Slashdot Mirror
Google Spends Money to Jump-Start Hybrid Car Development
slugo writes "Internet search giant Google (GOOG) hopes to speed the development of plug-in hybrid cars by giving away millions of dollars to people and companies that have what appear to be practical ways to get plug-in hybrid automobiles to market faster. 'While many people don't associate Google with energy, analysts say the fit isn't all that unnatural. Renewable energy, unlike coal or nuclear, will likely come from thousands or tens of thousands of different locations. Analysts have long said that one of the big challenges will be managing that flow into and out of the nation's electric grid, and that companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task.'"
They are just as efficient as non-hybrids. We should perfect solar cells and windmills and use that for alternative energy.
I think it'd make more sense to use the money as a bounty for advances in hybrid cars than to throw it around, the same way the x-prize does. It saves you the difficulty of efficient capital allocation.
\u262D = \u5350
Mmm, diesel hybrids.....
Aside from the battery issues, what is wrong with hybrids? AFAIK they're not particularly slow, ineffeicient (diesel hybrids can be pretty darn efficient), OR thirsty. I mean the whole POINT of them is that they are efficient (for city driving at least).
They're "complex" mostly because they're new and most mechanics don't know how to work on them. The idea is to get more out there and standardize them and make them less novel.
How are hybrids and evolutionary dead end if electric cars will eventually be the future? Hybrids will drive battery development, electric motor development, etc. Seems like a natural step to me. Where do you get off calling it a dead end.
Sticking with a purely combustion drive train the dead end.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Hybrids are not a dead end. They are the equilibrium waiting to be punctured.
Or, in less metaphorical terms, they are the bridging technology that makes the transition to electics possible when the battery technology improves. When the first really economical, environmentally reasonable battery comes along, it will face the chicken-and-egg problem of cars first or charging stations first. Hybrids wiil solve that.
That doesn't make any sense at all. It makes so little sense, I can't even think of an analogy close enough to what they said to properly mock them.
have put that money to energy source research.
Better batteries and fuel cells.
an efficient car takes a lot of resources for different parts, so the research money gets spread thin amongst many different technologies.
Relax, it's just an opinion.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Which forces me to ask why "companies that manage the flow of information are well placed to handle that task"?
You'd think that the power companies, at most, would need to update their billing software. WTF does managing the flow of information have to do with a $1 million grant? Am I missing something else?
As an aside, one of the continuing problems with electric vehicles is battery temperature.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
If Google can help create a car that runs on whatever and doesn't cost a shitload to power up, then let them put their software in it (would you rather have Windows running in it :) ). I realize people haven't been trusting Google as much lately, but I trust them more then the oil companies.
Of course, that's not saying a lot.
To achieve a goal of getting to 10% of PV power in one year, you'd need to put in 10% * 10 = 100% of current electrical power. That would require first doubling existing electrical generation capacity. Even a 2% PV goal requires 20% of current generation capacity which is still way too high (and 2% per year is hardly going to make any significant inroads - it would not even address growth).
Clearly PV will only ever work with a huge mindshift that goes away from curent silicon-based strategies to a new silicon-based strategy, or radically different strategy, with a far better payback. There are alternatives, but they lack funding and support eg. http://masseynews.massey.ac.nz/2007/Press_Releases /04-04-07.html This is not the only such different approach - there have been quite a few through the years.
The major labs are still focussed on silicon and high performance and fighting over conversion efficiency rather than $/W which is the important measurement for general usage. Until $/W is targetted as a primaray goal, these technologies will get nowhere useful.
Perhaps it is telling that many major oil companies (BP, Shell and others), with a vested interest in preserving the status quo, are directing a significant portion of the industry research.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
uh, your aware that the recycling process is insanely toxic and invovles lead smelting and burning plastics, and disposing of sulphuric acid waste.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Renewable energy, unlike coal or nuclear, will likely come from thousands or tens of thousands of different locations.
That's great and all, and I'm all in favor of utilizing the zillions of acres of rooftop in the US and around the world to accommodate solar cells. But if you're going to move the automobile infrastructure to electricity and away from petroleum, you're going to have to build more nuclear power plants.
Nice gesture, but can we ditch the fossil fuel dependancy? I can already blow up at the gas pump when Bill Dumbass is smoking next to me or leaving the engine running. Hydrogen cant be much worse.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
Nice to hear an informed opinion. Biofuels will have their place, and I hope that farmers can finally make a few bucks on corn and soybeans. However, we need to think in terms of "quads", or quadrillions of barrels of oil. That means we need to stop focusing on low-potential technologies like burning sewage waste, and focus on the big wins. Google's right on the mark here, since converting 50% of transportation energy to the grid would push the needle tons in the right direction. At 2X the well-to-wheel efficiency, the grid and plug-in-hybrids represent a cheap and easy way to make a real dent in the energy problem http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/foreign_oil. php. Given recent major battery advances like A123 Systems http://www.a123systems.com/, plug-in-hybrids finally make both green sense and financial sense. So, why hasn't Toyota started shipping them? Conspiracy theories abound...
For those who like details, A123 batteries kill Tesla's argument that smaller batteries just die faster, and don't save money. Small A123 batteries will last longer than your car, and never need to be replaced. They also have way lower series resistance, and can push one of those tiny 300HP induction motors http://acpropulsion.com/ with as much current than they can take. There's simply no reason that a modern plug-in Prius couldn't leave a Porche in the dust (ok, accept for those small hard tires, and crummy handling). By plugging into the grid, we give ourselves the freedom to produce energy however makes the most sense, whether solar, hydro, nuclear, gas, wind, or (God forbid) coal, oil sands, and oil shale. And if this sounds like an add for A123, it turns out that they're simply the first to market among many who will shortly sell competing batteries. Google continues to show some real vision!
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
First, google and everybody is focused on doing cars. That is a HUGE mistake. Cars are subject to a load of regulations. Worse, you have to deal with styling, specs and all the interior/exterior. The right way to start this, is to fire up a company doing hybrid Trucks. In particular, just the frame, cab, motor(s), and a serial generator/ICE that is in one component. The frame should have multiple sizes that match many of today's trucks. From there, they should make it available as stripped or as a simple panel truck. What will happen is that all the bus manufacturers, Panel trucks, delivery trucks, even mail trucks will port their stuff over to it. Once the company is up and running AND they have a name, then switch up to doing Automobiles. One of the most important things here is to develop the name and the manufactuers line. Later, as battery or even better yet, capacitor tech improves, the generator/ICE can be pulled in one piece, and the new energy carrier put in.
But yeah, Google doeas continue to show innovation.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The problem isn't building a plug-in hybrid. The problem is building a plug-in that can be sold for more than it costs to build. The state of today's battery technology makes it impossible, but that could change soon.
The commercialization of plug-in hybrids is completely dependent on the ability to manufacture what are now top of the line lithium ion batteries for 40-70% less than they currently cost. I believe this is the focus of Google's money. 10 mill isn't going to get you anywhere with fuel cells (which have been 5 years away for 30 years).
Today's hybrids are not going to seriously dent our dependence on oil, plug-in hybrids absolutely could. Unless a major car company announces a release date for a retail plug-in by next year, I'm going to buy or build a Ford Escape plug-in conversion.
Yes, but how frequently are the in-car ones updated? Just because the data source updates doesn't mean the technologists deploying the data (ie. Google, TomTom, whoever) are updating as frequently as the data is released.
You're an idiot if you think Google has even a few engineers that don't have a full plate. Why would they be hiring so much if they didn't have work for these engineers?
In your own flambaity, trolling, AC douchebag way... that was strangely insightful.
There's nothing wrong with trying to improve the world and make a profit at the same time, in fact, I'd go so far as to say that it's just about the best possible thing a proper capitalistic corporation can be doing. Beats the hell out of what most companies do... namely trying to make a buck by screwing over the planet and public.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
Nuclear Energy is non-renewable? Excuse me? That is like stating that solar energy or wind power is non-renewable. They are ALL in infinite supply and are non-expendable (we cannot use them all up.)
Coal fired power plants, which burn a non-renewable and expendable resource, release tons of "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere. With Nuclear power, we know precisely where every single molecule of waste material goes, which is into a barrel, encased in ceramic, and stored away in a facility designed to last 5x longer than the radiological half-life of the waste material stored there.
The fear of nuclear energy has its rational sources. First is the environmental movement that fought against atmospheric testing of nuclear warheads during the cold war era. I applaud those efforts. What also happened is during this same period is we were taught what to do in case of a nuclear attack from Russia, which by every measure would have been horrific. Add in a 3 Mile Island and a Chernobyl and you've got an entire generation of Americans that has transferred the horror and fear of Nuclear weapons over to everything Nuclear. Fact is that 3 Mile Island, while it did release radon gas is not a catastrophe that even approaches the generational fear that it inspires and Chernobyl is a classic Soviet-Era f**k-up-cover-up situation. Its funny that nothing is ever said of the 100+ nuclear reactors currently in use in America, or that ALL of France is currently powered by Nuclear Power. With hundreds upon hundreds of plants in use throughout the globe running for all these years, all with nary an incident to report... What are we so afraid of?
Charging a battery takes electricity. Electricity that is generated from anything other than nuclear, wind, or solar power is a net negative on the 'greenhouse gases' scale. Of all those energy sources, the only one viable for long term is nuclear. Sorry, but it is a fact.
A renewable resource is one that can be replaced, like a tree. The lumber that is used to build houses, the wood that is used to make paper is all generated from (ghasp!) a renewable resource. What drives me nuts is that these multinational corporations that produce lumber and paper harvest it ALL from their OWN TREE FARMS. They own millions of acres of land where they methodically grow their trees on a rotational basis where they harvest the same spot every 20 years. Oh, and your Christmas tree; it is grown on a tree farm as well. To say that paper production or wood production depletes our natural resources is the same thing as saying that eating french fries depletes our national supply of potatoes.
I'm an expert (of sorts) in document printing, specifically with optical document security and printing of security papers. A small printing company I work with consumes 28 tons of paper every single day. They know exactly where the wood pulp comes from. You don't make paper from just any old wood pulp (although you could). The trees are bred and grown specifically for use in making paper. But some folks out there want you to believe that they are forever seeking a new rainforest to chop down to consume their insatiable desire for more wood pulp.
Uh, sorry folks, trees, yeah, trees are a renewable resource.
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
I hope you're being ironic. The US corn industry is the richest bunch of corrupt thieves in the country. They put the RIAA and MPAA to shame. Not only do they get government subsidies so they can undercut the world market price, but their competitors are kept out of the US market by tariffs. Ever wonder why "sugar" is spelled "high fructose corn syrup" these days?
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
A big difference is that you and I do not need to buy any specific manufacturer's PC parts, and those companies are not allowed to fix prices. Oil companies throughout the US are allowed to fix prices - the days prices are set each morning and distributed throughout the US and those vendors tack on a little extra to cover whatever additives they use. Something you failed to mention is that lack of oil is not the problem here - oil by the barrel prices are approximately what they were in the mid 1990s, but the price per gallon of gasoline is more than a dollar higher - that's because many countries and companies world wide (approximately 60%, can't remember where I found that figure) are putting their refineries through lengthy preventative maintenance measures at the moment and enjoying the increased profit resulting from diminished output. Beyond all this, oil has been obsolete since approximately the 1960s - Browns Gas (look it up on Wiki or some other reference) is as stable as water and will power an internal combustion engine with little modification and is much more fuel efficient - additionally, it has been patented and re-patented at least 9 times since the late 1970s and I have found at least 3 recorded news casts on YouTube where local news are interviewing someone who was driving a car that runs entirely off of distilled water. I'm not interested in a Hybrid car - it's pointless. We don't need oil anymore - save it for industrial lubrication and internal combustion hobbyists. Sorry I don't have resources sited, but Wiki and YouTube are pretty easy to search to find this stuff - it's not hidden, it's just ignored because "scientists" keep trying to say it's an internet rumor or myth - I've tested this technology in tiny, low-tech tests (all I can afford to do) and it works well, but it is #1 going to be really hard to pass a 30 cents per gallon fuel tax on water and #2 you and I can make distilled water with little investment - who makes money off that?
I'll expand upon that and say that we should want companies that improve the world to make profit. Profit should be a way of rewarding people and companies that make our lives better. If they're rewarded for bettering the world, then they'll be more inclined to keep doing so. I agree with you: a company getting profit for doing good things is a best-case scenario.
If the US automakers want my money they will build a car that I want at a price that I can afford. And if they can't do that, they don't need my money. They can't even keep up with the environmental mandates, which have already been pushed back for them. For all their other failings, even China has more strict environmental standards for autos than we do anywhere in the USA.
Chevy has one good car, the corvette, which I can't afford (and which is impractical anyway.) Ford has none - even their supercar, the GT, is a pile of crap (costs more than italian cars with ten times the soul and a fit and finish that wouldn't be at home on a yugo.) Chrysler is mostly held by Daimler-Benz now anyway; it's no accident that the name is DaimlerChrysler and not ChryslerDaimler. And they make a bunch of crap anyway. The Neon, the cheapie chrysler, is the most unsafe car sold in America today.
There are no American cars worth buying unless you are in the market for a turbo diesel pickup or a high-end sports car, period, end of story.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"