First Driverless Vehicle to Hit the Roads

Singapore’s first clean and green driverless shuttle transportation system will soon see passengers shuttling between Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and JTC Corporation’s (JTC) CleanTech Park.

In a partnership between NTU, JTC and Induct Technologies, and supported by the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB), an autonomous electric shuttle manufactured by Induct is expected to ply the two kilometre route providing a safe, reliable and environmentally-friendly alternative mode of transportation.

This is a pretty limited implementation of driverless vehicles — servicing a closed area and a small one at that — but it’s worthy of note because it isn’t just an experiment or a stunt. It looks like these vehicles are being introduced to serve a purpose, not simply to prove that cars get around without anyone behind the wheel.

That’s kind of a big deal.

Startup announces big breakthrough for electric vehicle batteries

For years, the electric vehicle industry has been eager to build a better electric car battery: one that extends range while having a longer overall life, is affordable, quick-charging and safe.

Now Envia Systems, a start-up based in Newark, Calif., has announced it has achieved a critical milestone: a rechargeable lithium-ion battery with an “energy density” of 400 watt-hours per kilogram, the highest energy density known to be recorded.

When commercialized, Envia says the 400 wh/kg battery, with a range of 300 miles and a cost of about $25,000, will slash the price of electric vehicles and make them more affordable for mainstream consumers.

To be viable, fully electric cars will have to have something like this kind of range. And recharge will have to be fast — roughly as long as it takes to fill a gas tank (whether this means actually charging the battery or simply swapping it for a charged battery.)

Still, I’m feeling a bit of sticker-shock on the $25K. That’s going to slash the cost of electric cars? Really?

Interestingly, they aren’t going with traditional Prius-like hybrids – where a gas engine directly pushes the drivetrain. Rather, they are going full EV for sports cars and Volt-like range-extension for everything else (where the electric engine always pushes the drive train and a small gas engine charges the batteries when necessary).

Chrysler plans on bringing these vehicles to market in two years.

More at Wired.

A flying car should:

• be able to utilize the current infrastructures for both cars and airplanes

• feature a flight system that does not require the owner to have a pilot’s license

• meet all FAA regulations

• be fuel efficient and economically viable for the average car buyer

• be powered by renewable fuels

That’s a pretty good summary. I would venture to guess that we will solve our energy problems and have some fairly sophisticated AI in place before we see a true flying car. A machine that flies but that requires no more highly developed skills than those required to operate an automboile is going to have to be highly automated.

1. Hybrids represent a poor compromise. The product is neither a good EV or a good gas powered vehicle.

   EM: Because you need both a gasoline-powered engine and a big battery, neither can be very good, and the engine will be a weak engine. It’s just not where the future lies.

2. Batteries capable of offering EV’s comparable range to gasoline vehicles will be available sooner than most people think.
   

   EM: We’ll be able to offer a car with a 305-mile range roughly three years from now.

   …

   I think what we’ll see is an increasing amount of energy being stored in the battery pack and a lowering of the cost of the battery pack over time.

   …

   If you look at the improvement of battery energy density, it tracks to about 8 or 9 percent a year.

3. Tesla will address the EV road trip problem with their second model.
   

   EM: There is the occasional road trip, but that’s actually pretty rare, and for some people it’s never. Our second model will address that rare case in two ways. One is to allow people to switch out the battery pack, so you can go to a battery-change station just like you’d go to a gas station. The second path is to have a high-speed charge. If you have a high-powered onboard charger, you can get an 80 percent charge in 45 minutes. If you’re going from L.A. to San Francisco, which is about a 400-mile trip, you can drive 200 miles, stop for lunch, charge your car in the restaurant parking lot, finish lunch and continue the remaining 200 miles to San Francisco.

4. And there will be improvements to EVs beyond batteries that will enable EV’s.
   

   EM: [Battery improvements are] not the only thing. The efficiency of the electric motor, the efficiency of the powertrain, the rolling resistance are all important.

5. Part of the electric infrastructure improvement necessary for EV’s can be done right at the EV owner’s residence.
   

   EM: I have another company, SolarCity, which is the largest provider of solar power to homes and businesses in California. The solution is to get a SolarCity solar panel on your roof and then have an electric car. It takes actually only a small solar-panel setup – of about 10 by 15 feet – to generate 200 to 400 miles a week of electricity for your car.

Read the whole interview.

(H/T to Michael Darling)

Musk didn’t mention it, but there’s another factor that would tend to push us to EV’s quickly:

6. Skyrocketing gas prices.

   Dude. We’re there.

   No, I’m talking about $7,8… $10/gallon gas. If gas prices go in that direction the hybrid’s gas engine will look less like a feature than a bug.

The article presents some possibilities about where transportation technology could be going – self-driving cars, hybrids, air cars, transparent aluminum for windows, and modular personal transportation vehicles.

You’ll want to read the whole thing.

Gizmodo points to Jet Pack International’s new marketing video (set, you’ll notice, in a particularly picturesque Colorado locale) that draws attention to their new, improved, [as in 19 minutes of flying time, a 38-fold improvement over previous models] personal propulsion system. Available “early next year” for the low, low price of $226,000 (Hey, in the words given to Gus Grissom in “The Right Stuff”, “No bucks, no Buck Rogers!”)

Those not blinded by the Flash (Gordon) tech may recognize the picturesque Colorado locale chosen to play backdrop for our extreme commuter.

Those more familiar with Colorado geography will also note that 19 minutes of flying time at highway speed starting at this location would allow our commuter to touch down on home plate at Coors Field with fuel to spare. Given the ten-mile range quoted in the Gizmodo piece, our commuter is more likely to work at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, though.

Got me thinking about a couple of things. First, how might the time capsule have been done better (please confine speculation to approximately mid-century technology), and second, what would constitute

“an advanced product of American industrial ingenuity with the kind of lasting appeal that will still be in style 50 years from now.”

with respect to early twenty-first century technology?

Please discuss in the comments.

P.S. I think I’ll do some checking into how the economics of the capsule contents might have been improved. I’ll let you know if anything particularly interesting comes of that.

UPDATE (Moments later): a bit of searching yields a price range of about $900 to $11,000 for similar era Belvederes in conditions ranging from semi-restored to … iffy. A restored 1956 done by hot-rod legend Boyd Coddington’s shop goes for $29,500

UPDATE FROM STEPHEN:

I’m reminded of Doc Brown’s 70 year preservation of his time traveling Delorean:

Notice how this was portrayed in Back to the Future III. Dr. Brown put the vehicle up on pylons. It’s covered. And it’s in a sealed room.

A mine would be far superior to a natural cave because caves tend to be damp (they’re usually formed by water). The preserver could choose a place in the mine where drainage is assured. Barring a cave-in or the renewed mining activities, this sort of time capsule would be perfect.

But even as portrayed in BTTF III, certain parts – like the rubber wheels – didn’t fare so well. Even a carefully preserved car would need a lot of work before it would be ready for the highway.

The [X Prize] Foundation now plans to offer millions for the first practical car that increases mileage five-fold. The specs for the competition are out in draft form amd call for cars in two categories that are capable of 100 MPG in tests to be run in 2009. The categories are: 4-passenger/4-wheel; and 2-passenger/unspecified wheels. The cars must be manufacturable, not “science projects. The prize is expected to top $10 million. The X Prize Foundation says that so far it has received more than 1,000 inquiries from possible competitors.

More info here. The requirement that it be a truly manufacturable car is important. On the other hand, a 100 mpg car doesn’t have to be all that cheap compared to a 20 mpg car. There’s plenty of room to make that extra cost up on the back end.

The winning entry will almost certainly be a hybrid, but what kind? We’ve spent a lot of time pondering hybrids at the Speculist. Stephen is a big fan of plug-in hybrids. Personally, I don’t think enough attention has been paid to hydraulic systems which “recycle” braking into acceleration. Who knows? The winner might exploit more than one of these ideas.

Then again, there was this tidbit on L2si the other day:

If this guy is legit, he may deliver the environmentally friendly Hummer that I asked for on the most recent FFR.

Michael Anissimov has all the details.

More thoughts on L2si.

Throwing their hat into the ring alongside the teams profiled in this Popular Science article (“The Daring Visionaries of Fringe Aviation” January 2005*), comes a team of aviation engineers from MIT proposing a 100 hp, $138K, folding-wing, pusher-prop design for delivery somtime in or around 2009.

(* True afficionados of all things Speculist should seek out this issue**, since it features not only personal aviation, but an interview with SENS-guru Aubrey de Grey)

(** Ironically, I ran across a dead-tree copy of this issue in the waiting area of a local car dealership [strictly earthbound models, alas] some 18 months after the cover date.)

…but what a gas guzzler. It would take eight litres of fuel (premium, no doubt) to drive it once around the world. Sheesh! Roland Piquepaille has the details.

Meanwhile, Glenn Reynolds is linking to information on the more modest Tesla Roadster. He says he’d be willing to take one for free on a trial basis. Man, the sacrifices that guy is willing to make out of his love for the planet!

(Kind of reminds me of my efforts to save the blogosphere earlier this year.)

1. Range.
2. Expense of the batteries
3. Frequency of replacing batteries
4. Environmental impact of battery disposal
5. Lack of infrastructure (gas stations are not presently recharging stations)
6. Time required to recharge.
7. The danger of electric discharge after an accident.

It has been very difficult to compete with the price/mile cost of internal combustion. Only recently have hybrid vehicles begun to offer drivers some of the benefits of electric cars while maintaining most of the advantages of gasoline cars. Of course electric hybrids have batteries…and all the problems that come with batteries.

There is another alternative fuel technology that doesn’t require batteries. It hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it deserves – the compressed air car. It’s just what it sounds like. These cars are powered by compressed air instead of electricity. While they are not as quiet as electric cars, they are quieter than internal combustion vehicles – the engine produces power from expansion rather than explosion.

The company that is leading the way on air car research, MDI, has designed several prototypes. All of their prototypes cut weight by using aluminum tubing. To avoid the problem of shrapnel from an exploding tank, the air tanks are made of plastic surrounded by a carbon composite. A failure would split the tank. No pieces – plastic or metal – would go flying.

Power comes from fresh air stored in reinforced carbon-fiber tanks beneath the chassis. Air is compressed to 4,500 pounds per square inch (about 150 times the pressure of the typical car tire). The air is fed into four cylinders where it expands, driving specially designed pistons. About 25 horsepower is generated.

I find this technology interesting because it completely eliminates four of the seven problems associated with electric vehicles: expense of the batteries, frequency of replacing batteries, environmental impact of battery disposal, and the danger of electric discharge after an accident.

The “lack of infrastructure” problem would probably not be as hard to address as with electric. I would guess that turning a gas station into a quick-charge electric station would require significantly greater cost than providing supercompressed air at each pump. While the air compressors that are currently at your local station probably wouldn’t be up to this task, one new compressor and a little plumbing could convert an entire station.

Refueling with compressed air from a station would take about the same amount of time as refueling with gasoline, but you would have to refill more often (every 120 miles).

MDI is considering whether an onboard air compressor would be worth the weight. The onboard compressor could be plugged to an electrical outlet for a six hour refilling process – comparable to recharge time of current all-electric vehicles.

Perhaps a removable compressor would be the best solution. You could leave the compressor (and its weight) in your garage normally. Every night you plug your car’s air tank into the compressor for a refill. But, if you’re going on a trip where you’ll have the opportunity to plug in overnight, then you’ll actually reinstall the compressor in the car.

These vehicles are reportedly equal to the electric vehicles in range.

Though technical problems are being worked out, company officials say the car is capable of 70 mph and a 120-mile range under normal city conditions, performance that is comparable to electric cars.

While 70 mph is a relatively low top speed, I could live with that in a commuter car. MDI is researching the possibility of hybrid versions that could use gas from the local station for longer trips. I would suspect that this would also raise the maximum speed.

Of course the exhaust is just air.

The minicat prototype (pictured) reminds me of the stackable cars that Phil recently wrote about. Why not combine the two ideas?

UPDATE: An MDI prototype was demonstrated on the Beyond Tomorrow program last fall.

UPDATE II: You could heat and cool this vehicle with a simple device called a vortex tube.

A Vortex tube has no moving parts. It separates hot and cold air flows from compressed air – giving you both heating and cooling. The heat is important because you wouldn’t have as much heat produced by this expansion engine as an internal combustion engine.

Cooling with a Vortex tube would mean that you can avoid the weight and complexity of an air conditioner compressor. You also wouldn’t have a refrigerant to maintain and disposal of. This would be a very green approach to the heating and cooling issues.

Also, as long as you’ve got compressed air in the tank, you could have heating or cooling without running an engine.

The blogger Engineer Poet has pointed out that vortex tubes are an inefficient way to heat or cool. That may be the case generally, but here we already have compressed air on hand, weight is at a premium (vortex tubes are light compared to the alternatives). Also, the volume of the cabin space is small – you wouldn’t need a lot of heating or cooling to stay comfortable.

The Smart Cities team at MIT is tackling the problem of city traffic congestion — still left untouched by the Segway — with a “stackable” car to be used as part of a public transportation program, much like those bicycle-sharing programs in Europe, and stowed like a shopping cart. The wheels turn 360 degrees and contain the suspension and motor, so, along with providing a level of mobility fit for a city, they allow a new type of passenger compartment, replete with customizable displays and seats with “fingers” to catch you in a crash. It all sounds well and good, but we’ll have to see see how much of this tech makes it into the final prototype, which is to be built by GM upon the MIT group’s completion of the design.

It’s not clear to me how this are going to help the traffic situation all that much. But, again, they’re cute. So that’s got to be worth something.

Via GeekPress.

STEPHEN CHIMES IN: They’re smaller, so they would take up less room on the road when driving, but the real space savings is when they are parked / stacked.

I don’t think this is the sort of thing that a city could or should implement until it’s been demonstrated as popular and useful on a smaller scale.

Here’s an private-sector approach: a NY luxury apartment complex looking to distinguish itself from the competition could buy (probably they’d lease them) a bunch of these and provide them for their tenants. Ground floor apartments aren’t popular anyway, so use that space to stack cars.

It wouldn’t be like a regular parking garage with wasted space needed for driving, the whole floor space could essentially be taken up with stacked cars. You’d need an entrance to add a car to the back of the stack and an exit to take a car from the front of the stack.

This would mean that the stack would have to be movable. You take a car from the front of the stack and the whole stack moves forward to make room for a returning car at the back of the stack.

These cars are EVs – less pollution for the city – I bet there would be a way to charge them while they are in the stack.

These could serve as rolling billboards for the apartment complex.