IlluminatingBikr
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 2,320
Does anybody know what percent of the electricity generated from power plants is lost in the power lines?
Electric & Alt Fuel Vehicles (part 2)
- Thread starter Darell
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
- Status
idleprocess
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
If only Honda (or Toyota for that matter with the Prius) Made them so that they could run on renewable fuels like E85 or biodiesel. >sigh<
Great fuel economy is wonderful (wish we had more people focused on that) but it won't get us off of imported oil. E85, biodiesel and green electric drive will get us off of imported petroleum.
There was a feature on NPR recently about NeoCons that are for high efficiency... they see the way oil imports put our country at risk.
[/ QUOTE ]
Efficiency broke the oil crisis in the 70s. Once OPEC saw that high oil prices encourage efficiency, they saw no future in starving themselve since it would permanently reduce demand in the long term.
Double the efficiency of the auto fleet and you reduce the leverage of foreign producers.
What's the sustainability of biodeisel? Could the industry gracefully shift to powering the nation's auto fleet in 10 years without huge infrastructure adjustments? I realize that biodiesel comes from all sorts of food/agricultural waste, but how much can actually be extracted from all this waste before the practical limit is reached? What about the greater cost of processing waste vs cracking crude?
I see hybrids, biodiesel, and other ICE efficiency improvements as an intermediate step until BEVs or these unrealisticly fantastic FCEVs become a reality and inherently increase the whole energy efficiency of vehicles.
ikendu said:
If only Honda (or Toyota for that matter with the Prius) Made them so that they could run on renewable fuels like E85 or biodiesel. >sigh<
Great fuel economy is wonderful (wish we had more people focused on that) but it won't get us off of imported oil. E85, biodiesel and green electric drive will get us off of imported petroleum.
There was a feature on NPR recently about NeoCons that are for high efficiency... they see the way oil imports put our country at risk.
[/ QUOTE ]
Efficiency broke the oil crisis in the 70s. Once OPEC saw that high oil prices encourage efficiency, they saw no future in starving themselve since it would permanently reduce demand in the long term.
Double the efficiency of the auto fleet and you reduce the leverage of foreign producers.
What's the sustainability of biodeisel? Could the industry gracefully shift to powering the nation's auto fleet in 10 years without huge infrastructure adjustments? I realize that biodiesel comes from all sorts of food/agricultural waste, but how much can actually be extracted from all this waste before the practical limit is reached? What about the greater cost of processing waste vs cracking crude?
I see hybrids, biodiesel, and other ICE efficiency improvements as an intermediate step until BEVs or these unrealisticly fantastic FCEVs become a reality and inherently increase the whole energy efficiency of vehicles.
asdalton
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:What's the sustainability of biodeisel? Could the industry gracefully shift to powering the nation's auto fleet in 10 years without huge infrastructure adjustments? I realize that biodiesel comes from all sorts of food/agricultural waste, but how much can actually be extracted from all this waste before the practical limit is reached? What about the greater cost of processing waste vs cracking crude?
I see hybrids, biodiesel, and other ICE efficiency improvements as an intermediate step until BEVs or these unrealisticly fantastic FCEVs become a reality and inherently increase the whole energy efficiency of vehicles.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Great question!
Starters:
There is enough discarded restaurant fryer oil every year to replace 5% of all of the diesel consumed in the U.S. We could build the processing plants and be at 5% in two years (we already have some plants and know how to do it, it is just the construction time).
If we adopt Plug-In Diesel/E85 electric hybrids, we can drop out about half the energy used for commuting right there just in the pure electric miles. Dropping out half really helps with that 10 year goal.
And...to make our country safer, we don't need to completely eliminate imported oil right away. Dropping oil imports from 60% (where it is now) down to say...10%?, is probably enough to take away the leverage power of the middle east.
So...we import 60% now.
Minus 50% from the Plug-In Hybrids.
Minus 5% from immediate biodiesel availability.
Gets us down to only 5% imported oil...probably in 10 years if we really try.
Although, oil is dwindling away (Shell Oil revised its stated reserves downward 7 times in the last year or so). We are using it at a faster pace than we are finding it, and demand (from India and especially China; +20% per year) is really on the rise. So...sooner or later we WILL have to get off of petroleum entirely.
The University of New Hampshire is developing technology to combine waste streams and CO2 with algae farming to produce enough biodiesel to get us off of oil completely. Plus there is Thermal De-Polymerization (TDP) that will convert pretty much any kind of organic waste into very nice #1 diesel fuel. Cellulosic ethanol contains 3 times the amount of net energy as ethanol from corn and uses a waste product (corn stover, stalks, straw, etc.) that is available without planting any increased acreage at all.
As far as the rest of the "infrastructure", liquid fuels like biodiesel won't require basically any change to the fueling infrastructure across the U.S. We'll need to tailor biodiesel blends for good winter performance (Europe already has made big strides in that direction).
As far as the "greater cost of processing waste vs cracking crude" goes, sooner or later we'll have no choice. If you've noticed, a barrel of petroleum is already going up...and no real reason to believe it will do anything but continue to go up. That doesn't even factor in the real costs of "wars on terror", homeland security, higher airline prices due to extra security, etc. that are the result of our insatiable thirst for petroleum...most of which needs to be imported, and much of that from unstable, repressive regimes.
We can do it. We can do it now. Darell's Rav4EV is proof of that and my VW Golf TDI on biodiesel is more proof of that. We don't really need to invent startling new technology, we just need the will to get on with it.
[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:What's the sustainability of biodeisel? [renewable fuels]
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually pretty good I believe. It produces far more energy that it consumes to make it and in many ways solves some of our waste disposal problems; waste into energy sounds pretty good to me.
idleprocess said:What's the sustainability of biodeisel? Could the industry gracefully shift to powering the nation's auto fleet in 10 years without huge infrastructure adjustments? I realize that biodiesel comes from all sorts of food/agricultural waste, but how much can actually be extracted from all this waste before the practical limit is reached? What about the greater cost of processing waste vs cracking crude?
I see hybrids, biodiesel, and other ICE efficiency improvements as an intermediate step until BEVs or these unrealisticly fantastic FCEVs become a reality and inherently increase the whole energy efficiency of vehicles.
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif Great question!
Starters:
There is enough discarded restaurant fryer oil every year to replace 5% of all of the diesel consumed in the U.S. We could build the processing plants and be at 5% in two years (we already have some plants and know how to do it, it is just the construction time).
If we adopt Plug-In Diesel/E85 electric hybrids, we can drop out about half the energy used for commuting right there just in the pure electric miles. Dropping out half really helps with that 10 year goal.
And...to make our country safer, we don't need to completely eliminate imported oil right away. Dropping oil imports from 60% (where it is now) down to say...10%?, is probably enough to take away the leverage power of the middle east.
So...we import 60% now.
Minus 50% from the Plug-In Hybrids.
Minus 5% from immediate biodiesel availability.
Gets us down to only 5% imported oil...probably in 10 years if we really try.
Although, oil is dwindling away (Shell Oil revised its stated reserves downward 7 times in the last year or so). We are using it at a faster pace than we are finding it, and demand (from India and especially China; +20% per year) is really on the rise. So...sooner or later we WILL have to get off of petroleum entirely.
The University of New Hampshire is developing technology to combine waste streams and CO2 with algae farming to produce enough biodiesel to get us off of oil completely. Plus there is Thermal De-Polymerization (TDP) that will convert pretty much any kind of organic waste into very nice #1 diesel fuel. Cellulosic ethanol contains 3 times the amount of net energy as ethanol from corn and uses a waste product (corn stover, stalks, straw, etc.) that is available without planting any increased acreage at all.
As far as the rest of the "infrastructure", liquid fuels like biodiesel won't require basically any change to the fueling infrastructure across the U.S. We'll need to tailor biodiesel blends for good winter performance (Europe already has made big strides in that direction).
As far as the "greater cost of processing waste vs cracking crude" goes, sooner or later we'll have no choice. If you've noticed, a barrel of petroleum is already going up...and no real reason to believe it will do anything but continue to go up. That doesn't even factor in the real costs of "wars on terror", homeland security, higher airline prices due to extra security, etc. that are the result of our insatiable thirst for petroleum...most of which needs to be imported, and much of that from unstable, repressive regimes.
We can do it. We can do it now. Darell's Rav4EV is proof of that and my VW Golf TDI on biodiesel is more proof of that. We don't really need to invent startling new technology, we just need the will to get on with it.
[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:What's the sustainability of biodeisel? [renewable fuels]
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually pretty good I believe. It produces far more energy that it consumes to make it and in many ways solves some of our waste disposal problems; waste into energy sounds pretty good to me.
idleprocess
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
IlluminatingBikr said:
Does anybody know what percent of the electricity generated from power plants is lost in the power lines?
[/ QUOTE ]
4.2% transmission loss, 6.2% distribution loss in Queensland, AU
Of course, most of the rest of the world uses more-efficient 220/240V for houshold lines. I don't know if their transmission/distribution lines are any more or less efficient.
IlluminatingBikr said:
Does anybody know what percent of the electricity generated from power plants is lost in the power lines?
[/ QUOTE ]
4.2% transmission loss, 6.2% distribution loss in Queensland, AU
Of course, most of the rest of the world uses more-efficient 220/240V for houshold lines. I don't know if their transmission/distribution lines are any more or less efficient.
Darell
Flashaholic
I'd say a safe number to use would be 6% in general. Maybe Brock has a better number. Certainly you could say an absolute worst-case-but-easy-to-figure number is 10%.
Darell
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
We don't really need to invent startling new technology, we just need the will to get on with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ain't that the truth! We already know how to start to fix the problem... but what are we doing? We're waiting for the holy grail of efficient automobile technology to save us. This grail has a name of course, and it is "Fuel Cell." In the meantime, we are sitting around doing nothing? We need to drive less. We need to drive reasonable cars. We aren't.
We don't really need to invent startling new technology, we just need the will to get on with it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ain't that the truth! We already know how to start to fix the problem... but what are we doing? We're waiting for the holy grail of efficient automobile technology to save us. This grail has a name of course, and it is "Fuel Cell." In the meantime, we are sitting around doing nothing? We need to drive less. We need to drive reasonable cars. We aren't.
Brock
Flashaholic
When I worked there it was just under 7% here in Wisconsin, but our utility cover a large area with not a lot of population. Back when I worked for our local utility the max they would loose was 10%, then they upgraded lines or doubled the voltage. Of course most of the customers were far less, in the 3%-5% range, but those far out ones (like us) threw the numbers off.
Darell
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
Brock said:
When I worked there it was just under 7% here in Wisconsin, but our utility cover a large area with not a lot of population. Back when I worked for our local utility the max they would loose was 10%, then they upgraded lines or doubled the voltage. Of course most of the customers were far less, in the 3%-5% range, but those far out ones (like us) threw the numbers off.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just imagine how much loss we'd save if most folks could generate peak power locally. Like maybe with PV panels on the roof!? In the summer, the length of "line" from my roof to my neighbor's AC unit is about 30'. Not much loss there!
Brock said:
When I worked there it was just under 7% here in Wisconsin, but our utility cover a large area with not a lot of population. Back when I worked for our local utility the max they would loose was 10%, then they upgraded lines or doubled the voltage. Of course most of the customers were far less, in the 3%-5% range, but those far out ones (like us) threw the numbers off.
[/ QUOTE ]
Just imagine how much loss we'd save if most folks could generate peak power locally. Like maybe with PV panels on the roof!? In the summer, the length of "line" from my roof to my neighbor's AC unit is about 30'. Not much loss there!
gadget_lover
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess wrote...
I don't understand the need for a parallel system like the Prius hybrid . These systems are amazingly complex and seem to use the engine as often (if not moreso) than the motor. A well-designed electric drivetrain is capable of running the car satisfactorily through the entire operational range. The engine's job should be limited to converting gas into electricity for the motor - a task it can do well at since it operates at a constant, highest-efficincy RPM.
If I were to buy a Hybrid today, I think I'd just go with the Civic hybrid - they just market the hybrid aspect as "integrated motor assist" without needless parallel complexity (and cost). The motor in a Civic hybrid is 13HP, and doubles as the generator when downshifting. Result - somewhat better fuel economy and a noticeable improvement in acceleration. The price bump for the Civic hybrid is (EDIT - used to be) modest enough for it to make sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, the Prius hybrid system is not that complex. It's really quite clever in it's simplicity. Instead of a transmission with lots of gears, valves , sensors and pressure plates it has a single set of gears attached to a motor, a generator and the ICE. Much simpler and (so far) not prone to failures.
Why is parallel better than a serial hybrid? Two reasons.
1) The serial hybrid uses an ICE to run a generator that runs the electric motors. The ICE has to be powerful enough to provide all the energy needed to move the vehicle at it's peak demand. The motors must also be big enough to supply the peak electrical demand. Batteries are frequently used to provide peak power, but are not large enough to provide sustained power needed for extended high speed uphill climbs.
The Parallel hybrid allows the use of a smaller engine and a smaller motor, saving weight and reducing mass. The car can use just the electrical or just the gas or both. The engine speed is not tied in any way to the wheel speed, so the car can be driving up hill at 65 MPH using 90% of the ICE's power output to move the car and the other 10% to drive the generator, recharging the battery pack. A few seconds later it can switch to using just the electric or just the gas, depending on the incline, wind resistance, etc. The electric motor has fantastic torque, so there are times when the car selects to route part of the ICE's horsepower through the generator to power the motor, supplementing the engine's torque.
2) There are always loses when converting energy from one form to another. The ICE -> Generator -> Motor will lose a substantial amount of power.
The Parallel design, if it can drive the wheels directly when approriate, loses much less energy. There are times when the HP created by the ICE is just right for moving the car. There is no need to convert it to electricity and back to motion again.
The difference between the Prius parallel system and the Honda "integrated motor assist" is the design goal. The Prius was designed to be the lowest polluting gasoline powered car around while still providing a normal driving experience. The Prius design could be used to increase power (as will be done in the new Lexus) or to increase milage (as was done in the Japanese version of the car) but I, personally, like the enviroment preserving slant. The Honda version uses it as if it was an electric turbo charger.
A side effect to the design differences between the Prius and the Honda is sustainability. The Prius (as noted above) can charge it's battery while using the elecric motor as an assist. The Honda can't. This makes a difference in extra long inclines where the Honda battery pack becomes depleated but the Prius battery remains charged.
There is a lot of talk about using a grid plugged hybrid to minimize the useage of the ICE. This is probably a good idea, but it will need bigger battery packs (the Prius pack is fairly small, about the size of a small suitcase) and therefore more weight. The motor is already used to move the car from a dead stop, so it does not need to be enhanced for this use.
I use my Prius daily. I've put about 9,000 miles on it in the last two months due to family spread all over the west coast. I normally drive it less than 1,000 miles per month.
The biggest problem with having an EV (or HEV) and a conventional second car? We hardly use my truck or my wife's Camry anymore. While I was out of town (500 miles away with my Prius) she found the battery on her Camry was dead. I have a solar battery charger in my truck to avoid that problem. The secondary cars need to have the oil changed every 6 months and I drive them to the car wash every few weeks, but that's about it.
Daniel
idleprocess wrote...
I don't understand the need for a parallel system like the Prius hybrid . These systems are amazingly complex and seem to use the engine as often (if not moreso) than the motor. A well-designed electric drivetrain is capable of running the car satisfactorily through the entire operational range. The engine's job should be limited to converting gas into electricity for the motor - a task it can do well at since it operates at a constant, highest-efficincy RPM.
If I were to buy a Hybrid today, I think I'd just go with the Civic hybrid - they just market the hybrid aspect as "integrated motor assist" without needless parallel complexity (and cost). The motor in a Civic hybrid is 13HP, and doubles as the generator when downshifting. Result - somewhat better fuel economy and a noticeable improvement in acceleration. The price bump for the Civic hybrid is (EDIT - used to be) modest enough for it to make sense.
[/ QUOTE ]
First of all, the Prius hybrid system is not that complex. It's really quite clever in it's simplicity. Instead of a transmission with lots of gears, valves , sensors and pressure plates it has a single set of gears attached to a motor, a generator and the ICE. Much simpler and (so far) not prone to failures.
Why is parallel better than a serial hybrid? Two reasons.
1) The serial hybrid uses an ICE to run a generator that runs the electric motors. The ICE has to be powerful enough to provide all the energy needed to move the vehicle at it's peak demand. The motors must also be big enough to supply the peak electrical demand. Batteries are frequently used to provide peak power, but are not large enough to provide sustained power needed for extended high speed uphill climbs.
The Parallel hybrid allows the use of a smaller engine and a smaller motor, saving weight and reducing mass. The car can use just the electrical or just the gas or both. The engine speed is not tied in any way to the wheel speed, so the car can be driving up hill at 65 MPH using 90% of the ICE's power output to move the car and the other 10% to drive the generator, recharging the battery pack. A few seconds later it can switch to using just the electric or just the gas, depending on the incline, wind resistance, etc. The electric motor has fantastic torque, so there are times when the car selects to route part of the ICE's horsepower through the generator to power the motor, supplementing the engine's torque.
2) There are always loses when converting energy from one form to another. The ICE -> Generator -> Motor will lose a substantial amount of power.
The Parallel design, if it can drive the wheels directly when approriate, loses much less energy. There are times when the HP created by the ICE is just right for moving the car. There is no need to convert it to electricity and back to motion again.
The difference between the Prius parallel system and the Honda "integrated motor assist" is the design goal. The Prius was designed to be the lowest polluting gasoline powered car around while still providing a normal driving experience. The Prius design could be used to increase power (as will be done in the new Lexus) or to increase milage (as was done in the Japanese version of the car) but I, personally, like the enviroment preserving slant. The Honda version uses it as if it was an electric turbo charger.
A side effect to the design differences between the Prius and the Honda is sustainability. The Prius (as noted above) can charge it's battery while using the elecric motor as an assist. The Honda can't. This makes a difference in extra long inclines where the Honda battery pack becomes depleated but the Prius battery remains charged.
There is a lot of talk about using a grid plugged hybrid to minimize the useage of the ICE. This is probably a good idea, but it will need bigger battery packs (the Prius pack is fairly small, about the size of a small suitcase) and therefore more weight. The motor is already used to move the car from a dead stop, so it does not need to be enhanced for this use.
I use my Prius daily. I've put about 9,000 miles on it in the last two months due to family spread all over the west coast. I normally drive it less than 1,000 miles per month.
The biggest problem with having an EV (or HEV) and a conventional second car? We hardly use my truck or my wife's Camry anymore. While I was out of town (500 miles away with my Prius) she found the battery on her Camry was dead. I have a solar battery charger in my truck to avoid that problem. The secondary cars need to have the oil changed every 6 months and I drive them to the car wash every few weeks, but that's about it.
Daniel
gadget_lover
Flashaholic
Regarding waste fryer oil into bioD:
The waste fats and oils that restaurants produce are gathered by renderers and recyclers. It is frequently cleaned up (Filtering? Refining? Cracking? I'm not sure) and reused. The fats are used for candles, animal feed, etc. BTW, you don't EVER want to go to a "tallow" or "rendering" plant. It's just disgusting.
I'm not sure how many millions of gallons are simply burned somewhere. I doubt that it's very many.
Daniel
The waste fats and oils that restaurants produce are gathered by renderers and recyclers. It is frequently cleaned up (Filtering? Refining? Cracking? I'm not sure) and reused. The fats are used for candles, animal feed, etc. BTW, you don't EVER want to go to a "tallow" or "rendering" plant. It's just disgusting.
I'm not sure how many millions of gallons are simply burned somewhere. I doubt that it's very many.
Daniel
Darell
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
There is a lot of talk about using a grid plugged hybrid to minimize the useage of the ICE. This is probably a good idea, but it will need bigger battery packs (the Prius pack is fairly small, about the size of a small suitcase) and therefore more weight. The motor is already used to move the car from a dead stop, so it does not need to be enhanced for this use.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, we would need more battery - the ability to USE more of the battery that is in place. Replace the existing NiMH pack with a Li-Ion pack, and you can approximately triple the energy store for the same weight. The motor in the Prius is plenty big enough already - it is the same rating as what I have pushing my Rav with NO engine assist - A heavier, less aerodynamic vehicle.
The biggest problem with having an EV (or HEV) and a conventional second car? We hardly use my truck or my wife's Camry anymore.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, sucks that I have to pay insurance on the gas car while it sits there getting dusty. We use it about once/month. Any less than that, and we'd probably get rid of it. What I'd like to do, of course, is replace it with a plug-in hybrid. Then I'd go from 90% of my miles being EV to about 98%. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
gadget_lover said:
There is a lot of talk about using a grid plugged hybrid to minimize the useage of the ICE. This is probably a good idea, but it will need bigger battery packs (the Prius pack is fairly small, about the size of a small suitcase) and therefore more weight. The motor is already used to move the car from a dead stop, so it does not need to be enhanced for this use.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, we would need more battery - the ability to USE more of the battery that is in place. Replace the existing NiMH pack with a Li-Ion pack, and you can approximately triple the energy store for the same weight. The motor in the Prius is plenty big enough already - it is the same rating as what I have pushing my Rav with NO engine assist - A heavier, less aerodynamic vehicle.
The biggest problem with having an EV (or HEV) and a conventional second car? We hardly use my truck or my wife's Camry anymore.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yup, sucks that I have to pay insurance on the gas car while it sits there getting dusty. We use it about once/month. Any less than that, and we'd probably get rid of it. What I'd like to do, of course, is replace it with a plug-in hybrid. Then I'd go from 90% of my miles being EV to about 98%. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
IlluminatingBikr
Flashlight Enthusiast
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2003
- Messages
- 2,320
I was just asked a question by my girlfriend's mom, that I don't know the answer to, but was wondering if any of you guys know.
Since BEV's are limited in range, would it be possible to bring along a second battery pack, and swap it out half way along your trip?
Darell gets about 100 miles on a charge, if I'm not mistaken, so could he tote another battery pack to get 200 miles?
Since BEV's are limited in range, would it be possible to bring along a second battery pack, and swap it out half way along your trip?
Darell gets about 100 miles on a charge, if I'm not mistaken, so could he tote another battery pack to get 200 miles?
bindibadgi
Flashlight Enthusiast
I suppose you could, but you'd be better off just getting a LiIon pack to do roughly the same job, without having to lug around twice the weight. There is plenty of room in most cars and I don't see why a good battery bank couldn't provide for 300 miles on a full charge.
Is there really any practical reason why BEVs (I'm talking current technology) can't have a range as good as a standard ICE?
Is there really any practical reason why BEVs (I'm talking current technology) can't have a range as good as a standard ICE?
[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
Why is parallel better than a serial hybrid? Two reasons.
1) The serial hybrid...ICE has to be powerful enough to provide all the energy needed to move the vehicle at it's peak demand.
2) There are always loses when converting energy...
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. Perhaps. This is something I'd like to explore a fair amount as I feel the best situation is where the Plug-In Hybrid can be run on pure electric for most of its miles; indeed for many short trips over a span of days, the only recharging would be from the house electricity. The ICE might never "fire up".
Another factor in this equation is that many engines have a "sweet spot" for high efficiency and low emissions that is close to a single speed (RPMs). If the ICE is only used for charging the battery (at that single speed) might that not make up for some of the other losses?
I have to admit, this is something I haven't investigated a lot. I'm eager for more knowledge in this area.
gadget_lover said:
Why is parallel better than a serial hybrid? Two reasons.
1) The serial hybrid...ICE has to be powerful enough to provide all the energy needed to move the vehicle at it's peak demand.
2) There are always loses when converting energy...
[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm. Perhaps. This is something I'd like to explore a fair amount as I feel the best situation is where the Plug-In Hybrid can be run on pure electric for most of its miles; indeed for many short trips over a span of days, the only recharging would be from the house electricity. The ICE might never "fire up".
Another factor in this equation is that many engines have a "sweet spot" for high efficiency and low emissions that is close to a single speed (RPMs). If the ICE is only used for charging the battery (at that single speed) might that not make up for some of the other losses?
I have to admit, this is something I haven't investigated a lot. I'm eager for more knowledge in this area.
Darell
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
IlluminatingBikr said:
Since BEV's are limited in range, would it be possible to bring along a second battery pack, and swap it out half way along your trip?
Darell gets about 100 miles on a charge, if I'm not mistaken, so could he tote another battery pack to get 200 miles?
[/ QUOTE ]
Couple of things (in other words, first I'll answer the questions that you didn't ask, and then, if I remember, I'll get around to the one you DID ask. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
1. All vehicles have limited range! (With quick refuel potential, the range almost becomes moot. If I'm lucky I'll return to that point later...) That my current vehicle has a range of about 100 miles (just did 125 this weekend on a single charge!) is somewhat irrelevant. You can't buy these EV relics any longer. A modern EV built today would have at least 200, and likely 300 mile range. My car was designed in the late 80's with late 80's battery technology!
2. It would likely be cost- and weight-prohibitive to tote a second battery pack along with you. Pulling a small generator on a trailer would probably make more sense. One that ran on biodiesel, perhaps? Hey look, I got to your question already! Yay. More at the end...
3. It has been suggested many times that EV drivers would own the vehicle but not the pack. The packs would be standard, and could be swapped out at a service station for a full one in a matter of a couple of minutes. You would lease the pack, and be billed by usage. Lots of potential issues with this scenario, but still way more likely than H2 stations! A sports car would take one pack, a sedan takes two packs, a Hummer takes six packs. You get the idea.
4. In my mind, the best plan is to install fast chargers in as many places (eventually) as we currently have gasoline stations. You can slow charge at home, since that is done during down-times when you're home for a reason... but on the road, it would be nice to have the option of a fast charge. You drive for 3-4 hours, and stop for 15 minutes to recharge. I don't think anybody could complain about that! And fast chargers would cost less to install than a gas station - and they could be put just about anywhere along the road, instead of all bunched together around the giant under-ground gasoline tanks. Great strides are currently being made it allowing Li-Ion chemistry to be charged even faster than we're capable of doing it now.... and we can already safely do it pretty darn fast.
Heck, if we had the unlimited budget of the FC program, we could wire all the hiways in America, and allow everybody to charge while they fly along at freeway speeds. Then, secondary roads would be navigated with battery power until you arrive at your charging distination, or get back onto a hiway. Actually, I had this idea in the 4th grade when I proposed a slot-car like freeway system for my grade-school thesis. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
So, yes, you actually could tote along an extra pack - but I don't think it is the best plan for lots of reasons. First off, there's no reason to have it *extra*. Just make one pack that is twice the size! Afteall, where the heck are you gonna put a secondary pack if you don't have a place already reserved for it? I suppose you could tow it on a trailer, but taking that second pack along is going to cramp your range for BOTH packs.
** oops... forgot! My point about the quick-refill deal is that range and refill rate are closely tied together. If, for example, a vehicle had a range of 2,000 miles, it would't really matter if it took 24 hours to refill the thing since within those 2,000 miles, you'd likely have plenty of down time to charge. On the other hand, if your range were 100 miles, and you could refill in 30 seconds - that wouldn't be much of an inconvenience either. The first (and only!) batch of EVs to come off the modern lines were saddled with both a *relatively* limited range AND relatively long refill times. Change just one of those, and the problem almost completely goes away. Change them both, and there's no stopping you! I do need to add that for vast majority of the world's drivers, 100 miles/day is WAY more than they almost ever do. Most people overestimate how far they drive in a day. And yes, I do realize there are exceptions. Some folks drive some serious distances regularly... but that doesn't mean that all those other folks need 300-400 miles of range!
Man, am I starting to ramble now. I'll stop.
IlluminatingBikr said:
Since BEV's are limited in range, would it be possible to bring along a second battery pack, and swap it out half way along your trip?
Darell gets about 100 miles on a charge, if I'm not mistaken, so could he tote another battery pack to get 200 miles?
[/ QUOTE ]
Couple of things (in other words, first I'll answer the questions that you didn't ask, and then, if I remember, I'll get around to the one you DID ask. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
1. All vehicles have limited range! (With quick refuel potential, the range almost becomes moot. If I'm lucky I'll return to that point later...) That my current vehicle has a range of about 100 miles (just did 125 this weekend on a single charge!) is somewhat irrelevant. You can't buy these EV relics any longer. A modern EV built today would have at least 200, and likely 300 mile range. My car was designed in the late 80's with late 80's battery technology!
2. It would likely be cost- and weight-prohibitive to tote a second battery pack along with you. Pulling a small generator on a trailer would probably make more sense. One that ran on biodiesel, perhaps? Hey look, I got to your question already! Yay. More at the end...
3. It has been suggested many times that EV drivers would own the vehicle but not the pack. The packs would be standard, and could be swapped out at a service station for a full one in a matter of a couple of minutes. You would lease the pack, and be billed by usage. Lots of potential issues with this scenario, but still way more likely than H2 stations! A sports car would take one pack, a sedan takes two packs, a Hummer takes six packs. You get the idea.
4. In my mind, the best plan is to install fast chargers in as many places (eventually) as we currently have gasoline stations. You can slow charge at home, since that is done during down-times when you're home for a reason... but on the road, it would be nice to have the option of a fast charge. You drive for 3-4 hours, and stop for 15 minutes to recharge. I don't think anybody could complain about that! And fast chargers would cost less to install than a gas station - and they could be put just about anywhere along the road, instead of all bunched together around the giant under-ground gasoline tanks. Great strides are currently being made it allowing Li-Ion chemistry to be charged even faster than we're capable of doing it now.... and we can already safely do it pretty darn fast.
Heck, if we had the unlimited budget of the FC program, we could wire all the hiways in America, and allow everybody to charge while they fly along at freeway speeds. Then, secondary roads would be navigated with battery power until you arrive at your charging distination, or get back onto a hiway. Actually, I had this idea in the 4th grade when I proposed a slot-car like freeway system for my grade-school thesis. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif
So, yes, you actually could tote along an extra pack - but I don't think it is the best plan for lots of reasons. First off, there's no reason to have it *extra*. Just make one pack that is twice the size! Afteall, where the heck are you gonna put a secondary pack if you don't have a place already reserved for it? I suppose you could tow it on a trailer, but taking that second pack along is going to cramp your range for BOTH packs.
** oops... forgot! My point about the quick-refill deal is that range and refill rate are closely tied together. If, for example, a vehicle had a range of 2,000 miles, it would't really matter if it took 24 hours to refill the thing since within those 2,000 miles, you'd likely have plenty of down time to charge. On the other hand, if your range were 100 miles, and you could refill in 30 seconds - that wouldn't be much of an inconvenience either. The first (and only!) batch of EVs to come off the modern lines were saddled with both a *relatively* limited range AND relatively long refill times. Change just one of those, and the problem almost completely goes away. Change them both, and there's no stopping you! I do need to add that for vast majority of the world's drivers, 100 miles/day is WAY more than they almost ever do. Most people overestimate how far they drive in a day. And yes, I do realize there are exceptions. Some folks drive some serious distances regularly... but that doesn't mean that all those other folks need 300-400 miles of range!
Man, am I starting to ramble now. I'll stop.
Darell
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
bindibadgi said:
Is there really any practical reason why BEVs (I'm talking current technology) can't have a range as good as a standard ICE?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. All we really need is one of the big car makers to make them.
bindibadgi said:
Is there really any practical reason why BEVs (I'm talking current technology) can't have a range as good as a standard ICE?
[/ QUOTE ]
Nope. All we really need is one of the big car makers to make them.
bindibadgi
Flashlight Enthusiast
Thought so.
Darell
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
Hmmm. Perhaps. This is something I'd like to explore a fair amount as I feel the best situation is where the Plug-In Hybrid can be run on pure electric for most of its miles; indeed for many short trips over a span of days, the only recharging would be from the house electricity. The ICE might never "fire up".
[/ QUOTE ]
Really, there is no clean-cut situation here. Both systems have their advantages, and so many factors come into play, that it really is impossible to declare one as the overall efficiency winner. How "efficient" is making gasoline? How big is the gas engine as compared to the electric? All these questions change the final answer.
One thing is for certain though - if you want to be assured that the gasoline engine is used for almost all motility, then you build a parallel system. In this sytem, the gas motor is used quite efficiently (the engine RPM is quite closly controlled in this situatino, BTW, Ikendu). The gas motor is used efficiently, that is, if you ARE GOING TO USE IT ANYWAY. If, however, what you want is basically an EV with multiple ways (including on-board) to recharge, then serial is the winner. In this case, you don't use the gas engine much at all, so the efficiency of that situation is not as important to have the entire hybrid system efficient.
ikendu said:
Hmmm. Perhaps. This is something I'd like to explore a fair amount as I feel the best situation is where the Plug-In Hybrid can be run on pure electric for most of its miles; indeed for many short trips over a span of days, the only recharging would be from the house electricity. The ICE might never "fire up".
[/ QUOTE ]
Really, there is no clean-cut situation here. Both systems have their advantages, and so many factors come into play, that it really is impossible to declare one as the overall efficiency winner. How "efficient" is making gasoline? How big is the gas engine as compared to the electric? All these questions change the final answer.
One thing is for certain though - if you want to be assured that the gasoline engine is used for almost all motility, then you build a parallel system. In this sytem, the gas motor is used quite efficiently (the engine RPM is quite closly controlled in this situatino, BTW, Ikendu). The gas motor is used efficiently, that is, if you ARE GOING TO USE IT ANYWAY. If, however, what you want is basically an EV with multiple ways (including on-board) to recharge, then serial is the winner. In this case, you don't use the gas engine much at all, so the efficiency of that situation is not as important to have the entire hybrid system efficient.
idleprocess
Flashaholic
[ QUOTE ]
Darell said:
4. In my mind, the best plan is to install fast chargers in as many places (eventually) as we currently have gasoline stations. You can slow charge at home, since that is done during down-times when you're home for a reason... but on the road, it would be nice to have the option of a fast charge. You drive for 3-4 hours, and stop for 15 minutes to recharge. I don't think anybody could complain about that! And fast chargers would cost less to install than a gas station - and they could be put just about anywhere along the road, instead of all bunched together around the giant under-ground gasoline tanks. Great strides are currently being made it allowing Li-Ion chemistry to be charged even faster than we're capable of doing it now.... and we can already safely do it pretty darn fast.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that external chargers will fade as concepts like AC Propulsion's "reductive" chargers take hold - using the same high-power components that drive the motor to charge the batteries. It makes the most sense - that same circuitry has to drive the car, might as well make the most use of it to charge the battery pack.
Darell said:
4. In my mind, the best plan is to install fast chargers in as many places (eventually) as we currently have gasoline stations. You can slow charge at home, since that is done during down-times when you're home for a reason... but on the road, it would be nice to have the option of a fast charge. You drive for 3-4 hours, and stop for 15 minutes to recharge. I don't think anybody could complain about that! And fast chargers would cost less to install than a gas station - and they could be put just about anywhere along the road, instead of all bunched together around the giant under-ground gasoline tanks. Great strides are currently being made it allowing Li-Ion chemistry to be charged even faster than we're capable of doing it now.... and we can already safely do it pretty darn fast.
[/ QUOTE ]
I think that external chargers will fade as concepts like AC Propulsion's "reductive" chargers take hold - using the same high-power components that drive the motor to charge the batteries. It makes the most sense - that same circuitry has to drive the car, might as well make the most use of it to charge the battery pack.
- Status
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
Old Panasonic Alkaline Plus Power AAs
- Latest: AMD64Brunette
-
-
-
-
-
-