I think it depends on the particular implementation of hybrid technology. Current hybrid cars like my 2010 Toyota Geekmobile (Prius) use the gas engine in parallel with the electric motor. The gas engine starts and stops frequently depending on the power demand at any given moment. I can barely feel it when the gas engine kicks in. I doubt a diesel engine would be so smooth at the transition.
Modern locomotives use their diesel engines in series with the electric motors. The diesel engine is running all of the time powering a generator that in turn powers the electric drive motors. I think they may also have regenerative braking but I have not looked into locomotive design for a long time.
From conflicting accounts, I’ve read that the Chevy Volt will be more of a series hybrid than a parallel hybrid. A small diesel might be just the ticket for that application.
I hear VW has been experimenting with diesel hybrids. As it is, their latest TDI models get mileage comparable to my own Honda Civic Hybrid… and without battery issues.
I would love to see more options available and more innovation in the cars we get Stateside. Why don’t we get the Ford Fiesta ecoNetic, for example?
When I bought my Civic Hybrid in 2003, I had high hopes for what my options for the next car would be. My plan has always been to put off a new vehicle until my wife and I start having kids and I could use more interior room.
I’ve been sorely disappointed at the auto industry’s seeming inability to offer Americans vehicles that are both fuel-efficient and family-friendly. The WV Jetta SportWagen TDI comes pretty close, but I’m not convinced it’s worth the premium.
“Why don’t we get the Ford Fiesta ecoNetic, for example?”
A) The engine is currently made in the U.K. , which makes it expensive to import.
B) Taxes on diesel would make it expensive to run.
C) Americans by and large have a dim view of diesel.
Locomotives are electric in any country with decent electrified railways. The fastest trains, the most used lines in the world, are all electric.
Advances in gasoline engines (e.g. gasoline direct injection), electronic control, are making diesel engines less necessary for mass market automotive applications.
Diesel will still have higher density and be more efficient, the question is one of economics. In Europe there are steep fuel taxes, so the market is more sensitive to fuel economy. Vehicle taxes indexed to emissions and engine displacement mean cars in Europe have less fuel consumption as well. I do not see it happening in the US given the current market situation.
Predictions of electric vehicles dominating in 1901 were not unreasonable at the time. Check out vehicle speed and range in that era and you will see electric cars main competition was provided by steam powered cars, which had their own set of inconveniences. Check the land speed records prior to 1902 – record holding vehicles were all electric.
Electric cars are a good idea. I think we will see increasingly more hybrids and eventually mass market full electrics on the long run. As the EROEI of hydrocarbon fuels gets lower, they will stop making sense for a lot of applications including automotive.
In the short term there may be a devolution towards high efficiency gasoline only vehicles as oil prices have been reasonably low of late.
Legislation may make electric commonplace much earlier than that however. Imagine if some region banned all non-electric vehicles inside the city. This may sound impossible, but after seeing the incandescent bulb ban nonsense, it would not surprise me one bit.
The primary selling point for electric cars has nothing whatsoever to do with so-called anthropogenic global warming which is one of the great scientific frauds in history, but rather reducing our economic dependence and vast wealth transfer to major oil producing states. Secondarily, Air pollution can also be more effectively controlled and reduced at the level of the centralized electricity producing coal fired plants than at the level of soot producing automobile tail pipes. Talk to any runner about smog in major urban areas which has a large automotive-generated component.
I concede that the changeover will be much slower and more difficult than many “green” advocates predict, but the Nissan Leaf with a 24 kWh battery and a 100-mile range is a good start. The Ford Focus Electric will have a 23 kWh battery and approximately the same 100-mile range. That’s probably sufficient for a second car for most people or even a first car for some people. Plug it in at night and say goodbye to the gas station. I have no doubt that electric battery technology will improve to service this initially small but slowly growing sector. The electric automotive market will grow slow enough that demand can be met with increased coal fired plants if the environmental crazies will allow them to be built!
For now and the foreseeable future, a pure electric car or truck is only practical for short distance urban driving. Unfortunately, for millions of people, that doesn’t come close to matching their needs. A hybrid electric vehicle makes far more sense for most people than a pure electric vehicle.
The desire for electric cars has always been a mystery to me, one which none of my activist friends has ever been able to solve. Nor have I been able to get across to them an indisputable fact that no “breakthrough” will ever change: electric cars use more energy than gasoline or diesel cars, and not by a little bit. There is no controversy about that; it’s Engineering 101, and every course thereafter.
All cars run by releasing stored potential energy with generation of heat, and that heat is converted through a series of steps until it arrives at the drive wheels as mechanical power. The more steps the energy has to go through, the less arrives as mechanical power at the wheels.
In a conventional car, heat is transformed to mechanical power by either an Otto or Diesel cycle (maybe with enhancements), travels through a transmission and differential or transaxle, and arrives at the wheel. Combustion, two mechanical steps, drive.
In an electric car, heat is transformed into mechanical power in some version of a Rankine cycle, then into electrical power by a generator. It is then transformed to high voltage and sent out over transmission lines. At a substation, it is stepped down and distributed over local transmission lines until it arrives at a charging station, where it is stepped down once again, then rectified, and used to create a chemical reaction in a battery. When the car is ready to go, the chemical reaction is (mostly) reversed, delivering electric power to the power conditioning circuitry in the vehicle, then converted into mechanical power by a motor, and delivered to the wheel. Combustion, 12 different conversion steps (minimum), then mechanical power at the wheels. Every one of those 12 steps involves a loss, some small, some quite large.
Given the fact that Rankine cycles (using steam) top out at 40% efficiency, while Otto and Diesel cycles can hit 50% and 65% efficiency, respectively, the electric cycle is a loser from the very first step. But with all of the added steps in between, it becomes even worse. An Otto cycle car might convert 30% of the original stored potential energy into mechanical power at the wheels. An electric car will never get above 15%, if the original source is a steam power plant (regardless of heat source).
I don’t have any problem with people who want to drive them. I just have a problem with the absolutely, indisputably false claim that they are *more* economical energy-wise. It just flat isn’t true, never was, and never will be. Attempts to make it so are on a par with attempts to square the circle, which is also indisputably impossible.
The irony is that the electric motor killed the electric car. Gas engines used to have to be cranked to start. The electric starter motor eliminated that inconvenience.
I’ve thought a turbine hybrid would be a good idea. I hear turbines can be made to run very efficiently. The turbine whine might be a problem.
Larry J writes, “a pure electric car or truck is only practical for short distance urban driving. Unfortunately, for millions of people, that doesn’t come close to matching their needs.”
My response, “so what?” This is the fallacy of thinking that there must be one and only one national automobile propulsion technology. I could draw an analogy to similar arguments made by some advocates for a certain space transportation architecture, but I will resist the temptation. For decades at least, I predict that hydrocarbon propulsion (whether gasoline, diesel or hybrid) will power the majority of automobiles. But there will be many people, especially urban dwellers or short distance drivers whose needs will be met with electric cars. Small incremental improvements to a 110 or 120-mile range are certainly possible. Is this so wrong?
MfK, I never argued that electric cars are more efficient. Your arguments also do not address the primary reasons why I advocate for electric cars. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, at least for the individual electric car owners, and a concomitant reduction in automotive exhaust e.g. soot which has the greatest impact on precisely the places where electric cars will be most useful i.e. urban areas.
I should add that it will be practical for many people in small countries or states like Denmark, Hawaii or Israel. It will be practical for very few in places like Alaska.
Nor have I been able to get across to them an indisputable fact that no “breakthrough” will ever change: electric cars use more energy than gasoline or diesel cars, and not by a little bit. There is no controversy about that; it’s Engineering 101, and every course thereafter.
Eh no. An electric engine is more efficient at producing mechanical energy from stored energy than any internal combustion engine. Think like 90% vs 30%. Also if you have electric storage in the vehicle it is trivial to implement regenerative braking. Regenerative braking gives you even more energy savings when driving in the city doing loads of stops and starts on every traffic light.
If you remember thermodynamics class, even an ideal Carnot engine has an efficiency limited by the temperature difference between the hot source (fuel burning) and the cold sink (atmosphere or whatever). Well if you have a stationary power plant you can use a river as the cold sink, use heavier materials which can withstand a higher temperature in the hot source. This (plus combined cycle) means you can get like 60% efficiency when using a stationary generator (such as a power plant) vs a mobile generator (such as an automobile).
Any sort of thermal cycle considerations are thrown out of the window if you are using wind or hydropower as the energy source. If batteries were cheap it would make sense to build even more wind capacity than used today, using batteries for load leveling. If everyone’s car was plugged into the grid charging during off peak times (nighttime), you could probably power millions of cars without building any extra generating capacity.
The problem with electric cars is the batteries. Not capacity, I actually think present battery capacity is fine (lots of electric cars today have 200 mile range or more). The major problems are cost and lifetime.
If everyone’s car was plugged into the grid charging during off peak times (nighttime), you could probably power millions of cars without building any extra generating capacity.
Currently, off peak generation uses base power, the most recent and efficient generators out there. When base power isn’t enough, older and/or less efficient sources are turned on to meet the additional need. Driving up the electricity consumed in off peak hours will either increase the demand for more base power or drive the utilities to turn on less efficient sources such as gas turbines. Since wind power is unreliable and solar power doesn’t work at night, adding a lot of electric cars will indeed drive the need for additional power sources. Nuclear would be a good choice.
“Eh no.”
I couldn’t have come up with a better example of the refusal to understand facts that this one. Re-read what I wrtoe, Godzilla, and see that you’re omitting 90% of it from your “argument.” Hint: electricity for a car does not *originate* in the battery.
Last week I had a interesting conversation with a control room engineer that works at a power generation plant down the road from where I live. I found out from him that it is a combined cycle power plant that houses 4 Toshiba gas generators that can bleed hot exhaust gases into a GE steam electric. It is a fairly new power plant and he said all this stuff is cutting edge.
I asked him specifically about what it takes to get a generator in a power plant up and running from a cold start. He said it depends on a lot of factors but the atmospheric conditions can greatly affect the thermal stresses in the turbine engine during startup. When things are good then they can get up and running in about a day, day and half. When conditions aren’t so great then it can take 2 maybe 3 days. He said if they were to just gas it and crank it up they’d easily snap a turbine blade or warp the turbine shaft. It sounded like the whole thing is like tuning a instrument between all the harmonics, turbulence, temperatures, and pressures that are being created throughout the compression and combustion chambers. The generator just ain’t ready until it’s ready.
Then, he said once they get the generator up and running they just can’t flip the switch on and say, “here’s your power!” They have to actually monitor the condition of the grid that they supply power into and modulate the output of the generator to match the reactance of the grid. Because the grid is constantly fluctuating they have to shoot for a specific parameter and then wait and lock onto the grid when the grid comes in sync. Otherwise, they can blow a whole grid out and kill the power completely; that would be a bad day. Then, last call came, I bought him a beer and thanked him for the cool info.
I guess my point to the OT is that with all these people plugging and unplugging multi-kilowatt battery banks into the grid at erratic and random intervals it will be just another variable to shoot after. This will invariably lead to an increased number of power generation sites constantly running to meet the perceived yet unexpected demands. Then, couple this with the fact that people generally drive more during the summer months precisely at the moment when air conditioners are running non-stop. To me, a large scale increase in electric vehicle use would make additional power plant construction absolutely necessary.
Interesting, Josh, and continuing testimony to how people (and, I am including myself here) tend to think something is easy if we know nothing about it.
Yea, thanks! It was a pretty interesting discussion when compared to your usual bar conversation. I had thought to ask him the question because of a comment I read here recently regarding the long start-up times. So, it turned into a fairly interesting first hand account of how they do it.
Josh: ordinary combustion turbines can spin up much faster than that (witness that jet engines don’t take two days to start). Combined cycle plants are intended for baseload generation though, so fast startup wouldn’t be as high a priority.
The problem with electric cars is the batteries. Not capacity, I actually think present battery capacity is fine (lots of electric cars today have 200 mile range or more).
Since there aren’t “lots of electric cars” in the market place, I doubt this is true, but let’s say it is, what there aren’t are any electric cars that have a 200+ mile range on a hot August day in Texas (or Florida, or So. California, or…) with the A/C running and the radio on. Also what there isn’t is a quick and efficient way of charging these cars when they hit the limit of their range (whether its 50 miles or 250). Home charging may be efficient, but it’s not quick; charging stations, are neither.
Rob: Depending on the battery technology used, if you have a dedicated charging station you can quickly charge like half the battery in a couple of minutes:
Often the charging time difference is due to having a high voltage industrial grade connection to the grid (dedicated charging station), versus a low voltage residential grade connection (home charging). If you only get power in a trickle it is going to take a long time to charge the battery.
You usually cannot charge the battery quickly to the full 100% because a battery heats up while charging. You do not want the battery to blow up eh? But quick charges of 50% or more have been done quite often.
The Tesla Roadster has over 200 mile range. Usually electric vehicle manufacturers limit range to decrease vehicle cost. Batteries are still awfully expensive. The Tesla Model S (if it gets manufactured and sold) is also supposed to have over 200 mile range.
Josh: ordinary combustion turbines can spin up much faster than that (witness that jet engines don’t take two days to start).
True that. Though I’d be willing to wager that the gas turbines in a power plant are much larger than that of an aircraft and that would contribute to their longer startup. Also, I believe a turbine built for generating power is built to the margins of enhanced efficiency and steady state power rather than throttle response and robust operation through a multitude of environments.
When Tesla says it has a 200 mile range, that’s under optimum conditions, not necessarily typical conditions. What’s the range during August in the South or Southwest? With the A/C running? In rush hour traffic? In L.A.? How about during February in the Northeast? With the heat on? In rush hour traffic? In NYC? Did you know that a car heater works by using excess heat from the engine to warm the passenger compartment? How would a heater work in a electric car? I suspect, unlike a conventionally powered car, the electric car would actually have to use straight electric heat, powered by the battery to heat the car, which, iir, is not very efficient. Add to that, cars are not typically well insulated. What about areas like the Mid East, where it’s not unusual to run the A/C and the heat, to help defog the windows when it’s cold. I could go on, but I suspect you get the point.
Regarding the fast charger, if you read the article, in addition to it using non-standard charger that requires changes to the vehicle hardware and software, you find the charging system relies on a battery that stores the power it uses to charge the cars, which it is able to dump very quickly to achieve the quick charge. The battery is trickle charged during off-peak hours. The first question I see, is how many cars could it quick charge before needing a recharge? I suspect it can’t be that many based on the cost of the system ($63k), maybe 5 cars at most. Even if it were 10, that’s not very many compared to what a typical gas station can handle. I guess, you could just assume that the typical person will charge their cars at home (not sure its its valid, but…), so maybe 5-10 cars/per day/per charger will be adequate, but if that’s the case, I don’t see a business model under which these charging stations could be profitable. The second question is what will be the impact of a large number of these station on the grid? If these stations, along with the electric cars start pushing off-peak power usage to levels approaching peak hours, utilities will likely need to increase capacity and start charging higher rates for “no longer off-peak” hours.
What about areas like the Mid East, where it’s not unusual to run the A/C and the heat, to help defog the windows when it’s cold.
By Mid East, I mean the Mid-Atlantic region, not the Middle East.
Josh: it’s my understanding that there are “aero-derivative” industrial turbines that have a great deal of commonality with aircraft engines. But aside from that, combustion turbines are used to provide daily peaking power for utilities. This could not be the case if they took days to start up.
The lengthy startup period for that combined cycle unit was probably determined by the steam turbine, not the combustion turbines upstream of it.
“Taxes on diesel would make it expensive to run.”
Compared to what? Setting aside the increased cost of a Jetta TDI over a Ford Escort (to provide two cars with actual mileage figures), when gas was $4/gallon and diesel $4.80, I had a friend with said TDI that got 40mpg, and I had an Escort that got 20mpg. On a per-mile basis, his vehicle was significantly cheaper even tho his fuel was more expensive.
I may have paraphrased it wrong. As the article states: “the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline.”
Rob: Tesla actually states a 245 mile range for the Roadster. 300 mile range for the yet not produced Model S. It is just that I am, let us say, skeptical of manufacturer stated battery abilities on any product. So I say it is 200 mile range.
Range is going to be different depending on all sorts of local factors. There are several technical solutions to reduce such issues. There are other ways to prevent frost piling up than using resistive heating (e.g. adding coatings to glass similar to Teflon), and there are other ways to provide ambient temperature than using resistive heating (heat pumps can provide heat as well as cold). Sure there are going to be issues using heat pumps in Alaska, or whatever, but when you live in a place like that even regular combustion engines have issues.
Electric cars do not need to be the be all, end all, of vehicles. They just need to be good enough for most people to use. Most people live neither in Alaska, nor in the Sahara.
The charger I linked to used trickle charging of another battery to provide the juice for the vehicle’s battery. This is done so you can have fast vehicle charging in areas with a terrible power grid.
Hint: electricity for a car does not *originate* in the battery.
And gasoline does not originate at the corner service station — refining and transportation (and cleaning Gulf Coast beaches) eat up a lot of the potential energy of crude in the ground. The US today gets much of its oil from Canadian tar sands, which require huge amounts of energy to turn into liquid fuel.
We have a lot of excess electricity today that is wasted because it is generated at night, when no one needs it, by coal and nuclear plants that can’t be quickly switched off and on. According to a 2007 Pacific National Lab study, we could convert 84% of US cars to plug-in hybrids without needing more generating capacity, just by using off-peak generating capacity that currently goes unused. For more info, see CalCars.
Engineering Prof Chris Kobus writes: “Glenn – you’re absolutely correct. Diesel technology is inherently more efficient. If all spark-ignition engines were replaced with diesel, we’d reduce our dependence on foreign oil by almost 50%.
Engineering Prof, not Economics Prof. If we converted all our cars to diesel, the price of oil and diesel would skyrocket. Demand for diesel is already growing faster than demand for gasoline.
The average driver puts 40 miles a day on their vehicle. That 40 mile statistic drove the Volt’s battery-only range requirement.
Assuming that the 40-mile-day number is correct, a 200-mile range vehicle should cover the needs of a lot of people. In fact, unless you’re taking a driving vacation, 200 miles a day is a lot.
Godzilla – The Tesla roadster has a base price of $110k, even with tax subsidies (i.e. money confiscated from people who couldn’t afford to walk into a Tesla showroom, let alone buy one), the price is over $100k. For that price, I could buy a Cadillac Escalade, enough gas (at $4.00/gallon) to drive 250,000 miles, have a much more useful vehicle, not be limited to a sub-250 mile range, and not have to rely on an unavailable and unproven logistics system to support it.
Regarding Tesla’s, or any electric vehicles range, you seem to have a problem differentiating between optimum conditions and typical. Maybe…possibly, you could get 250 miles of range on a charge, provided you carry no passengers, drive like my grandmother, hit no traffic, don’t have to use the A/C or heat, drive on a relatively flat surface, have no significant head or crosswinds, are driving in the optimium temperature range for the batteries, etc. In other words, you aren’t likely to see anything close to the maximum range under typical conditions. You may be able to mitigate some of these factors with technology (or you may not), but you won’t be able to elminate them and they won’t be free.
With respect to chargers, essentially what you are saying is that if you’re not one of the first 5-10 customers of the day and so can use the really rapid charger, you have to use the sorta rapid charger, which only takes 10 times as long to charge your car as it does to fill a gas tank. So only 35 minutes downtime, unless of course, there’s a person or two in line ahead of you, in which case you could be cooling your heels for an hour or more to get fueled up.
Electric cars do not need to be the be all, end all, of vehicles. They just need to be good enough for most people to use. Most people live neither in Alaska, nor in the Sahara.
Which is why I used the South, Southwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions as examples. Try to keep up. Cars, to be useful for the vast majority of people, need to meet something over 90% of their needs (I would argue, something approaching 100%). A car that only meets 75% of your needs means that for 1 week a month, you need to make some other arrangement for transportation. Most people would find this unacceptable.
Next Monday morning, I’m going to get in my Toyota Geekmobile (Prius) and drive about 70 miles to Denver International Airport. If I had an electric car like the Nissan Leaf or Tesla Roadster, that wouldn’t be a problem. However, the following Friday, I’m going to drive back home. The reported range of the Leaf is about 100 miles, so that means the batteries would peter out about halfway home. The Tesla would have the range to get me home but it costs about $100K, far more than my $22K Geekmobile.
For daily commuting, a range of 200 or even 100 miles will meet the needs of most people. However, I have to buy a car that will meet my needs every day. Living in Colorado, that means I need a car that can handle snow (like millions of other Americans) as well as the trips to DIA that happen several times a year. I can’t afford to buy a “sunshine car” while having to maintain a “distance car” or “bad weather car.”
I just bought the Geekmobile about 5 weeks ago so I have not had a chance to test it in snow. Reportedly, it does pretty good. I have no worries about range (averaging 50.5 MPG over the 820 miles I’ve driven it so far).
A pure electric car will meet the needs of some people but I think a lot of people will come to the same conclusion I have – we can’t afford multiple cars so we have to have something that meets all of our needs. A pure electric car just isn’t likely to cut it for most people, IMO. A series hybrid car like the Volt better fits my needs but reportedly costs over $40K which is more than I want to spend on a car. Sure, we taxpayers will give GM and the Volt buyers a gift in the form of a tax credit but many of them will also have the expense of having to install 220 volt recharging units in their homes. I doubt that will be cheap.
Chris – the average driver number is pretty meaningless, because average =/= typical and it doesn’t account for the impact of driving conditions on power usage. That 40 mile range could turn into 20-25 real quick under typical conditions.
On a whim, I visited the Tesla website. What I found is that using standard (120v) household current, the charging rate is 5 miles per hour. Now, at home, you will probably have one of their high rate chargers, but what about on the road? If you’re not near a large metropolitan area you will likely have to rely on standard household current for recharging for the forseeable future. How you gonna like spending over 2 full days to charge your $100k vehicle before you can go home from your weekend trip to the country?
Here’s an interesting tale from the Car & Driver on a night of adventure with the Tesla and its “244 mile” range.
Jim says: “And gasoline does not originate at the corner service station ”
Another monumental idiot heard from.
Pay close attention. From the point at which the stored potential energy is released to where it is applied at the drive wheel, the electric car wastes more than the gasoline or diesel car. Electric cars therefore use more energy.
It is a f***ing simple as that, you morons.
Rob Smith – I confess to not remembering if the 40/mile/day was “average” or “typical.”
Regarding charge rates – yes that is the big problem. Right now, if you can afford a Tesla you can afford a charger at your country place. I suspect that the long-term answer to recharging batteries is the propane model – standardized batteries that you can swap out in a reasonable amount of time.
Pay close attention. From the point at which the stored potential energy is released to where it is applied at the drive wheel, the electric car wastes more than the gasoline or diesel car. Electric cars therefore use more energy.
Sigh. No this is not true. Imagine you are using a combined cycle natural gas power plant to generate the electricity at 60% efficiency. Then you have 10% transmission losses. Plus 10% battery losses. Then an 80% efficient electric engine. That means you get like 38.88% of the natural gas energy turned into mechanical power. A highly efficient internal combustion engine is like 30% efficient. Even if you ignore oil refining energy costs, transportation costs, the internal combustion vehicle wastes more energy than an electric.
When you add the fact that an electric vehicle can have engines directly connected to the wheels, reducing engine transmission losses, plus that it is trivial to add regenerative braking, the energetic advantage of electric only gets better.
Also, when using electric vehicles, you can move emissions outside of city centers into places few people live. You can also use scrubbing systems that would be too heavy to use in a motor vehicle to clean up the emissions.
It is convenient to ignore the fact that a lot of energy sources like hydropower and wind power are not easily convertible into hydrocarbon fuels, while they are easy to convert into electricity. Same thing goes for present nuclear technology. High temperature nuclear reactors could change this equation for nuclear power, but they are not in production yet.
Electrics have a lot of issues. Energy efficiency is definitively not one of them. As I said before the issues are battery cost and longevity. Want something with horrible energy efficiency? Try hydrogen vehicles, or even worse, corn ethanol.
If you want to take a long trip, you were probably better off taking an airplane to your destination and renting a car once you got there. 15 minute battery charging times pale in comparison to the time our ancestors used to take waiting for a horse to drink and eat between stops. The battery charging times can be further decreased to 3 minutes or less, provided a dedicated charging infrastructure is setup, plus the appropriate battery chemistry is used.
This is all provided current technology is used. If we had cheap room temperature superconductors we could reduce transmission and engine losses to basically zero. Heck we could probably even use that technology to make something other than batteries to store the electricity.
Anyway this is all irrelevant since present battery cost and longevity mean it is cheaper to buy internal combustion engine powered vehicles, even if the fuel comes from tar sands, gas to liquids, or whatnot. The batteries cost more than the rest of the car put together. They may last only 5 years. The problems are as simple as that.
Regarding charge rates – yes that is the big problem. Right now, if you can afford a Tesla you can afford a charger at your country place.
Exactly, electric cars, like the Tesla are toys for rich folks. So why do relatively poor folks, like me, have to subsidize them?
I suspect that the long-term answer to recharging batteries is the propane model – standardized batteries that you can swap out in a reasonable amount of time.
Nice idea, but the start up costs for buying 50 grill sized propane tanks is several orders of magnitude less than buying 50 lithium ion batteries for electric cars, making the business model a little trickier.
If you want to take a long trip, you were probably better off taking an airplane to your destination and renting a car once you got there.
When was the last time you went to an airport? I could drive 500 miles in roughly the same time it took me to fly 500 miles when you consider getting to the airport, checking bags, going through security, etc.
Godzilla Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
“Imagine you are using a combined cycle natural gas power plant to generate the electricity at 60% efficiency.”
You can imagine anything you like, but then there is reality.
5/6 of 38.9% is 32.4%, and you’re already just barely above your figure for the ICE. Some of your other figures look a mite too rosy to me, too, and don’t appear to consider the variety of intended operating conditions. I think I’ll go with MfK on this.
Re all that “wasted” electricity being generated by night, when “no one needs it” — I don’t know about where you all live, but my electricity usage doesn’t stop at night. Why, I’m in my room at 11:25 PM with my overhead lights on, typing this on my computer which. And the refrigerator runs 24/7, and if I had air conditioning (this apartment doesn’t) I’d have it on right now because it’s hot in here. And I’m about to put on the fan which is also electric. Yeah, but other than that, I don’t “need” any electricity at night. Nor do street lights have to be on, and so on. I mean what.
I meant to say “typing this on my computer which runs on electricity, not hamster-wheel power.” I guess my typing ran out of electricity.
The real metric to me $/mile ops cost.
Electric cars look cheap that way.
lifecycle costs need to drop.
The real metric to me $/mile ops cost.
Electric cars look cheap that way.
The new Chevy Volt is projected to cost $40k, compare that to a Honda Accord LX (4cyl) at $20k. For $40k, with gas at $4.00/gallon (currently at $2.60 at my local filling station), I can buy the accord and enough gas to drive 125,000 miles (using the incredibly conservative estimate of 25mpg). Basically for the price of a Volt, I can buy a Honda Accord and drive it cost free for 10 years. Tell me again how cheap electric cars look.
I don’t know about where you all live, but my electricity usage doesn’t stop at night
Wow.
No one said that there’s no electricity demand at night, just that demand at night is lower than the base load that is being generated 24×7.
You know, when cars first came out they were rich men’s toys, and all sorts of people couldn’t see how we could ever transition away from horses and steam trains. In fact, every new technology started out as a rich man’s toy.
I’m not saying that means electric cars will become common. I am saying that the history of technology suggests it’s quite possible that they will.
I am saying that the history of technology suggests it’s quite possible that they will.
Just as soon as our Betters succeed in herding everybody into tightly packed little apartments in tightly packed huge cities.
You know, when cars first came out they were rich men’s toys, and all sorts of people couldn’t see how we could ever transition away from horses and steam trains.
My problem is not that electric cars are “rich men’s toys”, it’s that “not rich men”, like myself, are being forced to subsidize the purchase. My other problem is the attempt by government (and industry) to force people into vehicles that are impractical them. Nobody had to force people to ride steam trains by putting emissions restrictions on horses and taxing their feed.
“Nobody had to force people to ride steam trains by putting emissions restrictions on horses and taxing their feed.”
Bravo! What more needs to be said?
The massive stink from piles of horseshit (and the more-than-occasional dead horse) in the street certainly provided encouragement to switch to a different mode of transportation.
The massive stink from piles of horseshit (and the more-than-occasional dead horse) in the street certainly provided encouragement to switch to a different mode of transportation.
That, and petroleum powered automobiles were a superior mode of transportation to horses, as well as electric and steam powered autos. They still are, and probably will be for the foreseeable future, which is why the government has to use regulations and subsidies to tilt the playing field in favor of the more expensive and less desirable alternatives.
I think it depends on the particular implementation of hybrid technology. Current hybrid cars like my 2010 Toyota Geekmobile (Prius) use the gas engine in parallel with the electric motor. The gas engine starts and stops frequently depending on the power demand at any given moment. I can barely feel it when the gas engine kicks in. I doubt a diesel engine would be so smooth at the transition.
Modern locomotives use their diesel engines in series with the electric motors. The diesel engine is running all of the time powering a generator that in turn powers the electric drive motors. I think they may also have regenerative braking but I have not looked into locomotive design for a long time.
From conflicting accounts, I’ve read that the Chevy Volt will be more of a series hybrid than a parallel hybrid. A small diesel might be just the ticket for that application.
I hear VW has been experimenting with diesel hybrids. As it is, their latest TDI models get mileage comparable to my own Honda Civic Hybrid… and without battery issues.
I would love to see more options available and more innovation in the cars we get Stateside. Why don’t we get the Ford Fiesta ecoNetic, for example?
When I bought my Civic Hybrid in 2003, I had high hopes for what my options for the next car would be. My plan has always been to put off a new vehicle until my wife and I start having kids and I could use more interior room.
I’ve been sorely disappointed at the auto industry’s seeming inability to offer Americans vehicles that are both fuel-efficient and family-friendly. The WV Jetta SportWagen TDI comes pretty close, but I’m not convinced it’s worth the premium.
“Why don’t we get the Ford Fiesta ecoNetic, for example?”
There’s a few reasons, mainly:
A) The engine is currently made in the U.K. , which makes it expensive to import.
B) Taxes on diesel would make it expensive to run.
C) Americans by and large have a dim view of diesel.
Locomotives are electric in any country with decent electrified railways. The fastest trains, the most used lines in the world, are all electric.
Advances in gasoline engines (e.g. gasoline direct injection), electronic control, are making diesel engines less necessary for mass market automotive applications.
Diesel will still have higher density and be more efficient, the question is one of economics. In Europe there are steep fuel taxes, so the market is more sensitive to fuel economy. Vehicle taxes indexed to emissions and engine displacement mean cars in Europe have less fuel consumption as well. I do not see it happening in the US given the current market situation.
Predictions of electric vehicles dominating in 1901 were not unreasonable at the time. Check out vehicle speed and range in that era and you will see electric cars main competition was provided by steam powered cars, which had their own set of inconveniences. Check the land speed records prior to 1902 – record holding vehicles were all electric.
Electric cars are a good idea. I think we will see increasingly more hybrids and eventually mass market full electrics on the long run. As the EROEI of hydrocarbon fuels gets lower, they will stop making sense for a lot of applications including automotive.
In the short term there may be a devolution towards high efficiency gasoline only vehicles as oil prices have been reasonably low of late.
Legislation may make electric commonplace much earlier than that however. Imagine if some region banned all non-electric vehicles inside the city. This may sound impossible, but after seeing the incandescent bulb ban nonsense, it would not surprise me one bit.
The primary selling point for electric cars has nothing whatsoever to do with so-called anthropogenic global warming which is one of the great scientific frauds in history, but rather reducing our economic dependence and vast wealth transfer to major oil producing states. Secondarily, Air pollution can also be more effectively controlled and reduced at the level of the centralized electricity producing coal fired plants than at the level of soot producing automobile tail pipes. Talk to any runner about smog in major urban areas which has a large automotive-generated component.
I concede that the changeover will be much slower and more difficult than many “green” advocates predict, but the Nissan Leaf with a 24 kWh battery and a 100-mile range is a good start. The Ford Focus Electric will have a 23 kWh battery and approximately the same 100-mile range. That’s probably sufficient for a second car for most people or even a first car for some people. Plug it in at night and say goodbye to the gas station. I have no doubt that electric battery technology will improve to service this initially small but slowly growing sector. The electric automotive market will grow slow enough that demand can be met with increased coal fired plants if the environmental crazies will allow them to be built!
For now and the foreseeable future, a pure electric car or truck is only practical for short distance urban driving. Unfortunately, for millions of people, that doesn’t come close to matching their needs. A hybrid electric vehicle makes far more sense for most people than a pure electric vehicle.
The desire for electric cars has always been a mystery to me, one which none of my activist friends has ever been able to solve. Nor have I been able to get across to them an indisputable fact that no “breakthrough” will ever change: electric cars use more energy than gasoline or diesel cars, and not by a little bit. There is no controversy about that; it’s Engineering 101, and every course thereafter.
All cars run by releasing stored potential energy with generation of heat, and that heat is converted through a series of steps until it arrives at the drive wheels as mechanical power. The more steps the energy has to go through, the less arrives as mechanical power at the wheels.
In a conventional car, heat is transformed to mechanical power by either an Otto or Diesel cycle (maybe with enhancements), travels through a transmission and differential or transaxle, and arrives at the wheel. Combustion, two mechanical steps, drive.
In an electric car, heat is transformed into mechanical power in some version of a Rankine cycle, then into electrical power by a generator. It is then transformed to high voltage and sent out over transmission lines. At a substation, it is stepped down and distributed over local transmission lines until it arrives at a charging station, where it is stepped down once again, then rectified, and used to create a chemical reaction in a battery. When the car is ready to go, the chemical reaction is (mostly) reversed, delivering electric power to the power conditioning circuitry in the vehicle, then converted into mechanical power by a motor, and delivered to the wheel. Combustion, 12 different conversion steps (minimum), then mechanical power at the wheels. Every one of those 12 steps involves a loss, some small, some quite large.
Given the fact that Rankine cycles (using steam) top out at 40% efficiency, while Otto and Diesel cycles can hit 50% and 65% efficiency, respectively, the electric cycle is a loser from the very first step. But with all of the added steps in between, it becomes even worse. An Otto cycle car might convert 30% of the original stored potential energy into mechanical power at the wheels. An electric car will never get above 15%, if the original source is a steam power plant (regardless of heat source).
I don’t have any problem with people who want to drive them. I just have a problem with the absolutely, indisputably false claim that they are *more* economical energy-wise. It just flat isn’t true, never was, and never will be. Attempts to make it so are on a par with attempts to square the circle, which is also indisputably impossible.
The irony is that the electric motor killed the electric car. Gas engines used to have to be cranked to start. The electric starter motor eliminated that inconvenience.
I’ve thought a turbine hybrid would be a good idea. I hear turbines can be made to run very efficiently. The turbine whine might be a problem.
Larry J writes, “a pure electric car or truck is only practical for short distance urban driving. Unfortunately, for millions of people, that doesn’t come close to matching their needs.”
My response, “so what?” This is the fallacy of thinking that there must be one and only one national automobile propulsion technology. I could draw an analogy to similar arguments made by some advocates for a certain space transportation architecture, but I will resist the temptation. For decades at least, I predict that hydrocarbon propulsion (whether gasoline, diesel or hybrid) will power the majority of automobiles. But there will be many people, especially urban dwellers or short distance drivers whose needs will be met with electric cars. Small incremental improvements to a 110 or 120-mile range are certainly possible. Is this so wrong?
MfK, I never argued that electric cars are more efficient. Your arguments also do not address the primary reasons why I advocate for electric cars. Reducing our dependence on foreign oil, at least for the individual electric car owners, and a concomitant reduction in automotive exhaust e.g. soot which has the greatest impact on precisely the places where electric cars will be most useful i.e. urban areas.
I should add that it will be practical for many people in small countries or states like Denmark, Hawaii or Israel. It will be practical for very few in places like Alaska.
Nor have I been able to get across to them an indisputable fact that no “breakthrough” will ever change: electric cars use more energy than gasoline or diesel cars, and not by a little bit. There is no controversy about that; it’s Engineering 101, and every course thereafter.
Eh no. An electric engine is more efficient at producing mechanical energy from stored energy than any internal combustion engine. Think like 90% vs 30%. Also if you have electric storage in the vehicle it is trivial to implement regenerative braking. Regenerative braking gives you even more energy savings when driving in the city doing loads of stops and starts on every traffic light.
If you remember thermodynamics class, even an ideal Carnot engine has an efficiency limited by the temperature difference between the hot source (fuel burning) and the cold sink (atmosphere or whatever). Well if you have a stationary power plant you can use a river as the cold sink, use heavier materials which can withstand a higher temperature in the hot source. This (plus combined cycle) means you can get like 60% efficiency when using a stationary generator (such as a power plant) vs a mobile generator (such as an automobile).
Any sort of thermal cycle considerations are thrown out of the window if you are using wind or hydropower as the energy source. If batteries were cheap it would make sense to build even more wind capacity than used today, using batteries for load leveling. If everyone’s car was plugged into the grid charging during off peak times (nighttime), you could probably power millions of cars without building any extra generating capacity.
The problem with electric cars is the batteries. Not capacity, I actually think present battery capacity is fine (lots of electric cars today have 200 mile range or more). The major problems are cost and lifetime.
If everyone’s car was plugged into the grid charging during off peak times (nighttime), you could probably power millions of cars without building any extra generating capacity.
Currently, off peak generation uses base power, the most recent and efficient generators out there. When base power isn’t enough, older and/or less efficient sources are turned on to meet the additional need. Driving up the electricity consumed in off peak hours will either increase the demand for more base power or drive the utilities to turn on less efficient sources such as gas turbines. Since wind power is unreliable and solar power doesn’t work at night, adding a lot of electric cars will indeed drive the need for additional power sources. Nuclear would be a good choice.
“Eh no.”
I couldn’t have come up with a better example of the refusal to understand facts that this one. Re-read what I wrtoe, Godzilla, and see that you’re omitting 90% of it from your “argument.” Hint: electricity for a car does not *originate* in the battery.
Last week I had a interesting conversation with a control room engineer that works at a power generation plant down the road from where I live. I found out from him that it is a combined cycle power plant that houses 4 Toshiba gas generators that can bleed hot exhaust gases into a GE steam electric. It is a fairly new power plant and he said all this stuff is cutting edge.
I asked him specifically about what it takes to get a generator in a power plant up and running from a cold start. He said it depends on a lot of factors but the atmospheric conditions can greatly affect the thermal stresses in the turbine engine during startup. When things are good then they can get up and running in about a day, day and half. When conditions aren’t so great then it can take 2 maybe 3 days. He said if they were to just gas it and crank it up they’d easily snap a turbine blade or warp the turbine shaft. It sounded like the whole thing is like tuning a instrument between all the harmonics, turbulence, temperatures, and pressures that are being created throughout the compression and combustion chambers. The generator just ain’t ready until it’s ready.
Then, he said once they get the generator up and running they just can’t flip the switch on and say, “here’s your power!” They have to actually monitor the condition of the grid that they supply power into and modulate the output of the generator to match the reactance of the grid. Because the grid is constantly fluctuating they have to shoot for a specific parameter and then wait and lock onto the grid when the grid comes in sync. Otherwise, they can blow a whole grid out and kill the power completely; that would be a bad day. Then, last call came, I bought him a beer and thanked him for the cool info.
I guess my point to the OT is that with all these people plugging and unplugging multi-kilowatt battery banks into the grid at erratic and random intervals it will be just another variable to shoot after. This will invariably lead to an increased number of power generation sites constantly running to meet the perceived yet unexpected demands. Then, couple this with the fact that people generally drive more during the summer months precisely at the moment when air conditioners are running non-stop. To me, a large scale increase in electric vehicle use would make additional power plant construction absolutely necessary.
Interesting, Josh, and continuing testimony to how people (and, I am including myself here) tend to think something is easy if we know nothing about it.
Yea, thanks! It was a pretty interesting discussion when compared to your usual bar conversation. I had thought to ask him the question because of a comment I read here recently regarding the long start-up times. So, it turned into a fairly interesting first hand account of how they do it.
Josh: ordinary combustion turbines can spin up much faster than that (witness that jet engines don’t take two days to start). Combined cycle plants are intended for baseload generation though, so fast startup wouldn’t be as high a priority.
The problem with electric cars is the batteries. Not capacity, I actually think present battery capacity is fine (lots of electric cars today have 200 mile range or more).
Since there aren’t “lots of electric cars” in the market place, I doubt this is true, but let’s say it is, what there aren’t are any electric cars that have a 200+ mile range on a hot August day in Texas (or Florida, or So. California, or…) with the A/C running and the radio on. Also what there isn’t is a quick and efficient way of charging these cars when they hit the limit of their range (whether its 50 miles or 250). Home charging may be efficient, but it’s not quick; charging stations, are neither.
Rob: Depending on the battery technology used, if you have a dedicated charging station you can quickly charge like half the battery in a couple of minutes:
http://gas2.org/2010/05/05/ultra-quick-battery-charge-system-developed-50-full-in-3-minutes/
Often the charging time difference is due to having a high voltage industrial grade connection to the grid (dedicated charging station), versus a low voltage residential grade connection (home charging). If you only get power in a trickle it is going to take a long time to charge the battery.
You usually cannot charge the battery quickly to the full 100% because a battery heats up while charging. You do not want the battery to blow up eh? But quick charges of 50% or more have been done quite often.
The Tesla Roadster has over 200 mile range. Usually electric vehicle manufacturers limit range to decrease vehicle cost. Batteries are still awfully expensive. The Tesla Model S (if it gets manufactured and sold) is also supposed to have over 200 mile range.
True that. Though I’d be willing to wager that the gas turbines in a power plant are much larger than that of an aircraft and that would contribute to their longer startup. Also, I believe a turbine built for generating power is built to the margins of enhanced efficiency and steady state power rather than throttle response and robust operation through a multitude of environments.
When Tesla says it has a 200 mile range, that’s under optimum conditions, not necessarily typical conditions. What’s the range during August in the South or Southwest? With the A/C running? In rush hour traffic? In L.A.? How about during February in the Northeast? With the heat on? In rush hour traffic? In NYC? Did you know that a car heater works by using excess heat from the engine to warm the passenger compartment? How would a heater work in a electric car? I suspect, unlike a conventionally powered car, the electric car would actually have to use straight electric heat, powered by the battery to heat the car, which, iir, is not very efficient. Add to that, cars are not typically well insulated. What about areas like the Mid East, where it’s not unusual to run the A/C and the heat, to help defog the windows when it’s cold. I could go on, but I suspect you get the point.
Regarding the fast charger, if you read the article, in addition to it using non-standard charger that requires changes to the vehicle hardware and software, you find the charging system relies on a battery that stores the power it uses to charge the cars, which it is able to dump very quickly to achieve the quick charge. The battery is trickle charged during off-peak hours. The first question I see, is how many cars could it quick charge before needing a recharge? I suspect it can’t be that many based on the cost of the system ($63k), maybe 5 cars at most. Even if it were 10, that’s not very many compared to what a typical gas station can handle. I guess, you could just assume that the typical person will charge their cars at home (not sure its its valid, but…), so maybe 5-10 cars/per day/per charger will be adequate, but if that’s the case, I don’t see a business model under which these charging stations could be profitable. The second question is what will be the impact of a large number of these station on the grid? If these stations, along with the electric cars start pushing off-peak power usage to levels approaching peak hours, utilities will likely need to increase capacity and start charging higher rates for “no longer off-peak” hours.
What about areas like the Mid East, where it’s not unusual to run the A/C and the heat, to help defog the windows when it’s cold.
By Mid East, I mean the Mid-Atlantic region, not the Middle East.
Josh: it’s my understanding that there are “aero-derivative” industrial turbines that have a great deal of commonality with aircraft engines. But aside from that, combustion turbines are used to provide daily peaking power for utilities. This could not be the case if they took days to start up.
The lengthy startup period for that combined cycle unit was probably determined by the steam turbine, not the combustion turbines upstream of it.
“Taxes on diesel would make it expensive to run.”
Compared to what? Setting aside the increased cost of a Jetta TDI over a Ford Escort (to provide two cars with actual mileage figures), when gas was $4/gallon and diesel $4.80, I had a friend with said TDI that got 40mpg, and I had an Escort that got 20mpg. On a per-mile basis, his vehicle was significantly cheaper even tho his fuel was more expensive.
I may have paraphrased it wrong. As the article states: “the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline.”
Rob: Tesla actually states a 245 mile range for the Roadster. 300 mile range for the yet not produced Model S. It is just that I am, let us say, skeptical of manufacturer stated battery abilities on any product. So I say it is 200 mile range.
Range is going to be different depending on all sorts of local factors. There are several technical solutions to reduce such issues. There are other ways to prevent frost piling up than using resistive heating (e.g. adding coatings to glass similar to Teflon), and there are other ways to provide ambient temperature than using resistive heating (heat pumps can provide heat as well as cold). Sure there are going to be issues using heat pumps in Alaska, or whatever, but when you live in a place like that even regular combustion engines have issues.
Electric cars do not need to be the be all, end all, of vehicles. They just need to be good enough for most people to use. Most people live neither in Alaska, nor in the Sahara.
The charger I linked to used trickle charging of another battery to provide the juice for the vehicle’s battery. This is done so you can have fast vehicle charging in areas with a terrible power grid.
However you can use a high voltage supply, possibly with a capacitor bank buffer, just as well:
http://gas2.org/2010/01/13/30-minute-ev-fast-charging-stations-coming-in-3q-of-2010/
Hint: electricity for a car does not *originate* in the battery.
And gasoline does not originate at the corner service station — refining and transportation (and cleaning Gulf Coast beaches) eat up a lot of the potential energy of crude in the ground. The US today gets much of its oil from Canadian tar sands, which require huge amounts of energy to turn into liquid fuel.
We have a lot of excess electricity today that is wasted because it is generated at night, when no one needs it, by coal and nuclear plants that can’t be quickly switched off and on. According to a 2007 Pacific National Lab study, we could convert 84% of US cars to plug-in hybrids without needing more generating capacity, just by using off-peak generating capacity that currently goes unused. For more info, see CalCars.
Engineering Prof Chris Kobus writes: “Glenn – you’re absolutely correct. Diesel technology is inherently more efficient. If all spark-ignition engines were replaced with diesel, we’d reduce our dependence on foreign oil by almost 50%.
Engineering Prof, not Economics Prof. If we converted all our cars to diesel, the price of oil and diesel would skyrocket. Demand for diesel is already growing faster than demand for gasoline.
The average driver puts 40 miles a day on their vehicle. That 40 mile statistic drove the Volt’s battery-only range requirement.
Assuming that the 40-mile-day number is correct, a 200-mile range vehicle should cover the needs of a lot of people. In fact, unless you’re taking a driving vacation, 200 miles a day is a lot.
Godzilla – The Tesla roadster has a base price of $110k, even with tax subsidies (i.e. money confiscated from people who couldn’t afford to walk into a Tesla showroom, let alone buy one), the price is over $100k. For that price, I could buy a Cadillac Escalade, enough gas (at $4.00/gallon) to drive 250,000 miles, have a much more useful vehicle, not be limited to a sub-250 mile range, and not have to rely on an unavailable and unproven logistics system to support it.
Regarding Tesla’s, or any electric vehicles range, you seem to have a problem differentiating between optimum conditions and typical. Maybe…possibly, you could get 250 miles of range on a charge, provided you carry no passengers, drive like my grandmother, hit no traffic, don’t have to use the A/C or heat, drive on a relatively flat surface, have no significant head or crosswinds, are driving in the optimium temperature range for the batteries, etc. In other words, you aren’t likely to see anything close to the maximum range under typical conditions. You may be able to mitigate some of these factors with technology (or you may not), but you won’t be able to elminate them and they won’t be free.
With respect to chargers, essentially what you are saying is that if you’re not one of the first 5-10 customers of the day and so can use the really rapid charger, you have to use the sorta rapid charger, which only takes 10 times as long to charge your car as it does to fill a gas tank. So only 35 minutes downtime, unless of course, there’s a person or two in line ahead of you, in which case you could be cooling your heels for an hour or more to get fueled up.
Electric cars do not need to be the be all, end all, of vehicles. They just need to be good enough for most people to use. Most people live neither in Alaska, nor in the Sahara.
Which is why I used the South, Southwest, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast regions as examples. Try to keep up. Cars, to be useful for the vast majority of people, need to meet something over 90% of their needs (I would argue, something approaching 100%). A car that only meets 75% of your needs means that for 1 week a month, you need to make some other arrangement for transportation. Most people would find this unacceptable.
Next Monday morning, I’m going to get in my Toyota Geekmobile (Prius) and drive about 70 miles to Denver International Airport. If I had an electric car like the Nissan Leaf or Tesla Roadster, that wouldn’t be a problem. However, the following Friday, I’m going to drive back home. The reported range of the Leaf is about 100 miles, so that means the batteries would peter out about halfway home. The Tesla would have the range to get me home but it costs about $100K, far more than my $22K Geekmobile.
For daily commuting, a range of 200 or even 100 miles will meet the needs of most people. However, I have to buy a car that will meet my needs every day. Living in Colorado, that means I need a car that can handle snow (like millions of other Americans) as well as the trips to DIA that happen several times a year. I can’t afford to buy a “sunshine car” while having to maintain a “distance car” or “bad weather car.”
I just bought the Geekmobile about 5 weeks ago so I have not had a chance to test it in snow. Reportedly, it does pretty good. I have no worries about range (averaging 50.5 MPG over the 820 miles I’ve driven it so far).
A pure electric car will meet the needs of some people but I think a lot of people will come to the same conclusion I have – we can’t afford multiple cars so we have to have something that meets all of our needs. A pure electric car just isn’t likely to cut it for most people, IMO. A series hybrid car like the Volt better fits my needs but reportedly costs over $40K which is more than I want to spend on a car. Sure, we taxpayers will give GM and the Volt buyers a gift in the form of a tax credit but many of them will also have the expense of having to install 220 volt recharging units in their homes. I doubt that will be cheap.
Chris – the average driver number is pretty meaningless, because average =/= typical and it doesn’t account for the impact of driving conditions on power usage. That 40 mile range could turn into 20-25 real quick under typical conditions.
On a whim, I visited the Tesla website. What I found is that using standard (120v) household current, the charging rate is 5 miles per hour. Now, at home, you will probably have one of their high rate chargers, but what about on the road? If you’re not near a large metropolitan area you will likely have to rely on standard household current for recharging for the forseeable future. How you gonna like spending over 2 full days to charge your $100k vehicle before you can go home from your weekend trip to the country?
Here’s an interesting tale from the Car & Driver on a night of adventure with the Tesla and its “244 mile” range.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/tesla%E2%80%99s-244-mile-range-what-up-with-dat/
Jim says: “And gasoline does not originate at the corner service station ”
Another monumental idiot heard from.
Pay close attention. From the point at which the stored potential energy is released to where it is applied at the drive wheel, the electric car wastes more than the gasoline or diesel car. Electric cars therefore use more energy.
It is a f***ing simple as that, you morons.
Rob Smith – I confess to not remembering if the 40/mile/day was “average” or “typical.”
Regarding charge rates – yes that is the big problem. Right now, if you can afford a Tesla you can afford a charger at your country place. I suspect that the long-term answer to recharging batteries is the propane model – standardized batteries that you can swap out in a reasonable amount of time.
Pay close attention. From the point at which the stored potential energy is released to where it is applied at the drive wheel, the electric car wastes more than the gasoline or diesel car. Electric cars therefore use more energy.
Sigh. No this is not true. Imagine you are using a combined cycle natural gas power plant to generate the electricity at 60% efficiency. Then you have 10% transmission losses. Plus 10% battery losses. Then an 80% efficient electric engine. That means you get like 38.88% of the natural gas energy turned into mechanical power. A highly efficient internal combustion engine is like 30% efficient. Even if you ignore oil refining energy costs, transportation costs, the internal combustion vehicle wastes more energy than an electric.
When you add the fact that an electric vehicle can have engines directly connected to the wheels, reducing engine transmission losses, plus that it is trivial to add regenerative braking, the energetic advantage of electric only gets better.
Also, when using electric vehicles, you can move emissions outside of city centers into places few people live. You can also use scrubbing systems that would be too heavy to use in a motor vehicle to clean up the emissions.
It is convenient to ignore the fact that a lot of energy sources like hydropower and wind power are not easily convertible into hydrocarbon fuels, while they are easy to convert into electricity. Same thing goes for present nuclear technology. High temperature nuclear reactors could change this equation for nuclear power, but they are not in production yet.
Electrics have a lot of issues. Energy efficiency is definitively not one of them. As I said before the issues are battery cost and longevity. Want something with horrible energy efficiency? Try hydrogen vehicles, or even worse, corn ethanol.
If you want to take a long trip, you were probably better off taking an airplane to your destination and renting a car once you got there. 15 minute battery charging times pale in comparison to the time our ancestors used to take waiting for a horse to drink and eat between stops. The battery charging times can be further decreased to 3 minutes or less, provided a dedicated charging infrastructure is setup, plus the appropriate battery chemistry is used.
This is all provided current technology is used. If we had cheap room temperature superconductors we could reduce transmission and engine losses to basically zero. Heck we could probably even use that technology to make something other than batteries to store the electricity.
Anyway this is all irrelevant since present battery cost and longevity mean it is cheaper to buy internal combustion engine powered vehicles, even if the fuel comes from tar sands, gas to liquids, or whatnot. The batteries cost more than the rest of the car put together. They may last only 5 years. The problems are as simple as that.
Regarding charge rates – yes that is the big problem. Right now, if you can afford a Tesla you can afford a charger at your country place.
Exactly, electric cars, like the Tesla are toys for rich folks. So why do relatively poor folks, like me, have to subsidize them?
I suspect that the long-term answer to recharging batteries is the propane model – standardized batteries that you can swap out in a reasonable amount of time.
Nice idea, but the start up costs for buying 50 grill sized propane tanks is several orders of magnitude less than buying 50 lithium ion batteries for electric cars, making the business model a little trickier.
If you want to take a long trip, you were probably better off taking an airplane to your destination and renting a car once you got there.
When was the last time you went to an airport? I could drive 500 miles in roughly the same time it took me to fly 500 miles when you consider getting to the airport, checking bags, going through security, etc.
Godzilla Says:
June 3rd, 2010 at 2:52 pm
“Imagine you are using a combined cycle natural gas power plant to generate the electricity at 60% efficiency.”
You can imagine anything you like, but then there is reality.
5/6 of 38.9% is 32.4%, and you’re already just barely above your figure for the ICE. Some of your other figures look a mite too rosy to me, too, and don’t appear to consider the variety of intended operating conditions. I think I’ll go with MfK on this.
Re all that “wasted” electricity being generated by night, when “no one needs it” — I don’t know about where you all live, but my electricity usage doesn’t stop at night. Why, I’m in my room at 11:25 PM with my overhead lights on, typing this on my computer which. And the refrigerator runs 24/7, and if I had air conditioning (this apartment doesn’t) I’d have it on right now because it’s hot in here. And I’m about to put on the fan which is also electric. Yeah, but other than that, I don’t “need” any electricity at night. Nor do street lights have to be on, and so on. I mean what.
I meant to say “typing this on my computer which runs on electricity, not hamster-wheel power.” I guess my typing ran out of electricity.
The real metric to me $/mile ops cost.
Electric cars look cheap that way.
lifecycle costs need to drop.
The real metric to me $/mile ops cost.
Electric cars look cheap that way.
The new Chevy Volt is projected to cost $40k, compare that to a Honda Accord LX (4cyl) at $20k. For $40k, with gas at $4.00/gallon (currently at $2.60 at my local filling station), I can buy the accord and enough gas to drive 125,000 miles (using the incredibly conservative estimate of 25mpg). Basically for the price of a Volt, I can buy a Honda Accord and drive it cost free for 10 years. Tell me again how cheap electric cars look.
I don’t know about where you all live, but my electricity usage doesn’t stop at night
Wow.
No one said that there’s no electricity demand at night, just that demand at night is lower than the base load that is being generated 24×7.
You know, when cars first came out they were rich men’s toys, and all sorts of people couldn’t see how we could ever transition away from horses and steam trains. In fact, every new technology started out as a rich man’s toy.
I’m not saying that means electric cars will become common. I am saying that the history of technology suggests it’s quite possible that they will.
Just as soon as our Betters succeed in herding everybody into tightly packed little apartments in tightly packed huge cities.
You know, when cars first came out they were rich men’s toys, and all sorts of people couldn’t see how we could ever transition away from horses and steam trains.
My problem is not that electric cars are “rich men’s toys”, it’s that “not rich men”, like myself, are being forced to subsidize the purchase. My other problem is the attempt by government (and industry) to force people into vehicles that are impractical them. Nobody had to force people to ride steam trains by putting emissions restrictions on horses and taxing their feed.
“Nobody had to force people to ride steam trains by putting emissions restrictions on horses and taxing their feed.”
Bravo! What more needs to be said?
The massive stink from piles of horseshit (and the more-than-occasional dead horse) in the street certainly provided encouragement to switch to a different mode of transportation.
The massive stink from piles of horseshit (and the more-than-occasional dead horse) in the street certainly provided encouragement to switch to a different mode of transportation.
That, and petroleum powered automobiles were a superior mode of transportation to horses, as well as electric and steam powered autos. They still are, and probably will be for the foreseeable future, which is why the government has to use regulations and subsidies to tilt the playing field in favor of the more expensive and less desirable alternatives.