyone is so big picture
minded about the
whole affair as you are. I would love to be able to get around my local
area and never
pull into the gas station and pay the current price of gas.

Before we jump from the frying pan into the fire how about some
analysis on rather an electric car is really efficient. Somehow I
can't believe it is more efficient and less poluting to generate the
electricity, transmit it long distances, store it and convert it back
to energy to drive a car than use direct conversion of gasoline to
energy. That doesn't even consider the long term enviromental impact
of dealing with the chemicals and heavy metals used in batteries.

Electric cars are more efficient than the regular variety, but... and
it's a big but. The all electrics are short range and not practical
for most of us, but for those with short drives they do have
sufficient range. So far, they are Expensive compared to regular cars.
Very expensive. Although they are efficient. The motors are more
like 95% which is great and even taking into account all the losses in
power generation and transmission they are more efficient than the gas
powered car, BUT (there's another one of those buts) even with that
increased efficiency they probably create considerably more pollution
than gas powered cars as most electricity is generated by coal fired
plants. Those plants release a lot of particulates, sulphur, CO2, and
Mercury through tall stacks that send the results to cities and states
down wind. In the end that power to power the electric car is more
polluting than the gas powered cars, or more so than most of them.
OTOH if most of the cars in our major cities were electric we'd see a
marked increase of air quality in those cities. OTOH if those cars
were small hybrids we'd also see an increase in the air quality.

Then there is the problem of getting electricity to the end user as
well as cost. Simply stated; we currently do not have the grid
capacity even in off hours to handle a substantial number of all
electric cars. So what happens if a lot of people go for the electric
car and we are short on grid capacity. Distributed power generation
using solar, wind, or what ever can help in many geographic areas, but
without more grid capacity those too are limited. Real time metering
and control of demand is on its way. Some areas already have it, but
with a continuing high demand you can expect to see rates get much
higher. Her in Michigan they run about 10 cents per KWh with all
charges while in California they peak around 38 cents. At 38 cents
per KWh it would be difficult to save money over the cost of running
an efficient hybrid.

On top of this are the batteries needed. Enough lead acid batteries to
give a reasonable range (just from the suburbs into town to shop)
would be expensive, very heavy, take up a lot of space, and are a
hazard on the roads due to transporting sulphuric acid. How long will
one heavy duty, deep cycle marine battery run a starter? Now kick
that up to moving the car and it's going to take a lot of batteries.

Even good high capacity battery packs such as Nickel Metal Hydride
(which also makes a good Hydrogen sponge) is expensive and no light
weight. Typical MiMH packs used in hybrids today run on the order of
$4,000 plus and they are sufficient only when used in conjunction with
a small gas engine. It's possible, but doubtful two packs ($8,000)
would manage 40 miles even in city driving.

Then there is the new Lithium family of batteries. They are powerful,
compact and lighter weight with reasonable life, but they are *really*
expensive.

BUT (had to say it again) the new technology batteries present a
disposal and/or recycling problem in addition to all the pollution
from the coal fired power plants.. They are not environmental friendly
but they haven't been around long enough to really see how this is
going to fly.

Also as soon as the technology becomes widespread the price of
electricity will raise enough for the all electric car to lose any
cost advantage. First in and First out (FIFO to borrow a computer
term) could save a lot if they weren't so expensive to implement.
Unfortunately when they drive up the price it will be a higher price
we all have to pay just to turn on the lights.

The side effects of many going to all electric would probably have a
greater effect on the cost of living then using a lot of corn to make
alcohol will on the food chain.

Hydrogen takes even more energy to produce.

All-in-all there is no one technology that can have much more than a
small effect as far as helping the economy and environment. Like the
energy efficient home that uses a mix of active and passive solar
energy along with the power mains/natural gas and even uses the gray
water instead of dumping it down the sewer, we are going to have to
combine technologies along with learning how to conserve. Currently
the best answer by far is the hybrid and learning how to conserve.

Roger (K8RI)

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com-Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

How lucky you are to have that .07 cent a kwh price but that is not
the case for everyone nor is the generation by nuclear power.
Instead, I pay a bit over .13 cents per kwh plus a distribution charge
that brings the cost to well over double yours. (And it could be
worse) The plant that generate that power are largely coal fired and
polute out the kazoo. On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
to come up with an effective means of dealing with it. Instead, the
polution is building up in "temporary" storage with nowhere to put it
once the limits of that storage are reached. So by all means, get
your electric car and enjoy the hell out of it but don't be so foolish
as to believe it is the answer for everyone or that it comes without
its own set of problems that will have future consequences.

Everything has unintended consequences.

However, in the case of nuclear power, there is a strong possibility that
much of the "waste" could be used to very good use--producing less intense
heat for many purposes other than superheated steam. At least in theory,
that could drastically reduce the need for other fuels for a lot of simple
heating purposes and could also reduce the need for electricity for many
simple heating purposes. In other words, some of those future consequences
could be beneficial. There would still be waste and it would still need to
be safeguarded; but there could be less of it and there could be far less
waste of other resources.

Peter- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

All that sounds great but it still remains in the "Could Be" category
of wishful thinking.

"BobR" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
to come up with an effective means of dealing with it.

I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. The "waste problem" is the mantra the
anti-nukes fall back on when they run out of logical arguments. From a science
and engineering standpoint, the "problem" of nuclear storage has been solved for
decades, the remaining problems are 99% political. Not the least of political
problems is the crazy policy that we should not recycle our nuclear fuel
modules. Recycling would greatly reduce the volume of the radioactive waste and
recover an amazing amount of fuel for reuse.

Also, remember that fossil power plants have their own waste storage problem;
they are spewing megatons of gasses and chemicals into our atmosphere that will
last for thousands of years, and we have yet to come up with an effective means
of dealing with it...

Vaughn

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

"BobR" wrote in message
...
On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
to come up with an effective means of dealing with it.

I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. The "waste problem" is the mantra
the anti-nukes fall back on when they run out of logical arguments. From
a science and engineering standpoint, the "problem" of nuclear storage has
been solved for decades, the remaining problems are 99% political. Not
the least of political problems is the crazy policy that we should not
recycle our nuclear fuel modules. Recycling would greatly reduce the
volume of the radioactive waste and recover an amazing amount of fuel for
reuse.

Also, remember that fossil power plants have their own waste storage
problem; they are spewing megatons of gasses and chemicals into our
atmosphere that will last for thousands of years, and we have yet to come
up with an effective means of dealing with it...

Vaughn
Exactly true, Vaughn. Spent fuel management is an opportunity not a
'problem'.

I wish I could remember who said that the 'greenies' were political
"watermelons" - i.e. green on the outside and red on the inside. They just
want to stop or slow progress in the capitalist system so the socialists can
catch up. Opposing nukes is just one of their strategies.

Nuclear power is the best and quickest solution available and the least
disruptive of the environment. Even wind and solar are more disruptive. If
the US produced 80% of it's energy from nuclear like France does, we could
get all the oil we need from North America.

BTW did anybody see the report from Germany where researchers had reviewed
the health effect of all radioactive releases since 1945 and found that the
hazards had been overstated by at least 100 times and maybe 1000 times the
actual effects?

Finally, airplanes will need petroleum based fuels for the foreseable
future. To keep the price of avgas and Jet-A down it would help if
everybody else used electricity from nukes.

Bill Daniels

On Nov 28, 5:03 pm, "Vaughn Simon"
wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...

On the other hand, your nuclear power plant us
generating polution that will last thousands of years and we have yet
to come up with an effective means of dealing with it.

I'm sorry, but that is just wrong. The "waste problem" is the mantra the
anti-nukes fall back on when they run out of logical arguments. From a science
and engineering standpoint, the "problem" of nuclear storage has been solved for
decades, the remaining problems are 99% political. Not the least of political
problems is the crazy policy that we should not recycle our nuclear fuel
modules. Recycling would greatly reduce the volume of the radioactive waste and
recover an amazing amount of fuel for reuse.

Also, remember that fossil power plants have their own waste storage problem;
they are spewing megatons of gasses and chemicals into our atmosphere that will
last for thousands of years, and we have yet to come up with an effective means
of dealing with it...

Vaughn

I am NOT anti-nuclear but I am a realist and rather you wish to admit
it or not, rather it is political or scientific, nuclear presents many
unsolved issues that must be answered before nuclear will be anykind
of long term solution. I have long believed that nuclear could
provide long term solutions to power needs but only if we quit all the
bull**** political infighting and find real solutions. The first step
in that direction is to admit that you really do have problems that
must be solved. We have had our heads up our ass for years and failed
to admit the problems with fossil fuels, lets NOT repeat the same
mistake in finding replacements.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:14:40 GMT, Charles Vincent
wrote:

Morgans wrote:
"Roger (K8RI)" wrote

Clutch lever? I said that Harley was "Old":-)) Not one of those
modern ones.

OK, I give up.

So old that it didn't have a transmission? g

How did you work the clutch? I'm not familiar with "old as dirt" Harleys.

Foot operated clutch and a tank shifter. I never had a tank shifter,

Yup, Rocker clutch and tank shift 3-speed, with both on the left side.
Not exactly a bike for letting it all hang out while shifting through
the turns:-)) Hand clutch and foot shift was one whale of an
improvement for both convenience and safety.

but did ride a panhead with a jockey shift (hand shift behind the seat).

That I've not seen.


Charles

Roger (K8RI)