The First Electric MINI?

<p>Tell me about the S variant… ;)</p>

<p>Its not exactly zero emissions. Its an electric car using rechargable batteries. The electricity to charge those batteries has to come from somewhere. There are relatively few power plants that use: solar, geo-thermal, hydro electric or wind power. That is the only way the car could be truly zero emissions.</p>

<p>The charging time is a pain.. it is not as simple as filling up a tank of gas.</p>

<p>I could be wrong, but supposedly the torque of any electric car is generally high, and it reaches it’s peak torque immediately…so I’m guessing it wouldn’t be slow off the line by any means.</p>

<p>I agree with Craig. It is zero emissions from the strictest sense, but in reality you are just shifting the burden to another emitter of harmful chemicals. Has anyone done a study to see which one is better for the environment. An electric car or a gasoline automobile. Most new automobiles are ULEV, with very low emissions, yet most of the power plants still spew huge clouds of smoke. Let along the toxic batteries filling up landfills.</p>

<p>If the car is FULL electric, you can dispense with the MINIs cast iron engine block, so that weight loss could offset the potential weight gain of the batteries. Weight gain might net out to be very littel. </p>

<p>Also electric motors offer instant torque, so with the right motors you can get fierce acceleration. That is why monster trains are able to accelerate so quickly given their mass. An electric MINI might be able to get around the AutoX course very well indeed.</p>

<p>Finally, the embassy car seems to be powered by lithium batteries, which if I recollect, can be recycled, so an expired battery would not necessarily be filling a landfill.</p>

<p>Although you are correct about shifting emissions from vehicles to power stations, don’t forget that charging would be done over night, when much electricty is essentially free because it’s not being used. Power stations can’t shut down at night, so a lot of power goes wasted. Harnessing that for our cars is a good idea, and does reduce overall emissions.</p>

<p>The recycling of batteries seems an altogether tougher problem to me.</p>

<p>-James.</p>

<p>With an electric motor, you could in theory dispense with a lot more of an auto’s internals that just the gas engine. For example, instead of 1 big motor/battery, you could use 4 smaller pairs and have them connected directly to the wheels. That means no HP loss from engine to wheel. </p>

<p>Now, whether you can retrofit a MINI to have 4 batteries/motors hooked up directly to each wheel, I dunno. Probably way harder than just replacing the current engine.</p>

<p>I just don’t understand what all the buzz is over a supposedly eclectic MINI… If you ask me, I think they’re all a bit eclectic as the car design mixes classic British styling with state-of-the-art engineering.. not to mention the individualist mix of colors and options each owner puts together! I looked at the photos and it’s just a BRG Cooper.. what’s so amazingly eclectic about that -? huh-?
geez….</p>

<p>I hate to say it, but this was news back in September/October…</p>

<p>You can read about it here also…</a></p>

<p>“As for ‘essentially free’, I’ve never gotten a discount on power at night.”</p>

<p>Some power companies have adjustable rates based on the time of day. However, I think mostly it is an increase for midday use rather than a discount for night use. </p>

<p>In any case… an electric MINI would be awesome! Even ‘greener’ for us here in with Hydro-electric power. :)</p>

<p>What’s the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times?</p>

<p>LOL</p>

<p>Wow! Hey, if priced right, I’d buy an electric MINI in a heartbeat!! But unfortunately, hybrids, alternative-fuel and electrics tend to be priced out the pricerange of most people who’d want to drive them.</p>

<p>BTW, that link above to the tZero is killer!</p>

<p>Please do your research before making outlandish comments on how bad an electric car is for the environment. Yes, powerplants produce pollution. But the efficiency comparison between a power plant vs the entire process of getting oil from the ground to powering your car isn’t even close. And, yes, the power plant is MUCH more efficient.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml" rel="nofollow ugc">http://www.electroauto.com/info/pollmyth.shtml</a></p>

<blockquote>“According to the World Resources Institute, EVs recharging from coal-fired plants will reduce CO2 emissions in the country from 17 to 22 percent.”</blockquote>

<p>ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATION
If you have a look at the cross-section of electrical power generation, simple logic will tell you that most powerplants, be it hydro, nuclear, natural gas, coal or geothermal run at a predetermined output 24 hours a day. The startup procedures for most large generators are prohibitive, and the risk of a failed start or failed reacceleration is unacceptable. </p>

<p>AUTO vs POWERPLANT EMISSIONS
The emissions from relatively tiny numbers of fossil-fuel-powered electrical generating facilities are much more easily controlled than that from millions of automobiles and heavy vehicles. Even if passenger automobiles in the US maintained an emissions system failure rate of 1%, that would mean that there would be 1.6 million heavy polluters running amok . Yikes. And think of the huge amount of pollution CREATED by vehicle emissions testing. It means that millions of vehicle owners in areas where testing is mandatory, have to waste time, energy, and fuel EVERY year or two, to make sure the vehicle is within limits….and then make REPEAT trips when it fails ! Now multiply those efforts by millions of vehicles! Let’s not even discuss the millions of gallons of oil and fuel which enter our environment annually because of losses and accidents during refueling, shipping, vapour losses, and drivetrain leakage. Over 230 million gallons of oil go into landfills each year just from used oil containers and engine oil filters! And much of that oil evaporates as unburned hydrocarbons, which enter the atmosphere and contaminate soil, water, and otherwise breathable air.</p>

<p>Forgive me for getting off the topic for a moment, but I think this whole mess has been allowed to happen because automakers have a stranglehold on the automobile industry, and are powerful marketers. I mean, even COAL could become a better alternative, now that Liquified Coal technology is no longer a fantasy, with particulate emissions far below current coal plants. The whole Internal Combustion – powered automobile thing even makes the combination of conventional coal-fired powerplants and electric vehicles look somewhat appealing! At least you can build the plants well outside the cities, and disperse the emissions.</p>

<p>NUCLEAR – GENERATED POWER and Electric Vehicles</p>

<p>Now, before you get all hot under the collar about the Nuclear alternative, remember one thing; The pollution and global climate shift resulting from our incredible magnitude of fossil-fuel burning, is resulting in unimagineable losses in productivity, environmental quality, and human living standards worldwide. We can blame thick, choking smog, acid rain, dead fish and rivers, deforestation, NOISE pollution, and chemical runoff to a large degree on the operation of huge numbers of Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). If you want some idea as to how many humans have been directly affected physically, mentally, and vocationally by the Billions of tons of pollutants floating around our oceans, lakes, rivers, and atmosphere because of the ICE automobile, begin thinking in the 100’s of MILLIONS of individuals. Bronchitis, Cancer, and Emphysema are only the tip of the iceberg, in terms of human illness. Infant mortality, asthma, cardiovascular problems, and genetic mutation are just a few more effects. Climate change could also have significant indirect health effects, as changes in climate trigger other changes that could affect health. An example would be the transmission of infectious diseases such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever as insects carrying diseases migrate northward.</p>

<p>Now, think about the fact that even with all its bad media over the last 20 years, the thousands of operating-years achieved by nuclear powerplants on land and at sea have been responsible for fewer than 50 deaths. Chernobyl for instance, is now reported as 600-800 total thyroid cancer cases, with only 3 associated deaths in this population. Most (est 95%) of these cancers are treatable with no long term adverse prognosis except the need for routine thyroid medication. There is no excess leukemia in the population. There are cases of leukemia deaths in the high-dose cleanup workers that are considered to be associated with their exposure. These numbers bring the total deaths from Chernobyl to estimates of 42 and ‘less than 50’ (including the original 31 deaths, 28 from acute radiation exposure). </p>

<p>Now, think of what could be achieved if we switched from fossil-fueled vehicles, to electric vehicles powered by the current lithium-ion, Non-toxic battery technology (200+ mile range), recharged at night (~4 hours)with non-polluting, zero–CO2 nuclear energy. Goodbye Kyoto. There are already plug-ins almost everywhere you go. You don’t have to erect a hugely expensive hydrogen-refueling infrastructure ( $50 Billion+ ? ). You don’t need to wait 20+ years for the fuel cell to become affordable, and compact enough ( current demonstration vehicles leave little room for occupants or cargo). We have additional nuke plants in the planning stages as we speak, and the latest technology is virtually accident-free. It’s here. Now. And it could make a world of difference. </p>

<p>Just my rant for today.</p>

<p>I’m a little late finding this article but I have to say that I’d like to buy an electric Mini or at least convert my Mini to electric. I’m not going to argue the details. I’m an electrical engineer and I’m convinced it’s worth it for me financially and for the environment. I’d prefer that BMW design an electric Mini from the ground up but I’ll take what I can get.</p>