Talk Back Tuesday: Will Plug-In Hybrids Really Work?
Everyone from Ford to GM to Toyota is betting on plug-in hybrids, with models like the Ford Escape, Chevrolet Volt and Toyota Prius promising to offer the technology in the next couple of years. The promise of all-electric operation, and the equivalent of 100 mpg, is hard to ignore. Yet there are many hurdles to overcome, like lithium-ion battery technology, heat management and warranty concerns. But an even bigger quesiton remains: How will utility companies react to this new drain on the power grid?
That's a question raised in a recent Wall Street Journal article titled "Utilities, Plug-In Cars: Near Collsion?" The upshot of the article is that utility companies will suddenly play a much larger role in the average person's transportation costs -- making them similar to oil companies. As with most things, the potential for plug-in hybrids comes down to money. If most people charge their vehicles at night, during off-peak hours for electricity demand, then plug-in hybrids and utility companies would be a match made in heaven.
But, if too many people start plugging in during the daytime it could cause everything from skyrocketing electric bills to grid shutdowns. You know those brown outs we all enjoy in the middle of summer when everyone cranks up the home A/C? An army of plug-in hybrids could make that look like a static-electricity spark.
Another big concern centers around the pollution factor. If you cut tailpipe emissions but increase powerplant emissions, are you really saving the planet with your plug-in hybrid? Much of that depends on where the electricity is coming from. I said awhile ago that combining a solar panel on your roof with an electric car or plug-in hybrid is about as close to cost- and pollution-free transportation as you can get. If someone makes the plug-in hybrid a reality it would make solar energy that much more attractive for the Average Joe.
According to the article, using electricity instead of gasoline is probably a benefit because these coal-fired plants burn coal more efficiently than cars burn gas. But just like so many aspects of plug-in hybrids, we don't yet know how this aspect will play out.
This is starting to sound a lot like the E85/ethanol "fix" -- where it all sounded great until food prices skyrocketed and people started fighting over rice and corn.
So the question is: Will plug-in hybrids be a boon or a bust? It's looking like even if we get the lithium-ion technology and heat management figured out there are still some big questions left unanswered.
Posted by Karl May 6, 2008 6:00 am
Permalink
Categories: Talk Back Tuesday | Future Vehicles | Hybrid Vehicles
bepperb
- May 6, 2008 10:53 am
(#15 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
"Theoretically seperating the generator from the drive train should yield efficiencies"
Really? I thought converting from chemical energy, to mechanical, back to chemical, and back to mechanical again was inherantly less efficient than only making the conversion once. It works for trains, but doesn't scale well, and to scale it to a car would be quite the feat. It doesn't even work for semi trucks or boats (besides icebreakers).
Sure, it would only work for a subset of the population (with garages, who are willing to pay a slight premium, and with a short commute) but that's all it takes is 100k people per year, or 1 in 150. People are making the same arguments they made against the Insight and Prius, and they clearly aren't valid.
Really, it seems like a stopgap between gas and all electric vehicles. When all electrics and battery exchange stations exist, nobody will look back and miss the complexity of a plugin hybrid.
|
|
 | |
|
|
Plug-ins sound like a bust right now. Until we get reliable renewable resources. Wind, wave, solar, nuclear = all good ideas that need to be pursued. Until those become more useful (ideally some like solar could be used at home), plug-ins will be just another way to fill the pockets of multi-billion dollar corporations.
|
|
| |
|
|
Sorry, but not a plug in expert or a electrician, but has anybody quanitified exactly how much electricity a plug in will suck up to recharge? Will it be cheaper than spending $40 to fill up a civic every week?
|
|
| |
|
|
Bepperb:
Yes in theory, reality may be a different matter. I have no idea what the scalability issues are with moving the technology from trains to cars. For all I know the current configuration on Diesel/Electric trains aren't there for a pure efficiency reason, but do make sense when building a train that can spend a significant portion of its time on electrified rails.
I also don't know which is a more conversion of chemical energy to a kinetic energy at the wheels.
Chemical energy (fuel) to kinetic energy (rotation) to chemical energy (electrical storage) to kinetic energy can be more efficient than a conventional engine or hybrid where there is only one conversion from fuel to kinetic energy.
Don’t forget that we aren’t talking about a rocket engine where we have pure conversion of chemical energy to kinetic energy (plus heat). In a car every time the kinetic energy of the engine has to pass through a transmission, or drive shaft, or clutch a little (or a lot) of that energy is converted to heat. I do not know which is a more efficient manner of transmitting that energy. (This may be why it makes more sense on a train which would have some massive drive shafts). Also an engine driving the wheels will need to be able to run through a range of rpm’s, and cannot be optimized to run an “ideal speed”.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- May 6, 2008 1:25 pm
(#19 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
^but if you take an engine and turn it into a genertor, then it could in theory be more efficent,.
not nesserically on free way speeds if you are curising. But even then. its like keeping the engine running at 3,000rpm all the time, if you were able to do that in a car, then you could easliy see ~50-60mph. The conversion losses have to be less then the losses due to varying engine rpm. But I think the actual storage of electrical power is relativliy effecient
|
|
| |
texases
- May 6, 2008 3:08 pm
(#20 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
They'll succeed if 'green' continues to grow. There were no 'economics' behind the SUV tidal wave, and there don't need to be if plug-ins are viewed as the next hot thing, and I bet they will.
|
|
| |
|
|
in the end all the power and work *like physics work* to move and accelerate a car all have to come from someplace
although..if you had lighter cars you wouldn't need as much force to accelerate them and therefore not as much work would be required, reducing the amount of energy overall
as for the amount of power plug-ins will require, expect it to be quite massive. all the energy you bought in terms of gasoline now must be bought in terms of electricity.
Why don't they make an all electric version of the volt? like a halo special edition model or something. No point carrying a whole engine and associated bits if you aren't going to use it. Might as well convert that space into extra battery *or capacitor if they can perfect capacitor technology* space and make the whole thing a bit more efficient.
|
|
| |
|
|
Nuclear energy has been thrown around here as 'clean'. I don't claim to know how it works but I grew up in Vegas and have been hearing about its waste products for decades. It seems that there is no free lunch when it comes to energy.
|
|
| |
estreka
- May 6, 2008 9:49 pm
(#23 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
subarctic north - Great Falls, MT |
|
|
Compared to most powerplants, nuclear is quite clean. Yes there is nuclear waste, but it's a relatively insignificant amount compared to the tons of waste coal and oil plants produce.
I think a big benefit would be to incentivize solar or wind power. Imagine instead of getting a $2K tax deduction on your Volt, you were given a rebate for buying $2K worth of solar cells. In the long run, these technologies do pay for themselves. If I had spent my $600 tax rebate on solar cells, I could probably have saved myself from ever paying electric bills. Oh sure, it would take 30 months to break even, but after that I'm saving $240/year.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- May 7, 2008 5:35 am
(#24 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
lvranger - its way 'cleaner' energy...
everything has a trade off... we could just kill 3/4 of the people on the planet, and live in huts so that we can 'save' the planet...
or make reasonable choices... the problem is alot of the green movement does not allow choices... they want us to maitain life as it is today (or at least they apear too), but dont want us to burn any fossile fuel, use nuclear power, even put up windmills (kills birds), dams are bad too. etc etc. We just need the magic fairy dust of unlimited clean power.
|
|
| |
|
|
"It seems that there is no free lunch when it comes to energy."
Thats what the rest of the world needs to learn. Wind and solar are the cleanest I suppose, if you have huge swathes of land to use up. Everything creates negative byproducts. Dams kill ecosystems, affect geology. Nuclear plans produce waste, etc, etc, etc.
|
|
| |
1487
- May 7, 2008 7:47 am
(#26 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
Philadelphia PA United States of America |
|
|
nuclear is the best from an emissions standpoint. The US is WAY behind in nuclear power because of NIMBY sindrome that is related to the 3 mile Island situation from 1979. The US needs to get its head out of the sand and catch up to the rest of the industrialized world.
|
|
| |
|
|
"nuclear is the best from an emissions standpoint. "
Nuclear gives off less emissions than wind, hydro and solar? Isn't the purpose of these technologies to be zero emission?
|
|
| |
|
|
"Chemical energy (fuel) to kinetic energy (rotation) to chemical energy (electrical storage) to kinetic energy can be more efficient than a conventional engine or hybrid where there is only one conversion from fuel to kinetic energy. "
Utilizing the same system, no it can't. Burning fuel to produce rotation has certain efficiency limitations that cannot be overcome. Adding in additional conversions will only act to lower the efficiency, not raise it.
The drive train losses are typically in the range of 8-15% (hp at the engine to hp at the wheels). Electrical motors are typically the most efficient at energy conversion, with around 95-97% conversion from electricity to kinetic energy. However, there is no power source that starts out as electricity (unless you wanna build a car that runs on lightning bolts), and there is typically a large drop in efficiency in generating the electricity.
"Nuclear gives off less emissions than wind, hydro and solar? Isn't the purpose of these technologies to be zero emission?"
Nuclear power isn't seasonal. All those wind farms in California give out the best power output in the spring and fall, when the energy is least needed (no heating or cooling periods) due to the seasonal nature of the winds. Solar power doesn't work on cloudy days, and takes a very large amount of land per unit of power produced. Hydro power is also weather dependant.
The only truely renewable resource we have is solar power. Just like we're running out of oil today, if we go to a highly nuclear society (fission, not fusion), then some day we will run out of uranium, plutonium, and other elements. All oil is, after all, is chemically stored solar power. There is an eventual limit to how much energy we will be able to obtain for use, and that limit is dependant entirely on the sun.
|
|
| |
104wb
- May 7, 2008 3:49 pm
(#29 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
There's a good SAE paper by MIT, SAE 2001-01-1081, which projects in the year 2020 the energy efficiency of a mid-size car powered by 9 different powertrains. This is a tank-to-wheels analysis only, which doesn't account for inefficiencies upstream of the vehicle. For example, in the case of electricity, the inefficiencies in the conversion of the energy in the coal into electricity, and the transmission to your house can be considerable. If you are concerned about fuel cost only, the tank-to-wheels analysis tells you what you need to know. If you feel you have an obligation not to be wasteful (to be fuel efficient) then you'd probably want to know the total amount of energy required to do the vehicle work (work done by car / energy consumed = energy (fuel) conversion efficiency, expressed as a percentage). In that case, you'd look at a 'well-to-wheels' (as in 'oil well') analysis. In any case, the powertrains in the paper included gasoline with projected engine and transmission enhancements, Diesel with projected engine and transmission enhancements, hybrids of each of those, a CNG hybrid, fuel cell power including reformulation and pure hydrogen, and full-electric. The efficiency predictions for the different powertrains were approximately: full electric 60%, hydrogen fuel cell 35%, diesel hybrid 30%, CNG hybrid 27%, gasoline hybrid 25%, 'latest-tech' diesel 20%, 'latest-tech' gasoline 17%. If anyone's interested, I can show the fuel cost per mile for each of those powertrain combinations based on the paper's projected 'vehicle work' per mile on the federal combined cycle, the vehicle fuel conversion efficiency, and current energy prices.
|
|
| |
95civic
- May 8, 2008 2:59 am
(#30 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
From the little that I know about "electrical energy charging demand" for the "volt", it appears that charging one (1) vehicle would be approximately equivalent to having 2 or 3 electric stoves in the "oven self cleaning" mode for about 4 to 5 hours to complete a full charge on a depleted battery set.
|
|
| |
95civic
- May 8, 2008 3:25 am
(#31 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
This is really about plug-in electric hybrids so please stay with me on the logic.
Seven questions:
1) Is the Focus a small death trap vehicle?
2) Is the Focus an "econo box"?
3) What would the Focus sales volumes be ... IF ... got over 54 mpg(US) combined cycle and 65 mpg(US) highway?
http://www.vcacarfueldata.org.uk/search/vehicleDetails.asp?id=20438
4) What torque would you need from a 3,000 pound vehicle to be satisfactory to you? Would 175 foot pounds be adequate?
IF 175 foot pounds is adequate ... a 1,120 cc version of Mercedes' NEW 2143 cc turbo diesel COULD be matched with that Ford Focus and properly matched "new" high efficiency 6 speed automatic transmission. This combination can be predicted to deliver fuel economy in a range somewhere between 90 and 120 mpg(US) combined average!
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2008/04/10/083833.html
5) How well do you think this ~100 mpg(US) combined average Focus would sell (even if the price WAS $4~6k above current invoice)?
6) Do you think this proposed ~100 mpg(US) combined average Focus could/would OUT SELL the PRIUS?
7) What chance would GM's "volt" have against this 100 mpg Focus with automatic transmission?
Don't forget this proposed machine would not ever need to be plugged in and 10 gallons of diesel fuel would yield about 1,000 miles of travel.
GOOD GRIEF … CHARLIE BROWN!!! That is … 15,000 miles on 150 gallons of fuel! That is only $900 even at $6 per gallon!!! That is about $0.06 per mile for fuel with NO DAILY recharging!
Would I want plug-in? NO!
Would you?
|
|
| |
mcmanus
- May 8, 2008 3:26 am
(#32 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
Does the open pit mining needed to make current technology batteries, then ship the bulky/heavy things thousands of miles to the factory plus as you drive, and then try to dispose of them (responsibly) make any sense?
How about hours versus minutes to fill up?
A hundred years ago steam made sense because it powered the industrial age. Now electricity makes sense because it powers our information age.
Batteries are not fuel sources like gas or diesel, so they will be inherently less efficient. We need a better fuel strategy.
The quick and easy short term answers lay in slowing down (back to the 55 mph national speed limit), higher CAFE now (to promote smaller cars and not trucks/vans/SUVs), fuel saving turbos and cylinder deactivation (most found in the U.S. market are tuned for enhanced performance), use of clean diesel technology, put an environmental tax on jet fuel, along with taxing semi's for their share of road damage (that could push road diesel prices past $10/gallon).
Long term, fuel cells are the answer. The grid can be supplemented with solar, wind, and geothermal. Hydrogen production can be done mostly during non-peak hours. Huge power plants are already relatively clean compared to cars, but are still easier to improve further as large, stationary objects. Nuclear power is cleaner than fossil, but we must solve the social stigma over waste disposal. (Coal plants emit more radiation than nuclear.) On-board storage of hydrogen is no more of a technical challenge today than on-board gas was a hundred years ago.
It's time to stop distracting ourselves with E-85, hybrids, batteries, etc. and get some national leadership versus governance by lobbiests.
|
|
| |
bepperb
- May 8, 2008 10:43 am
(#33 Total: 34)
|
|
|
|
Boy 95civic, let me use your logic for a second here. The Honda Accord V6 gets 30mpg and has 268 horsepower. Would 134 horsepower be enough for you to drive around with? Well, we're already at 60 miles per gallon then. But then, we'll put this amazing engine in the Fit chassis, and it should be good for 90 miles per galllon. All we need to do then is get rid of the carpet and spare tire, and were good for 100. Boy hybrids sure are stupid.
I got to go call my financial planner now that I understand this new math. I'm going to blow his &*%$ing mind with this. Then I will retire later in the week.
|
|
| |
|
|
95civic:
Your logic hurts my head. So why is it that the automotive xprize exists?
If it was possible to make a 100mpg car like you suggest, you can be damn sure that people would buy that instead of the Smarts/Prius/TDi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|
- April's Automotive Sales Numbers: Not a Pretty Picture May 9, 2008
- MPG Smackdown: Focus vs Jetta vs Prius vs Smart May 8, 2008
- Cars that Jumped the Shark: Mazda Miata May 7, 2008
- Talk Back Tuesday: Will Plug-In Hybrids Really Work? May 6, 2008
- Legend of the Motorcycle: Pebble Beach without Posers May 5, 2008
- Top 10 Fuel Efficient SUVs for 2008: CAFE Can't Kill 'Em May 2, 2008
- Child Seat Testing: Your Tax Dollars At Work! (really!!!) May 1, 2008
- 2008 Lotus Elise SC: Got (Ought?) to be Committed Apr 30, 2008
- Talk Back Tuesday: How Much is Too Much for Gas? Apr 29, 2008
- Cars that Jumped the Shark: Chevrolet Corvette Apr 28, 2008
|
|
|
|
