On Thursday 07 February 2008 18:32, Jones Beene wrote: > This concept from Volvo is not totally 'new' by any > means, but here is a short well-done video explaining > how the small details continue to evolve beyond the > current Prius - and towards an immediately marketable > system which is even 'greener' and more efficient. > > The nice refinement here is the combination of 4 > electric motors in the wheels (4-wheel drive, > essentially), eliminating the transmission, a small > engine which can burn biofuel for longer trips, along > with an intermediate range for batteries, which can be > plugged in at home. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmJTsHcZMFQ&feature=related > > The ~60 miles of range w/o combustion kicking-in is > just about the right distance for many parts of the > USA, and using the new version of the less-costly lead > acid battery (the batt-cap which are already in > limited production) makes this solution less costly > than anything requiring lithium, or other exotic > materials. > > http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/20105/ > > IOW instead of the pure plug-in hybrid, which would > require a ma$$ive cost for needed amount of batteries > for longer trips, you get the desirability of > unlimited range with the small ICE. But if all you do > is medium distance commutes with grid power available > at the other end, then you could conceivably go for > weeks or even months without needing the ICE or > gasoline at all. > > The other option would be the 'trailerable' ICE. That > would be a towed unit which contains the ICE and fuel > tank, which does not need to be attached to the hitch > until needed (or can be rented). > > Either concept using the advanced lead-acid is doable > now for the cost of a Prius, whether or not the cheap > 'bettery' gets here soon (and most versions won't be > cheap for years). > > It would not surprise me at all if Toyota does not > stun everyone with an early version of this using > similar refinements in 2008, including the advanced > lead-acid. Why do I predict this? > > Rumor-control (blogger) has Toyota licensing, or in > negotiations, for the Oasis advanced lead technology: > > http://www.fireflyenergy.com/ index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=204&Itemid=89 > > The major knocks, from the peanut gallery, on this > kind of implementation, are: [followed by my comments > to answer their objections] > > "Is there a point in keeping this "hybrid"? If the car > can already drive 100km with one charge, wouldn't it > make sense to get rid of the 1.6L engine, fuel tank, > etc. to lighten it up or put more batteries and extend > the mileage/charge?" > > [What?? and never be able to go on a long vacation by > car, or a long drive, without first doing some serious > pre-planning] > > "lugging around a dead weight of 150kg in EV mode does > seems pointless." > > [Not as pointless as running out of charge 5 miles > from you destination on the Freeway!!] > > [The trailer-ICE option would also fit in to the > options available here, but that gets back to the > pre-planning issue.] > > "If it'll do 100km with it, then the range and > performance will be even better without it. This is > probably to placate all those whiners who claim they > want 400km range but only drive 50km a day! " > > [The whiners are basically correct - as they are > thinking ahead for contingencies. The good-life is not > all short commutes, or resorting to rent-a-cars for > vacations, and sometimes we just get the urge to take > a spontaneous long drive.] > > It is probably true that the small engine itself could > be even smaller and lighter, and the Wankel seems > ideal for this ... but that is where we must go with > the next iteration of refinement, after we get tooled > up for this one. > > Jones > Not too sold on the idea of another NSU licensed Wankel. Mazda sold this for years in the RX-7 to mixed success. Problem was always excessive oil consumption. No way to keep it sealed given the odd shaped combustion chamber, the widely varying field conditions, and the equally widely varying operating environments imposed by the drivers who often seriousely abused the cars...and the engines. Li-ion batteries encorporating nanotubes seem to be preferable to polluting the environment with yet more lead. Considerable weight advantage here too as the energy storage density of the Li-ion/nanotube piles are far greater. There seems also a reliability and MTBF advantage as well with the nanotube enhanced units. We now have some recent breakthroughs in economically manufacturing nanotubes for these cells published in the Journals of the American Institute of Physics. What really stands out is the combined use of these batteries with ultracapacitors, and the ability to fast charge them literally in seconds. This could lead to literally doing away with, like said above, the internal combustion units as long as fast charging stations, the required infrastructure of this fuel cell type system, were well distributed around the country. Would venture to add, though, that 'self service' may prove to be a casualty of the introduction of this system as safety considerations may weigh in favor of using trained personnel to do the 'refueling'. Practical refueling ranges of vehicles need not be over a hundred miles or so. Many motorcycles today get less than that on a tank of gas and are used as main commuting vehicles by their owners. This system may even be scalable to be used on motorcycles. As a biker I would like to see my hobby provided for so that future generations would be able to enjoy biking.
Standing Bear
