A droplet of balm for the "green power" fans

[kerbiloid]

https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/overview-of-early-electric-cars.html

[wumpus]

I'm not sure of the point.  While lead-acid batteries were invented in the mid-19th century and presumably available in the early 20th (and needed for car starters toward the end of the period examined), I fail to see how they would be better for cars 1900-1925 (and especially past 1925).  It isn't so much a missed opportunity as tech simply not being there.

On the one hand, you have the king of the 20th century, the ICE.  It suffers from terrible emissions, tends to only be efficient at full power and uses a throttle to strangle the air  (O₂ and gasoline) supply of the engine to reduce power.  This makes sure the thing is badly inefficient, and the efficiency gets worse as the car gets more powerful (typically meaning >100hp in modern US [bloated] cars).

On the other hand in electric cars you have lead acid batteries running directly to brushed DC motors.  I'd be shocked silly if they were using vacuum tubes to create a switching power supply mechanism.  Regulation would presumably involve a rheostat, and be unlikely to beat the efficiency of the throttled ICE.  I'm pretty sure effective chargers existed, but I doubt they would be so concerned with efficiency (you need a constant voltage, then just use a trickle charge).  It doesn't look at all like a modern electric car, and such things weren't really possible until at least roughly the time of the EV-1 (1990s).  I remember seeing a 1970s electric car (probably some sort of "green" exhibit).  I think it resembled a trabant in shape, size and power.  But probably worse in all respects.

And for most of the twentieth century, there would be little point of advocating "green power", with the exception of the horror of southern Californian air (which was still scary when I was there in 1995).  More likely, your best arguments for electric power would center around countries with plenty of resources to make electricity (*) but issues dealing with countries that had plenty of gasoline producing crude oil.

You need a lot of technologies that  weren't available in 1925 to build an electric car, and Lithium-ion batteries are just the start.  The next critical item is some sort of current switcher needed to produce electric motors with enough torque to move themselves (let alone the car) and also function at high rpm (for something resembling high speed driving).  Not to mention you'll need similar switchers simply to quickly/efficiently charge the battery.  I'm guessing you could build an electric motor that would match a 1925 ICE with just those, but getting much more might require rare-earth magnets.  I don't think they were a thing (i.e. mass produced) until at least the 1990s.

(*) I'm convinced that "too cheap to meter" was the reason that nuclear power plants are so expensive to make.  All the regulation and standard practices were set in stone when electricity was a regulated public utility and thus effectively "cost plus".  The power companies would happily agree to any regulation that [slowly, or better yet in the future] increased the cost of power generation as they could simply jack up the prices and thus increase the profits (the "plus" in cost plus).

To summarize, when it is steam time, you get steam engines.  You don't get electric cars in 1925.  The infrastructure just won't support it.  You might as well ask "where is my hydrogen car"?  The infrastructure simply won't support it.

[kerbiloid]

8 hours ago, wumpus said:

To summarize, when it is steam time, you get steam engines.  You don't get electric cars in 1925. 

Don't forget that in 1900s petrol engines and their infrastructure were same if not weirder exotic that batteries (known since XVIII), so it was not at all obvious which one will come instead of steam cars.

So, the modern electric cars are just a return from the petrol heresy (caused by tanks and tractors) to the true electric way.

Jules Verne enjoys that.

[wumpus]

Except that the most effective cars of that era (at least the winners of retro hill climbs) weren't electric, but steam.  The Stanley Steamer was extremely effective for its time, although it might have had a long "warm up" time (see modern "plaid" electric requirements).  I suspect that ideal hybrid cars should be using a turbine, although a gas instead of steam tubine.

[note, I still don't know why 30hp turbines are inefficient.  I'm an electrical type, and only dealt with thermo in "physics for engineers", not a separate class]

Don't forget that the "petrol heresy" was largely using a waste product (that dratted infrastructure again) as a fuel compared to expensive electricity.  Also I'm not sure just how many places were fully electrified 1900-1925: electricity might be assumed to come to homes (and parking lots) *now*, but not necessarily back then.

I'll have to revisit Verne.  I haven't read anything of his since ~1980 (when I was fairly young) and I understand that better translations are available.  I suspect that not only were the translations I read pre-1965, but the books themselves (from a library) were as well...

[kerbiloid]

45 minutes ago, wumpus said:

I'll have to revisit Verne. 

Nautilus is electric, also in 5 weeks across Africa on a balloon, etc.

[Scotius]

Not only Nautilus. Albatross of Robur the Conqueror also uses batteries and electric motors to stay aloft for long periods of time. Did Verne ever mention what exactly powers both?

Maybe zero-point energy?

[radonek]

Batteries themselves. IIRC Cpt. Nemo came up with some chemistry to create single-use chemical batteries from oceanic resources. It's described in the book, although not a word about actual production. I guess Verne did research on plausible chemistry, but did not run the numbers on power density.

[Shpaget]

Nautilus is coal powered.

Quote

"You're familiar with the composition of salt water. In 1,000 grams one finds 96.5% water and about 2.66% sodium chloride; then small quantities of magnesium chloride, potassium chloride, magnesium bromide, sulfate of magnesia, calcium sulfate, and calcium carbonate. Hence you observe that sodium chloride is encountered there in significant proportions. Now then, it's this sodium that I extract from salt water and with which I compose my electric cells."

"Sodium?"

"Yes, sir. Mixed with mercury, it forms an amalgam that takes the place of zinc in Bunsen cells. The mercury is never depleted. Only the sodium is consumed, and the sea itself gives me that. Beyond this, I'll mention that sodium batteries have been found to generate the greater energy, and their electro–motor strength is twice that of zinc batteries."

"Captain, I fully understand the excellence of sodium under the conditions in which you're placed. The sea contains it. Fine. But it still has to be produced, in short, extracted. And how do you accomplish this? Obviously your batteries could do the extracting; but if I'm not mistaken, the consumption of sodium needed by your electric equipment would be greater than the quantity you'd extract. It would come about, then, that in the process of producing your sodium, you'd use up more than you'd make!"

"Accordingly, professor, I don't extract it with batteries; quite simply, I utilize the heat of coal from the earth."

"From the earth?" I said, my voice going up on the word.

"We'll say coal from the seafloor, if you prefer," Captain Nemo replied.

"And you can mine these veins of underwater coal?"

"You'll watch me work them, Professor Aronnax. I ask only a little patience of you, since you'll have ample time to be patient. Just remember one thing: I owe everything to the ocean; it generates electricity, and electricity gives the Nautilus heat, light, motion, and, in a word, life itself."

Interesting to note, is that even Verne was entirely aware that overunity is not possible.

Edited April 25, 2021 by Shpaget

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Shpaget said:

Nautilus is coal powered.

Nautilus uses the coal to produce electricity. Its motors and other equipment are electric.

Tesla also takes electricity not from air.

***

Btw, they were crossing Africa by a balloon, extracting hydrogen from water by electrolysis, with no recharge.

Such capable battery...

Edited April 25, 2021 by kerbiloid

[YNM]

12 hours ago, wumpus said:

While lead-acid batteries were invented in the mid-19th century and presumably available in the early 20th (and needed for car starters toward the end of the period examined), I fail to see how they would be better for cars 1900-1925 (and especially past 1925).  It isn't so much a missed opportunity as tech simply not being there.

Actually I think they were marketed towards the ladies of the era. A way to let them have some way to visit each other every now and then. A modern equivalent of electric cars from that era are milk floats.

[kerbiloid]

A street car.

[StrandedonEarth]

7 hours ago, wumpus said:

Don't forget that the "petrol heresy" was largely using a waste product (that dratted infrastructure again) as a fuel compared to expensive electricity.

And liquid fuels are portable in ways raw electricity is not. Much easier to refuel a car than recharge a car when it runs out of energy  in the middle of nowhere. At night. 

[kerbiloid]

That's what was temporarily giving the petrol cars a chance until the proper electric infrastructure had been built.

The same about personal computer instead of rented computational resources of a city data-center.

[magnemoe]

34 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

That's what was temporarily giving the petrol cars a chance until the proper electric infrastructure had been built.

The same about personal computer instead of rented computational resources of a city data-center.

Early IC engines was pretty horrible, they was heavy, unreliable and just gave a few horsepower, you also had to use an crank to start them outside of luxury models. 
This gave electric cars with simple motors and lead batteries an position as they was much more reliable and easy to handle, downside was range but long distance travel was rarer most was used to horse distances.  

However as IC engines become better the lead-acid batteries could not keep up. Cars become faster and people drove longer. 
As some other say around 1900 both IC, steam and electrical was relevant. Electrical last holdout in the 1920 was probably ladies in cities as electric cars was more reliable and no crank for starting them. 

Electric cars needed better batteries to work, we could have gotten hybrids earlier however but not sure how practical that had been. 
Nothing to do with electrical infrastructure. 

[YNM]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Electric cars needed better batteries to work, we could have gotten hybrids earlier however but not sure how practical that had been. 

Given that in those days they're not doing a very heavy car (like, most cars listed in there have weight of less than 1 tonnes - fair comparison today would've been the small ICE cars, and something long-range like Teslas have curb weight of about 2 times that with the exception of the Roadster - but it only seats 2), then one part of it is also because current cars are heavier to accommodate all the features that cars these days have.

It doesn't mean that electric cars aren't getting better though. I will say that we'd probably accept the heavier weight - ICE cars these days are already designed to be larger and heavier partly to offset the emission requirements that are linked to curb weight and dimension. And since most people's driver license allow up to 3.5 tonnes GW then 2 tonnes curb weight + 1.5 tonnes is possible (that can be 7-9 person + 750 kg of luggage). Electric cars have better control as well, with no kind of complicated transmission, lower CoM and possibly stronger brakes and throttle - so perhaps we'd see changes to the accepted limit of weight. The only problem so far are SUVs (speaking from a country where everyone has them because we have large families and they all cram into one car), as well as flooding (one concern is because batteries are usually placed under the floor, which means higher susceptibility in a flood).

That being said, public transit will always be more efficient than private transport, from many measures.

Edited April 25, 2021 by YNM

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, magnemoe said:

Nothing to do with electrical infrastructure. 

Charging stations for batteries.

[magnemoe]

10 minutes ago, YNM said:

Given that in those days they're not doing a very heavy car (like, most cars listed in there have weight of less than 1 tonnes - fair comparison today would've been the small ICE cars, and something long-range like Teslas have curb weight of about 2 times that with the exception of the Roadster - but it only seats 2), then one part of it is also because current cars are heavier to accommodate all the features that cars these days have.

It doesn't mean that electric cars aren't getting better though. I will say that we'd probably accept the heavier weight - ICE cars these days are already designed to be larger and heavier partly to offset the emission requirements that are linked to curb weight and dimension. And since most people's driver license allow up to 3.5 tonnes GW then 2 tonnes curb weight + 1.5 tonnes is possible (that can be 7-9 person + 750 kg of luggage). Electric cars have better control as well, with no kind of complicated transmission, lower CoM and possibly stronger brakes and throttle - so perhaps we'd see changes to the accepted limit of weight. The only problem so far are SUVs (speaking from a country where everyone has them because we have large families and they all cram into one car), as well as flooding (one concern is because batteries are usually placed under the floor, which means higher susceptibility in a flood).

That being said, public transit will always be more efficient than private transport, from many measures.

Yes the listed cars also looks more like golf cars as we see them so they would be light. 
US cars are much heavier the EU or Japanese for the reason you listed, however cars has become much larger and heavier because of convenience and safety. 
Stuff like air condition and side crumble zones. 

That is anti torpedo defense on an battleship, now compare your car door thickness to an old car  

 

[YNM]

11 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Cars has become much larger and heavier because of convenience and safety. 
Stuff like air condition and side crumble zones. 

I don't think it's just in the US. For comparison one ubiquitous car here (MPV / small SUV) is the Toyota Kijang (now Kijang Innova). The earliest model that our family owned had a kerb weight range of 1 - 1.5 tonnes, so was the second model. It was produced from mid 80s to early 2000s. From then on they switched to the latter Innova model, technically not the same chassis. It started the same - at 1.5 tonnes (it had one body form, the previous ones had short to long) - but the latest model released in 2015 is already 1.7 - 1.9 tonnes. Sure yes we've got more features, like airbags and a better 3rd seat row by default (the old models are either an option or only aftermarket), and it is longer, but if anything I'd say that we were able to fit more stuff in the old one than the new one, partly because how the interior are shaped. So if you ask me, then yes ICE vehicles have gotten somewhat unnecessarily bulkier than they used to be. If it keeps this way then it's only a matter of time before batteries can be justified in the weight.

Edited April 26, 2021 by YNM

[wumpus]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Electric cars needed better batteries to work, we could have gotten hybrids earlier however but not sure how practical that had been. 
Nothing to do with electrical infrastructure. 

As far as I know, you could build* 30hp electric motors (granted, they were AC ones, I'm assuming you could  do the same with DC) most of this time.  This is roughly the power in the electric motor of a Prius.  The infallible wiki lists a model-T at 20hp (early VW beetles produced a little more), a Chevy Bell Air (pre-1955 I-6) at 95hp, and later (i.e. the classic "'57 chevy" and similar models) V8 small block at 162hp (base).   The Prius has a "combined hp" of 121, presumably meaning roughly 90hp in the ICE.

My guess is that a (modern style) hybrid would make sense for post-war production (depression-era production of high power wouldn't make sense, nor would building a hybrid out of a 20hp engine.  The tech was there, the market was not).  One big problem is that you would have to slowly charge the lead acid batteries or lose half your efficiency, and simply using them hard (the whole point of a hybrid) would also lose half your battery efficiency.  They would probably work well (in the US) for light cars made in the 1970s and 1980s, with <100hp engines (like the prius).  This should keep the ICE in the "BSHP island**" and still have enough total hp to move the car.  The combination could presumably work for the early Bell Air, but trying to convince 1950s America to stick with it in when "they could have had a V-8" would be difficult.  My understanding was that in equal dollars, 1950s gasoline was at least as expensive as in the typical OPEC era, so it might have been possible to sell a car with great mileage, but even then it would be a challenge.

Of course, the first car Ferdinand Porsche made was a serial hybrid: you have an ICE to run a generator, and an electric motor to move the wheels.  Solves the problem of having a transmission, but once remotely good transmissions were available this system was scraped (at least for cars).  A hybrid with large batteries might have made sense in a depression-era car (running the ICE exclusively in the "BSHP island", but would require a huge battery to avoid the losses associated with fast charges or discharges.  Also the whole system just sounds to complex for that era, especially in cost.

* obviously you "could build" a more powerful motor.  But you'd need a smaller (geared lower) motor to start it.  The electric car motor might even need a lower first gear than the ICE to get started, but then could presumably switch to a higher second gear sooner.

** "BSHP island": an ICE is most efficient at about half throttle*** at peak torque, so at roughly between 1/3 to 1/2 total power.  Outside of that range, things fall rapidly.  And  regardless of how much horsepower a car needs to "get out of its own way", producing more than 30hp for even relatively short periods can lead to excessive speeds.  This is why the Prius (which can typically drive in that island) gets such good gas mileage, and why lightweight, low power cars (last seen in the US in the 1980s) could achieve similar numbers.

*** the 'half throttle' may well be a function of engine compression and the need for modern engines to go fuel rich at higher power levels to avoid knock.  I suspect that the carbureted engines of the time had max efficiency with wide open throttle .  I'm not that familiar with the specifics of engine design and even less familiar with this class of retro tech.

[magnemoe]

6 hours ago, wumpus said:

As far as I know, you could build* 30hp electric motors (granted, they were AC ones, I'm assuming you could  do the same with DC) most of this time.  This is roughly the power in the electric motor of a Prius.  The infallible wiki lists a model-T at 20hp (early VW beetles produced a little more), a Chevy Bell Air (pre-1955 I-6) at 95hp, and later (i.e. the classic "'57 chevy" and similar models) V8 small block at 162hp (base).   The Prius has a "combined hp" of 121, presumably meaning roughly 90hp in the ICE.

My guess is that a (modern style) hybrid would make sense for post-war production (depression-era production of high power wouldn't make sense, nor would building a hybrid out of a 20hp engine.  The tech was there, the market was not).  One big problem is that you would have to slowly charge the lead acid batteries or lose half your efficiency, and simply using them hard (the whole point of a hybrid) would also lose half your battery efficiency.  They would probably work well (in the US) for light cars made in the 1970s and 1980s, with <100hp engines (like the prius).  This should keep the ICE in the "BSHP island**" and still have enough total hp to move the car.  The combination could presumably work for the early Bell Air, but trying to convince 1950s America to stick with it in when "they could have had a V-8" would be difficult.  My understanding was that in equal dollars, 1950s gasoline was at least as expensive as in the typical OPEC era, so it might have been possible to sell a car with great mileage, but even then it would be a challenge.

Of course, the first car Ferdinand Porsche made was a serial hybrid: you have an ICE to run a generator, and an electric motor to move the wheels.  Solves the problem of having a transmission, but once remotely good transmissions were available this system was scraped (at least for cars).  A hybrid with large batteries might have made sense in a depression-era car (running the ICE exclusively in the "BSHP island", but would require a huge battery to avoid the losses associated with fast charges or discharges.  Also the whole system just sounds to complex for that era, especially in cost.

* obviously you "could build" a more powerful motor.  But you'd need a smaller (geared lower) motor to start it.  The electric car motor might even need a lower first gear than the ICE to get started, but then could presumably switch to a higher second gear sooner.

** "BSHP island": an ICE is most efficient at about half throttle*** at peak torque, so at roughly between 1/3 to 1/2 total power.  Outside of that range, things fall rapidly.  And  regardless of how much horsepower a car needs to "get out of its own way", producing more than 30hp for even relatively short periods can lead to excessive speeds.  This is why the Prius (which can typically drive in that island) gets such good gas mileage, and why lightweight, low power cars (last seen in the US in the 1980s) could achieve similar numbers.

*** the 'half throttle' may well be a function of engine compression and the need for modern engines to go fuel rich at higher power levels to avoid knock.  I suspect that the carbureted engines of the time had max efficiency with wide open throttle .  I'm not that familiar with the specifics of engine design and even less familiar with this class of retro tech.

Yes powerful AC motors is pretty easy, remember an pre ww2 motor who don't look that different from more modern ones.
It was used on an potato sorting machine who was very fun to watch as an kid, earlier it was used for lots of stuff like saws cutting firewood but as we got better tools the motor ended up sorting potatoes at our neighbors farm. It was 3 phase who has the benefit of having an higher power wiring for starting them. 

But as you say you can not charge an lead acid battery fast enough to absorb the breaking energy. 
You has diesel electric locomotives and train sets but this was direct drive, having to transmit so much power to lots of wheels was not practical using transmission. 
This was also tried for some steam turbine warships before WW2. 
Today they tries it again because you use an mix of diesel and gas turbines, but you also need much more electricity for radars and lasers and railguns in the future. 

IC engines has also not stand still modern ones are incredible compared to 50 years ago, both in power, reliability and emissions. 
Remember how dirty the snow next to the roads was 30 years ago, Today the dirt is worn out asphalt mixed with snow cleaned from the road. 
As hybrid engines become more common I assume IC will focus more on efficiency at optimum rpm with an kickdown high performance mode. 
Ignore all other modes. 

[kerbiloid]

3 hours ago, magnemoe said:

But as you say you can not charge an lead acid battery fast enough to absorb the breaking energy. 

You can replace it with a charged one.
Rented batteries.

Nobody cared about fast replacement, but unlikely it would be a great problem in late XIX-early XX.

Edited April 26, 2021 by kerbiloid

[magnemoe]

49 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

You can replace it with a charged one.
Rented batteries.

Nobody cared about fast replacement, but unlikely it would be a great problem in late XIX-early XX.

That could work for an EV but not an hybrid, lead acid batteries was an dead end anyway. 

[wumpus]

7 hours ago, magnemoe said:

That could work for an EV but not an hybrid, lead acid batteries was an dead end anyway. 

I'm not sure that either lithium ion nor nickle metal hydride are cheaper than lead acid on a kWhr basis.  But as far as vehicles go, they seem to only work on fishing boats and golf carts, not cars for highways.  And the golf cart use might only be holding on as they make excellent ballast (for all the crazy hills golfers will drive/park  them on).  Even in ICE cars, a lithium ion starter battery is a pretty exotic item (although LiFePO₄ is what you want  if you absolutely refuse to even have a hybrid ICE engine, or want to "add lightness" to a legacy car).

Lithium ion in "power walls" is largely a means of recycling batteries no longer fit for cars (like lead acid).  Presumably once there are enough lithium ion batteries in easily harvestable containers (not cell phones) then lead acid batteries won't be economically viable at all.

[sevenperforce]

On 4/25/2021 at 4:25 AM, Shpaget said:

Nautilus is coal powered.

Interesting to note, is that even Verne was entirely aware that overunity is not possible.

As others have pointed out, even a Tesla can technically be coal powered.

I believe that Tom Sawyer Abroad features a nuclear-powered balloon but it is properly a parody of Verne's work.

EDIT: Ah, yes, here's the quote.

It was a noble big balloon, and had wings and fans and all sorts of things, and wasn’t like any balloon you see in pictures. It was away out toward the edge of town, in a vacant lot, corner of Twelfth street; and there was a big crowd around it, making fun of it, and making fun of the man.

The professor had been quiet all this time, as if he was asleep; but he broke loose now, and he was mighty bitter. He says something like this:

"Idiots! They said it wouldn't go; and they wanted to examine it, and spy around and get the secret of it out of me. But I beat them. Nobody knows the secret but me. Nobody knows what makes it move but me; and it’s a new power—a new power, and a thousand times the strongest in the earth! Steam’s foolishness to it! They said I couldn’t go to Europe. To Europe! Why, there’s power aboard to last five years, and feed for three months. They are fools! What do they know about it?"

I believe at some other point in the book he says the balloon's power is heat, and it comes from the same source as the sun. Not that Samuel Clemons knew what nuclear fusion was, mind you.

Edited April 26, 2021 by sevenperforce
putting the quote in

[Shpaget]

So, a coal electric hybrid?