Slashdot Mirror

an old battery that isn't good enough for a car any more still has some life left, even if it has reduced capacity and power. PG&E has already committed to buying old BEV batteries for load levelling purposes. this would be especially important for intermittent energy sources like wind and solar. Current lithium ion cells aren't economical to recycle because it costs more to collect and sort them than you get. this would be much different if they were larger, mostly similar, and all in one place.

http://www.calcars.org/

http://www.calcars.org/

Am I missing something ?

Burning fossil fuels at a power plant, charging your car batteries, and running all electric is from 25-100% more efficient. This directly reduces green-house gases. Also, with the added flexibility to choose what kind of fuel we use, we could pretty much eliminate foreign oil imports. Toyota is spreading FUD. 8 miles? What a crock. All Toyota has to do is offer this product. Plug-in hybrids are a great technology that can save money, reduce oil imports, and reduce green-house gases.

BTW, every time I point out these simple sites and concepts that any dolt can easily understand, I get mod-ed down by a strange group that seems to read articles late. I have two theories on this: there are paid /.-ers who are paid to bury this kind of info; angry anti-environment /.-ers read articles late.

Suppose that the car's fuel system has juice to cruise for 6 hours before refueling; in other words it holds 36 kWh worth of energy.

In order to transfer this amount of energy into the cell in 5 minutes (1/12th of an hour) requires a sustained power output of 432 kW.

Multiply with the amount of vechiles being reloaded simultaneously.

No plug in hyrids?

Don't tell these folks:

http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2005/05/commercial _retr.html

Not to mention the GM Volt.

It is not that hard, they just didn't think people wanted to plug them in!

http://www.calcars.org/priusplus.html

The proper way to modify a Prius is to get rid of the redundancy and margins that Toyota built in(ie - it can function entirely on gas or electric for silly ranges). In a nutshell, they hacked the software to allow the car to run on batteries up to 45mph or so and put in a bigger battery pack. So the average commute went from 40mpg to about 75-80mpg. No change in driving style, and when the battery pack runs down a bit(long trips), it reverts to a normal Prius at about 35-40mpg average.

These guys probably have the X-prize thing wrapped up, but then again, there is a LOT of pressure forming right now on the X-prize community to either severely limit electric use or to get rid of most hybrids entirely.

A 100mpg fuel-only powered car would be very very tough to make - as tough as the original X-Prize was. A 100mpg Hybrid, shoot, I could build one in my garage in under six months, as could most of us here.

They'd find their winner.

The point is that North America peaked in Natural Gas production in about Jan 2001. I suspect the world may be peaking in oil production and may already be past peak. We do have coal available and we do have nuclear. But most houses don't have a coal furnace anymore.

If we start building the IRF reactor system which was designed by Argonne Labs (and shut down by clinton's administration in 1994!) then we have over 60,000 years of uranium supply on hand already mined... this for a fleet of about 110 reactors. North American can produce 100% of its power from nuclear - but we need about 1200 reactors to do it. We havn't started to build any. Any new reactors are years away.

> Well, the Prius also has a gasoline engine. Those batteries wouldn't be near sufficent to power an all electric vehical, or else we'd already have one.

They are enough to power the Prius for around-town driving, but not freeway driving.

http://calcars.org/priusplus.html

A new study, conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and sponsored by the federal agency, predicts that off-peak electricity production is adequate for keeping 185 million plug-in hybrids on the road.

The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewables. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower(http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/grnhsgas/isor.p df)

Nationally, two government studies have found PHEVs would result in large reductions even on the national grid (50% coal). The GREET 1.6 model in 2001(http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/153 .pdf) by the DOE's Argonne National Lab estimates hybrids reduce greenhouse gases by 22%, and plug-in hybrids by 36% (see table 2). An Argonne researcher reached consensus with researchers from other national labs, universities, the Air Resources Board, automakers, utilities and AD Little to estimate in July 2002 that PHEVs using nighttime power reduce greenhouse gases by 46 to 61 percent.

The "well-to-wheel" emissions of electric vehicles are lower than those from gasoline internal combustion vehicles. California Air Resources Board studies show that battery electric vehicles emit at least 67% lower greenhouse gases than gasoline cars -- even more assuming renewables. A PHEV with only a 20-mile all-electric range is 62% lower (see printed page 95 in the 2004 study).

http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/grnhsgas/isor.pdf

Nationally, two government studies have found PHEVs would result in large reductions even on the national grid (50% coal). The GREET 1.6 model in 2001 by the DOE's Argonne National Lab estimates hybrids reduce greenhouse gases by 22%, and plug-in hybrids by 36% (see table 2). An Argonne researcher reached consensus with researchers from other national labs, universities, the Air Resources Board, automakers, utilities and AD Little to estimate in July 2002 that PHEVs using nighttime power reduce greenhouse gases by 46 to 61 percent. This is summarized in slide 11 at the November 2003 presentation by EPRI. For more in the media on this, see also the May 2, 2005 followup to the April 11 Business Week story.

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/153.pdf

One can compare the energy in gas to the energy in electricity, but electric motors are more efficient.

Also Electricity is usually gathered (charged) at night where in most of the country it is a waste product.

Check http://calcars.org/ for the latest news in PHEV research and hacking. They have built a number of Plug In cars, including one over the weekend in front of an audience at the Orielly Maker Faire.

That would be too long of a post and it's been covered in other places:
http://www.peakoil.com/fortopic8972.html

Also see http://www.calcars.org/vehicles.html to see some info on their plug-in hybrids that achieve over 100 MPG. Hopefully Google will help fund something similar, except this time we can buy it.

Current vehicle engines have this strange quirk.

The engine isn't running at its most efficient conversion of gas to energy unless it's operating within its most efficient point in its powerband - a HP plateau between certain RPM markers. Check it out on a dyno. So yes, it would be more efficient to accelerate harder from a stop with the RPMs within the powerband, coast, then rinse-n-repeat.

It's called Pulse-n-Glide by the Prius marathoners, and also on Wikipedia.

Constant speed isn't the most efficient way to use a internal combustion engine (ICE), although it certainly is the easiest.

"What we need is a hybrid car where the electric engine is the primary one and gas (or hydrogen) is the backup, rather than the other way around"

Someone's beat you to it. Namely, by modifying a Toyota Prius with extra batteries and plugging it in at night.

Actually a very good idea and it seems to work fine.

They're WAY bigger on the inside than they look from the outside. The amount of space inside one of those cars is truly amazing.

I also like the whole Prius+ hack, which makes them even more useful.

He didn't provide any facts.

1. a fuel source
2. not a viable replacement for oil
3. has a much lower fuel efficency
4. is still non-renewable.

He... was refuted by respondants.

There's quite a bit of discussion regarding the viability of Ethanol as a fuel.

You've taken our total production and then proclaimed that Ethanol can't do the job. Question? Have you considered that we can increase our crop production?

It's not only impossible, you'd have to be stupid or insane to suggest it. It's far easier to do something about that pathetic 14.9% efficiency figure.

If it was just about efficieny, we'd all be driving electric cars. In fact, it's about range and fuel economy. It's about keeping the transportation system we have.

Replacing our fuel infrastructure and our cars would be one of the most expensive replacements in history.

I won't try to determine your mental state. I just wanted to make the point that, on the scale of usefulness, informativity and insightfulness, your post's quality fell way short of its score. If the mods really want to do their job, they'll make sure that the +5's don't include such examples of failed critical thinking.

Start with a vehicle that burns the biodiesel. Capture the emmisions into some substrate(s) to sequester the CO, CO2, and NOX.

The plug-in hybrid is essentially an electric car with one important difference. When it runs out of electricity, a motor kicks in to recharge the battery. Optimally, it can run all day on electricity alone, but you're not stranded if you need to travel farther than the car's all-electric range. And if the car's recharging motor ran off biodiesel, so much the better.

I don't think we're ever going to get to zero-emissions, but we should be able to do a damn sight better than we're doing now.

batteries lasting the lifetime of the car has a _lot_ to do with Depth of Discharge (DoD). Battery chemistry has a lot to do with how low you can discharge a battery before you start to lose performance. For example, you don't want to discharge a lead-acid battery past 20% (even a "deep-discharge" PbA), or the capacity goes to shit real quick. Nickel-metal Hydride batteries don't like to be discharged past 50%, iirc. Hence, the Prius computer starts the engine whenever it detects that the battery level is less than a certain level - 60% or 80%, i think.

Lithium Ion batteries don't like to be fully charged (this is why some apple i-pod batteries only last a year before their performance craps out - people consistently plug 'em in until they're fully charged), not really sure on the specifics of Nickel-Cadmium, other than that the guy I met with a nickel-cadmium Electric Dodge Caravan said that he doesn't have any problems with discharging it all the way. Usual precaution about overcharging appliecs to NiCd, PbA, and LiIon...

The plug-in-hybrid project replaces the battery pack with a bigger one, and has electronics to tell the Toyota computer that it's consistently 90% full, until it gets down to a certain level. This allows for more electric-only city miles.

AC Propulsion's tZero now has a lithium-ion battery pack, which is good for 300+ miles. It originally had a cheap lead-acid pack, which was good for up to 100 miles/trip. I think they had 15,000 or 20,000 miles on it when they switched to the new battery pack.

http://calcars.org/

Conversion to regular hybrid probably will not be worth it when you consider the cost/benefit ratio. However a conversion to PHEV (plugin hybrid electric vehicle) may be well worth the effort. The above site describes this new type of car that allows you to go 30-40 miles in your daily commute off of electricity charged batteries. If you drive longer than that commute, then it behaves like a regular hybrid burning gasoline.

Their earlier conversions were modifying existing non-hybrid cars for PHEV capability, which would be similar to what you are looking for. Despite the benefit of PHEV, it may turn out to be too expensive to be worth it, but you should still look into it.

See How Much Cleaner than a Gasoline Car is a PHEV Charged from the Dirty (Coal) Grid?

In addition, the ULEV rating does not take into account all the costs associated with getting the gasoline into the ULEV car.

Pimental assumes that all corn is irrigated (only 16% is, and that corn is rarely used for ethanol production - and Pimental even notes this, but assumes all corn is irrigated anyways!).

Pimental used energy calculations for fertilizer production from the UN's data for worldwide average costs, while the USDA and others use the energy cost of US fertilizer production (these are widely different numbers - a 2.5-fold difference).

You can't burn ag waste in your car. You can't burn coal in your car. You can't burn nuclear in your car.

There appears to be a relatively simple method to make ethanol and electricity from ag waste, but it doesn't involve corn.

*Furthermore*, almost all ethanol production plants utilize on-site heat production, using electricity only for things like the mashers. Heat is the big energy cost for ethanol production. Typically either coal, ag-waste, or both are burned (occasionally, natural gas is used).

I've heard of exactly one proposed plant that uses coal and cogenerates electricity before using the spent steam to run distilleries. Just one. And I can't find the link, either.

there's good reason to call him "dishonest".

Even if you can take them at their word, the results aren't all that great. Some claim 1.34 BTU of ethanol out per BTU of fossil fuels in (with a large fraction of that BTU coming from petroleum). In other words, barely more than 25% of the energy in ethanol is actually grown; the rest comes from fossil sources. If we are going to spend tax money to encourage people to convert e.g. coal to motor fuel, we shouldn't discriminate against those who aren't corn farmers.

PS: Modern cars don't gain tailpipe emissions benefits from ethanol, and ethanol increases smog-forming evaporative emissions. To compensate for the high vapor pressure of ethanol, the petroleum fraction must be refined to remove high vapor-pressure components. I've never seen a listing of the energy costs of ethanol which accounted for the additional refining losses involved with meeting emissions standards.

Pimental assumes that all corn is irrigated (only 16% is, and that corn is rarely used for ethanol production - and Pimental even notes this, but assumes all corn is irrigated anyways!).

Pimental used energy calculations for fertilizer production from the UN's data for worldwide average costs, while the USDA and others use the energy cost of US fertilizer production (these are widely different numbers - a 2.5-fold difference).

You can't burn ag waste in your car. You can't burn coal in your car. You can't burn nuclear in your car.

There appears to be a relatively simple method to make ethanol and electricity from ag waste, but it doesn't involve corn.

*Furthermore*, almost all ethanol production plants utilize on-site heat production, using electricity only for things like the mashers. Heat is the big energy cost for ethanol production. Typically either coal, ag-waste, or both are burned (occasionally, natural gas is used).

I've heard of exactly one proposed plant that uses coal and cogenerates electricity before using the spent steam to run distilleries. Just one. And I can't find the link, either.

there's good reason to call him "dishonest".

Even if you can take them at their word, the results aren't all that great. Some claim 1.34 BTU of ethanol out per BTU of fossil fuels in (with a large fraction of that BTU coming from petroleum). In other words, barely more than 25% of the energy in ethanol is actually grown; the rest comes from fossil sources. If we are going to spend tax money to encourage people to convert e.g. coal to motor fuel, we shouldn't discriminate against those who aren't corn farmers.

PS: Modern cars don't gain tailpipe emissions benefits from ethanol, and ethanol increases smog-forming evaporative emissions. To compensate for the high vapor pressure of ethanol, the petroleum fraction must be refined to remove high vapor-pressure components. I've never seen a listing of the energy costs of ethanol which accounted for the additional refining losses involved with meeting emissions standards.

onsite gas reformers could piggyback on the natural gas infrastructure.

If I had a garage, I would _love_ to have an LNG or H car, be able to fill it myself overnight.

Well, you *CAN* have it!
Just get the PRIUS+ kit from California Cars !

Of course, (tsk tsk) it may not be made in Japan...

So what is the theoretical fastest time you could have these batteries charged?

Because if it's just a few minutes, and the electrical systems in the home are not capable of it, then why not have dedicated "electricity stations" where you can recharge your car just as you would fill it with gas?

I don't get why everyone who craps on the idea of the electric car immediately assumes you have to charge it from the outlet on your house or garage.

It wasn't practical then, it isn't practical now- it is estimated that Toyota (not to mention, the Japanese government) subsidized the Prius to the tune of at least $17,000.

Even if it was correct (CATO's impartiality is doubtful), it is four years out of date. Less than two years later Toyota was reporting per-vehicle profits on the Prius. Batteries and the like have only gotten cheaper since then, and it's not like Toyota has to offer incentives to move them!

It's a common myth that the hybrid system is what gives it such good gas mileage. It isn't. It's narrow, hard tires and good aerodynamics.

1. Regenerative braking in traffic.
2. Reduced engine friction due to smaller engine.
3. Reduced throttling losses, ditto.
4. Idling losses reduced or eliminated under many operating conditions.

Calcars
Plug-in hybrid = energy choice.

I urge all readers of these lively threads to view our Fact Sheet, found at http://www.priusplus.org/ -- paying special attention to the fact that our MPG results must be combined with the electricity used.
Also look at the new section at our vehicles page where we document the benefits of PHEVs even when they're recharged from a dirty (coal-fueled) grid.

We've added a link to this discussion at http://www.calcars.org/kudos.html

Felix Kramer, Founder, CalCars

The normal Prius uses its battery pack to help acceleration, hill climbing, and to power accessories. The battery pack is recharged by the gas engine and by regenerative braking. Every place except North America, the Prius has an EV button, which turns the car into a pure electric car -- but only for a mile or two before the battery reaches a state-of-charge (SOC) that is too low. The Prius battery back is designed to last an extremely long time (warranteed for 150,000 miles), and one way Toyota assures that is by limiting the SOC to a small range, from about 25% full to 80% full.

Priusplus is adding a separate "traction" battery, that works with the normal Prius drivetrain, to provide a long-distance EV mode. In their first proof-of-concept car (which should be finished this weekend) it uses 12 motorcycle Lead-Acid batteries, and it should go about 20 or 30 miles on an overnight (or overday) charge. Using far superiour Lithium Ion batteries, they should get about 80 miles for a battery pack that costs about $5,000 or so (although current Lithium cells are quite small indeed, requiring a rediculous number of batteries wired into a large pack)

If I could go, say, even 40 miles on a charge, I wouldn't use the gas motor in my Prius except to climb very steep hills during the week. I'd effectively get well over 100 mpg (Electricity costs, even in California, give a price-per-mile of about 2 cents. Unfortunately, at this point, the cost for the traction battery (because it is more deeply cycled it doesn't last as long) probably adds another few cents/mile.

PriusPlus is hoping to display there car at a show here in Los Angeles at the end of the month, and is attempting to persuade Toyota that this is a car they should build. Once people are educated about the benefits of hybrid technology, it should be a small step to show them the further benefits of plugging them in.

I fervently hope that PriusPlus will succeed!

Thad

My question is, what fuel do we go to?

That said, there are a lot of places where other sources of energy could fit in if we designed our systems flexibly enough to accomodate them. For instance, cheap concentrating solar could supply energy to hybrid cars on an as-available basis, cutting emissions of CO2 and all related pollutants in the bargain. You don't need to get fancy when simple will do; doubling efficiency and substituting for half of the remaining demand yields a 75% reduction, and those figures are definitely within reach with stuff we could make today. That's just one of many things that are feasible right now.

Why can't we buy this stuff off the shelf? Inertia and politics, I guess.

We're ignoring it because all the electrical enegry is generated by burning gas.

Are we cursed forever to avoid using the single most commmon element in the universe, one that will burn clean, simply because someone burned a balloon with it once decades ago?

1. Current production is almost entirely non-renewable. Signatories to the Kyoto treaty will not be able to make their targets by "switching" to hydrogen if they make it from natural gas (or, heaven forbid, coal).
2. Production is highly inefficient. Whether it's made from hydrocarbons, carbohydrates (polysaccharides such as wood) or electricity, the hydrogen only embodies a relatively small fraction of the energy which goes into the process. This further increases the cost, as well as CO2 production if the raw material is any kind of carbon-based fuel.
3. Production is costly, relatively speaking. Storing energy as hydrogen appears to cost several times as much as gasoline.

Now compare that to our current state of affairs: the vast majority of our electricity coming from coal or gas, much of it imported; our cars running on gasoline, almost all of it imported.

Now try and tell me it doesn't make sense to switch.