I won't ever go there; and that applies to all classic cars. To each their own.
Are EV's really Green? Someone posted this in a local forum.
The Zero-Emission myth: Batteries, they do not make electricity – they store electricity produced elsewhere, primarily by coal, uranium, natural gas-powered plants, or diesel-fueled generators. So, to say an EV is a zero-emission vehicle is not at all valid. Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?" Einstein's formula, E=MC2, tells us it takes the same amount of energy to move a five-thousand-pound gasoline-driven automobile a mile as it does an electric one. The only question again is what produces the power? To reiterate, it does not come from the battery; the battery is only the storage device, like a gas tank in a car. There are two orders of batteries, rechargeable, and single-use. The most common single-use batteries are A, AA, AAA, C, D. 9V, and lantern types. Those dry-cell species use zinc, manganese, lithium, silver oxide, or zinc and carbon to store electricity chemically. Please note they all contain toxic, heavy metals. Rechargeable batteries only differ in their internal materials, usually lithium-ion, nickel-metal oxide, and nickel-cadmium. The United States uses three billion of these two battery types a year, and most are not recycled; they end up in landfills. California is the only state which requires all batteries be recycled. If you throw your small, used batteries in the trash, here is what happens to them. All batteries are self-discharging. That means even when not in use, they leak tiny amounts of energy. You have likely ruined a flashlight or two from an old, ruptured battery. When a battery runs down and can no longer power a toy or light, you think of it as dead; well, it is not. It continues to leak small amounts of electricity. As the chemicals inside it run out, pressure builds inside the battery's metal casing, and eventually, it cracks. The metals left inside then ooze out. The ooze in your ruined flashlight is toxic, and so is the ooze that will inevitably leak from every battery in a landfill. All batteries eventually rupture; it just takes rechargeable batteries longer to end up in the landfill. In addition to dry cell batteries, there are also wet cell ones used in automobiles, boats, and motorcycles. The good thing about those is, ninety percent of them are recycled. Unfortunately, we do not yet know how to recycle single-use ones properly. But that is not half of it. For those of you excited about electric cars and a green revolution, I want you to take a closer look at batteries and also windmills and solar panels. These three technologies share what we call environmentally destructive production costs. A typical EV battery weighs one thousand pounds, about the size of a travel trunk. It contains twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds cobalt, 200 pounds of copper, and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel, and plastic. Inside are over 6,000 individual lithium-ion cells. It should concern you that all those toxic components come from mining. For instance, to manufacture each EV auto battery, you must process 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. All told, you dig up 500,000 pounds of the earth's crust for just - one - battery." Sixty-eight percent of the world's cobalt, a significant part of a battery, comes from the Congo. Their mines have no pollution controls, and they employ children who die from handling this toxic material. Should we factor in these diseased kids as part of the cost of driving an electric car?" I'd like to leave you with these thoughts. California is building the largest battery in the world near San Francisco, and they intend to power it from solar panels and windmills. They claim this is the ultimate in being 'green,' but it is not. This construction project is creating an environmental disaster. Let me tell you why. The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels. To make pure enough silicon requires processing it with hydrochloric acid, sulfuric acid, nitric acid, hydrogen fluoride, trichloroethane, and acetone. In addition, they also need gallium, arsenide, copper-indium-gallium- diselenide, and cadmium-telluride, which also are highly toxic. Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled. Windmills are the ultimate in embedded costs and environmental destruction. Each weighs 1688 tons (the equivalent of 23 houses) and contains 1300 tons of concrete, 295 tons of steel, 48 tons of iron, 24 tons of fiberglass, and the hard to extract rare earths neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced. We cannot recycle used blades. There may be a place for these technologies, but you must look beyond the myth of zero emissions. "Going Green" may sound like the Utopian ideal but when you look at the hidden and embedded costs realistically with an open mind, you can see that Going Green is more destructive to the Earth's environment than meets the eye, for sure.
@barncobob posted:Ferdinand is rolling over by now
Actually one of his earliest designs was a front wheel drive electric with two motors.
@Stan Galat posted:So... to summarize: (as per usual) a problem was identified, a reasonable solution presented by affected parties, the government took 10 years to study it, and at the 11th hour a competing special interest completely rewrote the regulations, whereupon it was enacted.
The net result is the "guvmint" (for @edsnova) has (yet again!) "fixed" something in such a way that it's far worse than it was before.
Seems about right.
Precisely: create a problem so as to come up with a “solution”….
There’s an electric speedster on pcarmarket if anyones interested
@Stan Galat @Impala seems the way of the world as of late....."johnny's in the basement, mixin' up the "medicine".....i'm on the pavement thinkin' 'bout the "GUVMINT"!"- according to dylan .....words truly fitting in this present day
@LeadPedal posted:There’s an electric speedster on pcarmarket if anyones interested
Sold for $700 3 months ago
@jncspyder posted:@Stan Galat @Impala seems the way of the world as of late....."johnny's in the basement, mixin' up the "medicine".....i'm on the pavement thinkin' 'bout the "GUVMINT"!"- according to dylan .....words truly fitting in this present day
Ironic how some of those supposedly counterculture artists such as Neil Young and Joni Mitchell have switched as of late….
I just did a few fact checks on that looooong post forwarded from Nolan because, as an engineer, a lot of it didn't sound right.
Right at the top, it states: "Also, since forty percent of the electricity generated in the U.S. is from coal-fired plants, it follows that forty percent of the EVs on the road are coal-powered, do you see?"
Wrong ; It's only 21% and getting less every year as older coal-fired plants are phased out.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3
Then there's: "The main problem with solar arrays is the chemicals needed to process silicate into the silicon used in the panels...... Silicon dust is a hazard to the workers, and the panels cannot be recycled."
So I googled recycling solar panels and got this site that disputes that:
https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-recycling
Another thing that didn't make any sense was this, about wind turbines: "Each blade weighs 81,000 pounds and will last 15 to 20 years, at which time it must be replaced."
40 TONS per blade? That sounded like a lot of weight to me, so much so, that I wondered how it manages to turn at all in slight wind, so I googled it and found this:
"For a 1.5-MW turbine, typical blades should measure 110 ft to 124 ft (34m to 38m) in length, weigh 11,500 lb/5,216 kg and cost roughly $100,000 to $125,000 each. Rated at 3.0 MW, a turbine’s blades are about 155 ft/47m in length, weigh about 27,000 lb/12,474 kg and are valued at roughly $250,000 to $300,000 each."
https://www.compositesworld.co...g-and-getting-bigger
That's just a few examples of many more. So, the bottom line here is, Nolan's forwarded, cut-and-paste post should pique some interest but, like many, many things you read on the Interweb, you really have to do some homework to make sure what you're reading is accurate and true. I'm not saying the post is totally wrong because there is some stuff in there which should get you thinking a bit, but if I can come up with rebuttal in 15 minutes of googling trusted sources, you guys can, too.
Gordon, although you are correct in pointing out these gross errors, there is MUCH to be done to make electricity clean.
I found the US grid is around 60-65% dirty, as in carbon-based, non-renewable, non-"green" souces: coal and natural gas. The coal number has been dropping steadily, but is still a significant portion, 25% as of 2018, which is the latest study I uncovered in a 2 minute search.
https://towardsdatascience.com...ic-grid-f18bce6473d5
What I found is that there has been a doubling of the use of natural gas to make electricity. Nuclear is pretty flat, coal has gone down, but natural gas usage has doubled in 15 years. Yes, solar is contributing and increasing, but that's only 10% or so. The NG increase coincides with our endless hunger for more juice. It's funny, with all the power-saving appliances and lower wattage lights you'd think the load on the grid would be lower.
I'm sure that some of the battery and wind turbine rare-earth data is exaggerated. But it does make you think. BEVs are not all unicorns and rainbows.
Our electric grid is overtaxed already. We all know this. And the solution is to add MORE load to it? Duh!
@Gordon Nichols posted:I just did a few fact checks on that looooong post forwarded from Nolan because, as an engineer, a lot of it didn't sound right.
That's just a few examples of many more. So, the bottom line here is, Nolan's forwarded, cut-and-paste post should pique some interest but, like many, many things you read on the Interweb, you really have to do some homework to make sure what you're reading is accurate and true. I'm not saying the post is totally wrong because there is some stuff in there which should get you thinking a bit, but if I can come up with rebuttal in 15 minutes of googling trusted sources, you guys can, too.
Thanks, Gordon. I think that's one of the things I find most offensive about some of the anti-BEV propaganda. Someone just throws BS into a post and people swallow it as the truth because they're inclined in that direction. People get heated about it and have no trusted data to back up the rhetoric. How do you get people to believe you can help them fix their old type 1 engine problem if they see that you don't care if what you post is factual. I know this is the interweb, but I expect more from the folks on this board for some reason.
That being said, I don't think I've seen any of the rabidly pro-BEV rhetoric that ignores all of the shortcomings of the current technology on this board. Most of us love our 1930's design VW engines or our water-cooled, EFI'd Subaru powerplants so incongruently shoved into our 1950's replicas. We acknowledge that BEV technology is evolving and needs to get better. The same has to be said for renewable energy and infrastructure. There's a lot of work to be done if we want to slow down the impact of climate change. I realize that there are a few folks who don't believe that climate change is happening or that we can do anything about it if it is happening.
The majority of world leaders believe the studies showing that climate change is happening and that we need to do something about it (or they believe the Exxon and Shell Oil scientists who warned their CEOs over 20 years ago). Are we better informed than folks whose jobs are literally to improve our chances of survival (as nations or citizens)?
I hear a lot of moaning and groaning about why BEVs and renewable energy technologies are bad and that our current infrastructure can't handle a change from oil-based energy. I think the BEV advocates get it. I think the difference is that they see that you have to start somewhere and we can't get paralyzed because the perfect solution isn't currently available. In one of my earlier bloviations, I remembered back to when all of our (USA) rockets blew up on the launch pad. We didn't think rocket technology was doomed at that point (at least most of us didn't). We had goals and we kept at it until the technology worked and we achieved our goals.
Why would battery technology, renewable energy and infrastructure be different? The goal isn't the technology or rockets, it's delaying or stopping the pace of climate change. Parting comment, I'm very much in favor of exploring alternative technologies like hydrogen cars, nuclear fission, gritting my teeth-nuclear fission, etc. We'd be stupid to limit our options to betamax...
Hey guys I was only passing on a post someone sent me. Maybe we should get back to basics, horses. At least with horses we can recycle their exhaust outputs. 
"Whisky for my friends, beer for my horses" by Toby Keith/Willie Nelson.
We can chew gum and walk at the same time. Of course that new technology is welcome and cool. I would love to have a cool electric vehicle too. Of course we should try to preserve and take care of our planet and resources BUT, I also believe that science is not ruled by consensus. Just because a majority of people, even scientists, not to mention world leaders, believe something it doesn't make it true. Galileo Galilei was the only one who believed that the planets revolved around the Sun and not the Earth while all the scientists at the time believed otherwise. He was even excommunicated from the Catholic Church. Now we know who was right.
While some of the numbers are wrong or just outdated, the basic argument is still valid- North America is using far too much fossil fuel for power generation with no real alternatives for clean power in sight.
I’m in agreement of a lot of what’s been typed, and especially what Danny alluded to (don’t faint, Danny!)
I keep hearing that the central power grid is over-taxed and while that isn’t so in all parts of the country, it IS true in places like the Northeast, California and Texas (Texas is a bit different because they chose to be isolated from the rest of America’s grid and are going it alone and slowly failing).
Since the 1980’s, I have been an advocate for independent power generation at the house or apartment building or factory level. No central grid, just localized generation on demand, coupled with solar, wind or geo-thermal sources for a complete coverage of a home’s needs. It would be scalable as needed for the building’s needs. The son of a guy I worked with in 1982 was working on a similar project at MIT; a 3-phase generator about the size of a compact car that could generate the power needed by Cambridge, Massachusetts (that’s how they tested it - They powered the city of Cambridge for two hours in the middle of the night). It was a “proof of concept” test for a DARPA project as a portable power source for a laser weapon system but if it could do that, then a smaller scale version could certainly power an apartment building or something smaller (or larger).
The current utility companies are (understandably) fighting the “smaller is better” concept, but think about it: With decentralized power out at the individual building level, power outages would be far less bothersome and more easily fixed, and full neighborhoods wouldn’t go off line, just individual houses. They would be less affected by storms and so forth.
Phone service is almost at this point in many parts of the country with current 5G wireless far surpassing the availability of landlines and I believe that household power is not that far away, but I believe it will start like Solar started - A few homeowners will get on the bandwagon and it will grow from there.
This article is a little cheesy, but you’ll get the idea:
Love this subject of energy independence and alternative sources.
@Nolan posted:Hey guys I was only passing on a post someone sent me. Maybe we should get back to basics, horses. At least with horses we can recycle their exhaust outputs.
"Whisky for my friends, beer for my horses" by Toby Keith/Willie Nelson.
Don't worry about it- it's created some great discussion.
It is always difficult to find unbiased clear information as everyone has an angle and a bias leading to money or a pot of gold.
We recently found out that our Guvermint paid social media giants and celebs to support their ideology on social media so. All opinions may be out right advertising… hence propaganda, and while not all are snake oil salesmen it is getting harder to trust any opinion out there and fact gathering is harder as reviews are now paid for by manufacturers….
This recent season has shown us how medicine and pharmacy are also able to be manipulated when Big Pharma and regulatory agencies are supported by Big Pharma fees and data is withheld making independent assessments impossible and thus true conclusions will fall positively in the interest of BP ….Quoting Nancy Sinatra… and the beat goes on.
Thanks for that Gordon, and I didn't faint!
I'd like to discuss this micro-CHP(combined heat and power) thing some more.
Isn't that a fascinating concept?
In the past, people mostly thought of this like an emergency power generator for your home but the problem with that, is that all (most) of those are operated by an ICE of some sort - Propane for you and me, gasoline or street Natural Gas for many others. Not exactly a green (or cheap) alternative, but lots of people (including folks at MIT, WPI and CalTech) are now starting to look at micro-CHP techniques for third world nations as a way to leap-frog from early last century into this one. Lots of third-world areas are looking to skip the centralized power generation concept entirely as financially unfeasible for remote areas. Elon Musk and others are providing them with remote Internet connection from the sky. All they need now is cheap, stable power at the community level, NOT for the entire country - Enter the world of Micro-CHPs!
I don't agree with Mr. Toyoda about the viability of a fuel cell to power an automobile (yet), but it could be scaled to power a house relatively easily, without all of the ancillary stuff needed to safely survive in a moving car and provide enough power to the wheels. Alternatively, generating electrical power from the residual heat of a home-heating boiler/furnace looks interesting, especially if you include battery storage during off-demand generation. Most working people don't use a lot of power during the day so using a battery to time-phase with power usage (usually more in the evening) makes some sense. And there are a bunch of different types of "batteries" out there - I knew an engineering guy in the 1970s, way up on a mountain in Vermont (I think he totally captured the characterization of "Hippie") who used solar collectors during the day but his "battery" was a solar-driven pump that took water out of a pond near his house and pumped 800 gallons into four old home heating oil tanks behind the house. At night, he would reverse the flow with a small water turbine to generate electricity for his lights and stereo (no TV there) and THAT was his "Battery".
Pretty slick, and BTW, this was before the current class of solar collectors that directly generate electricity. His collectors flowed water/anti-freeze through them, got hot up on the roof and flowed some of that hot water to a heat exchanger with either ammonia or alcohol on the other side (I can't remember which, but either would work) that would boil below 200F and drive a small gas turbine (which looked like a small auto supercharger) to make electricity for the pump and house. The rest of the house was heated by the collectors flowing into a 1,600 gallon reservoir, supplemented by a wood stove (seldom needed). He also got potable hot water out of the system for drinking and showers. The point is, he was totally off the grid, with heat and electricity, and loving it. In 1972. The house was a 1,400 sq. ft. A-frame. He was a refugee engineer from a place called Combustion Engineering in Connecticut.
It's a wonderful time to be a creative engineer with so many different needs looking for solutions in a very short timeframe........ Ask just about any credible source about how long our oil will last and the average timeframe is about 50 years. Those creative folks better get a move on........
You know, @DannyP, This whole scenario reminds me of Issac Asimov's "Foundation" Sci-Fi series written way back in the 1950s. Without going into the entire multi-thousand year history, the hero of the earlier story, Hari Seldon, was confronted with the potential of a dying Empire and convinced the rulers that he should create an elite group of scientists to figure out how to forestall the Empire's decline. They allowed him to do so (I think that was in the third book, Foundation) and he moved all of them to another planet called "Terminus". One of the really big things they did there (among many, many others) was to develop fusion power on a very small scale, literally down to a safe, pocket-sized power source that would last for years. Interestingly, they only shared a small amount of their inventions with the Empire, but vastly accelerated the development of Terminus into a future far better than the Empire's while only disclosing what was needed to keep the Empire going in the direction it needed to survive. (There are 6 more books after this....)
When I read about some of the stuff under development in today's world, even though government funding for that development is almost non-existent, I am given great hope that we'll find a way to power our world into the future before we make it uninhabitable or run out of energy. Fusion power looks like it's on the horizon, but do-able. Power storage techniques are getting more creative to suit different circumstances (and not all are battery centric). Different methods of generating non-ICE power are being developed. Hope is on the horizon for Third World countries.
I've said it before, but this is a very exciting time to be living (although maybe not for the Ukrainians, right now).
@Gordon Nichols, I learn something every time you post. Now if we can just get those pesky AIs to agree to Asimov's three laws of robotics. I'm afraid they're going to sneak up on us while we're trying to fix climate change.
My question remains "Is there really a market for a BEV Speedster? Our ICE Speedsters are definitely a niche market. I suspect the BEV Speedster market would be much smaller due to the cost, limited range, and lack of nostalgia value.
@jprpdr posted:My question remains "Is there really a market for a BEV Speedster? Our ICE Speedsters are definitely a niche market. I suspect the BEV Speedster market would be much smaller due to the cost, limited range, and lack of nostalgia value.
I suspect that the market is rather small for now. Carey recently noted that in his shop 20 out of the 160 cars that had not begun the build process were EVs.
I'd wager that it's larger than jprpdr thinks. Almost nobody drives a speedster replica any distance, so the lack of range (which is a real and legitimate concern in a daily use vehicle) is not really an issue for how the bulk of the replica speedsters are actually used.
As for the cost, I suspect that in the age of the $70K used car, it's less of an issue than it's ever been.
Regarding nostalgia, most people are considerably less nostalgic the first time they get a plugged idle jet in stop and go traffic on a hot summer day.
I'm certainly not buying one, but I can see that there's a market, and I'm glad both Carey and Greg are trying to fill it with something other than a golf-cart motor and lead-acid battery array.
Regarding the rest of it, we'll see - but I very strongly suspect we'll still be driving ICEs long after the projected "phase outs" the manufacturers are promising and various governments are legislating. As they exist, BEVs are pretty far from a realistic solution for vast portions of the transportation system. Physics always wins.
The next 10 years should be "interesting", in the Chinese curse sense of, "may you live in interesting times".
@Michael Pickett posted:Why would battery technology, renewable energy and infrastructure be different?
Respectfully, my answer to the question has been given at least 5 times. Battery technology is different from rockets in the 1950s because rockets in the 1950s were a brand new technology, and huge improvements were made with every generation. The physics said they'd work - all that was needed was to reliably control the release of the enormous potential they had.
Batteries were invented in 1800 and smart people have been working to improve them ever since. There is no "low hanging fruit" to learn here - improvements are made by using ever more exotic materials to effect a better result, while giving up something else. We've arrived (at present) on lithium/ion batteries that are chemically and thermally unstable, prone to catch fire, and made from some very exotic and environmentally "iffy" raw materials. It's astounding to me that the Felicity Ace fire is already "yesterday's news" and conveniently swept under the rug. We're living in an age when people firmly believe they can create their own reality, but I thought we were better at critical thinking here.
I've been hearing for the last 10 years (at least) that a breakthrough was "imminent". That's not science, that's faith. Improvements to batteries has been incremental, but what is needed for actual wide-spread viability is not incremental improvements - it's a doubling or tripling of usable range, or the advent of a 15 minute 5-80% charge.
As neither have been forthcoming, and as nobody is promising they will be - it seems "hopeful" (wishful?) to force-feed technologies that have truly limited potential to actually improve the goal of reducing greenhouse gasses. When the current plan is shown to be unworkable and dangerous (which is inevitable), we will have missed out on 10 years of R&D that could have gone towards making vehicles an order of magnitude more efficient than today's fleet.
Renewables are great... if you have a viable way to store megawatts of electricity generated by variable sources (wind, solar)... which we don't because we continue to look to batteries as the solution. Efficiently storing electrical energy is not quite alchemy, but it's close.
I'm unsure what is meant by "infrastructure" but I'm a huge proponent of building out an electrical grid that's 2-5x bigger than the one we've got. If you mean charging stations, I'd be inclined to say, "let the market pick a winner for once".
In aiming for the stars, we're going to keep auguring into the dirt. Wouldn't a solution with a chance of working be a better bet?
Stan,
Thanks for your usual insightful thoughts. When the cost gets high enough, other options can become more attractive. I doubt if many BEV Speedster purchasers would be old enough to have the "nostalgia" that old guys like me have. Agree that Greg and Cary will do their best to produce a quality product for BEV enthusiasts. Agree that time will tell whether or not there is enough of a market to support their efforts, or if BEV conversions of classics will continue to be more of a curiosity, and only in very small numbers. I doubt if I will be around to see how it turns out!
Jim Ruiz
Westchester, CA 90045
@Stan Galat posted:Respectfully, my answer to the question has been given at least 5 times. Battery technology is different from rockets in the 1950s because rockets in the 1950s were a brand new technology, and huge improvements were made with every generation. The physics said they'd work - all that was needed was to reliably control the release of the enormous potential they had.
Batteries were invented in 1800 and smart people have been working to improve them ever since. There is no "low hanging fruit" to learn here - improvements are made by using ever more exotic materials to effect a better result, while giving up something else.
Just an observation, according to the NASA website, steam rockets were first reported in 400 BC, solid fuel rockets were first used in battle in 1232 AD. I think your assertion that rockets were a "brand new technology" in the 1950s doesn't match up with my understanding of "brand new." I get the point you're trying to make, I just think you overstated your case. The reason we got our rockets to work well for space flight in the 50s and 60s was we poured a lot of research and money into it. Lots of progress is being made with solid state, lithium-sulfur and other battery technologies as the BEV market creates demand.
For example, a recent article in the journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers titled "Advancing Battery Technology for Modern Innovations" doesn't match up with your characterization of the future of battery technology. The author notes that a lot of new batteries that have been developed use much less exotic and less expensive materials. He points out that manufacturers have been slow to gear up because the ubiquitous lithium-ion batteries are still in high demand. He notes that we should see more solid state batteries as well as batteries utilizing different battery chemistry coming to market in the next few years. He notes that the solid state batteries provide faster charging, higher energy density, longer life cycle, and greater safety.
On the raw edge, there are some interesting studies going on with quantum battery charging showing charge times in the lab that could result in full charges in 3 minutes for an EV (but this is really, really new work and may never come to market). I share this because it shows the kind of paradigm shifting work that researchers are doing as the demand for better EV batteries grow.
New battery study results are reported every day. Do a little digging and you'll see some interesting things. Whether manufacturers are willing to gear up to make a change from the status quo is up in the air. I suspect Elon Musk will continue to push Tesla for better technology as a competitive advantage to GM's and Ford's manufacturing and distribution base. Who ever wins the better battery race will win a lot of customers.
Steam rockets, @Michael Pickett? Seriously? That's like saying a candle will get a car across the Sahara desert. Steam rockets are toys.
In the 1950s, we (and the Russians) were concentrating on liquid-fueled rockets to get people to space and back.
Why, you may ask? Because liquid rockets could theoretically be throttled, to give the precise control to nail an orbit or a deceleration burn.
Solid fuel rockets cannot be shut off or throttled once lit, which is why they were used for unmanned boosters and eventually boosted the Space Shuttle, but only at the first stage of flight. All orbital maneuvers were accomplished by liquid propulsion. Solid rockets are also used to assist the C130 for short-field takeoff.
Look up Robert Goddard, an American pioneer. He launched a successful liquid-fueled rocket in 1926, and passed away in 1945. NASA followed his work.
And the reason we poured money into space flight was purely to control space by beating the Russians.
Beating the other countries in battery technology is not the point today, but yes I do believe we need to change the way we consume and pollute. I'm just not sure that batteries are the way, because no matter how good they are, they still need to be charged.
Dirty power to charge a clean battery is a zero sum game.
OK, so one more post from me on this and just a little history/background, also to serve as a reply to:
@jprpdr posted:My question remains "Is there really a market for a BEV Speedster? Our ICE Speedsters are definitely a niche market. I suspect the BEV Speedster market would be much smaller due to the cost, limited range, and lack of nostalgia value.
Only time will tell. In the past 10+ years the calls for EV increase with the price of gas, and most quickly realize that it is not a viable "cool" alternative, nor is it cheap, and they go away.... until recently. The calls now are serious, no more tin foil hat guys trying to create a perpetual motion machine, they have money, they aren't afraid to spend money, and those who want electric are willing to pay up and wait. And we're talking about $75-150k builds here. What is the long term picture, who knows, but we'll see.
For me, it'll be more interesting to see what the secondary market does with EV replicas. Previously, most sold in the used market for about the cost of a kit or roller, and the new owner would call here and buy ICE parts to convert it back and then sell their old EV parts to another DIYer looking for a cheap project. I've only seen 1 or 2 change hands recently and they brought the same money as a comparable ICE example. Again, not my cup of tea, but I think we'll see this end of the market further develop for a little while at least. Then, who knows what's next... CNG? ;-)
@Michael Pickett posted:...
For example, a recent article in the journal of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers titled "Advancing Battery Technology for Modern Innovations" doesn't match up with your characterization of the future of battery technology. The author notes that a lot of new batteries that have been developed use much less exotic and less expensive materials. He points out that manufacturers have been slow to gear up because the ubiquitous lithium-ion batteries are still in high demand. He notes that we should see more solid state batteries as well as batteries utilizing different battery chemistry coming to market in the next few years. He notes that the solid state batteries provide faster charging, higher energy density, longer life cycle, and greater safety.
On the raw edge, there are some interesting studies going on with quantum battery charging showing charge times in the lab that could result in full charges in 3 minutes for an EV (but this is really, really new work and may never come to market). I share this because it shows the kind of paradigm shifting work that researchers are doing as the demand for better EV batteries grow.
...
I'm always very intrigued when I read these articles, but then you never hear from them again. I think it is a combination of manufacturing costs and the inability to make a quick enough profit to satisfy stockholders. They'd rather stick with what makes their share price go up next quarter than take a bet on what will be good in 5-10 years. Sadly a lot of good alternatives die or go dormant for a long time due to such shortsightedness.
Thanks for that, Carey - Always great insight. I offered my Speedster to be a mule for the group at WPI looking into E-Car developments at WPI about ten years ago when my daughter was working there, but they went off with a different car that was more easily converted (more open space within). Still, it would have been kind-of cool to mess with something that new.
@DannyP: Robert Goddard is pretty big around here. He was teaching at Clark Univ. and WPI back during his rocketing days and there are buildings at Clark and WPI named for him. There is also a monument park in Auburn, MA (a suburb of Worcester) as the field where he launched his rockets (that area is now a shopping mall right next to I-90). I also think there is a reproduction of one of his early rockets around here somewhere (Nasa has one at Cape Canaveral, too). That is very cool.
Steam has been used in rocket-like gizmos a bit in the past. Think of a steam boiler/generator as a "Thrust Amplifier" and you'll get the idea. I think it was also used to push Poseidon rockets from their launch tubes in submarines to break the surface before the rocket motor kicked in (but don't quote me on that - I'm not entirely sure) and steam was used up until the John F. Kennedy class of aircraft carriers to power the launch catapults. Steam has a lot more power than a lot of people realize, it's just a bit impractical in our age of cheap fossil fuels for powering transportation. Not to mention all that soot belched by steam locomotives. 
@DannyP posted:Steam rockets, @Michael Pickett? Seriously? Steam rockets are toys.
Dirty power to charge a clean battery is a zero sum game.
Got it. I withdraw my idea about powering our interplanetary spacecrafts as well as all of our vehicles with steam rockets from 400 BC. What was I thinking?
I mostly agree with your statement about dirty power unless there's an appreciable reduction in climate change emissions due to scale. This would only work if power plants burning coal, oil and natural gas had super scrubbers that result in super low emissions.
Seems like a better idea to look towards replacing the dirty power plants with power sources that don't damage our atmosphere. It's a complicated problem and we won't solve it by fiddling around the edges.
@chines1, thanks for the insight into what the market for EV replicas is like. I agree, it will be interesting to see where the tech goes.
Like you, it's not my cup of tea, but mostly because I don't see battery range much over 100 miles with our current batteries and the small amount of space in our cars. If I could get 250 mile range in a speedster, I'd be fine with it. Probably not going to happen anytime soon.
I spent my youth and a lot of my adulthood owning, repairing, restoring, and driving British sports cars.
If I can't smell, or hear, what I'm driving, I'll walk. 
Ahhhhhh......... That unforgetable smell of damp, British, Mohair wool seats right after a soft rain.
@Michael Pickett posted:@chines1, thanks for the insight into what the market for EV replicas is like. I agree, it will be interesting to see where the tech goes.
Like you, it's not my cup of tea, but mostly because I don't see battery range much over 100 miles with our current batteries and the small amount of space in our cars. If I could get 250 mile range in a speedster, I'd be fine with it. Probably not going to happen anytime soon.
We're at 150 mile range currently and the new prototype should be closer to 300 although I won't be able to prove it until the late summer/fall.
@Gordon Nichols posted:Ahhhhhh......... That unforgetable smell of damp, British, Mohair wool seats right after a soft rain.
You forgot ozone 🙂