RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars, undercap engines, more charging points
When an automobile engine is place in a boat, it is grossly *de-rated*. That's the whole point, **people aren't angels**. Their driving habits and general nature require them to have over 100bhp in reserve to get them out of trouble etc. The CEO on the Tesla motor site put it best - nobody wants to be driving some goofy golf car. Until a bettery comes along the problem is one of engineering. Use supercharged, variable boost, small engine capacity hybrids. Install charging points in cities at parking bays or **even inductive charging** at lights or known traffic jam sites. That way a highly optimised engine (a power plant) ultimately burns the fuel more efficiently. Now if they were really serious, left or right, more nuclear power would have been brought on stream (takes about 5 years) and US would be using its own oil reserves and probably exporting oil and technology. As john Steck put it, evolution is cruel so what if we kill a few butterflies? Nature *always* bounces back. Change is the only constant - regardless of what we do. I can't see what a massive state sector has done in the UK since 1997 when someone advising the civil service tells them the lights in the UK will be going out in 2014. Mind you the same thing happened in California due to deregulation. Schmucks to the left, schmucks to the right.
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
John Steck wrote: The grand irony is I believe the enviro-fascists are the biggest culprits who keep us locked into this dependency mode. They have successfully prevented developing any/all domestic production capacity of any kind for over 30 years. I have news for you John: environmentalists have no influence over oil companies. None. Zilch. Bupkis. And they have no influence over V.P. Cheney, who has set energy policy for the last 8 years. If you have any doubt about that, read what he himself said, and look at his energy policy advisors. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Today's headline - from the Volt page: Chevy Volt and the Electric Grid: Drive 15,000 Miles for $73 ... if this were true (which it isn't) the average buyer could save about $2,200 per year - if she never used the onboard engine (which is possible, but not likely). If the lease on the volt happened to be $340 month (guess) then the average cost per day of ownership would be about $5. This makes it affordable for almost anyone, no? I suppose that this is precisely how the Lutzs of the auto world mentally justify the high initial cost- since most customers will only look at the monthly tab. Indeed there are so many of us who do not want to seen GM fail finacnically, that we will probably buy every single one that they can push out the door, even at 40k a pop. Too bad for Pontiac and Olds - that they don't have a clone with in the works with an alternative mechanical configuration. Of course, covering that angle by GM would be asking for some real foresignt, so the other Marques will have to settle for slapping a different emblem on a slightly restyled version of the Volt. Not that anyone at Pontiac will read this, but here is a suggestion from an old admirer, one who 'remembers the day' (circa 1968): use the Chevy Volts mechanics, add some styling which is reminiscent of the old GTO, go for the lesser range (20 miles) and used advanced SLA batteries, price it accordingly, and voila - another winner (i.e. muscle car finally gets a degree).
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Horse biscuits! 15,000 miles driven at 60 miles per hour takes 250 hours. If it takes 20 kW to push the Volt down the road that is 5000 kWh. At an average of $0.10 per kWh, that's $500. Someone is buying energy for one and half cents per kWh? Where? Terry On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Today's headline - from the Volt page: Chevy Volt and the Electric Grid: Drive 15,000 Miles for $73 ... if this were true (which it isn't) the average buyer could save about $2,200 per year - if she never used the onboard engine (which is possible, but not likely). If the lease on the volt happened to be $340 month (guess) then the average cost per day of ownership would be about $5. This makes it affordable for almost anyone, no? I suppose that this is precisely how the Lutzs of the auto world mentally justify the high initial cost- since most customers will only look at the monthly tab. Indeed there are so many of us who do not want to seen GM fail finacnically, that we will probably buy every single one that they can push out the door, even at 40k a pop. Too bad for Pontiac and Olds - that they don't have a clone with in the works with an alternative mechanical configuration. Of course, covering that angle by GM would be asking for some real foresignt, so the other Marques will have to settle for slapping a different emblem on a slightly restyled version of the Volt. Not that anyone at Pontiac will read this, but here is a suggestion from an old admirer, one who 'remembers the day' (circa 1968): use the Chevy Volts mechanics, add some styling which is reminiscent of the old GTO, go for the lesser range (20 miles) and used advanced SLA batteries, price it accordingly, and voila - another winner (i.e. muscle car finally gets a degree).
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
- Original Message From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone is buying energy for one and half cents per kWh? Where? In Lutz's dreams? Awkshully, the most effective part of any viral marketing campaign... g [Jon-Stewartesque-pause] ... is to troll out an unrealistic number, for its shock appeal and as a set-up (with some hidden, lame justification) ... ... in hopes that two or three pundits will do some napkin-calcs -- followed by a clever comment or two on the bogosity of the claim; which comments are then reads by dozens more, who then post them to their own favorite forum or mail group, ad nauseum. The end result is that walk-away message from all this, is not the fictious numbers, but that the 'Volt will save me tons of cash'. ...word gets around pdq these days about hidden motives ... right Karl? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQK1al91drs
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jones Beene wrote: Chevy Volt and the Electric Grid: Drive 15,000 Miles for $73 ... if this were true (which it isn't) the average buyer could save about $2,200 per year . . . As Terry pointed out, it is likely to be more like $500. But that is only $427 more; the average buyer saves $1,773. So it hardly affects your conclusion. - if she never used the onboard engine (which is possible, but not likely). Well, a lot of people have short commutes and would hardly ever use the engine, but they would not be likely to drive 15,000 miles per year (41 miles per day). But it would not be cost effective for them. I think the point was that if you drive, let's say, 50 miles per day, for the first 40 miles (or 15,000 miles per year), it cost ~$1.40 per day or ~$500 per year (not $74). After 40 miles it gets expensive. I think everyone understands pricing and mpg estimates will be complicated. MPG estimates for the Prius are also complicated. The mpg varies from ~44 to ~80 in my experience, depending on where you drive, how you drive, how long you drive, what the ambient temperature is and other factors. An ordinary ICE-only car has much more predictable performance. (Note that when I drive a car, I seem to have an uncanny ability to achieve the EPA mpg rating within 1 or 2 mpg. People often complain that cars do not achieve the rated capability, but I have not had that problem.) - Jed
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jed - environmentalists have no influence over oil companies. You're making a joke here, right? Then who was it behind implementing all our laws reflecting environmental concerns re pipelines transport, available drilling locations offshore and otherwise, refinery locations, construction and modification permits, refined fuel formulas, Global Warming etc. etc.? The Saudis? OPEC? Maybe it was the oil companies themselves so they could run the price up due to artificially constrained supply because of environmental concerns through laws created for those reasons. But then we just had a discussion about Hanlon's razor, so I don't know... - Rick
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Rick Monteverde wrote: environmentalists have no influence over oil companies. You're making a joke here, right? I meant during the Bush administration. Then who was it behind implementing all our laws reflecting environmental concerns re pipelines transport, available drilling locations offshore and otherwise, refinery locations, construction and modification permits, refined fuel formulas, Global Warming etc. etc.? Richard Nixon, at first. He did an excellent job on the environment. These laws were written because the public at large demanded them. Environmentalists alone do not have clout. The laws were written with the advice and consent of the fossil fuels industry. They have had much more input than environmentalists. No responsible fossil fuel industry experts or decision-makers disagree with these laws. The laws have no impact whatever on the supply of oil, any more than pure food and drug acts have limited our supply of food. The US does not need additional refinery capacity because US oil consumption has hardly increased since the 1970s. The only reason oil is becoming more expensive is because US wells are tapped out, our production has plummeted from 9.64 bbl/day 5.82, worldwide production has peaked, and worldwide demand has increased. Not only is this not the fault of environmentalists, but on the contrary, if policymakers and the auto industry had listened to environmentalists, the US would be using fuel-efficient cars and we would be exporting oil. Maybe it was the oil companies themselves so they could run the price up due to artificially constrained supply because of environmental concerns There are no artificial constraints. Of course gasoline costs more because environmental protection laws are enforced, but that does not limit supplies of gasoline. Actually, it cost less overall because environmental laws reduce illness and other costs borne by the general public. Your assertion that environmentalists caused shortages and problems in the oil industry reminds me of the assertion made by the dairy industry in 1915 that doctors who insist on pasteurization drive up the cost of milk and cause artificial shortages and high prices for milk. The dairy industry did not realize that an industry which kills its customers and frightens the public does not have a future. Killing people and poisoning the environment in ways that can easily be prevented at a modest cost is bad for public relations, to say the least. Any industry with a milligram of enlightened self-interest will stop doing things like that! - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone is buying energy for one and half cents per kWh? Where? In Lutz's dreams? I'm also afraid that the Li battery might be a wet dream but not for the scarcity of the element. Lithium battery charge efficiency is quite poor above 90 deg F. And where are we gonna charge our Volts? Maybe not in the hot garage in Phoenix. Terry
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
- Original Message From: Terry Blanton Lithium battery charge efficiency is quite poor above 90 deg F. And where are we gonna charge our Volts? Maybe not in the hot garage in Phoenix. Speaking of hot batteries, Terry ... you may have seen this older story: http://pepei.pennnet.com/display_article/155624/6/ARCHI/none/PRODJ/1/AEP-dedicates-first-US-use-of-stationary-sodium-sulfur-battery/ ... matter of fact - in looking in the archives - we mentioned it here last year: http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l@eskimo.com/msg22390.html The industrial-scale battery uses sodium metal instead of lithium. This could be telling us something about possible missed opportunities. The big problem - the battery only works when it is rather hot - like 500F and up - which is no problem for industrial sites. http://www.electricitystorage.org/tech/technologies_technologies_nas.htm However, if the PHEV car owner is willing to charge up his vehicle every night anyway at off-peak rates where it is easy to keep the battery hot ; and given that we have this great insulation material called frozen-smoke (aerogel) ... which should present the situation where heat loss can be minimized -- And given Ford was once a big player in this tech ... then why isn't this even being considered as viable - or is it? Jones Here is an 11 year old Canadian abstract - and it makes you wonder about the seven companies not to mention China and India - so - possibly this battery will not be a missed opportunity after all... just missed by the big-3. D. Sodium-Sulphur Batteries The Ford Motor Company used a sodium-sulphur (NaS) battery in its 1992 Ecostar because it offered three to four times the energy density of lead-acid batteries; in other words, a physically smaller battery could provide the same power. The NaS battery also has a range of about 241 km, roughly twice that of an EV powered with lead-acid batteries. This technology, however, has not received widespread acceptance for a number of reasons. For one, it is not considered user friendly. Because one of the electrodes is made of molten sulphur, the battery must be kept at a temperature of 300 to 350ÂșC. To keep the sulphur, and the sodium, from solidifying, the batteries have built-in heaters. As a result of these stringent operating requirements, NaS batteries currently cost seven times as much as lead-acid batteries. In addition, safety concerns were raised when two Ford test vehicles caught fire while using NaS batteries. This technology is not likely to emerge as an early leader in the race to find the best battery for electric vehicles. Companies in at least seven countries believe that it offers great potential, however, since it uses relatively cheap, abundant materials. These companies are all working to build on the advantages of the technology, while ridding it of its more troublesome problems. **As with any of these new battery technologies, mass production could quickly reduce costs.**
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Terry Blanton wrote: On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message From: Terry Blanton [EMAIL PROTECTED] Someone is buying energy for one and half cents per kWh? Where? In Lutz's dreams? I'm also afraid that the Li battery might be a wet dream but not for the scarcity of the element. Lithium battery charge efficiency is quite poor above 90 deg F. Whoops! Say that again, slower! Its charge efficiency is *poor* above 90 F? That's F, right, not C? Uh.. Let's see, suppose we're pulling 60 horses, or 45 KW, from the batteries. If it's, say, a 300 volt pack, then that's 150 amps. (And if it's more than 300 volts, watch out driving through puddles...) So, we've got 150 amps coming out of some combination of batteries and mogen -- batteries alone until they're part way down, then mogen while the batteries charge up, with electrons hopefully being pushed into the batteries as fast as the mogen can free them up from the task of pushing the car. Now, let's assume you're driving the car in the summer, anywhere in the lower 48, or southern Canada. Exactly how are they going to keep the whole shebang below 90 F while it's doing that? Peltier coolers and big heat sinks? Gonna eat into the range a bit in hot weather, eh? And where are we gonna charge our Volts? Maybe not in the hot garage in Phoenix. Terry
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
John Steck shot a load of stuff from the hip... snipped Oh dear, I didn't realise that according to John, the kind of neo-con thinking that got us into the various messes we're in, or about to be in - Climate change, peak oil, global financial meltdown and global overpopulation was what was needed to fix things in future too!! Are you feeling lucky, punks? On the side of the Planet - and the people - because they're worth it
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jed - No responsible fossil fuel industry experts or decision-makers disagree with these laws. So oil industry experts and decision makers agree with the offshore drilling ban, for instance? Do they agree with this new phony-Pelosi drill-'em-where-they-aint law? Or do they agree that the permits they apply for regarding refinery construction or upgrades, or exploration and drilling rights should indeed be held up forever or denied due to the resistance of environmental groups and the regulations generated as a result of pressure from these groups? They would if they're in on this as a conspiracy, which, while I wouldn't rule it out altogether as a possibility, I seriously doubt. But you know, maybe a little less seriously than before. Hey, having their interests nationalized overseas worked out pretty well in the long run, maybe having a similar situation evolve back home ... The laws have no impact whatever on the supply of oil, any more than pure food and drug acts have limited our supply of food. Such bans and denials as above haven't had any impact whatsoever on fuel supply or cost? Really? A denial or restriction of access to domestic supply has no effect on supply? And restrictions on supply have no effect on end user cost? Did Pelosi and her gang just repeal the laws of supply and demand? I guess that is one of the noble goals of socialism. - Rick
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Rick Monteverde wrote: No responsible fossil fuel industry experts or decision-makers disagree with these laws. So oil industry experts and decision makers agree with the offshore drilling ban, for instance? Well, they say they do. Anyway, they are not running out of places to drill. This is not a problem at all. They have many offshore leases in the areas now open to them which they have not even tried exploiting yet. They say this is because there are other places where oil can be extracted more cheaply. I assume they are telling the truth. You have to realize, no one in the oil industry is raising a ruckus about offshore drilling or yelling drill here till now. That is being done only by McCain and the Republican party, as a stunt. If the oil industry had wanted those limits changed it would have pushed through a law changing them years ago. The oil industry has enormous influence in Congress, to say the very least. Do they agree with this new phony-Pelosi drill-'em-where-they-aint law? This is nonsense. As I said there are huge unexploited resources in areas presently opened to drilling. However, they are expensive to explore and extract. The areas closer to shore would not be any less expensive or risky. The water is not much deeper and conditions at sea are about the same. I cannot understand why the Republicans and McCain are so anxious to use up remaining US oil reserves. Based on graphs of North Sea production, this could be done in about 10 or 20 years, but I think it would be foolish to exploit all remaining US resources when we can extract oil in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Mexico and elsewhere at a lower cost. I think it would be a bad idea for us to drain every last barrel of our own oil leaving us 100% dependent upon other countries in a few years, rather than a few decades. It is better to use up our remaining resources slowly -- to stretch them out. Or do they agree that the permits they apply for regarding refinery construction or upgrades . . . The industry has upgraded and increased the capacity of existing oil refineries. The government is always granted these applications. The industry has not applied to build any new refineries in recent decades because, as I mentioned, US consumption has barely increased since the 1970s. Why would they want to build refineries they do not need? What would be the point? Who told you they want new refineries? You need only glance at the curve of consumption to see they do not need additional refining capacity. You seem to believe some widespread propaganda regarding oil and energy. I suggest you read some books about the subject written by experts who have no political agenda, such as Deffeyes. Also, I suggest you spend some time reviewing the data at the Energy Information Administration: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ This is gold-plated accurate information, straight from top-notch industry sources. US major industry has many faults, but lying about industry statistics is not among them. This was noted as long ago as the 19th century. US heavy industry has always reported accurate information because it is in everyone's best interest. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 19 Sep 2008 15:09:18 -0400: Hi, [snip] I'm also afraid that the Li battery might be a wet dream but not for the scarcity of the element. Lithium battery charge efficiency is quite poor above 90 deg F. And where are we gonna charge our Volts? Maybe not in the hot garage in Phoenix. Terry The Volt really shines as a commuter vehicle, and particularly for short commutes where the gas engine is not needed. Hence ideally one doesn't try to charge the batteries from the engine (so hot recharging during the day doesn't occur). At night, the temperature is generally lower anyway, particularly after midnight, so if shouldn't be such a problem (just program it to start recharging as late as possible, but in time to be fully charged by the time you leave the next morning). Furthermore, as electricity supply shifts away from fossil fuels, it may not make much difference whether or not recharging is optimally efficient. Bottom line is that the drop in recharging efficiency is will probably only have a very minor overall impact. Imagine being stuck in traffic in the middle of the city, and opening the window to let the stuffy air *out*, and the fresh air *in*, while contemplating the complete silence of all the stopped electric motors as everyone enjoys their jolt of Volt. :) Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jed - You seem to believe some widespread propaganda regarding oil and energy. I suggest you read some books about the subject written by experts who have no political agenda, such as Deffeyes. Also, I suggest you spend some time reviewing the data at the Energy Information Administration: Ok, so I Google on refinery + permits. Floods the browser with EPA.. environmentalist groups ... EPA ...environmentalist groups ... Hmm, anything buried in there about not wanting permits since none are needed? Lots about refinery capacity shortage, new plants needed, refinery permits applied for... Confirms what I have heard for years from numerous sources, independent of propaganda. High efficiency diesel, coal, nuke, natural gas, even wind solar - maybe even LENR someday - there's lots of alternatives out there, and desirable whether you believe peak oil theories or not given the undisputable pollution and foreign political realities. But again this comes down to AGW, because that's where the environmentalists' hearts are at nowadays. That is indeed why oil reserves will likely not be searched out and exploited, not because of artificially constrained consumption levels created by shortages and higher cost. It is blocked by laws, lawsuits, political pressure from citizens, and government personnel both elected and appointed who have caved to the AGW hysteria. The public record is bountiful and clear on these facts. Permits have been blocked in this country for nearly three decades by political efforts primarily driven by environmentalists, heightened in the last decade or so by AGW alarm. Yes Jed, reading more about these things is good - but only if you take off the political filters that prevent you from seeing the obvious truths that may not conform to the particular agenda you endorse. - Rick
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Even Nick Palmer wrote: .. Actually it was environmentalists snip Thanks, that was my point. Why they do it is another subject. - Rick
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:21:25 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Over half the cost of the Volt is probably in the batteries, and if they need to be replaced in 4 years at $20,000 retail -- then the yearly cost of ownership has gone through the roof. [snip] I think Lithium batteries are more expensive than other types, because Lithium is fairly scarce. If so, then it should be possible to get a significant rebate on new batteries by trading in the old ones, which still contain the Lithium they started out with (in one form or another). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
2008/9/18 Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Michel but they say 150,000 miles (~10 years) in the original article posted... Well, here is a directly on-point and long but inconclusive thread on the subject: http://gm-volt.com/2008/03/14/volt-pricing-to-take-high-battery-warranty-cost-into-account/ Here is a more recent and more conclusive posting on the subject, which should alleviate all worries on the subject: http://gm-volt.com/2008/09/03/lutz-each-volt-factors-in-the-cost-of-a-battery-replacement/ ... The PHEV makes the most sense for France of course, as opposed to the USA - since you have clean electric from nuclear. True. Where are the French car countries in this? They should be on the forefront, no? Indeed they _should_, hopefully they will be spurred by what GM is doing. Michel
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
A very good point Robin, this should make the (factored in as we now know) replacement cost more bearable for GM. The same argument goes for the cost of Indium etc in the definitely complementary inexpensive CIGS photovoltaics area BTW. Talking about which, the word goes that Nanosolar is now building a beefier 10 MW plant not far from their first 1MW plant in Germany, see: http://guntherportfolio.blogspot.com/ Michel 2008/9/18 Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]: In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:21:25 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] Over half the cost of the Volt is probably in the batteries, and if they need to be replaced in 4 years at $20,000 retail -- then the yearly cost of ownership has gone through the roof. [snip] I think Lithium batteries are more expensive than other types, because Lithium is fairly scarce. If so, then it should be possible to get a significant rebate on new batteries by trading in the old ones, which still contain the Lithium they started out with (in one form or another). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jones Beene wrote: That is - figuring that the average passenger vehicle in the United States is getting 22.4 mpg according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the average US driver travels 13,000 miles yearly. In total, the average US driver uses 580 gallons of fuel each year = $2,300+ per year. That's about right. The EIA had average driving distance of 11,766 in 2001. However, some people commute longer distances. They would be good candidates for the Volt. If we assume that the cost of batteries is $20,000 and that a full replacement guarantee is only good for 50,000 miles - then the yearly amortized cost of the batteries alone - even if the electric power is FREE which it isn't of course, could end up being a lot more than the average cost of gasoline Not to mention the pollution is not eliminated - it is simply moved to the grid plant. That is incorrect: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course). 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly all electricity comes from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. I doubt it. I have read they are about equal. Certainly not if the electricity if generated with uranium or wind. Electric power generation efficiency is improving faster than automobile engine efficiency, as old coal-fired plants are being phased out and more wind power comes on line. If the US builds 10 or 20 more nuclear power plants it will be very difficult for any form of ICE to rival electric power for low pollution. Bear in mind that you have to factor in the energy used to refine oil into Diesel fuel. Preparing the fuel at a power plant is usually less energy intensive than this. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle: a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt b.) and the other one operate on batteries most of the time, yet carrying a small diesel engine (motorcycle sized) to recharge the batteries in an emergency or for the occasional long trip. Due to the high cost of lithium batteries, option b.) would cost less, give greater security, and could be accomplished with low cost SLA batteries, for far less upfront cost than lithium. The downside of option b.) is that the diesel would need to come on for the last few miles of a long commute (but never for the trips to the grocery store etc.) Plus the big advantage is that option b.) is doable for probably $20,000 with SLA batteries- versus the lowest possible cost of the PHEV (which of course, will come down significantly once higher volume is achieved). Still many customer would rather have the security of NOT running out of juice on the freeway if the lithiums did not get a full charge; and another big advatave is being able to take a vacation by car without renting a vehicle to do it. And it is not either/or. There will be a big market for both types. In the end: option b.) should emerge as the mass market in terms of volume due to lower cost and flexibility. 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course). That would only be true without the catalytic converter, it seems. Or do you have a reference for that? At any rate, if the backup ICE is seldom used, the issue is moot. 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a large fraction. In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly all electricity comes from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas. But even in those areas with nuclear power, many consumers would like to have the backup security of a small diesel. The SLA batteries which are used, would still charge at night, only for less time as they only need to give you half the range or less. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. JR: I doubt it. I have read they are about equal. Certainly not if the electricity if generated with uranium or wind. Electric power generation efficiency is improving faster than automobile engine efficiency, as old coal-fired plants are being phased out and more wind power comes on line. If the US builds 10 or 20 more nuclear power plants it will be very difficult for any form of ICE to rival electric power for low pollution. Again - this comparison is being mis-stated. It should not be about the PHEV compared to the ICE, but instead it is about the optimum design for a hydrid - which need NOT be the all battery PHEV version. A small ICE combined with maybe 6-8 standard SLA batteries makes the most sense of all IMHO -- even if the ICE (in reserve) is only used by the driver infrequently in fact, the goal would be to design it so that it used very infrequently, but it is still always there if you need it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Therefore, a small ICE will not work. For example, the Prius can travel at normal speed even without batteries, which happens in mountainous country when climbing a long hill. You would not want the speed to drop suddenly on a long hill. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle: a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt b.) and the other one operate on batteries most of the time, yet carrying a small diesel engine (motorcycle sized) to recharge the batteries in an emergency or for the occasional long trip. Due to the high cost of lithium batteries, option b.) would cost less, give greater security, and could be accomplished with low cost SLA batteries, for far less upfront cost than lithium. The downside of option b.) is that the diesel would need to come on for the last few miles of a long commute (but never for the trips to the grocery store etc.) Plus the big advantage is that option b.) is doable for probably $20,000 with SLA batteries- versus the lowest possible cost of the PHEV (which of course, will come down significantly once higher volume is achieved). Still many customer would rather have the security of NOT running out of juice on the freeway if the lithiums did not get a full charge; and another big advatave is being able to take a vacation by car without renting a vehicle to do it. And it is not either/or. There will be a big market for both types. In the end: option b.) should emerge as the mass market in terms of volume due to lower cost and flexibility. 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course). That would only be true without the catalytic converter, it seems. Or do you have a reference for that? At any rate, if the backup ICE is seldom used, the issue is moot. 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a large fraction. In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly all electricity comes from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas. But even in those areas with nuclear power, many consumers would like to have the backup security of a small diesel. The SLA batteries which are used, would still charge at night, only for less time as they only need to give you half the range or less. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. JR: I doubt it. I have read they are about equal. Certainly not if the electricity if generated with uranium or wind. Electric power generation efficiency is improving faster than automobile engine efficiency, as old coal-fired plants are being phased out and more wind power comes on line. If the US builds 10 or 20 more nuclear power plants it will be very difficult for any form of ICE to rival electric power for low pollution. Again - this comparison is being mis-stated. It should not be about the PHEV compared to the ICE, but instead it is about the optimum design for a hydrid - which need NOT be the all battery PHEV version. A small ICE combined with maybe 6-8 standard SLA batteries makes the most sense of all IMHO -- even if the ICE (in reserve) is only used by the driver infrequently in fact, the goal would be to design it so that it used very infrequently, but it is still always there if you need it. Jones
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Top Gear environmental edition. Includes serious analysis of Prius about halfway in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL9O1H9e1rA _ From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 September 2008 17:49 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Therefore, a small ICE will not work. For example, the Prius can travel at normal speed even without batteries, which happens in mountainous country when climbing a long hill. You would not want the speed to drop suddenly on a long hill. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle: a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt b.) and the other one operate on batteries most of the time, yet carrying a small diesel engine (motorcycle sized) to recharge the batteries in an emergency or for the occasional long trip. Due to the high cost of lithium batteries, option b.) would cost less, give greater security, and could be accomplished with low cost SLA batteries, for far less upfront cost than lithium. The downside of option b.) is that the diesel would need to come on for the last few miles of a long commute (but never for the trips to the grocery store etc.) Plus the big advantage is that option b.) is doable for probably $20,000 with SLA batteries- versus the lowest possible cost of the PHEV (which of course, will come down significantly once higher volume is achieved). Still many customer would rather have the security of NOT running out of juice on the freeway if the lithiums did not get a full charge; and another big advatave is being able to take a vacation by car without renting a vehicle to do it. And it is not either/or. There will be a big market for both types. In the end: option b.) should emerge as the mass market in terms of volume due to lower cost and flexibility. 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course). That would only be true without the catalytic converter, it seems. Or do you have a reference for that? At any rate, if the backup ICE is seldom used, the issue is moot. 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a large fraction. In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly all electricity comes from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas. But even in those areas with nuclear power, many consumers would like to have the backup security of a small diesel. The SLA batteries which are used, would still charge at night, only for less time as they only need to give you half the range or less. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. JR: I doubt it. I have read they are about equal. Certainly not if the electricity if generated with uranium or wind. Electric power generation efficiency is improving faster than automobile engine efficiency, as old coal-fired plants are being phased out and more wind power comes on line. If the US builds 10 or 20 more nuclear power plants it will be very difficult for any form of ICE to rival electric power for low pollution. Again - this comparison is being mis-stated. It should not be about the PHEV compared to the ICE, but instead it is about the optimum design for a hydrid - which need NOT be the all battery PHEV version. A small ICE combined with maybe 6-8 standard SLA batteries makes the most sense of all IMHO -- even if the ICE (in reserve) is only used by the driver infrequently in fact, the goal would be to design it so that it used very infrequently, but it is still always there if you need it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Really, serious? I get 48 m/g from the Prius in hilly country including going to Albuquerque at 75 m/h. Granted, I can't act like an idiot in a sports car. Nevertheless, I'm still able to buy both food and gas. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Top Gear environmental edition. Includes serious analysis of Prius about halfway in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL9O1H9e1rA From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 September 2008 17:49 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Therefore, a small ICE will not work. For example, the Prius can travel at normal speed even without batteries, which happens in mountainous country when climbing a long hill. You would not want the speed to drop suddenly on a long hill. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle: a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt b.) and the other one operate on batteries most of the time, yet carrying a small diesel engine (motorcycle sized) to recharge the batteries in an emergency or for the occasional long trip. Due to the high cost of lithium batteries, option b.) would cost less, give greater security, and could be accomplished with low cost SLA batteries, for far less upfront cost than lithium. The downside of option b.) is that the diesel would need to come on for the last few miles of a long commute (but never for the trips to the grocery store etc.) Plus the big advantage is that option b.) is doable for probably $20,000 with SLA batteries- versus the lowest possible cost of the PHEV (which of course, will come down significantly once higher volume is achieved). Still many customer would rather have the security of NOT running out of juice on the freeway if the lithiums did not get a full charge; and another big advatave is being able to take a vacation by car without renting a vehicle to do it. And it is not either/or. There will be a big market for both types. In the end: option b.) should emerge as the mass market in terms of volume due to lower cost and flexibility. 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course). That would only be true without the catalytic converter, it seems. Or do you have a reference for that? At any rate, if the backup ICE is seldom used, the issue is moot. 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a large fraction. In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly all electricity comes from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas. But even in those areas with nuclear power, many consumers would like to have the backup security of a small diesel. The SLA batteries which are used, would still charge at night, only for less time as they only need to give you half the range or less. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. JR: I doubt it. I have read they are about equal. Certainly not if the electricity if generated with uranium or wind. Electric power generation efficiency is improving faster than automobile engine efficiency, as old coal-fired plants are being phased out and more wind power comes on line. If the US builds 10 or 20 more nuclear power plants it will be very difficult for any form of ICE to rival electric power for low pollution. Again - this comparison is being mis-stated. It should not be about the PHEV compared to the ICE, but instead it is about the optimum design for a hydrid - which need NOT be the all battery PHEV version. A small ICE combined with maybe 6-8 standard SLA batteries makes the most sense of all IMHO -- even if the ICE (in reserve) is only used by the driver infrequently in fact, the goal would be to design it so that it used very infrequently, but it is still always there if you need it. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Ed, Once again - this is comparing apples to oranges. The current Prius is not really relevant to this market niche, which can be called the most efficient and affordable HEV. The Pius is really in a quasi-luxury niche and its present price indicates this. The goal is for double the mileage of the Prius. Of course the PHEV gets infinite mileage but that neglects the energy of the grid power. There is a good balance - which goes beyond what the current Prius can do, but does not require as long a range as the Volt. Toyota is moving in this direction already. Sure - the Prius has a large ICE now -- but that is primarily because it has an undersized electric motor. If and when the electric motor is properly sized for hills and for acceleration BY ITSELF -- then the backup ICE can be much smaller, since it does not ever power the vehicle directly.- and in fact it only powers a genset. when the batteries get low. The range on batteries will be half or less what the PHEV like the Volt must have and they do not need to lithium. Since the small ICE can operate at its most efficient rpm range, regardless of the slower speed of the car, then a smaller ICE is adequate for this design. After all - even a 500 cc motorcylce engine can produce 30 kW at its highest power - which is more than adequate for any hill with a small hybrid -- when the electric motor itself is correctly sized. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jones Beene wrote: Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle: a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt I don't understand the point here. The Volt doesn't operate solely on batteries: it's a serial hybrid, not a pure EV -- or so says everything I've read about it. Its range is hundreds of miles because it turns on a gasoline powered motor/generator after the first 40 miles. For people whose daily commute is 40miles you could say it operates solely on batteries, but then *any* PHEV can be said to operate solely on batteries if you take that tack -- you just need to carefully specify the range over which it's driven. The only differences I see here between the two cases you describe are that a) GM decided to use ritzy batteries (to get the gas-free range as high as possible, I suppose, or to get better performance as a result of a higher power/weight ratio with lithium versus lead, or maybe just to have someone else to blame if it doesn't work out) b) GM decided to use a gasoline engine rather than a diesel engine for the ICE part of the drive train They could have changed either (a) or (b) without fundamentally changing the car. Changing (a) from lithium to lead would have reduced the development risk but would have reduced the performance (either in gas-free range or in power) and so might have increased the risk of a marketplace flop. Changing (b) from gas to diesel would have increased the efficiency once you go out of battery range, but I doubt they care about that nearly as much as they care about the ease of finding a place to tank up -- diesel is inconvenient in many locations in the United States, and so would in turn increase the risk of a marketplace failure. Note that if the Volt succeeds, they can easily offer a diesel option later on. They could conceivably offer a lower-price (but reduced EV-only range) AGM or gel lead-acid option later on, as well -- the charging system needs to be replaced and the battery box redesigned, but maybe not much else. And, come to think of it, depending on how smart the electronics in the charging system are, maybe they don't even need to change that. The Volt we are hearing about is only their initial entry in the EV market. If it wins, there will be others. And if it loses, it probably didn't matter what it was anyway because that probably means they weren't really in back of it after all (or it means they ran out of money and went bust before it had a chance to take off). b.) and the other one operate on batteries most of the time, yet carrying a small diesel engine (motorcycle sized) to recharge the batteries in an emergency or for the occasional long trip. Due to the high cost of lithium batteries, option b.) would cost less, give greater security, and could be accomplished with low cost SLA batteries, for far less upfront cost than lithium. The downside of option b.) is that the diesel would need to come on for the last few miles of a long commute (but never for the trips to the grocery store etc.) Plus the big advantage is that option b.) is doable for probably $20,000 with SLA batteries- versus the lowest possible cost of the PHEV (which of course, will come down significantly once higher volume is achieved). Still many customer would rather have the security of NOT running out of juice on the freeway if the lithiums did not get a full charge; and another big advatave is being able to take a vacation by car without renting a vehicle to do it. And it is not either/or. There will be a big market for both types. In the end: option b.) should emerge as the mass market in terms of volume due to lower cost and flexibility. 2. Pollution abatement at most power plants is much better than for individual automobiles (except for CO2 of course). That would only be true without the catalytic converter, it seems. Or do you have a reference for that? At any rate, if the backup ICE is seldom used, the issue is moot. 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a large fraction. In some states, at nighttime when cars will be recharged, nearly all electricity comes from baseline nuclear power plants, or wind power in Texas. But even in those areas with nuclear power, many consumers would like to have the backup security of a small diesel. The SLA batteries which are used, would still charge at night, only for less time as they only need to give you half the range or less.
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jones Beene wrote: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains . . . Ah, yes. I see your point. I was comparing apples to oranges, and the correct comparison is Stayman Winesap apples to McIntosh apples. 3. A large fraction of electricity comes from pollution-free sources such as nuclear power and hydroelectricity. On a National average this is what? 35% in the USA ? This is not a large fraction. That's a little complicated. For all electricity, hydro plus nukes plus other renewables is 27.9%. See: http://www.eia.doe.gov/fuelelectric.html http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/electricity.cfm However for electricity at night in some geographic locations the numbers are quite different. At night they only leave on baseline generators which are mainly nuclear. In Texas a substantial fraction of electricity comes from wind and you cannot turn it off at night. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Hey man, liven up! Too po-faced. Heavy foot, lots of fuel use. The important bit was the mining of materials and its lifetime foot print. Off topic and maybe another thread, I have seen excessive free-marketers trying to blame the credit crunch on the Communities Reinvestment Act 1977. This act was meant to *force* banks to provide high risk loans in deprived areas. I just wanted a sounding because this seems to be blaming white collar crime on the poorest  the act has been around for 30 years so what happened. All the bailing out has been described as socialism or welfare for the rich. I guess itÂs the old saying  if you owe the bank ÂŁ1000 youÂre in trouble, if the bank owes ÂŁbillion then weÂre all in trouble. I believe this discussion is relevant to vortex because the balance between free-enterprise and state is relevant to science. I find the battle between the often maverick/cranky/innovative/sometimes plain wrong private sector and the staid/wasteful/political state sector fascinating and I have no answers. I can see merits in both approaches however, making a LHC (CERN/EU ÂŁ10billion) or colliding a refrigerator sized piece of copper into a comet (NASA ÂŁ330 million) is beyond me or paying millions to sh.t CEOs, movie stars, football players is too. Right now neither world view is winning my approval (vote). IÂm just intrigued at the chain of command and public inertia that letÂs things go on for so long. The partisan as opposed to the pragmatic on either side merely argue to protect their names and what was said before or a vested interest. I watch the battle between the global warming true believers and sceptics and see the knots they tie themselves in (both sides) trying to maintain a position which is indefensible: one side will try to claim that it is an absolute science and the other side usually have links to big oil. IsnÂt the best way to approach dichotomy pragmatism? - I have nothing to gain or lose from leaving a camp but everything to gain from progress. I mean blaming the credit crunch on poor blacks or Hispanics instead of white collar crime has a strong whiff of US racism. Yes some people lied about their earning potential but others were too eager to give out loans and then invent just plainly fraudulent financial instruments to hedge it. Or ever more cunning ways to deny the very probable man made global warming hypothesis (is that too weak now, ÂtheoryÂ?): urban heat island, active sun - or then saying anyone who criticises the research as being a big oil lackey. In short the modus operandi of most people (little people?) in all areas seems to be Âdefend the fort at all costsÂ. When the view that Âthat might be soÂ, Âworth looking atÂ, ÂIÂll take that on board is more constructive. IÂve never really understood the mentality of people who donÂt break ranks. Mavericks are gifted, brave, visionaries, bloody minded or mad. Often their beds are well feathered so no one can touch them or they have no responsibilities or dependents. So letÂs not be too hard on the Âlittle peopleÂ. They serve too those who stand and stare against the serving ones who leer and jeer. _ From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 September 2008 18:15 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars Really, serious? I get 48 m/g from the Prius in hilly country including going to Albuquerque at 75 m/h. Granted, I can't act like an idiot in a sports car. Nevertheless, I'm still able to buy both food and gas. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Remi Cornwall wrote: Top Gear environmental edition. Includes serious analysis of Prius about halfway in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL9O1H9e1rA _ From: Edmund Storms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 September 2008 17:49 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Cc: Edmund Storms Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Therefore, a small ICE will not work. For example, the Prius can travel at normal speed even without batteries, which happens in mountainous country when climbing a long hill. You would not want the speed to drop suddenly on a long hill. Ed On Sep 18, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Jones Beene wrote: Just to clear up a couple of points from Jed Rothwell's post: 1. Electric cars consume much less energy per mile so there is not as much pollution in the first place. This is not the correct comparison to make! Both future car designs, in the correct comparison, will be electric -- and will have identical drive trains -- so the energy per mile is identical; and the comparison then is between having one vehicle: a.) operate solely on batteries, such as the Volt b.) and the other one operate
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Edmund Storms wrote: A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Well, it would not need to recharge while going uphill. You can leave the batteries flat for a while. In the Volt, I believe electric motor drives the wheels at all times, and the ICE connects only to the batteries. So if the batteries are flat and you are going up a steep hill at a high speed, my guess is the ICE works as hard as it can and the batteries stay flat. When the Prius batteries are low, the car is sluggish on steep hills and the engine makes more noise than usual, but I have never had trouble keeping up with other cars at highway speeds in the Carolinas and Georgia where people drive ridiculously fast (like 85 mph in a 70 mph zone). There is a very steep, long section of highway on Rt. 77 north to Rt. 80 (North Carolina to Virginia) that I have often driven, without difficulty. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Remi Cornwall wrote: Top Gear environmental edition. Includes serious analysis of Prius about halfway in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL9O1H9e1rA The stuff about nickel is a lot of nonsense. It has been widely circulated by anti-Prius, anti environmentalists, such as George Will. The comparison driving at the track is complete garbage. At a racetrack speed who knows what a Prius gets but it is not designed for racetrack speeds. At normal speeds on level ground without stopping I routinely get 75 to 100 miles per gallon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
On Sep 18, 2008, at 12:26 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Well, it would not need to recharge while going uphill. You can leave the batteries flat for a while. In the Volt, I believe electric motor drives the wheels at all times, and the ICE connects only to the batteries. So if the batteries are flat and you are going up a steep hill at a high speed, my guess is the ICE works as hard as it can and the batteries stay flat. When the Prius batteries are low, the car is sluggish on steep hills and the engine makes more noise than usual, but I have never had trouble keeping up with other cars at highway speeds in the Carolinas and Georgia where people drive ridiculously fast (like 85 mph in a 70 mph zone). There is a very steep, long section of highway on Rt. 77 north to Rt. 80 (North Carolina to Virginia) that I have often driven, without difficulty. That has been my experience also. This means the engine has been sized to move the car at normal speed by itself. Any hybrid will need a big enough engine to do this. Otherwise, very few will be sold. The idea that a small engine starts charging the battery after the initial charge is used while the car is parked on the side of the road will not sell. Even if you keep moving, no one will want to go 55 mph while every one else is passing at 75 mph. Therefore, a lower limit is created for the size of the ICE, which is not small. Ed - Jed
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
I don't know who George Will is. Doesn't come up on my radar at all. I'll take what you say on board though. George Will... George Dubya... ??? -Original Message- From: Jed Rothwell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 18 September 2008 19:32 To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars Remi Cornwall wrote: Top Gear environmental edition. Includes serious analysis of Prius about halfway in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QL9O1H9e1rA The stuff about nickel is a lot of nonsense. It has been widely circulated by anti-Prius, anti environmentalists, such as George Will. The comparison driving at the track is complete garbage. At a racetrack speed who knows what a Prius gets but it is not designed for racetrack speeds. At normal speeds on level ground without stopping I routinely get 75 to 100 miles per gallon. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jed Rothwell wrote: Edmund Storms wrote: A point you all seem to miss is that the ICE must be large enough to move the car at normal speeds, including up hills when the batteries are dead, in addition, it needs to have some extra power to charge the battery at that time. Well, it would not need to recharge while going uphill. You can leave the batteries flat for a while. In the Volt, I believe electric motor drives the wheels at all times, and the ICE connects only to the batteries. Exactly. I have never seen this mentioned, but in principle the design could be described as very de-coupled, or modular. A Prius is like a rabbit -- those long ears are the temperature control system as well as a major hearing assist. You can't change one without affecting the other (not a good design, by human standards -- it makes it too hard to maintain). Similarly, in the Prius, the electric motor is also the generator which is used to recharge the batteries, the transmission does double duty as the pass-through coupling when it's in motor/generator mode, and the whole powertrain is a monolithic nightmare -- or so it appears looking in from the outside. Could Toyota easily bring out a diesel Prius? I have no idea, but it's certainly not a given. Conversely, in the Volt the ICE *just* drives a shaft which turns a generator. It should be easy to replace the ICE with just about any other engine, of any sort, which fits the form factor. You'd also need to change the gas tank if you went with something *totally* different but you still wouldn't need to touch the rest of the car. The generator is *just* a generator, and just charges the batteries. You could replace it with a different model without affecting the rest of the power train. The electric motor is *just* an electric motor. You could put in a bigger one or a smaller one or a totally different design (within the constraints of the motor control system) without affecting the charging system (er, except for the regen braking system ... but that could be dropped on the floor, at the penalty of ~ 10% or 20% battery-only range loss, and everything else would still be fine). Similarly, the batteries and charging system are designed to operate like a conventional car's batteries and charging system. There is no difficulty with tuning it to make better use of a wall-plug -- it's already set up that way. When you read how people converting Prius's to plug-in use sometimes add whole parallel battery systems, with the new system being charged from the wall while the old system goes on being kept at full charge by the motor, you realize that there are some serious issues with the integrated monolithic design of the electrical and charging systems in the Prius. Trying to get the onboard charging system to let the batteries *run down* under certain circumstances is apparently not trivial -- and if you can't do that, then you get home with a full charge and there's no point in plugging it in! So if the batteries are flat and you are going up a steep hill at a high speed, my guess is the ICE works as hard as it can and the batteries stay flat. When the Prius batteries are low, the car is sluggish on steep hills and the engine makes more noise than usual, but I have never had trouble keeping up with other cars at highway speeds in the Carolinas and Georgia where people drive ridiculously fast (like 85 mph in a 70 mph zone). There is a very steep, long section of highway on Rt. 77 north to Rt. 80 (North Carolina to Virginia) that I have often driven, without difficulty. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
- Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence I have never seen this mentioned, but in principle the design could be described as very de-coupled, or modular. They are not calling it a 'hybrid' for a number of marketing reasons, preferring to call it an electric vehicle with a range extender. My major point is that they do NOT need a 40 mile range with expensive lithium batteries! The Volt motor specs are: 111 kW (150 hp) electric motor 1.4 L 4-cylinder gasoline engine for 53 kW genset. All I am suggesting to do - to make this concept more affordable to the average Joe, is to: 1) dump the lithium in favor of advanced SLA 2) go for a battery range of 20 miles instead of 40 miles (20 was the range of the VH-1) which covers most day-to-day errands and short commutes 3) keep the electric motor the same size 4) trim the 4-cylinder down in power and weight to about 35 kW and make it a diesel, possibly a two cylinder diesel. I believe this would cut $10,000 off the cost of batteries - making the vehicle affordable for a much larger segment of drivers. Compared to the present Prius, the smaller diesel will get significantly better mileage. If the driver knows he is needing to go hundered of miles in a day, he will have to plan ahead - but can set the genset to max power, and override the normal default setting and keep the batteries topped off as long as possible. Even so, he might need to stop for an intermediate range plug-in for a few hours. That would be the trade-off vis-a-vis a Prius. I am not sure who came up with this idea initially - but they were claiming that it could get to 100 mpg, which of course becomes meaningless without knowing how much grid power is used, Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Based on recent history, you probably know more about optimal market positioning of new cars than GM's marketing department (and I am not being snide here). So you may very well be right. In their defense, GM is trying to make the biggest splash and largest success they can with with what I will again point out is their *INITIAL* offering in this market. If they succeed in this, then it will almost surely not be their *FINAL* EV offering. Clearly their marketing department thought they would be better off positioning it as being high performance, long range, and totally convenient, rather than pretty good performance, pretty good range, and not as convenient as an old fashioned car. (And maybe Bob Lutz wanted it to be an electric viper -- whatever...) The downside is that: * They may end up pricing it too high as a result, and losing a large chunk of the market the could have had; * They may end up pricing it too low and losing money on every one they sell as a result (if they do it right they can price it too high *and* lose money at the same time); * The delays which result from going for a perfect car may be so long they miss the market window, and have to play catch-up to nimble-and-hungry Nissan; * Finally, they may never get another chance; this looks like the bottom of the ninth and two out for GM. Swing and miss, swing and miss, swing and...and so they are trying for a home run. As we all know, home run hitters typically have lousy batting averages, 'cause they strike out a lot. Historically I detest GM but in this case I hope they get their home run. Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence I have never seen this mentioned, but in principle the design could be described as very de-coupled, or modular. They are not calling it a 'hybrid' for a number of marketing reasons, preferring to call it an electric vehicle with a range extender. My major point is that they do NOT need a 40 mile range with expensive lithium batteries! The Volt motor specs are: 111 kW (150 hp) electric motor 1.4 L 4-cylinder gasoline engine for 53 kW genset. All I am suggesting to do - to make this concept more affordable to the average Joe, is to: 1) dump the lithium in favor of advanced SLA 2) go for a battery range of 20 miles instead of 40 miles (20 was the range of the VH-1) which covers most day-to-day errands and short commutes 3) keep the electric motor the same size 4) trim the 4-cylinder down in power and weight to about 35 kW and make it a diesel, possibly a two cylinder diesel. I believe this would cut $10,000 off the cost of batteries - making the vehicle affordable for a much larger segment of drivers. Compared to the present Prius, the smaller diesel will get significantly better mileage. If the driver knows he is needing to go hundered of miles in a day, he will have to plan ahead - but can set the genset to max power, and override the normal default setting and keep the batteries topped off as long as possible. Even so, he might need to stop for an intermediate range plug-in for a few hours. That would be the trade-off vis-a-vis a Prius. I am not sure who came up with this idea initially - but they were claiming that it could get to 100 mpg, which of course becomes meaningless without knowing how much grid power is used, Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
On Sep 18, 2008, at 1:16 PM, Jones Beene wrote: - Original Message From: Stephen A. Lawrence I have never seen this mentioned, but in principle the design could be described as very de-coupled, or modular. They are not calling it a 'hybrid' for a number of marketing reasons, preferring to call it an electric vehicle with a range extender. My major point is that they do NOT need a 40 mile range with expensive lithium batteries! The Volt motor specs are: 111 kW (150 hp) electric motor 1.4 L 4-cylinder gasoline engine for 53 kW genset. So, taking your numbers, they use the same size engine as in a Prius. The only difference is the way they couple the engine power to the wheels. The question is, Is this method more efficient and lighter than the way Toyota does the job? Otherwise, the behavior should be similar. Meanwhile both Toyota and GM are adding capacity by adding batteries. As a result we have a battery race, not a new concept. Toyota will win because they will be at least as efficient, but cheaper and more reliable. Ed All I am suggesting to do - to make this concept more affordable to the average Joe, is to: 1) dump the lithium in favor of advanced SLA 2) go for a battery range of 20 miles instead of 40 miles (20 was the range of the VH-1) which covers most day-to-day errands and short commutes 3) keep the electric motor the same size 4) trim the 4-cylinder down in power and weight to about 35 kW and make it a diesel, possibly a two cylinder diesel. At that power, the car will have a hard time keeping up with traffic when the batteries are exhausted. This would be the death of the idea. I believe this would cut $10,000 off the cost of batteries - making the vehicle affordable for a much larger segment of drivers. Compared to the present Prius, the smaller diesel will get significantly better mileage. If the driver knows he is needing to go hundered of miles in a day, he will have to plan ahead - but can set the genset to max power, and override the normal default setting and keep the batteries topped off as long as possible. Even so, he might need to stop for an intermediate range plug-in for a few hours. That would be the trade-off vis-a-vis a Prius. This is too complicated for most people. Too many would fail to do this and end up asking for help from their husbands. :-) I am not sure who came up with this idea initially - but they were claiming that it could get to 100 mpg, which of course becomes meaningless without knowing how much grid power is used, Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Edmund Storms wrote: 4) trim the 4-cylinder down in power and weight to about 35 kW and make it a diesel, possibly a two cylinder diesel. At that power, the car will have a hard time keeping up with traffic when the batteries are exhausted. This would be the death of the idea. 35 kW = 47 HP. I have a 1994 Geo Metro with a 3-cylinder 55 HP motor. It has lost umph over the years, but even when it was new, it was scary to drive at highway speeds in Atlanta. Going up a moderate hill with the accelerator fully floored the traffic would fly by me. Going up the hill south of Chattanooga was scary. As I recall it was barely making 50 mph. (That hill is famously steep and long. The Union Infantry took it in a famous battle in the Civil War. It is hard to believe anyone run up to the top fully armed and then storm the lines at the top.) The Metro is a fine car for the city, but impractical for the highway. Turn on the air conditioning and it drops 5 mph. It gets excellent mileage though! Around 35 mpg in the city, and supposedly 42 mpg on the highway, with a 5-speed manual transmission. Fun to drive, too. Much safer than a motorcycle, as I tell my wife. Specs here: http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/1990-to-1994-geo-metro-6.htm I doubt that the Volt will be lighter or significantly more aerodynamic than the Metro, so I doubt that 35 kW would be enough. It would be marginal. The Prius ICE is variously quoted at 57 kW (76 HP) to 82 kW (109 HP). Maybe it depends upon the model year. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
- Original Message From: Edmund Storms So, taking your numbers, they use the same size engine as in a Prius. The only difference is the way they couple the engine power to the wheels. The question is, Is this method more efficient and lighter than the way Toyota does the job? It appears to be better for two well-known reasons. First - electric motors give highest torque at 0 rpm and with gas engines it is usually over 2000 rpm, and consequently gas engines are inefficient in accelerating from a stop. Prius' present electric motor is too small to make a difference there. Secondly, gas engines are more efficient when run at a fixed rpm, and the genset permits this -- and GM has gone one more step by making the torque curve and power curve overlap at the fixed engine speed which saves the most fuel; Prius can't do that without an infinitely variable transmission. These may come out soom however. Then it will get down to cost. Plus GM has coupled their electric motor to some kind of special transmission for high speed. As for only ~35 kW from the ICE genset possibly being enough, or not -- when admittedly this is too little power for use with a normal drivetrain and transmission - this may also get back to the genset delivering the full amount of power- at all times regardless of the speed of the vehicle. Perhaps the genset requirement can be less than suspected with this kind of large electric motor as the main feature. IOW the electric motor plus batteries make it seems like you have 3 times more power when you need it on hills - that your genset can put out. When we we talking about this subject a year ago, before the Volt was even firmed up - it seemed that a good choice for the backup ICE would be the Wankel -- which is not normally though of as being green primarily because it is especially sensitive to having a preferred rotational speed (and it is a high speed) where it becomes efficient, when otherwise it is notably inefficient except in that narrow range. This is apparently due to the seals working best when they are compressed at high rpm. It is a gas guzzler when it must operate over a wide range of speeds, however, and this has limited it sales. It appears from the blip below that Mazda is about ready to introduce a Volt clone with said Wankel driving the genset -- and this makes sense due to the reduced weight and high rpm capability. Plus of all engine designs, the Wankel is the one which runs especially well on hydrogen - and so long as it can be a fixed speed only implementation - well - this could be part of the reason Mazda is choosing it over their 4-cylinder to compete with the Volt. http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle.aspx?AR=234607
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Hypothetically speaking... Two subtle questions: (1) If cost were no object, and sufficient numbers of American consumers could afford to purchase HYBRID cars would we be able to eventually stop importing foreign oil? (2) If cost were no object, and sufficient numbers of American consumers could afford to purchase PLUGIN cars would we be able to eventually stop importing foreign oil? What say the experts? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
2008/9/18 Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: IOW the electric motor plus batteries make it seems like you have 3 times more power when you need it on hills - that your genset can put out. Jones, the idea kind of made sense to me up to now, but Ed's sensible objection is that IF your battery is empty --which BTW is most probably the case otherwise you wouldn't be running on the genset-- then you don't have enough power to keep up with the traffic. Isn't he right to conclude that the genset must be able to provide the full power, as it does on the GM Volt? Michel
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jones Beene wrote: It appears to be better for two well-known reasons. First - electric motors give highest torque at 0 rpm and with gas engines it is usually over 2000 rpm, and consequently gas engines are inefficient in accelerating from a stop. Prius' present electric motor is too small to make a difference there. That is way wrong. From 0 to 30 mph, the Prius accelerates faster than a high performance Volvo sedan or BMW. (I have driven all three.) On a short highway merge such as the Washington Beltway, from a standing start to highway speed, you can really feel the electric motor kicking in. It is as fast as the Volvo. Secondly, gas engines are more efficient when run at a fixed rpm, and the genset permits this . . . So does the Prius transmission. Plus GM has coupled their electric motor to some kind of special transmission for high speed. The Prius transmission is radically different from previous ones and it is incredibly efficient. I have read that it is unlikely anything better could be designed with today's technology. The motor is couples directly to the drivetrain with little loss. I doubt you could make something as efficient going from ICE to battery to electric motor. As for only ~35 kW from the ICE genset possibly being enough, or not -- when admittedly this is too little power for use with a normal drivetrain and transmission - this may also get back to the genset delivering the full amount of power- at all times regardless of the speed of the vehicle. Perhaps the genset requirement can be less than suspected with this kind of large electric motor as the main feature. IOW the electric motor plus batteries make it seems like you have 3 times more power when you need it on hills - that your genset can put out. Ed's point -- and mine -- is that you cannot count on having the electric motor plus batteries on hills. The moment the batteries drain, you are in serious trouble. I mean life-threatening trouble. Where Ed lives the hills are very steep, and 10 or 20 miles long in places. You have to have an ICE capable of carrying the entire load up the steepest hill at maximum speed. (In a Prius, the maximum speed is 106 miles an hour as I recall. The computer will not let it go faster. The tires are not rated for higher speeds.) When the Prius battery drains going uphill, the car does not stop or slow down a bit, because it is all computer regulated -- there is no mechanical connection from the accelerator pedal to the gasoline supply throttle as far as I know. It is fly-by-wire. The computer screen on the dashboard shows that the battery is drained, and the engine immediately starts to make much more noise. Acceleration becomes more sluggish. The Prius gas pedal has a peculiar quality that I described in my book. When you first shift the transmission into drive, which is also an imaginary fly-by-wire operation, and you take your foot off the brake, the car begins to creep forward like a car with an automatic transmission. You do not need to press the gas pedal. Of course this is purely the way it is programmed. They could just as easily make the car stand stock still until you press the gas pedal. There is no danger the car will roll backwards the way it does with a manual transmission. However, people are used to cars creeping forward, so they made this one emulate an automatic transmission. In my book, chapter 7, I described this: New technology often imitates older forms, even when it would work better if it did not. . . . With ingenuity and extra effort, the limitations of the old [are] imposed on the new. I read about an absurd version this with automobile transmissions. In the Atlanta Journal-Constitution in 2006, they described a continuously variable transmission (CVT) with no discrete gears, like the Prius one. Quote: While very efficient -- the engine always operates in the sweet spot -- the CVT car does not offer the customary jolt as it accelerates. They feel like they do not shift, says Brauer of Edmunds.com. It disturbs people. Designers are even trying to develop a CVT with an artificial shift tilt to make it more acceptable to drivers, Whitsitt says. There was no need to have a clunk. I expect it will cause mechanical troubles and reduce efficiency. When you drive a Prius it takes about five minutes to get used to the CVT and the fact that it does not clunk. I hate to think of these engineers wasting their time making the machine work less well. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
OrionWorks wrote: (1) If cost were no object, and sufficient numbers of American consumers could afford to purchase HYBRID cars would we be able to eventually stop importing foreign oil? No. Hybrid technology is close to maturity already, at ~50 miles per gallon. That is better than double the average US automobile, but probably not enough to eliminate all imports. Anyway, I do not think companies will be making non-plug-in hybrids much longer. It doesn't make sense. (2) If cost were no object, and sufficient numbers of American consumers could afford to purchase PLUGIN cars would we be able to eventually stop importing foreign oil? Yes. We could join OPEC and export about half of the oil we produce. That's my calculation; other analyses come out lower, but all agree that plug in hybrids could eliminate oil imports. As the technology matures we could export 90% of it, but of course by that time people everywhere else in the world would also be using plug-in hybrid cars and the market for gasoline would collapse. As the technology matures even more, it is likely that batteries will improve so much that we can dispense with the gasoline motor and make a purely electric vehicle. That will eliminate the need for gasoline, obviously. What say the experts? What I just said. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars, supercharger boost
Haven't been following the thread too closely. It seems to all be coming down to this genset trickle charge or combined electric motor and ICE, fixed rpm/all electric transmission/CVT. If the ICE is a bit puny and dangerous in situations when the battery is depleted why not fit a supercharger boost which could be computer controlled via a kick down of the accelerator to give life saving boost? Very high volumetric efficient engines can squeeze out over 100BHp (75kW) per litre.
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Hi Michel Ed's sensible objection is that IF your battery is empty -- which BTW is most probably the case otherwise you wouldn't be running on the genset. Whoa - Michel, that is the totally wrong assumption. The genset cuts-in much sooner; the battery cannot be allowed to ever go empty as this is harmful ! But unlike the Prius (where the motor kicks in for every hill) the Volt genset only kicks in when the battery array gets to a certain level - say 50% depletion. I do not know the actual number but it is much higher than you are thinking. IOW Long before the batteries are completely empty, the genset comes on and stays on at **full speed** until they are brought back up to a preset value of charge by an onboard computer. The arrangement is designed so that the *average requirement* of power is met by the genset (or more), instead of the peak requirement. Of course, there could be a situation where the driver wants to draw more than the average for a very long time-- say to go 100 mph, well over the speed limit in most places - and in that case, the Volt (or an optimized volt-clone) is not a good choice. You cannot please everyone. In a normal ICE you may need 100 kW of peak power to go from say 0-60 in ten seconds. With the Volt you can do this repeatedly, since you electric motor is sufficient, even though your genset is too small by half. And the genset will kick in and recharge long before the batteries are drained. OK - Can we go from there to needing significantly less than half of the peak power requirement? That is an interesting question because the hypothesis that you can do it technically might not give the driver the feel that he needs for a surge of on demand power. IOW the issue would be this. If the average power required for all driving is 35 kW over an extended period - for a light car of say 3000 pounds; (and that figure has been published) - yet - the peak required for hills and passing is 100 kW - then can you get by with the very minimum in your genset, or do you need to pad that up to 53 kW, as the Volt is doing? Isn't he right to conclude that the genset must be able to provide the full power, as it does on the GM Volt? No, not full power if by that you mean peak or should I say: Yes and no. He is correct to conclude that the genset must be able to provide the average power but not the peak power. However, from there-on your (not Ed's) second assumption that the GM Volt needs 53 kW for full power is incorrect. It needs far more than that for peak power, and less than that number for average power. Get it? AFAIK from published figures, a car in this weight range and air resistance etc. needs much less than 53 kW for average power and close to 35 Kw, which is the number chosen because this has appeared in print -- but please -- feel free to correct that number, if you can find an actual test or evidence which proves it to be wrong. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In reply to Michel Jullian's message of Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:38:19 +0200: Hi, 2008/9/18 Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: IOW the electric motor plus batteries make it seems like you have 3 times more power when you need it on hills - that your genset can put out. Jones, the idea kind of made sense to me up to now, but Ed's sensible objection is that IF your battery is empty --which BTW is most probably the case otherwise you wouldn't be running on the genset-- then you don't have enough power to keep up with the traffic. Isn't he right to conclude that the genset must be able to provide the full power, as it does on the GM Volt? Michel Not necessarily. If the trip computer knows in advance that you are going to take a long trip, then the gas engine can be turned on immediately at the start of the trip, recharging the batteries continuously, rather than waiting till they are near empty. This extends the range of the batteries, and still only requires a small gas engine while the electric motors provide full power the whole time. The trick is for the trip computer to know in advance when to turn on the gas engine. This would be possible for a vehicle with a GPS system. You tell the computer your destination before starting, and whether or not you can recharge at your destination, and it calculates when to turn on the engine, based upon the current state of charge in the batteries. It would also make sense to have a set of preprogrammed destinations (like preprogrammed radio stations, or a better analogy might be programmed cooking schemes in a microwave), for places that you visit frequently. The general idea of course is to delay the engine start as long as possible, while ensuring that the driver experiences no inconvenience. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars, Atkinson, Miller cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_NZ_engine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atkinson_cycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_cycle
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Kind of a silly question. We have enough natural resources here to stop importing foreign oil any time we want. We just don't really want to. Our actions, not our pontificating give that away. The grand irony is I believe the enviro-fascists are the biggest culprits who keep us locked into this dependency mode. They have successfully prevented developing any/all domestic production capacity of any kind for over 30 years. Even 'clean' hydro, wind, solar are blocked because of the habitat impact on some flipping lizard, tadpole, bat, snail, or obscure prairie plant. Last time I checked evolution is not anywhere near that considerate... adapting to sudden extreme change is par for the course, not the exception. That said, I hope we really are heating up the planet (though I know it is hubris to think so). We are going to need to dump as much methane CO2 as we can into the atmosphere just to temper the severe climate changes the coming reduced solar output and pending ice age are going to bring in the next century. Our grandkids will thank us some day. I also place blame at the feet of the pathological liberalists amongst us who have no concept of (or who are in complete denial of) basic economic, technological, and scientific principals; supply and demand, cause and effect, premise and conclusion, structured problem solving, etc. Very quick to tell me how I must limit my life 'for the greater good', but adamant about the messy bits of their utopian plan not any where near their backyard. How many of the do-gooders would still gladly switch to plug-ins if it meant a nuke plant needed to be built at the end of their street to feed the little beasties? I think we all know the answer to that... NIMBY! Oil is not the enemy. It's just a convenient target of the truly ignorant. You want energy independence? Attack the most dangerous members of our society who stand in the way of it 'for the greater good'. -j -- From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars Hypothetically speaking... Two subtle questions: (1) If cost were no object, and sufficient numbers of American consumers could afford to purchase HYBRID cars would we be able to eventually stop importing foreign oil? (2) If cost were no object, and sufficient numbers of American consumers could afford to purchase PLUGIN cars would we be able to eventually stop importing foreign oil? What say the experts? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Yeah right on John. Christ, 2.10am watching Terminator 2 and a funding interview tomorrow! Guess I think subconsciously that nothing will come of it. -Original Message- From: John Steck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 19 September 2008 01:57 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars Kind of a silly question. We have enough natural resources here to stop importing foreign oil any time we want. We just don't really want to. Our actions, not our pontificating give that away. The grand irony is I believe the enviro-fascists are the biggest culprits who keep us locked into this dependency mode. They have successfully prevented developing any/all domestic production capacity of any kind for over 30 years. Even 'clean' hydro, wind, solar are blocked because of the habitat impact on some flipping lizard, tadpole, bat, snail, or obscure prairie plant. Last time I checked evolution is not anywhere near that considerate... adapting to sudden extreme change is par for the course, not the exception. That said, I hope we really are heating up the planet (though I know it is hubris to think so). We are going to need to dump as much methane CO2 as we can into the atmosphere just to temper the severe climate changes the coming reduced solar output and pending ice age are going to bring in the next century. Our grandkids will thank us some day. I also place blame at the feet of the pathological liberalists amongst us who have no concept of (or who are in complete denial of) basic economic, technological, and scientific principals; supply and demand, cause and effect, premise and conclusion, structured problem solving, etc. Very quick to tell me how I must limit my life 'for the greater good', but adamant about the messy bits of their utopian plan not any where near their backyard. How many of the do-gooders would still gladly switch to plug-ins if it meant a nuke plant needed to be built at the end of their street to feed the little beasties? I think we all know the answer to that... NIMBY! Oil is not the enemy. It's just a convenient target of the truly ignorant. You want energy independence? Attack the most dangerous members of our society who stand in the way of it 'for the greater good'. -j -- From: OrionWorks [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 4:20 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars Hypothetically speaking... Two subtle questions: (1) If cost were no object, and sufficient numbers of American consumers could afford to purchase HYBRID cars would we be able to eventually stop importing foreign oil? (2) If cost were no object, and sufficient numbers of American consumers could afford to purchase PLUGIN cars would we be able to eventually stop importing foreign oil? What say the experts? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Slight digression: Your comments about average versus peak draw reminded me of something I learned of long ago. When an automobile engine is place in a boat, it is grossly *de-rated*. Back in the old carburetor days, an engine that could be equipped with a 2 or 4 barrel carb in a car might carry a 1 barrel carb in a boat -- and take the attendant power hit. The reason is that in a boat, you operate the engine at full power, or nearly full power, for extended periods. Boats don't coast (much), and boats never go downhill. When the engine stops, the boat *stops* -- if you've ever been in a cabin cruiser with good sized engines running along at planing speed and switched off the engines, you know what I mean: The boat almost instantly falls off the plane and reverts to displacement mode, in which its top speed is far lower than what can be achieved with a lot of power and some trim tabs. Folks who are standing up in the boat when this is done may just fall right over (and then they tend to get suddenly very rude -- it's not an experiment one tends to try more than once, at least not without warning the passengers). An automobile engine operated in this mode for extended periods burns up in short order. So, when you drop a big V-8 into a boat, at least if it's a factory conversion, it'll get a tiny carburetor stuck on it to keep the owner from ruining it. (If it's a backyard conversion that's something else again.) And this really brings home the fact that automobile engines are just *loafing* nearly all the time, and in fact their design *depends* on that fact. You cannot operate a 250 HP auto engine in a mode where you pull 250 HP out of it continuously and expect to get anything like its rated lifetime from it. With intelligent electronics which won't take the battery pack below, say, half charge, you should be able to get away with a 30 or 40 horse genset and *never* *ever* feel the lack, even if your electric motor is a 150 horse monster -- because you'll never be drawing more than a fraction of that power from it for more than short periods. I can't accept Jed's implicit assertion that you need to be able to cruise up hill at 106 MPH (You have to have an ICE capable of carrying the entire load up the steepest hill at maximum speed, he said) -- 99.9% of the owners never do that, and 100% of them *should* never do that. Furthermore, I seriously doubt even as many as 2% of the owners will ever hold the pedal to the metal long enough to get it up to 106 MPH even once. Short bursts of perhaps 20 or 30 seconds is all the time normal drivers normally spend pulling full power out of an automobile engine, unless it's a low-power 4 cylinder or small 6 cylinder engine. BTW did you know that when you actually draw a good fraction of your motor's power, the AC (probably) cuts out? This is pretty much standard behavior these days - it's how you can have a pig of an AC unit and yet never notice the power loss: Whenever you need the power the AC clutch lets go and gives it to you. And yet most people never notice the loss of AC, either, because the time one spends actually asking the engine to work hard is such a small fraction of the time spent driving. In short, the need to run at full power for extended periods with totally dead batteries is a straw man.
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:57 PM, John Steck wrote: Kind of a silly question. We have enough natural resources here to stop importing foreign oil any time we want. We just don't really want to. Our actions, not our pontificating give that away. The grand irony is I believe the enviro-fascists are the biggest culprits who keep us locked into this dependency mode. They have successfully prevented developing any/all domestic production capacity of any kind for over 30 years. Even 'clean' hydro, wind, solar are blocked because of the habitat impact on some flipping lizard, tadpole, bat, snail, or obscure prairie plant. Last time I checked evolution is not anywhere near that considerate... adapting to sudden extreme change is par for the course, not the exception. That said, I hope we really are heating up the planet (though I know it is hubris to think so). We are going to need to dump as much methane CO2 as we can into the atmosphere just to temper the severe climate changes the coming reduced solar output and pending ice age are going to bring in the next century. Our grandkids will thank us some day. I also place blame at the feet of the pathological liberalists amongst us who have no concept of (or who are in complete denial of) basic economic, technological, and scientific principals; supply and demand, cause and effect, premise and conclusion, structured problem solving, etc. Very quick to tell me how I must limit my life 'for the greater good', but adamant about the messy bits of their utopian plan not any where near their backyard. How many of the do-gooders would still gladly switch to plug-ins if it meant a nuke plant needed to be built at the end of their street to feed the little beasties? I think we all know the answer to that... NIMBY! Oil is not the enemy. It's just a convenient target of the truly ignorant. You want energy independence? Attack the most dangerous members of our society who stand in the way of it 'for the greater good'. -j Hi John, Oh dear, I think I might be one of those proud card carrying enviro-fascist pathological liberalists. How did you figure out our diabolical scheme to take control America, our plan to send the planet back to those simpler times of the ice ages. What should I do? I don't wish to be attacked by true Americans. How can I redeem myself. Do tell. No more tofu for me tonight. Screw all those leaping lizards, spotted owls, snail darters - and drill, baby, drill! Tomorrow I'll call my broker and tell him to sell off my entire portfolio manufacturing base of Yak Tracks made out of 100% recycled Goodyear re-treads. Things had looked so promising! Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/OrionWorks
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 18 Sep 2008 12:16:15 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] All I am suggesting to do - to make this concept more affordable to the average Joe, is to: 1) dump the lithium in favor of advanced SLA 2) go for a battery range of 20 miles instead of 40 miles (20 was the range of the VH-1) which covers most day-to-day errands and short commutes I suspect the rationale is that they want to save as much gas as possible. If the average round trip commute is 40 miles, then cutting the all electric range to 20 miles would result on average in at most a 50% reduction in gas usage. By making the all electric range 40 miles OTOH, the average reduction is almost 100%. That makes a big difference in the dependence on imported fuel. 3) keep the electric motor the same size 4) trim the 4-cylinder down in power and weight to about 35 kW and make it a diesel, possibly a two cylinder diesel. I believe this would cut $10,000 off the cost of batteries - making the vehicle affordable for a much larger segment of drivers. Compared to the present Prius, the smaller diesel will get significantly better mileage. [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
See: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news/message/999 Calcars-news is the place to go for PHEV info. They have more in-depth technical details than news organizations do. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Original Message From: Jed Rothwell http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news/message/999 Calcars-news is the place to go for PHEV info. They have more in-depth technical details than news organizations do. Thanks for mentioning this group. Just signed up, and it looks like some excellent info. Here is their web site - with more info and a pic of Felix Warner et al. and the initiative which both candidates will likely fully support in one form or another. http://www.calcars.org/about.html McCain should be credited with his specific support for the Chevy Volt: the future of America and the world. even though Obama's plan for stimulating plug-in purchases is more generous. Here is the 'Felicitous' message on where the candidates stand on these issues: http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news/message/995 BTW - as far as a more focused National plan - going into the elections - which promotes plug-ins as well as the American economy (but not necessarily US car companies) -- it would seem prudent to limit the tax credit to ONLY cars which are cdrtified as assembled in the USA -- and not to imports. That would probably violate some trade treaties, but if they want to complain, let them. The great thing about the USA in these kinds of negotiations is that we can essentially do what we want, since most of them have a positive trade balance with us anyway - and they cannot put that at risk, no matter how hard they complain in public. Plus like the massive new VW plant going into Chattanooga, TN - this will stimulate overseas companies to invest here instead of elsewhere. Toyota has said in the past that their highest quality manufacturing plants are in the USA, not Japan. [superfluous anti-conflomerate - ant-Lutz comment follows] It is generally the fat and lazy conglomerates like GM - who have failed the US economy, and not our workers. IOW the probelm has been lack of vision and lack of brain-power not Unions or wages. Anyone on this forum could easily have foreseen the problem of over-reliance on fossil fuel, aggravated by gas-guzzlers - and the record indicates that (even though we might have thought it would take a little longer to materialize). Had GM fired Lutz-the-Putz years ago, back when he was strongly dissing the Prius and spouting the gas-guzzler SUV spiel (epitomized in the Hummer, Suburban, Yukon, Escalade etc. legacy -- which is the Lutz legacy of 10 mpg) ... and instead had put a man of vision in his place - the Volt (which is a great leap forward) would already be seen on our roads as frequently as the Prius -- and GM would not be facing bankruptcy due to investment in these dinosaurs -- which they can hardly give away these days. Peter Principle at work. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
On Sep 17, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Jones Beene wrote: snip Had GM fired Lutz-the-Putz years ago, back when he was strongly dissing the Prius and spouting the gas-guzzler SUV spiel (epitomized in the Hummer, Suburban, Yukon, Escalade etc. legacy -- which is the Lutz legacy of 10 mpg) ... and instead had put a man of vision in his place - the Volt (which is a great leap forward) would already be seen on our roads as frequently as the Prius -- and GM would not be facing bankruptcy due to investment in these dinosaurs -- which they can hardly give away these days. Peter Principle at work. Well jones, you can see the basic financial philosophy at work here and in the mortgage industry. Yeas ago, the US moved from being based on rational long term investing to short term advantage to the stockholders of corporations. Lutz was simply playing by the rules. The Hummers et al. were selling well at that time. He could not risk making less money in the short term to gain advantage in the long term. That would have made Wall Street mad and he would have been kicked out then. Thanks to the way our system is now structured, we are destined to pass through these booms and busts as the results of short term decisions must be corrected by obvious consequences. Any attempt to change the system is considered unAmerican. This process will slowly weaken the US with respect to countries that take a longer view and eventually we will drop to the bottom of the pecking order. The present situation may be the start of such a slide. Unfortunately, the general public, which is the only force that can counter Wall Street, is too ignorant to have any effect. They will simply go down with the ship, as the passengers always do, while the captain and crew take to the life boats. Ed Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Jed wrote; http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news/message/999 Calcars-news is the place to go for PHEV info. They have more in-depth technical details than news organizations do. I find this an exciting development. I hope GM can deliver. The 40 mile electric range would not quite cover my commute round-trip, but I could charge the car again at work and would be willing to offer this at no cost to my employees who have PHEVs. I'll bet practically every employer would like to offer the same. Can you imagine the drop in gasoline consumption? Already, my employees who have giant SUVs and trucks are leaving them at home and driving high-mileage compacts to work. (It's, uh my daughter's car.) They seem to be mildly embarrassed about this. M.
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Cost of ownership of the Volt will justify the capital investment. They're only building 10,000 to begin. You can lock one in still. Terry On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 5:15 PM, Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Michael Foster wrote: I find this an exciting development. I hope GM can deliver. The 40 mile electric range would not quite cover my commute round-trip . . . It is exciting, but unfortunately the car is slated to cost ~$40,000 so they will not sell many. It a luxury market product, for wealthy people who want to help the environment. Perhaps they have leeway to lower the price. It does not seem to be especially complicated or expensive technology. But my guess is that they will charge what the market will bear (the highest price they can). I doubt they want to sell large numbers of a radically new design at first. There are bound to be problems and recalls. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
In contrast, Toyota sold the Prius at a loss at first and provided a very good insurance policy that covered any flaw or inconvenience, including free oil change. A person had nothing to lose by trying out the new technology. Meanwhile, by the time the Volt hits the market, the Prius will be half its price and be totally proven in its behavior. Guess what will happen to GM. Ed On Sep 17, 2008, at 4:15 PM, Jed Rothwell wrote: Michael Foster wrote: I find this an exciting development. I hope GM can deliver. The 40 mile electric range would not quite cover my commute round-trip . . . It is exciting, but unfortunately the car is slated to cost ~$40,000 so they will not sell many. It a luxury market product, for wealthy people who want to help the environment. Perhaps they have leeway to lower the price. It does not seem to be especially complicated or expensive technology. But my guess is that they will charge what the market will bear (the highest price they can). I doubt they want to sell large numbers of a radically new design at first. There are bound to be problems and recalls. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
- Original Message From: Terry Blanton Cost of ownership of the Volt will justify the capital investment. ONLY if the batteries have a rock-solid replacement guarantee, and can actually exceed it - allowing one to write off the investment over many years. Anyone know what the guarantee details will be - for full replacement, or the expected life? Given the history of lithium batteries in laptop computers, this is scary. You simply cannot expect the lifetime of lithiums to be any more than the guarantee. Sony was saying improved for years in laptops before it turned out to be same-old, same-old. Over half the cost of the Volt is probably in the batteries, and if they need to be replaced in 4 years at $20,000 retail -- then the yearly cost of ownership has gone through the roof. After all the cost of gasoline @4 gallon for the average American is only $2,300+ per year. That is - figuring that the average passenger vehicle in the United States is getting 22.4 mpg according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the average US driver travels 13,000 miles yearly. In total, the average US driver uses 580 gallons of fuel each year = $2,300+ per year. If we assume that the cost of batteries is $20,000 and that a full replacement guarantee is only good for 50,000 miles - then the yearly amortized cost of the batteries alone - even if the electric power is FREE which it isn't of course, could end up being a lot more than the average cost of gasoline Not to mention the pollution is not eliminated - it is simply moved to the grid plant. A small diesel combined with a few SLA batteries seems to make more sense for both the consumer and the environment in the long run. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Hi Jones, This (devil's advocate's I suspect) picture you brushed might be true for the 50,000 miles battery life you assumed, but they say 150,000 miles (~10 years) in the original article posted by Jed, which is about the same as the several other new automotive lithium announcements we have heard lately. So **even** if the battery accounts for half the cost as you assumed, which would be surprising considering its small size (16 kWh), at ~$2,000/yr it remains more economical than gasoline or diesel --especially if, following Michael's example, your boss offers to pay half of it!--, plus urban air becomes definitely healthier to breathe, not to mention the zero GHG emission if they manage to produce the electricity cleanly at the plant level. Michel 2008/9/18 Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED]: - Original Message From: Terry Blanton Cost of ownership of the Volt will justify the capital investment. ONLY if the batteries have a rock-solid replacement guarantee, and can actually exceed it - allowing one to write off the investment over many years. Anyone know what the guarantee details will be - for full replacement, or the expected life? Given the history of lithium batteries in laptop computers, this is scary. You simply cannot expect the lifetime of lithiums to be any more than the guarantee. Sony was saying improved for years in laptops before it turned out to be same-old, same-old. Over half the cost of the Volt is probably in the batteries, and if they need to be replaced in 4 years at $20,000 retail -- then the yearly cost of ownership has gone through the roof. After all the cost of gasoline @4 gallon for the average American is only $2,300+ per year. That is - figuring that the average passenger vehicle in the United States is getting 22.4 mpg according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the average US driver travels 13,000 miles yearly. In total, the average US driver uses 580 gallons of fuel each year = $2,300+ per year. If we assume that the cost of batteries is $20,000 and that a full replacement guarantee is only good for 50,000 miles - then the yearly amortized cost of the batteries alone - even if the electric power is FREE which it isn't of course, could end up being a lot more than the average cost of gasoline Not to mention the pollution is not eliminated - it is simply moved to the grid plant. A small diesel combined with a few SLA batteries seems to make more sense for both the consumer and the environment in the long run. The diesel will actually get better net efficiency - than going from grid--home--batteries--vehicle, because of all the loses at every step -- so there is even less net pollution than with the Volt. Jones
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
With all this good feeling about the Volt and plug-in hybrids remember that the *recharging electricity* probably comes from a untility burning gas, oil, or uranium. Hydro and wind power can help, but that is a *fraction* of the energy demand. The existing electric utilities like it because nighttime charging uses existing *generation capacity* but still *burns fuel*. Whether the utility can burn the fuel more efficiently than your plug-in car needs evaluation of the transmission losses from the utility plant to your house. The way out of this is the work of BlackLight Power, now preparing to build a utility scale reactor using hydrogen from water as fuel. Not deployable yet, the process does not generate greenhouse gases. A byproduct is hydrogen in the 'hydrino' state, which may be a basis for a hyper-battery that will make an all-electric car a reality. Mike Carrell
Re: [Vo]:GM Chevy Volt at CalCars
Michel but they say 150,000 miles (~10 years) in the original article posted... Well, here is a directly on-point and long but inconclusive thread on the subject: http://gm-volt.com/2008/03/14/volt-pricing-to-take-high-battery-warranty-cost-into-account/ I'm pretty sure that Sony said ten year estimated life for the laptop batteries, too, but they only offered a real guarantee of one year -- and still had to replace almost everyone they made. What will be interesting is the firm guarantee that GM finally offers ... after raising the estimated price by $5000 more than Lutz was suggesting on the above thread. I think it could be a 10 years guarantee which would be nice if it is not highly pro-rated - and that $40,000 sticker shock probably reflects the high cost of offering that guarantee. The $100,000 Tesla Motors car is offering 5 years or 100,000 miles as a guarantee, but that is prorated. I follow the electric bicycle technology, which is kind of a test bed for these batteries -- and there are still way too many people reporting early failures due to overheating. Some are even using the A123 battery packs which you can buy now from Home Depot (for power tools). The PHEV makes the most sense for France of course, as opposed to the USA - since you have clean electric from nuclear. Where are the French car countries in this? They should be on the forefront, no? Jones
