How to Sell Electric Vehicle/Solar Power?

[Darell]

Thanks for dropping by, idle.

[ QUOTE ]
idleprocess said:
promise of fuel cells once vehicles get smaller and lighter after relieved of the combustion engine burden.

[/ QUOTE ]This is one of the classic "poor comparison" issues that are put on the table daily. Here you effectively state that a FCV of the future will be better than a BEV of the past. I think I've stated here before that today's production EVs (and by the way none of them are rated below 100 miles, so I'm not sure what you're reading for the 50 mile range) are at least 10-year-old technology. Current EVs (not production since they are not IN production) have a real-world 300 mile range capability along with fast charging. If large auto compainies were to really want this (like they say they want FCV) then we'd be somewhere. There is no way anybody (including FCV supporters!) can imagine a FC vehicle that is higher performance or cheaper to produce than a pure battery EV. If the same effort and money was put into battery development as is now being put into FC research, then we'd have a fair race, and I know where my money would be! In the past six years, we have increased battery energy density by about 6 times! That isn't going to happen with fuel cells.

Let's put it another way. FCV research has been going on far longer and with far more monies spent than Battery Electric research. And today, with no industry backing, we have a battery electric car that will do 0-60 in 3.6 seconds, and travel 300 miles on a charge. That particular vehicle cost 1/4 as much to build as the cheapest FCV on the road today. And that expensive FCV can only travel 120 miles on an insanely expensive fillup. To drive the length of CA would cost about $900 in the FCV. The BEV will cost about $10 for the trip...

[ QUOTE ]
The vehicle will be very much like an electric car, only when you "recharge" it, you're reversing the reaction in the fuel cell.

[/ QUOTE ]Whoa now! You've just perfectly described a battery electric system. A battery is basically a fully self-contained, cheap, small fuel cell, actually. Just four times more efficient.

[ QUOTE ]
Last I checked up on pure electric cars, they were topping out at around 50 miles range.

[/ QUOTE ]Not sure where or when you checked, but the first ever production EV had a range of 60 miles until the defective batteries were replaced with good ones less than a year after introduction. Presto, 120 miles range for the origninal car. Two years later it was released with NiMH batteries (invented for the EV industry) and the range soared to 160 miles.

[ QUOTE ]
'Guess I need to move closer to work and make a hell of a lot more money to take immediate advantage of current EVs.

[/ QUOTE ]No worries there - there are no "current" EVs. They are not being made because all of our eggs are in the FCV basket right now.

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I wouldn't look to the auto companies to produce any revolutions in passenger cars - they have entrenched interests they simply can't shake (oil companies, the dealer business model, institutional inertia).

[/ QUOTE ]Indeed we are on the same page here. People often ask why, if the cars are so good, wouldn't the automakers want to make them? Well, as much as they advertise to the contrary, offering the best car to the public isn't really the biggest motivator in the business... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

[idleprocess]

I guess I prefer fuel cells just because they're exotic and fascinating and already feature higher energy densities than batteries. The potential performance/efficiency numbers on fuel cells exceed BEVs - BEVs currently need to be almost as heavy is ICE cars due to the tremendous battery bank required. Perhaps there are some advances in battery capacity on the horizon, but given that there have always been incentives to improve chemical batteries' performance, I don't think there will be much more than incremental improvements for the next several decades.

Of course, when we debate FCV, it depends on what you see ultimately representing the FCV.

The automakers are looking to make something that resembles an ICE in that it "gasses up," and likely will require the sort of regular maintenance that today's cars do (gotta keep those dealers in buiness doing service).

The FCV I'd like to see is close to the hypercar concept - think aircraft instead of automobile and realize far greater increases in efficiency by starting from scratch and eliminating mass. Ultimately, the FCV I'd like to see 20 years from now is very much like a BEV - it only differs from a BEV in that it generates electricity from fuel rather than consuming stored electricity.

Of course, there's a heck of a lot of engineering required to get to that point - and in the meantime, there's nothing like the thought of a substantial bsuiness-model shift to spook huge industries with tremendous influence like the automakers and oil companies.

I don't debate that the BEVs of today are viable, ready-to-go alternatives to ICEs. I'll discard the notion of BEVs only making it ~50 miles per charge; that number was tossed around quite a bit when the EV1 was introduced - perhaps as a self-defeating marketing tactic to "prove" there was no market for BEV vehicles.

I know that with a standard high-voltage houshold line (220 or 440V), you can recharge a BEV farily quick using a safe magnetic-induction paddle.

Yeah, we're more or less on the same page.

EDIT - cursed typos

 

[ikendu]

Who will buy the first commercially produced hydrogen car?

...I guess it will be someone with at least one hydrogen refueling station. But! What if I want to refuel outside the range (quite short for hydrogen cars) of that first station. Hmmmm... I guess I'd need a second station. Who will be building these stations with no cars to sell hydrogen to...?

I realize that once upon a time there weren't any gasoline stations either. Although, the investment to sell a liquid fuel like gasoline or diesel was low. Seems like a lot of infrastructure issues to deal with...

Whereas... BEVs for round trip commuting only need a charger socket at home, where fuel is already quite available. And...it is easy enough to equip them with electric socket type chargers on-board so that they could recharge any where. Biodiesel...the same way; existing infrastructure.

As far as "range away from my fuel source"...my Golf will travel 1500 miles on a fillup + four 5-gallon containers of biodiesel in the trunk. ...and, should I mis-calculate a little and need fuel before I can get home... I can just fill up at any truck stop with petroleum diesel.

 

[idleprocess]

Hypercar case study:
http://www.hypercar.com/pages/casestudies.php

One substantial downside of this vehicle is its use of liquid hydrogen fuel (can we say "hazardous?"). Other than thats it's rather similar to GM's Hy-wire, only without the needless mass of a fuel processor onboard.

 

[Kristofg]

[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
Who will buy the first commercially produced hydrogen car?

...I guess it will be someone with at least one hydrogen refueling station. But! What if I want to refuel outside the range (quite short for hydrogen cars) of that first station. Hmmmm... I guess I'd need a second station. Who will be building these stations with no cars to sell hydrogen to...?

[/ QUOTE ]
I've been playing around with a fuel cell which came as part of a german Experimentierkasten (science-set) and the cell changes hydrogen to electric power to power an electric motor, but during the day it has a solar panel which changes water into hydrogen and stores it in the tank. Thus all you need is electricity (or a lot of sun) and no special refueling station.

It works like a battery in storing electric energy in chemical form. Just not as dense on a small scale.

 

[ikendu]

So...which uses less electricity?

A battery (like Lithium Ion)...
Or a fuel cell using electricity to split water?...

 

[Darell]

OK, I'm pretty sure we've played out the original intent of this threat, so we shouldn't feel guilty about using this to discuss all kinds of Alt Fuel vehicles.
[ QUOTE ]
ikendu said:
So...which uses less electricity?

A battery (like Lithium Ion)...
Or a fuel cell using electricity to split water?...

[/ QUOTE ]Ooooh! I know, I know! Pick me! 30 years ago the answer was that batteries requried about 1/4 the energy for the same amount of energy out (as compared to a FC). And today that number has not changed. In the same time that neither technology has increased in efficiency, batteries have increased in energy density by almost 10x. FC technology has not.

[ QUOTE ]
they're exotic and fascinating and already feature higher energy densities than batteries. The potential performance/efficiency numbers on fuel cells exceed BEVs - BEVs currently need to be almost as heavy is ICE cars due to the tremendous battery bank required

[/ QUOTE ]I agree that they're exotic and fascinating, but I am confused about this higher energy density. How do you measure energy density of H2? It has no density until you compress it. And that compression determines the energy density (and also requires quite a bit of additional energy input!). And H2 is not a fuel of course. It is a carrier of energy. Just like pumping water up a hill to use it later on the way down the hill - H2 does not exist by itself anywhere that we know of. We have to create it by using either a fossil fuel (easier) or something like water (harder with lots of energy added). But I have not yet followed your link, which I will do now.

As for heavy vehicles - right now FCV are substantially heavier than their BEV couter-parts when compared range for range. BEVs have a bad rep for being heavy, but again that's from decades-old technology. Mostly with lead-acid batteries. Again we're comparing technologies that are at LEAST 30 years apart. BEVs of 10 years ago, and FCV that are 20 years into the future. Not a fair comparison. FCVs need large, heavy tanks for the H2. And all the blumbing, and of course the expensive FC stack. With batteries, all that is self-contained already.

Performance? FCVs NEED either batteries or capacitors to even function as real vehicles. Power from a FC cannot be extracted fast enough for freeway acceleration. Every FCV on the road is a full BEV... that is basically charged from the FC stack at great expense and extra weight.

I enjoy the enthusiasm, but I'm quite a bit more cautious about the pie-in-the-sky *future of FCVs. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[Darell]

OK... I've read about the Hypercar concept. I guess this was developed five years ago?

I should point out that it is officially a "hybrid-electric" vehicle. That means that some of the propuslion comes from stored electricity. Batteries or capacitors. Capacitors being substantially more expensive than batteries.

One concession to reality that they mention is this: "The target of $150 per kW by 2004, as set by the U.S. Department of Energy, meant that while the fuel cell would carry a price premium, it would be considered affordable for upper market segments. (This $150 per kW target has not been met, in fact hydrogen fuel cells are still about an order of magnitude more expensive)." And this target had many years to be met. And this is the vehicle that the automakers say that they *want* to make. Make use of all those sexy weight savings and aerodynamic increases for a BEV platform, and you'll have a car that will cost 10x less, travel farther on less expensive fuel, and have higher performance all the way around.

It fascinates me to no end that when a BEV builder says he can build a kick-*** vehicle for $80,000, the world points fingers and tells him he's insane. That nobody can afford it. Forget that it is a one-off vehicle that will outperform any stock vehicle on the road. Forget that it can be fueled just about anywhere on earth for pennies. But turn the page and read about FCVs that have already come down in price from $4 million per copy to just $1 million, and magazine editors foam at the mouth, excited about this "new" technology that is fifty years old. A technology that we have no infrastructure for. I don't know what to attribute this behaviour to.

The numbers for this concept car sound absolutely dreamy (I can't tell if these are hard numbers, or target numbers. I assume the latter). I'd buy one for the price of a Lexus in a heart-beat. But there's one nagging issue: Where are they? We know why there are no more BEVs that *can* be produced at reasonable prices. But these FCVs are what the industry tells us they WANT to make. So this plan looks fantastic. Who wouldn't want one? Why aren't they here?

 

[Darell]

Ah. Meant to comment on this as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps there are some advances in battery capacity on the horizon, but given that there have always been incentives to improve chemical batteries' performance, I don't think there will be much more than incremental improvements for the next several decades.


[/ QUOTE ]BEVs pushed battery technology in recent history like no other industry. Lots of money was spent, and in a VERY short time we went from sloppy lead-acid technology to advanced lead-acid to NiMH. Giant leaps in energy density in a very short period. But that research money is all dried up now, in favor of FC research.

FCs have had MORE money and MORE effort put into maturity of the product. And surprisingly, they have not become more "energy dense" as a system. Why would we expect batteries to stagnate now, after huge density increases over the past few years, and expect FC to explode in energy density? This is exactly what the auto-financed industry expert on batteries told the CARB when the ZEV mandate was being gutted.

The fact is, batteries have NOT stagnated, and there are breakthroughs every month. And this is happening without the $ billions being thrown at the FC industry.

I've said it before: I think FCs are great. Right tool for the right job and all that. I do NOT think that a FC vehicle will ever be as economical, efficient or as high-performing as a BEV - IF they're both given the same development time, energy and monies. And I've been wrong before...

 

[idleprocess]

Hm. There goes my enthusiasm for ultralight, ultra-efficient, high-performance FCVs within the next few decades. I can quibble over a few details (ie, if hydrogen of itself isn't a fuel, then octane isn't either & producing hydrogen from water with electrolysis is only marginally less efficient than the most efficient hydrocarbon feed stock extraction process), but the case has more or less been made and lost with what information I have at hand - and I doubt there's anything to be dug up that will change this.

There are some other fuel cell technologies out there other than hydrogen fuel cells. I've heard of a new one that can produce insane amounts of current... regrettably at around 300mV. I don't know much about them other than they're a fundamentally different chemistry (something involving aluminum?) than hydrogen fuel cells. Decades away from commercial development, no doubt.

What is the actual energy density increase from the lead-acid tech of a decade+ ago to the NiMH being used in the most current BEVs? I remember reading that the battery bank in the original EV1 represented roughly half a gallon of octane - and it was a large percentage of the vehicle's mass. Has the mass gone down markedly as well?

Even if density has doubled, taking into account the lack of ~40% useful energy yield from octane in an ICE, and assuming some sort of reduction in battery mass as well - where is the margin to cut mass? You've a tremendous bank of batteries displacing the ICE/subsystem mass...

 

[Steve K]

energy density of batteries? Good question!
I was able to google up this info:

http://www.energyadvocate.com/batts.htm

Battery Type -------- Energy Density
-------------------joules per kilogram

Lead-acid ------------ 79,200
Nickel-cadmium ------- 158,400
Lithium-Sulfur ------- 792,000
(no numbers on NiMH or LiIon??)

okay, here's another site:
http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Feb04/PR0306.html

battery type----------- W-hrs/kg
Lead acid ----------- 35
NiCad ----------- 35 (can that be right??)
Nickel Hydrogen ------- 55
LiIon ----------- 150

My own experience using lead-acid, nicads, and nimh shows that there was a big improvement when moving from lead acid to nicad, and again when moving to nimh. If/when LiIon are affordable, I'd expect to see a very competitive electric car! There will be some further development required, but there is a lot of potential there, and without the significant infrastructure issues associated with hydrogen (imho, of course).

Personally, I'm just waiting for highways with electric power rails embedded in the roadway, just like slot cars!! (hehehe) /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/naughty.gif

Steve K.

 

[Brock]

Darell how much does your Rav4 EV weigh and how much does the ICE version weigh?

 

[Darell]

Guys -

I have a great chart regarding energy densities at home that I'll share when I finally get home this weekend. The transition from Lead acid to Li-Ion is insane in the energy-density improvement area.

[ QUOTE ]
ven if density has doubled, taking into account the lack of ~40% useful energy yield from octane in an ICE, and assuming some sort of reduction in battery mass as well - where is the margin to cut mass? You've a tremendous bank of batteries displacing the ICE/subsystem mass...


[/ QUOTE ]Energy density doubled last year. And the year before that. And in each of the four years before that. Energy density as increased 100% every year for the past few years. No joke, and not vapor-ware. There are two things you can do with an increase of density: Make the car lighter with about the same range (thus making it accelerate better) or you can extend the range with the same weight. Of course you can choose something inbetween as well.

About the best energy yield for a gasoline-burning car is on the order of 35% when the upstream inefficiencies are ignored. When the whole system is taken into account, we're looking at about 10% for the BEST cars on the road. The average car would be 15% and 5% respectively. That's energy in compared to the energy that meets the pavement. Anyway, I'm getting off track of your qeustion. The EV1 had a battery pack that weighed about 1,100 pounds of lead-acid batteries. That same capacity using today's chemistry would weigh about 200 pounds, or the weight of a substantial passenger. And THAT is much less than an ICE and transmission exhaust system can ever hope to weigh. Let's also remember that this care doesn't need the weight of a full tank of gas, either.

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
Brock said:
Darell how much does your Rav4 EV weigh and how much does the ICE version weigh?

[/ QUOTE ]Brock -
I believe the EV came in at about 3440 pounds, and the ICE version is a bit over 300 pounds lighter, if I remember correctly. The SUV crowd will quickly tell you that this should make the Rav4EV MUCH safer than the gas version (right?). With Li-Ion batteries, a vehicle with this same range would weigh the same or less than the ICE version (remember, this is with NO other modifications aimed at weight reduction from the ICE version).

One great benefit to the battery Rav4? The center of mass is below the axles, not above it like with the ICE version. The battery pack (main mass, like the ICE Of a traditional car) is under the floor. This makes the EV version handle quite a bit better around the corners. MUCH less top-heavy. And if this car does roll, it has a much better chance of ending up on its wheels.

 

[Darell]

Hey look at this. {pats self on back} I had the battery chart linked on my web site! Take a look. Too bad there's no info for the flooded lead acid, since that's where we started.

http://www.madkatz.com/ev/batteryTechnologyComparison.html

 

[Darell]

Idle -

If you are still interested in learing about the real hurdles of FCVs (and you need to be serious since this is a three-page article!) this is a fantastic paper, by a respected individual in the Alt Vehicle biz. This is one of the guys who made the 300-mile-range, 0-60-in 3.6 seconds, fast-charging pure battery electric vehicle. The one that beats the Dodge Viper in the standing 1/4 mile. This car exists, and is driven on the road daily. He BUILT the thing. From scratch. With no industry backing. It has close to 30,000 miles on it now, last I heard, and is doing phenominally well.

So here is the article. Pour yourself your favorite beverage and enjoy the read. You are about to be imersed in the World of Darell (there is mention made of the CARB hearings that I attended, and have reported on here from time to time.

http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=article&storyid=691

I assume that needs no membership. If there is a problem with the link (remember to click on pages two and three!) I can send the whole thing in pdf.



And here is just a quick article on one writer's test drive of GM's Hywire. You'll notice no mention of BEVs here! http://www.evworld.com/view.cfm?section=communique&newsid=5691

 

[gadget_lover]

[ QUOTE ]
BB said:


Right now folks are spending roughly 50% more for a car that gets 60-50 mpg vs one that gets 32-40 mpg today with a much simpler drive train (Toyota Prius vs Corolla). Heck, back in 1970, my dad got 36-40 mpg in our family Corolla (after he "fixed" the smog controls).

IMHO, hybrids are just a stop-gap that don't even double the mileage on a plain old Corolla. Again, I am happy for the fuel use reduction... but it will still not be a fundamental shift in the way we do business...

Sincerely,
-Bill

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I'm a Prius driver, so I pay closer attention than most to these statements.

The 50% higher price assertion is only valid until it comes time to sell the car. The resale of the Prius has, so far, recouped the higher initial purchase price. The 50% also assumes a Corolla that is cheaper because it has not been upgraded to the trim level of the Prius.

The other interesting thing here is that the Prius was actually engineered to minimize emissions while retaining normal car performance. The increased milage was a by-product. The Corolla is not as clean nor as powerful. BB's dad's 1970 corolla was incredibly dirty.

It's easy to get good milage if you don't worry about the emissions, performance or longevity of the car.

The introduction of the hybrid has proven that battery power can be supplemented in a way that allows long range travel and no drawbacks. In time we may have EVs with a small booster gasoline engine for longer trips, a reversal of the current hybrid design.

The key to the Prius design is that it allows the gas engine to cycle on and off without the driver noticing. The design should scale well into larger vehicles like SUVs and even trucks.

I've always wanted an EV. The Prius is as close as I've come to an afordable one with no down side.

Daniel

 

[Darell]

[ QUOTE ]
gadget_lover said:
The design should scale well into larger vehicles like SUVs and even trucks.

[/ QUOTE ]Not just should but DOES scale well. We already have SUVs, Hummers, trucks and even locomotives that use the technology to great advantage.

[ QUOTE ]
I've always wanted an EV. The Prius is as close as I've come to an afordable one with no down side.

[/ QUOTE ]OK.... you had me nodding along with you right up until here. I think I know what you mean, but there is a down side to everything. Unfortunately, the downside to today's "hybrids" is that they still burn gasoline to go anywhere, and they require oil, tuneups, etc. Of course there are down sides to EVs as well. We can't lose site of the substantial downsides of anything that still consumes fossil fuels though!

Thanks for being part of the solution.

 

[gadget_lover]

[ QUOTE ]
Darell said:
Hey look at this. {pats self on back} I had the battery chart linked on my web site! Take a look. Too bad there's no info for the flooded lead acid, since that's where we started.

http://www.madkatz.com/ev/batteryTechnologyComparison.html

[/ QUOTE ]


Ummmm, Darell?

You have some typo's on your grid. Well, unless the lithium polymer does have a 1000% self discharge per month, in which case we need to figure out how to use that extra 900% that it's pulling from somewhere.

/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Nice chart. Thanks.

And as far as downsides go.... Gasoline is not always a negative. The Prius has been shown to be as clean as an EV in areas where the grid electricity is created from non renewable sources. If you live in an area where coal is used to create electricity, the Prius is gentler on the environment.

The downsides I was talking about were things like 1) driving range that's too short 2)lack of dealer support 3) reliable 4) special driving procedures 5) lack of storage 6) cost too much.

Most of these are no longer problems with EVs. I'm very disapointed that none of the major car manufacturers are building EVs at the very time when they have reached a point where they are very practical.


Daniel

 

[idleprocess]

Darrel:

As soon as I saw the numbers on the Hy-Wire, I knew it was a piece of junk.

I seem to recall that it weighed in at some 3400 pounds; I drive a Ford Ranger, and I don't think it weighs that much with its heavy steel ladder frame. I also read some delightful platitudes about onboard fuel processors - and the the vehicle wasn't even crash-rated (hello another thousand pounds of mass).

The car manufacturers don't want to make EVs because they don't know how to make money with them. The dealers have reached a point where they don't make money on the sale of new vehicles. The bulk of their revenue comes from service. EVs don't need oil changes, ring jobs, tuneups etc which keep dealers in business. There are still mechanical things to go wrong - just far less of them.

Then there are the oil companies. And the gas station/C-store operators. And the rest of the auto repair business.

In the mid-90s, it was often quoted that 60% of the American economy is dependent on cars in one way or another. That's a hell of a lot of economic inertia/momentum, and a trmendous shift in the direction of that much of the economy would have all sorts of unforseen effects. The automakers themselves are huge - so huge that it's more practical to try to manipulate the system than to adapt to the markets.

I work for a company whose products dependent on the automobile (luckily, any auto, not just the internal-combustion variety).