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: [email protected]
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




 

Reply via email to