EV Digest 2682
Topics covered in this issue include:
1) Re: AC controllers
by "Mark Thomasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2) Electricity rates. Was RE: RAV4 EV gets 104 mpg
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
3) Re: RAV4 EV gets 104 mpg
by Michael Hurley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
4) Wind turbines in Iowa?
by "Rod Hower" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
5) Re: Wind turbines in Iowa?
by Lee Hart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
6) Re: Fort Pierce EV rally
by "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
7) Re: Relay Speed Control (was AC Controllers)
by "Mark Thomasson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
8) Evercells versus Yellow tops
by "Shelton, John D. AW2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
9) Re: Wind turbines in Iowa?
by "Thomas Shay" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
10) EVLN(EPRI study: better batteries = cost-effective EVs)
by Bruce EVangel Parmenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--- Begin Message ---
Thanks for your time analyzing this. Under the circumstances you mention
below, the best design would be the field weakening approach shown at
http://www.geocities.com/thomassonmj/motor_circuit.html . By using field
weakening to control speed though most of the speed range, all the batteries
will usually be in service. This adds some complexity, but it does give
continuous, stepless control through most of the speed range. For the low
tech solution, field current could be controlled with a rheostat without
much loss in efficiency. I think fusing the circuit will protect it from
contact welding. Thanks again, Mark T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter VanDerWal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "EV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 12:11 AM
Subject: Re: AC controllers
> I was finally able to get into your site and see your diagram.
>
> Regardless of what you think your arrangement will definitely result in
> an unballanced pack and reduced range.
> I spend about 1/2 the time driving around at 35 mph (that's the speed
> limit on most streets in my area). This means that the 12V and 24V
> sections of your pack would not be used during the constant speed
> portion of my trips (most of it).
> The other 1/2 the time I'm driving on the bypass at 55 mph, this uses
> the 48V section which is also used at 35 mph. This section will get
> drained long before the rest of the pack and will limit range.
> You are also subjecting portions of the pack to isolated high current
> draws which will cause Peukert to further reduce range.
>
> It is a clever idea and would be great for low power vehicles if it
> weren't for the possibility of shorting out the pack if a relay failed
> by welding shut (not uncommon).
>
> On Tue, 2003-03-25 at 15:23, Mark Thomasson wrote:
> > Thanks, lots of good background here. See my comments below. Mark
> > Thomasson
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Lee Hart" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:13 PM
> > Subject: Re: AC controllers
> >
> >
> > > Lee Hart wrote:
> > > >> The first problem is that you are not loading the batteries
equally.
> > >
> > > Mark Thomasson replied:
> > > > In actual city traffic conditions, all the batteries get used almost
> > > > equally.
> > >
> > > That has not been my experience. For many years I drove a ComutaVan,
> > > which has a 3-step 3-contactor controller (36v with resistor, 36v
> > > direct, and 72v direct). Its top speed was 55 mph (at 72v), but my
daily
> > > commute was on streets with a maximum 40 mph speed limit (which only
> > > needed 36v). Thus, I only used 72v while accellerating or on hills.
Most
> > > of the time was spent cruising at 36v.
> > >
> > > With your arrangement, I would have had half the range. I'd arrive at
> > > work with the lower 36v half of the pack dead, but plenty of charge
> > > still left in the upper 36v half.
> >
> > No, The method I am proposing does not work like this and does not
suffer
> > this problem, or at least not in the manner you describe. Referring to
the
> > circuit shown at
http://www.geocities.com/thomassonmj/electric_drive.html ,
> > suppose that you have a 6v, 12v, 24v, and a 48v battery (represented by
B1
> > to B4 in the circuit diagram). Also suppose your top speed is 60 MPH at
> > full voltage of 90v, and assume that speed is directly proportional to
> > voltage. For the 15 available voltage steps, the table below shows the
> > motor voltage, the speed, and the batteries used:
> >
> > step 1 6v 4 mph 6v
> > step 2 12v 8 mph 12v
> > step 3 18v 12 mph 6v 12v
> > step 4 24v 16 mph 24v
> > step 5 30v 20 mph 6v 24v
> > step 6 36v 24 mph 12v 24v
> > step 7 42v 28 mph 6v 12v 24v
> > step 8 48v 32 mph 48v
> > step 9 54v 36 mph 6v 48v
> > step10 60v 40 mph 12v 48v
> > step11 66v 44 mph 6v 12v 48v
> > step12 72v 48 mph 24v 48v
> > step13 78v 52 mph 6v 24v 48v
> > step14 84v 56 mph 12v 24v 48v
> > step 15 90v 60 mph 6v 12v 24v 48v
> >
> > If your usual speed is 40 mph (step10), you would be using batteries12v
and
> > 48v. If you're on a hill or need to speed up some, you go to step 11
> > (batteries 6v, 12v, 48v) or step 12 (batteries 24v, 48v), or maybe
higher
> > with other battery combination. If you need to slow down, step 9 uses
> > batteries 6v and 48v. The point is that the batteries are shuffled in
and
> > out of the circuit in a manner that tend to balance their loading during
the
> > normal variations of driving speeds. However, if you spend most of your
> > time below 32 mph, then, with this design, the 48 volt bank will be
under
> > utilized. For this and other reasons, the control scheme shown at
> > http://www.geocities.com/thomassonmj/motor_circuit.html has some
definite
> > advantages. Using a shunt field motor, the armature voltage steps
described
> > above control speed up to 20 mph. Then, with armature voltage at
maximum
> > and all batteries in service, field voltage is weakend to control speed
up
> > to 60 mph. Since the field current of shunt motors is typically only 5%
of
> > the armature current, controlling this current uses relatively
inexpensive
> > components. Also, speed control above 20 MPH is continuous with no
steps.
> > With this arrangement, you could think of the armature voltage control
as a
> > soft starting system, with the field weaking as the main speed control.
> > >
> > > >> Next problem; you still have a lot of contactors. The way they are
> > > >> arranged, if one fails shorted, it could be disastrous to close the
> > > >> next one.
> > >
> > > > Good point. Each battery bank should be fused.
> > >
> > > Note that a fuse is a resistor. It will have more voltage drop than a
> > > contactor. They are also amazingly expensive for ones that is
guaranteed
> > > to work at high DC voltages and currents. You always need at least
some
> > > fuses, but want to minimize the number of them.
> > >
> > > I think a better solution is not to use SPST contactors; use SPDT
> > > contactors, built so it is physically impossible to close both
contacts
> > > at once even in the event of a welded contact. This is always done in
> > > commercial contactor controllers.
> >
> > Unfortunately, this control scheme does not allow the use of SPDT
> > contactors. The interlocking you mention could be accomplished with
> > auxiliary contacts off each contactor tied back into the control circiut
of
> > the appropriate interlocked contactor.
> >
> > >
> > > >> This problem has been studied for a very long time by some great
> > > >> minds. You might want to look at some of their solutions.
> > >
> > > > Exactly, that's why I'm asking you guys for input!
> > >
> > > Most of the "guys" today have never even seen a contactor controller.
> > > :-) So, you'll have to study old equipment, books, articles, patents,
> > > etc. to see how they were done in their "golden age". Nowdays, most of
> > > the engineers who knew how to design them are dead. So, the ones you
see
> > > today are often naive designs by people who lack the knowledge and
> > > experience to do it right.
> > >
> > > Thus, it's easy to find a high-mileage 1920 Detroit Electric with its
> > > original contactor controller that still works. And, it's easy to find
a
> > > low-mileage CitiCar or golf cart with a contactor controller that's
> > > destroyed.
> > >
> > > >> For example, the batteries can be switched in series-parallel
> > > >> combinations so the load is always divided equally between them.
> > > >> Twelve 6v batteries can be wired for... 6v, 12v, 18v, 24v, 36v, 72v
> > >
> > > > This arrangement would take 33 contacts and gives only 6 steps.
> > >
> > > Correct; though that's 11 series/parallel contactors.
> >
> > Thanks, good catch.
> >
> > >
> > > > If you are willing to give up on the symmetry, you could get all
> > > > 12 evenly spaced steps.
> > >
> > > If you are using a PM motor, then you need more steps because its
speed
> > > is directly proportional to voltage. With a series motor (much more
> > > common in EVs), you need fewer steps because motor speed is a function
> > > of both voltage and load. With a series motor, roughly 2:1 voltage
steps
> > > turns out to be adequate (6v, 12v, 24v, 48v, 96v, ...)
> >
> > The new method gives you smooth 6v increments all the way up.
> >
> > >
> > > > The new method would give 15 steps with 15 6v batteries, but only
> > > > use 9 relays. Balancing of battery discharge would depend on the
> > > > natural variability of driving speed.
> > >
> > > There was a streetcar controller similar to what you describe.
However,
> > > they had a scheme to balance the discharge. All the batteries were in
> > > series. There were two *big* rotary switches, that could select any
tap
> > > from 0v to full pack voltage in 1-battery steps. One wire of each
rotary
> > > switch went to each side of the motor.
> > >
> > > Start with both rotary switches fully counterclockwise, so both motor
> > > leads were at the 0 volt tap. To accellerate, turn ONE of the rotary
> > > switches up. 6v, 12v, 18v, 24v... the farther you advance it, the
faster
> > > you go.
> > >
> > > But, this would discharge the batteries at the lower end faster,
because
> > > they are used less. So, to slow down, leave the first switch where it
> > > was, and move the SECOND switch up to meet it. This brings the motor
> > > voltage back down. 24v, 18v, 12v, 6v, and 0v when both switches are on
> > > the same tap. This discharges the batteries at the higher end of the
> > > pack faster, thus compensating so all batteries average out to the
same
> > > discharge rate.
> > >
> > > There was a voltmeter between the two taps, so the operator could see
> > > the battery voltage. It was a manual process; he looked at the
voltages
> > > to see where his weakest battery was, and avoided using that one.
> > >
> > > The rotary switches were big slate panels, with coin-sized contacts
> > > arranged in a circle. The two switch arms were concentric cranks that
> > > the operator controlled manually.
> > >
> > > >> The classic series-parallel switch is a single contactor with 3
> > > >> contacts:
> > > >> ______________________
> > > >> + __|__ K1b |
> > > >> battery 1 ___ normally closed / K1c
> > > >> |__________/___________| normally open
> > > >> | K1a __|__+
> > > >> / normally open ___ battery 2
> > > >> |______________________| -
> > > >>
> > > >> If you don't need to do regen (carry current in both directions),
> > > >> then K1a and K1c can be replaced by a big diode. Then series-
> > > >> parallel switching is done with a single SPST contactor.
> > >
> > > > The new method also lets you reduce relay count by using diodes,
> > > > but diodes always have a forward biase voltage drop (~.7 v for
> > > > silicon) and therefore energy loss
> > >
> > > Contactors have a voltage drop too, especially as they age.
> >
> > Mine have .004 ohms each after light usage.
> >
> > >
> > > For low voltage systems you wouldn't use silicon diodes; you'd use
> > > Schottky diodes (0.5v drop), germanium diodes (0.25v drop), or MOSFETs
> > > (even less)
> >
> > I wonder how the cost of these alternative device compare to silicon?
> > .
> > >
> > > Diodes have other big advantages. They provide a path for the
inductive
> > > motor current during switching, which greatly reduces contact arcing
to
> > > extend life.
> >
> > I planned to use a free wheeling diode, but after seeing very little
voltage
> > spiking across the relays on the oscilloscope, I left it out.
> >
> > >They also eliminate the timing problem between opening one
> > > contact and closing another "simultaneously".
> >
> > I originally used doides in the circuit for this purpose, but the
> > multiposition switch I use for speed control has enough "break before
make"
> > that they were not needed and I left them out.
> >
> > >
> > > Peukert effects
> > >
> > > There's another factor you may not be aware of. The amphour capacity
of
> > > a lead-acid battery depends on the load current. The higher the
current,
> > > the lower the capacity. It's called the "Peukert effect".
> > >
> > > Suppose you have golf cart batteries rated at 6v 225ah (at the 20-hour
> > > rate). If you load them at 75 amps, they only deliver 144 amphours. If
> > > you load them at 150 amps, they only deliver 122 amphours.
> > >
> > > Now suppose you have twelve of these batteries (a 72v pack). You want
to
> > > cruise at a speed that requires 36v at 150 amps. With your controller,
> > > only half the batteries are supplying this current. Each has to
provide
> > > 150 amps, so you can only drive for 122ah / 150a = 49 minutes.
> >
> > As discussed above, at half speed I have the 48v bank in service. Speed
up
> > a little and I pick up the 6v bank also. Slow down a notch and the 48v
bank
> > drops out and the 6v, 12v, and 24v banks come into service. Small
> > variations in driving speed will balance out the discharge on the banks.
> >
> > >
> > > With a series/parallel controller, the two halves of the pack would be
> > > in parallel, so each battery delivers half the current or 75 amps. Now
> > > you can drive for 144ah / 75a = 115 minutes. That's a big
difference --
> > > more than 2:1!
> >
> > It is definitely a good thing to have all the batteries in service all
the
> > time, but this old method gives those big jumps in voltage and uses more
> > hardware for much fewer voltage steps.
> > >
> > > With an electronic PWM controller, it would leave the pack wired for
> > > 72v. It would draw 72v at 75 amps from the pack, but deliver 36v at
150
> > > amps to the motor. As for the series-parallel case, you could drive
for
> > > 115 minutes.
> > >
> >
> > You lost me here. How did the PWM increase 75 A of input current to 150
A
> > of output current? Where did all those extra electrons come from?
> >
> >
> > > For your scheme to be viable in any but very small vehicles that run
at
> > > full speed almost all the time, I think you really must have some way
to
> > > equalize the loading on all the batteries.
> > > --
> > > Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
> > > 814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
> > > Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
> > > leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard
Cohen
> > >
> >
> --
> EVDL
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Peter VanDerWal wrote:
FWIW I've heard of some prices in California that are over 25c per kwh.
Depends if you are part of PG&E or Edison's coverage. Some of us, like
myself, are supplied by local community Power company. The City of Alameda
has it's own power company and current residential rates are about 11c/kwh.
About 50% of our power comes from its own geo-thermal plant above Napa (wine
country), so it's mix (on the billing side) is very clean.
PG&E has an EV metering program for EV charging, which typically translates
into 1/2 price rate for evening charging. Alameda Power & Telecom did some
calculations on how much energy an EV might use, and apply a flat $15 credit
on my family's monthly electrical bill. Will be nice with I get the second
EV running, then we'll have $30 monthly credit for power.
But still, typically residential rate electricity translates into about
2-3c/mile for EVs here.
-Ed Thorpe
Man, for once, I'm glad to live in TN. My power rates are 5.8 to 6.6� per KWh.
--
Auf wiedersehen!
______________________________________________________
"..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."
"Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort
of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked
women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?"
"..No."
"Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
-Real Genius
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
combined electrical energy consumption value = (0.55 * urban) + (0.45 *
highway) = (0.55 * 265) + (0.45 * 220) = 244.75 Wh/mile
Since the vehicle does not have any petroleum-powered accessories
installed, the value of the petroleum equivalency factor is 82,049 Watt-
hours per gallon, and the petroleum-equivalent fuel economy is:
(82,049 Wh/gal) (244.75 Wh/mile) = 335.24 mpg"
That's the one! I bet if you plugged in the consumption values for a
RAV4 EV into the above, you'd get about what is listed on that
website.
--
Auf wiedersehen!
______________________________________________________
"..Um..Something strange happened to me this morning."
"Was it a dream where you see yourself standing in sort
of Sun God robes on a pyramid with a thousand naked
women screaming and throwing little pickles at you?"
"..No."
"Why am I the only person that has that dream?"
-Real Genius
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
A nice way to charge EV's in the Midwest.
I wish we were more progressive in Ohio.
It would be nice to charge the TEVan with something
besides coal!
Dare I say Warren Buffet may be called a terrorist by the
Bush adminastrastion, cutting into those oil profits
by producing sustainable energy!
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) A massive wind farm of 180 to 200 wind turbines will
be built across 200 acres of northern Iowa farm fields, a MidAmerican Energy
Holdings Co. official said.
"We're here to announce the largest wind facility to be constructed in the
world will be built in Iowa," the company's president Greg Abel said during
Tuesday's announcement.
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett's Omaha, Nebraska-based company,
Berkshire Hathaway Inc., owns most of MidAmerican Energy.
The company's $323 million wind farm will generate 310 megawatts of
electricity, enough to power 85,000 homes, he said.
Each wind turbine will produce about 1.5 to 1.65 megawatts of power.
Currently, the world's largest wind facility is located in Washington and
Oregon and produces 300 megawatts of electricity, Abel said.
The project will place Iowa third in the nation for wind energy production
behind California and Texas.
Governor Tom Vilsack said the project fits perfectly with his vision for the
state to increase renewable energy sources, create jobs and help farmers.
Farmers in northwest and north-central Iowa where the turbines will be
located will be paid about $4,000 a year for each turbine, Abel said.
The governor has proposed a $50 million fund to promote renewable energy as
part of his economic development plan.
"This is the beginning of the new Iowa that we've talked about. This is an
example of what can happen in our state if we're willing to act boldly and
act now," he said. "It will enable us to begin the process of marketing our
state as being a forward-thinking state where activities are taking place
notwithstanding the national economy."
The project, which uses no state money, will require regulatory approval.
MidAmerican is seeking legislation that will ensure that the company
receives renewable energy credits for constructing and owning its own wind
turbines. Current law gives the credits only to companies that purchase
renewable energy from other sources.
Legislative leaders said they expect to begin working on the bill this week
and plan to have it passed and to Vilsack by early May.
"You can expect that this will be a high priority issue for us," said House
Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.
MidAmerican customers will benefit because the company negotiated with the
state a rate freeze through 2010.
Attorney General Tom Miller said his office wanted to make sure that Iowans
would not pay more for the generation of renewable energy.
"It's a wonderful balance, very successfully, of many public policies -- the
environment, energy security, consumer rates, economic development in our
state," Miller said.
Abel said new technology -- today's turbines are 15 times more efficient
than those made in the 1980s -- has made wind energy more cost effective.
MidAmerican has agreed not to raise electricity costs in Iowa and if the
company generates higher than expected revenues, a portion will be shared
with customers, Miller said.
MidAmerican Energy Co., based in Des Moines, serves more than 673,000
electricity customers in Iowa, South Dakota and Illinois.
The company's plans call for the first turbines to be operational by the end
of 2004.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
> DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) A massive wind farm of 180 to 200 wind
> turbines will be built across 200 acres of northern Iowa farm fields,
> a MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. official said.
There is a huge wind farm near Willmar MN. I've driven by it several
times, and noticed that almost all of them are idle every single time.
A large windmill was installed on I-94 between Minneapolis and St.
Cloud. I've driven past it dozens of times, and have only seen it in
operation twice.
I don't know what's going on, but they certainly aren't generating much
power.
--
Lee A. Hart Ring the bells that still can ring
814 8th Ave. N. Forget your perfect offering
Sartell, MN 56377 USA There is a crack in everything
leeahart_at_earthlink.net That's how the light gets in - Leonard Cohen
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
If you end up on the east coast around my area and would like to dorp by
give me a call 772-465-1982
I hope Jarry makes it to the rally . I'm told If we can get 3 EVAA members
together at the same time here in florida something speachel happens :-).
Steve Clunn
From: "Andrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 9:58 PM
Subject: Re: Fort Pierce EV rally
> >Subject: ev
> >From:"1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Date:Tue, 25 Mar 2003 01:54:37 -0800
> >
> >I'm going to be having my Fort Pierce EV rally on May 3
>
> Steve
> I'm sorry I'm going to miss your rally.
> I'm actually going to spend a week in Florida but it's a few weeks
> earlier and on the gulf coast (Tampa).
> I am hoping to check out a VW bus conversion and Jerry's trike,
> --
> Andrew King
> Ann Arbor Michigan
> technology is the answer, what was the question?
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Gordon, I'm a low budget operation. My Schumacher charger from the local
auto parts store puts out 12 A. I charge the batteries one at a time. The
mini bike only has three batteries. Charging larger battery sets in this
configuration is a problem that I haven't worked through yet. The obvious
solution to me is to have separate charging circuits for the 12, 24, and 48
volt sets.
Yes, most inventions aren't worth the patent filing costs. This may be one
of them. If so, its not my first bonehead idea, and I am sure it won't be
my last! But its fun trying to come up with something useful that's never
been done before. My sincere thanks to everyone on the EV list who has
taken the time to help me out with feedback and comments. Mark T.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gordon Niessen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: Relay Speed Control (was AC Controllers)
> What does your charger amperage look like? Even with a high current
> charger it would be a pain to switch from on battery to the other, even
for
> only three batteries. For a 12, 24, 48 set you have 7 batteries to
> individually charge. For a 12, 24, 48, 96 you are up to 15. Your charger
> connection is then more complex then the controller.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I admire your efforts. Just not sure if the patent is
> worth the filing cost. Good luck.
>
> Oh, and I am glad to see you wear a helmet on the minibike.
>
> At 09:29 PM 3/25/2003, you wrote:
> >John, This works ok on my minibike. I don't rotate my batteries, but I
do
> >charge them individually ( I only have one 12v charger). I use 3 12v
> >batteries, one by itself and the other two in series for 24 volts. On
the
> >12 v battery I get to 10 mph. The 24v bank takes me to 20 mph. With
both
> >in series I get 30 mph, which is really to fast for a 150 pound minibike
> >with only a rear brake. You can see how the circuit works in the patent
> >file at http://www.geocities.com/thomassonmj/us6140799.pdf , see figure
1.
> >Or go to http://www.geocities.com/thomassonmj/electric_drive.html for
more
> >general information. I can send you details of the relay control circuit
> >and where I got my parts if you are interested. Its all pretty simple
> >stuff. Mark Thomasson
> >
> >See the bike:
> >http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/439.html
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Shelton, John D. AW2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "'Peter VanDerWal'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Ev (E-mail)"
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 2:58 PM
> >Subject: RE: AC controllers
> >
> >
> > > Would this be a good arrangement for a go-kart ev? What if you you
three
> >12
> > > volt deep cycle batteries and rotate them. Not too difficult a task
with a
> > > go-kart.
> > >
> > > John Shelton
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Peter VanDerWal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 2:08 AM
> > > To: EV
> > > Subject: Re: AC controllers
> > >
> > >
> > > Oops, forgot to mention.
> > > Contactor controllers normally rearrange the pack into series/parallel
> > > setups.
> > > IE. a 48V pack of 4 12V batteries will be arranged as all four in
> > > parallel for 12V, two sets of two for 24V and all together for 48V.
Plus
> > > usually a starting resistor in series with the 12V setup. This gives
> > > four steps, plus stop.
> > >
> > > Tapping the pack at individual batteries like you suggest means that
> > > none of the batteries will be discharged to the same level. The first
> > > battery gets used all of the time and the one at the other end of the
> > > string hardly ever gets used.
> > >
> > > This causes the pack to become unbalanced(a bad thing). Your range
will
> > > be limited by the first battery which will run out fairly quickly,
while
> > > 1/2 the batteries are hardly discharged at all.
> > >
> > > Range from this setup will be about 1/4 the range of using all the
> > > batteries as one pack with a PWM controller or a series/parallel
> > > contactor controller.
> > >
> > > > > various voltages. For example, with seven batteries in the bank,
it
> >is
> > > > > possible to rearrange them to get seven voltage steps, from zero
volts
> > > to
> > > > > the voltage of all the batteries in series. With 15 batteries, 15
> >steps
> > > are
> > > > > possible. The trick is to rearrange the batteries without using
an
> > > > > unreasonable number of contactors. See
> > > > > http://www.geocities.com/thomassonmj/electric_drive.html for a
> >diagram
> > > of
> > > > > how this may be done. http://www.austinev.org/evalbum/439.html
shows
> > > the
> > > > > test platform. I started small with a minibike and only 3 voltage
> >steps
> > > > > (using three 12 volt batteries) in the control system. The three
> >relays
> > > and
> > > > > a multiposition switch comprising the control system cost less
than
> >$20.
> > > > > Electro-mechanical relays are much easier to trouble shoot and
repair
> > > that
> > > > > electronic FET's and integrated circuits, and more efficient.
Solid
> > > state
> > > > > relays could also be used. Regenerative braking occurs
automatically
> >as
> > > you
> > > > > back off the throttle, or not at all if the throttle goes
immediately
> >to
> > > > > zero.
> > > > >
> > > > > Criticize freely... I can take it!
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks for your feedback.
> > > > >
> > > > > Mark Thomasson
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "1sclunn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 6:59 PM
> > > > > Subject: Re: AC controllers
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Mark
> > > > > ...................
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tell us of your project? what do you want it to do?
> > > > > >
> > > > > ....................
> > > > >
> > > > --
> > > > EVDL
> > > >
> > > --
> > > EVDL
> > >
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
John,
From what you've said I think I'm sold on the Evercels, especially
since I'll be moving to Maine in about a year where they have cold in
abundance. I wanted to use a car that I now own, a 99 Neon, but had given up
on it because I couldn't fit enough 6 volt batteries in it to get the range
I want; it would have greatly exceeded the GVWR. I had planned on buying a
truck and converting it but now I can use my Neon and keep a back seat for
the kids. This will save me a lot of money even when including the cost of
the more expensive Evercels. I had planned on a typical 144v, nine inch adc,
Curtis controller ev but I think I might copy what you're doing. An
acceleration of 9-10 seconds to sixty is very acceptable to me (maybe better
than what the ICE Neon will do). The only resource I have right now (I'm
overseas on the Theodore Roosevelt, if your watching CNN) so the only
resource I have right now on Evercels is a Cabela's fishing supply catalog.
They list the Evercel Evertroll (is it different than the one the list talks
about?) at 49 lbs for shipping purposes. Eight hundred pounds of these would
give me 192 volts. Good enough for an exciting kinda EV?
What kind of charger are you going to use? The Zivian? If I'm lucky
the Raptor will be back in production when I'm ready to start or is there an
appropriate Curtis for 192V? And of course I'll have a very Waylandesque
stereo to blast some Metallica when the kids aren't in the car ;-)I'm really
excited about this conversion. I can't wait to get back stateside to start
gathering stuff together. But I'll still have to buy the components one at a
time. Just don't have the cash to get it all at once. When I get back home
in a few months I'll also do some research on the motor and controller you
mentioned you'll be using.
One other point of concern. This is going to be my first EV.
Everyone talks about how "you ruin your first battery pack." With a
top-notch charger and BMS can I avoid this? What would you recommend?
Thanks for all the info you've provided and congrats again on the
new job.
John Shelton
-----Original Message-----
From: John Wayland [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 23, 2003 7:37 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Evercells versus Yellow tops
Hello to All,
"Shelton, John D. AW2" wrote:
> All,
> The 691wh listed for the NiZn is more than double that of the
yellow
> top's rating of 312wh. So does this mean that if I have a string of twelve
> MB80s, I'll have at least as much total energy as two strings of 12 yellow
> tops run in parralel?
The Evercells give about three times the range under cruise conditions, as
lead acid. 800
lbs. of NiZN give the range of 2400 lbs. of lead acid. In colder temps, when
lead acid
goes to about half its range, the NiZN give 6 times the range! Want proof?
Sheer's 40 lb.
Evercells give an easy 80 ahrs under EV current draws, even in cold
weather....a 45 lb.
Optima gives 25 ahrs under the same circumstances...that's 25 ahrs from 45
lbs., vs 80
ahrs from 40 lbs.!
>How many T-145s is this equivalent to?
Red Beastie was a 2600 lb. vehicle before conversion (5300 lbs. after), and
it took 2500
lbs. of Trojans to give 120 mile range. Sheer's Honda Accord weighed about
2600 lbs.
before conversion, but only has 800 lbs. of Evercells...he's gone 117 miles
on one charge!
For a mid voltage EV (144V-156V) with strong acceleration and terrific high
speed power,
the Evercells pale next to YT's for high current juice. My own Blue Meanie
accelerates
hard because it is very light (2340 lbs.) and yet has a mid level 156V
system that uses up
to 1200 amps for making big HP and torque. In this case, Optimas rein
supreme for
acceleration. As the voltage is raised for a given level of power however,
the current
requirements drop, so Evercells start to play catch up with lead acid in the
area of power
performance. Over the 200V threshold, you no longer need 1000+ amps for
strong
acceleration, and even 500 amps gives lots of power. If you're considering a
200+V car,
Evercell NiZN technology looks mighty good.
For my direct drive minitruck, I'm looking at a 216V system. The completed
conversion,
including the battery pack and rad stereo system, should weigh around 2700
lbs. The Zilla
1KHV motor controller will allow me to dial in fairly low battery pack
current limit, say
400 amps, to protect the Evercells from excessive current draws, but the
current
multiplication factor of the controller will still send 1000 amps through
the 4-motor loop
circuit, when the motors are at lower rpms, such as during take-off times,
right when you
need the torque the most. At 500 amps per motor, this will give about 300
ft. lbs. of
torque. Once the vehicle is up to higher speeds, the motor circuit amps will
lower as more
voltage gets sent to the motors, but at this point, the torque requirements
have fallen.
Even considering voltage sag at 300-400 amps, there will be about 75 HP
available.
At a nominal pack voltage of 216V, cruise current at 55-60 mph should be in
the 35-40 amp
range (my 2340 lb. EV at 156V uses 55-60 amps at this same speed). With an
honest 70-80
ahrs of usable EV level reserve from the Evercells, considering higher
occasional
currents, that's 100 mile range! Since it's a minitruck with all the
batteries under the
planned remote control hydraulic tilt bed (my forklift experience is finding
its way into
this EV), and since it will only need 35-40 amps at 60 mph, for road trips,
I plan on
rolling my 10kw generator into the bed for unlimited freeway cruising and
40-50 mpg gas
mileage...no more trailering the EV to Seattle car shows! The generator will
not
noticeably increase drag because there will be no heavy trailer and the drag
of two more
tires, and the height of my generator loaded in the bed and close to the
cab, is lower
than the truck's roof, so the aero drag will be insignificant.
I'll be able to arrive to the show, unload the generator, and enjoy pure EV
driving.
This EV should have OK 0-60 acceleration in the 9-10 second range, and a
reasonable top
speed of 80-ish...perfect for the rolling sound system I want it to be! If I
want more
performance, I'll park it and go get Blue Meanie.
See Ya.....John Wayland
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Beware the flaws in this story.
The first sentence says a wind farm will be built. Later the story
says regulatory approval is needed and legislation is being sought
for renewable energy credits. So the wind farm might or might not
be built.
The story says the project uses no state money. So where will the
money come from for the renewable energy credits?
The story says today's turbines are 15 times more efficient than those
made in the 1980s which is utter nonsense!
Tom Shay
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rod Hower" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 6:29 PM
Subject: Wind turbines in Iowa?
> A nice way to charge EV's in the Midwest.
> I wish we were more progressive in Ohio.
> It would be nice to charge the TEVan with something
> besides coal!
> Dare I say Warren Buffet may be called a terrorist by the
> Bush adminastrastion, cutting into those oil profits
> by producing sustainable energy!
>
> DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) A massive wind farm of 180 to 200 wind turbines will
> be built across 200 acres of northern Iowa farm fields, a MidAmerican
Energy
> Holdings Co. official said.
>
> "We're here to announce the largest wind facility to be constructed in the
> world will be built in Iowa," the company's president Greg Abel said
during
> Tuesday's announcement.
>
> Billionaire investor Warren Buffett's Omaha, Nebraska-based company,
> Berkshire Hathaway Inc., owns most of MidAmerican Energy.
>
> The company's $323 million wind farm will generate 310 megawatts of
> electricity, enough to power 85,000 homes, he said.
>
> Each wind turbine will produce about 1.5 to 1.65 megawatts of power.
>
> Currently, the world's largest wind facility is located in Washington and
> Oregon and produces 300 megawatts of electricity, Abel said.
>
> The project will place Iowa third in the nation for wind energy production
> behind California and Texas.
>
> Governor Tom Vilsack said the project fits perfectly with his vision for
the
> state to increase renewable energy sources, create jobs and help farmers.
>
> Farmers in northwest and north-central Iowa where the turbines will be
> located will be paid about $4,000 a year for each turbine, Abel said.
>
> The governor has proposed a $50 million fund to promote renewable energy
as
> part of his economic development plan.
>
> "This is the beginning of the new Iowa that we've talked about. This is an
> example of what can happen in our state if we're willing to act boldly and
> act now," he said. "It will enable us to begin the process of marketing
our
> state as being a forward-thinking state where activities are taking place
> notwithstanding the national economy."
>
> The project, which uses no state money, will require regulatory approval.
>
> MidAmerican is seeking legislation that will ensure that the company
> receives renewable energy credits for constructing and owning its own wind
> turbines. Current law gives the credits only to companies that purchase
> renewable energy from other sources.
>
> Legislative leaders said they expect to begin working on the bill this
week
> and plan to have it passed and to Vilsack by early May.
>
> "You can expect that this will be a high priority issue for us," said
House
> Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City.
>
> MidAmerican customers will benefit because the company negotiated with the
> state a rate freeze through 2010.
>
> Attorney General Tom Miller said his office wanted to make sure that
Iowans
> would not pay more for the generation of renewable energy.
>
> "It's a wonderful balance, very successfully, of many public policies --
the
> environment, energy security, consumer rates, economic development in our
> state," Miller said.
>
> Abel said new technology -- today's turbines are 15 times more efficient
> than those made in the 1980s -- has made wind energy more cost effective.
>
> MidAmerican has agreed not to raise electricity costs in Iowa and if the
> company generates higher than expected revenues, a portion will be shared
> with customers, Miller said.
>
> MidAmerican Energy Co., based in Des Moines, serves more than 673,000
> electricity customers in Iowa, South Dakota and Illinois.
>
> The company's plans call for the first turbines to be operational by the
end
> of 2004.
>
>
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
EVLN(EPRI study: better batteries = cost-effective EVs)
[The Internet Electric Vehicle List News. For Public EV
informational purposes. Contact publication for reprint rights.]
--- {EVangel}
Press Release Source: Electric Power Research Institute
New Study Results from EPRI: Electric-Drive Vehicle Costs
Can Soon be Competitive with Conventional Cars Over Life of
Vehicle Wednesday March 26, 12:44 pm ET
Key battery technology improvements, reduced component costs
can make electric drive vehicles cost-effective even at
lower production volumes
PALO ALTO, Calif., March 26 /PRNewswire/ -- According to a
new research study from the Electric Power Research
Institute (EPRI), a combination of greatly improved battery
life and projected cost reductions for batteries and other
components can make electric drive vehicles (engine-hybrid
EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs, and some pure EVs) cost competitive
with gasoline vehicles.
These lower costs and a doubling of battery life times -- up
to 150,000 miles -- result in significantly reduced fuel and
maintenance costs for electric drive vehicles, and over
their lifetime will offset their higher initial price by the
end of this decade.
The EPRI study chronicles important and steady improvements
in battery technology, even over the past few years.
Researchers specifically found that advanced batteries used
in electric drive vehicles are exceeding previous
projections for cycle life and durability, a key
consideration in cost. Longer life essentially means reduced
cost to operate. These developments, along with recent
announcements that vehicle manufacturers will substantially
increase production of hybrid electric vehicles (HEVs), will
bring down costs of the special electric drive components,
making electric-drive vehicles more cost effective.
After considerable testing on the road and in the
laboratory, the researchers concluded that nickel metal
hydride (NiMH) batteries could be designed, using current
technologies, to meet the vehicle lifetime requirements of
some full-size battery EVs, subcompact "city" battery EVs
and plug-in hybrid EVs. It also appears that only one
battery pack per vehicle may be required instead of two as
previously projected. With this new information, the EPRI
study suggests that savings in fuel and maintenance can pay
for the higher upfront cost of battery EVs and hybrid EVs
with and without plugs.
"The cost of advanced batteries for non-plug hybrid EVs,
plug-in hybrid EVs, and battery EVs is highly dependent on
the establishment of a growth market situation, a
predictable regulatory environment, and consistent
production volumes that encourage capital investment in
production capacity and line automation by battery and
automotive manufacturers," said Bob Graham, EPRI's area
manager for transportation.
"Produced in volume, hybrid EVs such as the Toyota Prius and
Honda Civic will help drive down the cost of motors and
controllers that could be used in all types of
electric-drive cars," Graham added. "But the
commercialization of the plug-in hybrid EV, because of its
large market appeal, holds the key to the one remaining
barrier to zero-emission vehicles -- the cost of the
'energy' battery."
The non-plug hybrids, plug-in hybrid EVs with a 20-mile
all-electric range, and subcompact "city" battery EVs with a
40-mile all-electric range that were analyzed in the study
can cost-effectively reduce smog-forming gases, greenhouse
gases and petroleum consumption in all scenarios analyzed.
The higher initial cost of electric-drive vehicles is due to
the battery, but in the long-term, fuel and maintenance
savings cover this. According to the EPRI research, plug-in
hybrids could reach life cycle cost parity with conventional
internal combustion vehicles, after relatively small
production runs of 50,000 vehicles per year.
The EPRI study built upon earlier research carried out by
the EPRI Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group, whose
members include the environmental community, automakers,
regulatory agencies, power companies, and academic
researchers. The earlier work showed that the plug-in hybrid
EV with a 60-mile all electric range has the potential to be
the first advanced vehicle to attain the equivalent of 80
miles per gallon (the U.S. Department of Energy goal for
midsize sedans) without lightweight materials or extreme
aerodynamics
The plug-in hybrid EV works a pure EV for a portion of its
daily travel when it has been plugged into a 120-volt outlet
(i.e. each night at home). When its electric range is used
up, the vehicle switches automatically into hybrid mode,
operating much like a "regular" HEV (e.g., a Toyota Prius)
until the battery is recharged. Depending on the size of the
battery, it can provide 20 to 60 miles of daily range in
zero polluting EV mode. A plug-in hybrid EV drive system is
compatible with all vehicle models and does not sacrifice
vehicle performance and driver amenities for the sake of
clean air and reduced consumption of petroleum.
"These EPRI-led studies show in our opinion that plug-in
hybrids are a mass market technology. We consider them an
important bridge' technology," said Ed Kjaer, director of
Electric Transportation for Southern California Edison.
"They will help make a viable business case for other
technologies that deliver zero emission miles from an
'energy' battery -- such as pure EVs and fuel cell EVs."
More information on the study can be found on the EPRI
website. Go to
http://www.epri.com/corporate/discover_epri/news/downloads/EPRI_AdvBatEV.pdf.
EPRI, headquartered in Palo Alto, Calif., was established in
1973 as a non-profit center for public interest energy and
environmental research. EPRI's collaborative science and
technology development program now spans nearly every area
of power generation, delivery and use. More than 1,000
energy organizations and public institutions in 40 countries
draw on EPRI's global network of technical and business
expertise.
EPRI. Electrifying the World
Visit EPRI's electronic press room at
http://www.epri.com/corporate/discover_epri/news/index.html
Visit the EPRI Journal Online at http://www.epri.com/journal/
Source: Electric Power Research Institute
===
Advanced Batteries for Electric-Drive Vehicles
A Technology and Cost-Effectiveness Assessment for Battery
Electric, Power Assist Hybrid Electric, and Plug-in Hybrid
Electric Vehicles
Introduction
Advanced batteries are an integral component of all battery
electric vehicles (BEVs), power assist hybrid electric
vehicles (HEV 0s � hybrids without electric driving range),
plug-in-hybrids (PHEVs) and fuel cells vehicles (FCVs). In
2000 a panel of battery technical advisory (BTAP) experts
reported on near-term NiMH batteries for BEVs with about 600
to 1200 cycles based on deep cycling between 100% and 0%
state of charge (SOC). The California Air Resources Board
(ARB) staff estimated this would result in a near-term BEV
capable of lasting only 6-years, 75,000 miles before a
costly battery replacement was required, but that a 10-year,
100,000-mile BEV would eventually be possible. Almost three
years later as a result of extensive studies conducted by
the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), there is
strong evidence to suggest that NiMH batteries for HEV 0s,
PHEVs, BEVs and FCVs have improved significantly to the
point that they are delivering longer life, better
performance and are more durable than once thought. This
study assesses the state of advanced battery
Study Results
1. Greater Battery Cycle Life Delivered Today: This study
concludes that NiMH batteries from top manufacturers
today appear to exceed projected cycle life and
durability expectations. For example 5-year old Toyota
RAV 4 EVs, in real world driving, have traveled over
100,000 miles on the original NiMH battery with no
appreciable degradation in battery performance or vehicle
range. These vehicles are projected to last for 130,000
to 150,000 miles. These results are encouraging
considering that the earlier generation NiMH batteries in
these vehicles do not have the positive electrode
additives to improve high temperature charge acceptance
(a key breakthrough reported by the BTAP 2000). In
addition, life cycle laboratory bench tests of Saft NiMH
batteries between 80% and 20% SOC demonstrated 2,841 to
2,922 cycles. Battery test data presented by Ford Motor
Co. at the Advanced Automotive Battery Conference show
considerably more than 2000 cycles between 100% and 20%
SOC and also confirmed that shallower discharge cycling
between 80% and 20% SOC results in even greater
2. One Battery Pack per Vehicle, Not Two as Originally
Projected: Greater battery cycle life means it is highly
probable that NiMH batteries can meet 130,000 � 150,000
lifetime mileage for HEV0s, PHEVs with 40 to 60 miles of
electric driving range, and full function BEVs. It is
likely that PHEVs with 20 miles of electric range (PHEV
20) can meet this target, but further testing is needed.
� BEVs can travel 130,000-150,000 ZEV miles on the original
battery pack.
� PHEV 20s can reach 150,000 total miles on original pack with
33,000 � 66,000 miles in BEV mode using off-board
electricity from the grid and additional HEV mode miles.
� PHEV 40s can reach 150,000 total miles on original pack with
up to 100,000 miles in BEV mode using off-board electricity
and additional HEV mode miles. 1
3. Electric-Drive Vehicles Can Achieve Life Cycle Cost
Parity With Conventional Gasoline Vehicles: While the
upfront estimated price to consumer are likely higher,
depending on automaker pricing strategies, substantial
fuel and maintenance savings can eventually compensate
for a higher upfront cost. This study updated the ARB
life cycle cost model from 2000, using ARB assumptions of
$1.75 per gallon gasoline and 8% discount rate combined
with the improved battery cycle life information
referenced above and refined assumptions for motor,
controller, engine, battery, maintenance, and fuel
economy costs. A minimum production volume assumption of
100,000 per year for hybrid system components was used.
This study presents one of the first life cycle cost
analysis of today's advanced batteries. The key
conclusions of the life cycle cost part of EPRI's study
(in the 10-year 150,000-mile HEV scenario) are:
� HEV 0s can reach life cycle cost parity with their
conventional vehicle (CV) counterparts. HEV 0 batteries in
medium volume production of about 100,000 per year will
cost about $400 per kWh and this is near the bottom of
their cost curve. At this price the net present value
(NPV) of a midsize HEV 0 is $500 less than its gasoline
counterpart, and a full-size SUV HEV 0 is $86 less than
its gasoline counterpart. This is without the car-maker
passing on to the consumer its approximately $500 per HEV
0 benefits from CAFE compliance, depending on the
car-maker's CAFE compliance situation.
� PHEV 20s can reach life cycle cost parity with their CV
counterparts. PHEV 20 batteries in medium-volume
production of about 100,000 per year will cost about $320
per kWh for a midsize car, and about $350/ kWh for the
full-size SUV. At this price the net present value (NPV)
of a midsize PHEV 20 is $1,207 lower than the gasoline
counterpart. The full-size SUV PHEV 20 is $1,137 lower
than the gasoline counterpart. This is without the
car-maker passing on to the consumer its approximately
$1000 per PHEV 20 benefits from CAFE compliance depending
on the car-maker's CAFE compliance situation.
� City EVs can reach life cycle cost parity with their CV
counterparts in a 10-year, 110,000-mile scenario for urban
driving. The study used a micro car battery EV (such as a
Kamkorp-TH!NK
Nordic, or E-motion vehicle) with 40-mile range (BEV 40) and
assumed it used PHEV 20 batteries. When using PHEV 20
batteries in 100,000 per year production, the net present
value of a BEV 40 is $423 less than the gasoline counterpart
(CV). This is without the car-maker passing on to the
consumer its approximately $2000 per BEV 40 benefits from
CAFE compliance depending on the car-maker's CAFE compliance
situation.
4. Near-term Commercialization of Power Assist HEVs (HEV 0)
Strengthens the Business Case for BEVs and PHEVs: With so
many automakers such as Toyota, Honda, Nissan and GM
making
HEV announcements, or already in the market, power assist
HEV market penetration is expected to exceed one million
units worldwide by 2010. Volume production of HEV 0s (which
use "power" batteries) will drive down the cost of advanced
componentry, primarily high-power electric drive motors,
motor controllers (inverters), and other electrical
hardware. There appears to be a worldwide business case for
HEV 0s although temporary public sector assistance is likely
needed to help reach higher volume production. The
availability of lower cost EDV components will have a
significant impact on the life-cycle cost of BEVs and PHEVs
reducing their upfront cost to the consumer. A critical
remaining challenge is to lower the cost of high-energy
advanced batteries by increasing the production volumes of
PHEVs and BEVs. A key conclusion of both the original EPRI
HEVWG report and this study is that commercialization of
plug-in hybrids is a viable path to achieving the necessary
production demand for higher capacity, "energy" batteries
required by BEVs and PHEVs. 2
5. At Modest Production Volumes, PHEVs Can Achieve Life
Cycle Cost Parity with CVs and HEV 0s: In the past, $150
per kWh was the often-stated goal for "energy" batteries,
based on USABC estimates in the early 1990s. This latest
EPRI study concludes that life cycle cost parity later
this decade is possible within a range of $380 to $471
per kWh if, as expected, HEV 0s bring down the cost of
electric motors and controllers. Battery experts indicate
that this cost range is attainable by a battery
manufacturer at production volumes between 48,000 to
150,000 PHEV 20 battery packs per year. The EPRI � HEV
Working Group collaborative market assessment concluded
that there is substantial market potential for PHEVs (and
for HEV 0s) even with higher upfront costs.
6. HEV 0s, PHEV 20s, and BEV 40s Can Cost-effectively Reduce
Smog-forming Emissions, Greenhouse Gases and Petroleum
Use: When product life cycle cost parity is reached,
society is achieving emission and petroleum reduction for
essentially zero cost. In technical terms, the
cost-effectiveness of reducing pollution, petroleum
consumption and global warming gases is $0 per ton of
pollution removed. In almost all the scenarios analyzed,
HEV 0, PHEV 20 and BEV 40 products reach life cycle cost
parity after several years of fuel and maintenance
savings, thereby securing pollution reductions for $0 per
ton.
Summary
This new EPRI battery study builds on two previous studies
conducted by the EPRI Hybrid Electric Vehicle Working Group
(HEVWG), a partnership of automakers, utilities, ARB, South
Coast AQMD,
Department of Energy, and academic researchers.
This study concludes that NiMH batteries from the top
manufacturers appear to significantly exceed previous
projections by ARB staff for cycle life and durability. It
is highly probable that NiMH batteries can be designed,
using current technologies, to meet the vehicle lifetime
requirements of full-function battery EVs, city EVs, and
plug-in HEVs. This significant development could mean that
only one battery pack per vehicle is required for the life
of that vehicle, not two as previously projected. The cost
of advanced batteries for HEV 0s, PHEVs, and BEVs is highly
dependent on the establishment of a stable market situation,
a predictable regulatory environment, and consistent
production volumes that encourage capital investment in
production capacity and line automation. HEV 0s, PHEV 20s,
and BEV 40s analyzed in this study can cost-effectively
reduce smog-forming gases, greenhouse gases and petroleum
consumption. In almost all scenarios analyzed, HEV 0, PHEV
20 and BEV 40 products reach life cycle cost parity,
securing pollution reductions for $0 per ton. HEV 0s in
volume will help drive down the cost of motors and
controllers that will be used in BEVs, PHEVs, and ultimately
fuel cells. However it is the commercialization of the PHEV
that holds the key to addressing the one remaining barrier
to battery powered vehicles � the cost of the "energy"
battery.
Contact Information Mark Duvall Robert Graham
Technology Development Manager Area Manager Electric
Transportation Electric Transportation Phone: (650) 855-2591
Phone: (650) 855-2556 Email: mduvall@ epri. com Email:
rgraham@ epri. com
EPRI, 3412 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94304-1395
USA � 2002 Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), Inc.
All rights PO Box 10-412, Palo Alto, California 94303-0813
USA reserved. Electric Power Research Institute and EPRI are
registered 800-313-3774, 650-855-2121, askepri@ epri. com,
www. epri. com service marks of the Electric Power Research
Institute, Inc. EPRI. ELECTRIFY THE WORLD is a service mark
of the Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. 3
-
=====
' ____
~/__|o\__
'@----- @'---(=
. http://geocities.com/brucedp/
. EV List Editor & RE newswires
. (originator of the above ASCII art)
=====
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com
--- End Message ---
