What's so great about a hybrid gas/battery car?

[Deja Q]

Why not hook up a device that takes advantage of WIND POWER to a car's roof instead of having it lug a big-ass plastic battery around? At freeway speeds, the device would rely on the wind and allow the car to save energy. I reckon it'd save a lot, especially if rush hour wasn't a concern, nor would it be in a civilized, organized society.

It's also less net polluting than a hybrid's batteries, which also cost a truckload to make and safely dispose of.

:shrug:

[IronLionZion]

1. nothing

why not run everywhere?

[yorgatron]

2. you expect people to hoist a sail out the sunroof?

c'mon...

[IronLionZion]

4. I expect people to start running cross country

like Africans. That would take care of smog, traffic, drunk driving, oil shortage, and obesity!

[tridim]

3. Because the aerodynamics would go to crap

You were joking right? :)

[FlaGranny]

64. The wind-device could be behind the radiator or

front grill to reduce drag, but I know little about the technology.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. When you decelerate or brake, you're creating energy

There are parallel hybrids (like the Prius) and series hybrids like the Insight.

In a parallel hybrid, if you're in stop and start traffic, you get the greatest advantage. When you stop, the gasoline engine switches off. When you're on a steep decline, you're creating energy. Whenever you step on the brake for awhile, you're creating energy.

Battery technology doesn't allow these vehicles to take advantage of all the savings, but in clogged-up city driving, it saves you tons of money. You also pollute much less, which should matter, unless you're so selfish that nothing that doesn't immediately benefit you matters.

Snuffy's getting over 41mpg over the last 22K of miles since September of '02, and much of that is with A/C in city driving.

You're either being silly, or are playing the traditional American dismissal of the different by sneering at things you don't understand.

Even with hauling around a big battery, you're taking advantage of the reality of driving: often you need no power, and often you're gaining kinetic energy you can't utilize. Yes, it's an interim technology, but with it, you'll gain energy from Mr. Gravity, and not waste energy burning fuel until you can actually move.

What the fuck don't you understand about this?

[mahatmakanejeeves]

7. "creating energy"

Long story made short: no, you're not. You are transferring energy to the storage device known as a battery, but you're not creating it. Not only that, but every time you transfer energy from one form to another, you lose a little bit, maybe even a lot.

Despite the voodoo economics used to cook the books on Social Security, there is still no such thing as a free lunch.

[Sinistrous]

9. The actual statement was:

"When you're on a steep decline, you're creating energy." In other words,when you are going downhill you are creating energy. That statement is absolutely true. In the comment about creating energy, PoE was not talking at all about energy transfer between batteries and motors.

PoE also acknowledges the inefficiencies in transferring energy from one form or medium to another, so you comment really added nothing to the discussion.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

10. getting steamed

>>
"When you're on a steep decline, you're creating energy." In other words,when you are going downhill you are creating energy. That statement is absolutely true.
<<

Oh, bullshit. No, it's not.

>>
you comment really added nothing to the discussion.
<<

I can see that's true.

[DjTj]

11. You're getting the energy from gravity

...but you won't get all of it of course, and if you stop and try to go back up the hill you'll need to use some additional energy. Still, keeping some of that energy is much better than losing all of it through heat.

[Poor Richard Lex]

16. Trading Potential Energy for Kinetic Energy

The hill gives you Potential Energy because gravity will pull you down the hill. As you head down the hill, the Potential Energy is converted to Kinetic Energy - ie speed.

You alredy get some benefit from the potential energy of a hill in that you have to take your foot off the accellerator or break the speed limit.

Hybrid just capture more of the potential energy (also by breaking, which creates energy you otherwise completely lose as heat)

[AngryAmish]

68. energy cannot be created, nor destroyed

so says Angry Amish

[PurityOfEssence]

12. Okay, "availing oneself of otherwise wasted energy"

Yep, ya got me there; I should have said something like "harnessing otherwise wasted energy".

So, wiseguy, is it so sad that one is losing some energy in transferrance when it would otherwise be completely lost? Gosh, what a waste: I couldn't take advantage of even more power that's simply lost in other systems. As the electric motor engages and works as a dynamo, it saves wear on your gas engine and your brakes, thus saving you more on other systems.

It's not a free lunch, it's just better usage of created and utilized power.

Please explain your snotty comment about Social Security; that sounds like thinly veiled reactionary rhetoric grounded on a misunderstanding of the entire program.

Say, do you remember who coined "voodoo economics"? It was George Herbert Walker Bush, the previously pro-life scion of privelege when fighting Ronnie in the 1980 primaries. Funny how history depletes itself, eh what?

Even Bertie Wooster could get that.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. I should have said something like "harnessing otherwise wasted energy".

Big improvement. Rather than throwing away the energy by heating brake pads, you are using it to recharge the batteries.

Space age technology? Not really. This techology existed a good one hundred years ago on electrified railroads. It is known as "regenerative braking." The traction motors on the electric locomotives of trains headed downhill were turned into generators. They pumped electricity back into the overhead wiring, where it could be used to power other trains, namely those headed uphill. The energy was moved from one place to another, with, of course, various frictional and transmission losses. No computers, no digital readout. Worked like a champ.

I urge interested DUers to take a look at William D. Middleton's excellent 1974 book, "When the Steam Railroads Electrified." I have the great honor of owning an autographed copy, and since the author is still alive, he can autograph your copy too, if you're so inclined.

>>
Please explain your snotty comment about Social Security; that sounds like thinly veiled reactionary rhetoric grounded on a misunderstanding of the entire program.
<<

No need. That "thinly veiled reactionary" Allan Sloan has already done it for me.

There's No Accounting for the New Social Security Plan

>>
Here are the numbers. In fiscal 2004, which ended in September, Social Security took in $155 billion more than it spent -- $69 billion in cash, which the Treasury took in return for issuing $69 billion of new Treasury IOUs, and $86 billion in interest on its trust fund, paid by the Treasury with new IOUs. Even though Social Security is theoretically "off-budget," this surplus was subtracted from the deficit run up by the rest of the government. Hence we have a reported deficit of $413 billion rather than $568 billion.

Even though the Treasury ended up owing the Social Security trust fund $155 billion more than it did 12 months earlier, that obligation isn't reflected in the so-called "unified budget," and no one except a few cranks like me thinks it mattered any.

And wait, it gets worse. The Treasury owes about $2 trillion to so-called "on-budget trust funds," such as federal civilian and military employee retirement accounts. In fiscal 2004, it paid $68 billion of interest to these trust funds by giving them new Treasury securities. The Treasury showed a $68 billion interest expense, and the funds showed $68 billion of revenue. Net effect of the government's newly issued IOUs on the deficit: zero. The government's obligations are $68 billion more than they were, but that didn't show up in the deficit.

In any sort of reasonably honest bookkeeping system, that $223 billion -- the $155 billion to the Social Security trust fund and the $68 billion to the on-budget trust funds -- would have been reflected in the deficit figures, because those IOUs increase the government's obligations. Issuing Treasury IOUs to the trust funds is the functional equivalent of selling $223 billion of Treasury IOUs to investors and depositing cash in the trust funds. But selling bonds and making cash expenditures is considered an expense, while using bonds in lieu of cash isn't an expense. It's ludicrous.
<<

In other words, all we have to do to be rich is to pretend that we have no expenses.

As you can see, accountants misunderstand numbers every bit as badly as engineers do.

[taught_me_patience]

29. however

you are transferring the energy that would normally be completely wasted into something usable.

taught.

[ChicagoBlue]

13. 50.3 here!

I'm averaging 50.3 mpg after 1200 miles in a 2005 here -- not too bad for a beginner!

As far as the hybrids go, you have to consider what the majority of your driving is like. It it is mostly open highway, it may not be the right vehicle. A diesel might do you better. For stop-and-go and city driving, though, it is ideal! As for me, I'm a suburban city street driver mostly -- so it made perfect sense.

You also have to realize that buying a hybrid isn't really about saving money. It costs about $3000 more than the comparable non-hybrid car (though they partially make up for that with a LOT of extra features!). With the tax deduction, an average mpg of 45, and a gas priceof $2.00/gallon, the payback period isabout 5 years. Really, it is about a break even deal. If the price of gas rises faster than inflation, then the payback period gets shorter.

What it is about is advancing a new green technology. While extremely practical it consumes fewer non-renewable resources. Not only does it burn less gas, everything about the car is built with sustainability in mind from the biodegradable plastics to the top-of-the-line emmissions reduction system. As for the batteries -- they are recyclable. The disposal is not really an issue.

The REAL question is who really wants an SUV anymore???

[PurityOfEssence]

18. Horrible stop-and-start freeway driving gives the best mileage

I'm guessing you have one of the hatchbacks, which have more power and better mileage. Mine's an '03.

I think the problem is that battery technology just doesn't let one store as much energy as the system reclaims, so when in very slow traffic, one is pure electric for long periods and is not wasting as much energy.

You're right about the urban vs. freeway driving, although if you keep it at 63 on long stretches, you'll net 50+ on this model.

Ya gotta love the EPA estimates having a higher city estimate than highway estimate; it's just sort of an eye-opener that you're dealing with a different sort of beast.

What people REALLY don't get is the torque issue: acceleration is much better than anything of comparable horsepower because of the properties of electric motors, and as we city drivers know, it's not speed, but acceleration that matters most. Quite a peppy little thing, isn't it?

This is an idiotic thread; the thing proves itself by its record. Those who poo-pooh it tend to do so from a butch standpoint of thinking of it as a kiddie-car, when it's got plenty of oopmh. Even the weight of the battery issue is silly: it's largely offset by the weight of a larger engine in similarly horse powered vehicles even when the weight of the electric motor is taken into account.

Silly silly silly.

Fun to drive, isn't it?

[laheina]

20. Hi ChicagoBlue !

Welcome to DU :hi:

I want a hybrid! I do, I do!

[idiosyncratic]

26. Welcome to DU ChicagoBlue. I want a hybrid too!

I couldn't afford one in 2003, but I got the Toyota Matrix and on a recent highway trip, I got 38 MPG on one tankful. (I think there was a tailwind during that 300 miles.)

[Ms_Mary]

67. I'd love one, but I can't afford it and I own my current one.

[catzies]

34. What tax deduction did you get for your hybrid?

It just so happens I'm test-driving the Accord V6 hybrid this afternoon.

[Debbi801]

39. I'm hankering for either a hybrid Escape or Highlander...

We have a 2004 Prius and love it. But, we still have a Mazda MPV for when we're hauling all 3 kids and their friends, sports equipment, etc. While the MPV is a smaller size minivan and gets not horrible gas mileage, I would love to get a hybrid SUV to replace it.

We're waiting to see what the Highlander's MPG is when it gets released.

Debbi

[kostya]

47. Sold my SUV and got a Prius back in '02

Here in OR we get a $1500 credit plus the Fed deduction gave us over $2,000 back and I negotiated a smoking deal for it (had to do it online to CA though!) and since we put about 16K a year on it, the payback is coming fast. Plus, there are other side benefits that are rarely pointed out:

- because you are using the electric motor/generator to recapture energy the wear on the brakes is minimal. At 36K miles we had 80% of the brake pads still.
- because the gas engine is essentially on-demand and the electric is used first, it 1) takes away the greatest wear and tear on combustion engines by never having it do the "push-off" from zero mph and 2) it never applies the spark until the gas engine is already rotating 800 RPM, also a wear reducer. I expect the gas engine component to easily hold out for 200K miles.
- since you have this big honking DC-to-DC converter built in (to get from the HV to the 12V system) and on-demand gas engine, you can easily hook up a DC-AC inverter and presto! you have an automatic 120VAC generator for camping or whatever (only up to about 1KW though).
- everyone concentrates on the MPG, but seem to minimize the extremely low emissions from the Prius. The emission reduction is much greater than just the proportional reduction in gas usage, however. They have done a LOT of things to make this happen in the body design and the computer software.
- Also remember that Toyota is a BLUE company, they give a lot more to Dems than the GOP!! :)

- K

[newyawker99]

63. Hi ChicagoBlue!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Debbi801]

36. Plus, I know with our 2004 Prius...

When You're using cruise control, the engine only runs as needed to maintain the speed. We can be on the highway going 60 MPH with no engine running getting 99.9 MPG on the display.

I love our Prius.

[Fescue4u]

42. "creating energy"

Wow.. I didnt know we had figured out to circumvent the laws of physics.

[Strelnikov_]

6. Only A GOP Accountant Could Get The Energy Balance In The Black

for this system.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. I don't think I can top that.

n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

14. Who said it was in the black?

The thread was a dismissal of such technology as silly, when it actually utilizes otherwise wasted energy. It's more efficient than simple internal combustion power alone, and I haven't said anything other than that.

Why do competing technologies have to be fantasmagorically better to even warrant a look?

This is like arguments against secondary smoke focusing on dispelling assumptions about deaths at its hand; does something have to kill to be bad? Does something have to be a fanciful perpetual motion machine to be worthy of superseding clunky technology?

This is like Junior's dismissal of treaties as being flawed. Everthing's flawed. Life is by degrees. Fear and dismissal of advancements based on their lack of perfection is silly.

Hybrid technology is a better utilization of resources, but I've never heard anyone reputable claim that it made more energy than it used. That would violate the second law of thermodynamics, yet I'd bet Newton would approve of this technology as a sensible stopgap at this point.

Only a GOP accountant would attempt to show that this was a worse system of gasoline propulsion than an engine that continually runs with no ability to utilize kinetic energy. What the hell are you talking about?

[Strelnikov_]

19. What In The Hell Are You Talking About?

I was commenting on the Rube Goldberg idea of putting a wind turbine on a car so you can recover maybe 30% of the energy you put into overcoming the increased drag from the wind turbine.

Once peak oil hits, I think all cars will be hybrid's, and probably pluggable to recharge off the grid for short daily commutes, with multi-fuel combustion engines.

Time to switch to decaf?

[PurityOfEssence]

57. Chill out yourself

Hey, I get your point, but if you read the original post, and then yours, it can very easily be interpreted as saying that hybrids are some version of a flim-flam.

It cuts both ways: for me to mistake your intent is my fault only in occasions where you're making clear statements. Fine, so you were talking about the Flying Dutchman windmill machine, but that's not the least bit clear from your post.

You were very unclear; that's your fault. I jumped to conclusions because the tenor of the first few posts got me in a retaliatory snit; that's my fault. Still, if you make vague statements in a flippant manner, you'll draw fire; such is life.

Reread the thread starter and then your post. It reads more as if you're talking about the hybrids. Then again, I was in a pissy little flame war, so my perspective's already in question.

I'm sticking with the caf, but I must say that too much work certainly leaches out the humor sometimes...

[Strelnikov_]

60. Whatever Elvis

[hatrack]

17. Well, 52 MPG in summer is nice, and 45 in winter's not too bad either

Granted, batteries are resource-intensive and expensive, but they are getting cheaper, and Toyota's is warrantied for 8 years.

So far so good!

[NickB79]

21. Wouldn't there be no net gain of fuel efficiency?

You'd have to expend more fuel than in an unmodified car to maintain forward speed due to the extra weight and drag of the wind-powered generator. Wouldn't you need that same big-ass battery anyways, to store the electricity generated by the wind-power generator? So you'd be adding the already-heavy battery, PLUS extra weight and drag from a wind-turbine, and expect better mpg?

With something like 80% or more of the US population living in urban or suburban areas, where is rush hour not a concern?

[Ironpost]

22. With all due respect there is no such thing as a free ride

The net gain would be less than 0, otherwise we would all be riding around in perpetual motion machines. Think about your proposal.

[InvisibleBallots]

23. lol! good one!

funny :)

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[B Calm]

25. I'm surprised that we're not driving solar powered flying cars.

Only thing that set us back was Ronald Reagan and two Bushes!

[MsAnthropy]

27. I'm still waiting for the magical hydrogen cars that Bush promised us.

He hasn't mentioned them lately....hmmmmmm.

[Xithras]

28. Energy loss due to drag would exceed the energy gained from the turbine

Wind turbines are horrendously inefficient at high speeds because the low density of air makes it mechanically impossible to exceed a certain blade drag to windspeed ratio (the more powerful the generator, the harder it will be to turn the blade). On the other hand, the drag introduced to the otherwise aerodynamic car would dramatically increase the amount of fuel it needed to operate at highway speeds. You'd end up with a net loss of power.

People have tried it anyway, but it's never worked. There are only two pollution free ways to travel: by animal (including our own feet), or by using windpower (sailcars). Neither of those is feasible in the modern world.

[TX-RAT]

30. Interesting study by TxDOT

They were looking at putting wind generators on the side of the road. They were trying to catch wind from passing cars and trucks.
These winds commonly exceed 100mph in short bursts.

[cally]

55. Thank you for mentioning that study

I've read about putting wind generators on roads many times. It seems to make sense.

[Ian David]

41. Animal travel is not "pollution free"

Just ask the people of my grandparents' generation. They used to swim in Manhattan's East River, and push horsepoop out of the way between strokes.

Amimals generate: Pee, poop and methane. Eventually they die and need to be disposed of.

However, there are always Flintstone cars.

[Royal Observer]

31. This whole thread is silly

If you want a hybrid; buy one. But remember they cost about $3,000 more than a comparable standard car. How long would it take you to recoup that amount in gas savings?

[idiosyncratic]

35. It shouldn't be about recouping the extra investment.

It should be about the environment, and the statement you are making by buying a car like that.

I have a neighbor who has lots of solar panels. He will never recoup the investment he made in them (well, not for 20 years), but he believes in solar power.

And, during a five-day power outage during the devastating fires in San Diego, he had electricity and did not lose food in his freezer and refrigerator, as many people did.

[Royal Observer]

45. I still say

that this whole thread is silly. Sails on cars and other such nonsense.

[AngryAmish]

69. Didn't you ever see "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome"

Who runs Bartertown?!?

[fishwax]

66. You'd recoup that extra cost at about 85000 miles

So unless you buy a new electric every few years, you get your money back. And, of course, there are tax implications that reduce that extra investment immediately anyway.

But more importantly, as the other poster said, you're leaving a smaller ecological footprint, and spending your money in a way that encourages increased r&d into cleaner technology, so that maybe a couple of years down the road that additional cost isn't as much of a consideration.

[Wonk]

32. I take it physics isn't your strong suit.

:eyes:

[Zenaholic]

33. Energy cannot be created (or destroyed)...

it merely changes form.

What I don't understand is why are these Hybrids only getting 40+ MPG? They should be getting 100+!!!

[Ron Green]

43. I agree about the mileage. I have a VW Golf TDI that gets 55mpg

on the highway if I keep it below 70. And 50 around town, day in and day out.

[kostya]

48. But how do you deal with the price of diesel?

[Ron Green]

50. Diesel fuel here is about the same price as premium gasoline, and as long

as I'm getting over 50mpg I'm not breaking the bank.

[kostya]

52. You have an OR avatar. Last time I looked out the car window

here in the Portland area diesel was about 20 cents higher than regular gas.

[Ron Green]

54. It's about the same as premium here on the coast. Maybe 2 cents more.

[prof_science]

37. Hoo boy.

As someone named "prof_science" (even though I'm not a prof, and a science hack), I'm appalled by the butchering of science that's going on here.

That's all. And yes, it's true that I'm not adding *anything* meaningful to this discussion, so keep your flames to yourself.

[Ian David]

38. The laws of Thermodynamics

LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS
Table of Contents
Laws of Thermodynamics | Potential vs. Kinetic energy | Learning Objectives

Links

Laws of Thermodynamics | Back to Top

Energy exists in many forms, such as heat, light, chemical energy, and electrical energy. Energy is the ability to bring about change or to do work. Thermodynamics is the study of energy.

First Law of Thermodynamics: Energy can be changed from one form to another, but it cannot be created or destroyed. The total amount of energy and matter in the Universe remains constant, merely changing from one form to another. The First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation) states that energy is always conserved, it cannot be created or destroyed. In essence, energy can be converted from one form into another. Click here for another page (developed by Dr. John Pratte, Clayton State Univ., GA) covering thermodynamics.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "in all energy exchanges, if no energy enters or leaves the system, the potential energy of the state will always be less than that of the initial state." This is also commonly referred to as entropy. A watchspring-driven watch will run until the potential energy in the spring is converted, and not again until energy is reapplied to the spring to rewind it. A car that has run out of gas will not run again until you walk 10 miles to a gas station and refuel the car. Once the potential energy locked in carbohydrates is converted into kinetic energy (energy in use or motion), the organism will get no more until energy is input again. In the process of energy transfer, some energy will dissipate as heat. Entropy is a measure of disorder: cells are NOT disordered and so have low entropy. The flow of energy maintains order and life. Entropy wins when organisms cease to take in energy and die.

http://www.emc.maricopa.edu/faculty/farabee/BIOBK/BioBookEner1.html

[mahatmakanejeeves]

46. Thermodynamics is just a theory.

It's only fair that schools teach creation physics too.

[PurityOfEssence]

58. Hey! That's a great idea!

And one would need it to explain religion. Maybe that'd untangle these knotty issues about he missile defense shield.

While you're at it, could you come up with some Creation Chemistry, and more importantly, CREATION ECONOMICS? Kid, ya got a future there.

Reality's just so tacky; it's best to have none of it.

Let's put our heads together over the ol' cauldron and whip up a curriculum; what say, Bertie?

[BeeBee]

40. I don't want to get into a scientific argument...

but I love my prius and the 45 mpg I get with it.

[spanone]

44. 48 Miles Per Gallon

Honda/Civic Hybrid. Next Question.

[lectrobyte]

49. You are joking, right?

A sail powered car? At freeway speeds? Check out max speeds on sailboats, I think you'd need something like f5 hurricane winds to get close to freeway speeds...

[Wonk]

51. It's worse than that, I think. The way I read the original post what he

meant was to have wind turbines pointing forward on cars to generate the electricity to power the cars forward in the first place :freak:

Mods, why isn't this thread locked yet? It's stupid beyond belief.

[DrWeird]

53. Yes, it's stupid beyond belief.

Furthermore, I think the poster is well acquainted with the laws of thermodynamics. So it's a hit and run. That makes it even stupider.

[Forkboy]

56. I third the vote for complete idiocy

though I favor leaving the thread open for all to see just how idiotic it is. :)

[Wonk]

61. Oh yeah, right, he used to use "thermodynamic" as his user name here.

I almost forgot. Maybe he just thought it was a cool sounding word :shrug:

Remember this other thread of his from just before he changed his screen name, and how popular it was in the right wing blogosphere to 'prove' how stupid/evil/insane/un-American some lefties are?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=63877&mesg_id=63877&page=

Gotta wonder why some people post the things they do...

[retread]

59. Let's power one with bullshit! Your "idea" could fuel a large fleet.

*

[Wonk]

62. kick, for comedic value

[HuskiesHowls]

65. Nikola Tesla worked on an electric car.........

But, back to our electric automobiles - in 1931, under the financing of Pierce-Arrow and George Westinghouse, a 1931 Pierce-Arrow was selected to be tested at the factory grounds in Buffalo, N.Y. The standard internal combustion engine was removed and an 80-H.P. 1800 r.p.m electric motor installed to the clutch and transmission. The A.C. motor measured 40 inches long and 30 inches in diameter and the power leads were left standing in the air - no external power source!

At the appointed time, Nikola Tesla arrived from New York City and inspected the Pierce-Arrow automobile. He then went to a local radio store and purchased a handful of tubes (12), wires and assorted resistors. A box measuring 24 inches long, 12 inches wide and 6 inches high was assembled housing the circuit. The box was placed on the front seat and had its wires connected to the air-cooled, brushless motor. Two rods 1/4" in diameter stuck out of the box about 3" in length.

Mr. Tesla got into the driver's seat, pushed the two rods in and stated, "We now have power". He put the car into gear and it moved forward! This vehicle, powered by an A.C. motor, was driven to speeds of 90 m.p.h. and performed better than any internal combustion engine of its day! One week was spent testing the vehicle. Several newspapers in Buffalo reported this test. When asked where the power came from, Tesla replied, "From the ethers all around us". Several people suggested that Tesla was mad and somehow in league with sinister forces of the universe. He became incensed, removed his mysterious box from the vehicle and returned to his laboratory in New York City. His secret died with him!

It is speculated that Nikola Tesla was able to somehow harness the earth's magnetic field that encompasses our planet. And, he somehow was able to draw tremendous amounts of power by cutting these lines of force or causing them to be multiplied together. The exact nature of his device remains a mystery but it did actually function by powering the 80 h.p. A.C. motor in the Pierce-Arrow at speeds up to 90 m.p.h. and no recharging was ever necessary!

http://www.keelynet.com/energy/teslafe1.htm (about 3/4 way down the page)