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.'"

12 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. X-Prize by Arthur+B. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  2. Re:I'm betting ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

    they are offering development money to help spur on new technology. Google is a branding monster. Don't doubt for even a second that there will be a GPS (Google Positioning System) with a GPS (Google Powered Search) in any car produced with Google investment capital.
  3. Re:Why hybrids? by misleb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he battle for more efficient cars has been fought already, and diesels won.


    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
  4. Wait a minute... by SoapBox17 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    That doesn't make any sense. They distribute information on a virtual network and they own almost none of the hardware used to distribute it... but they are somehow well placed to distribute power from a power grid, which is a completely different network?

    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.
  5. Re:Why even bother with Hybrid Cars by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are just as efficient as non-hybrids.

    Hybrids are more efficient. Non hybrids have no way of recapturing the kinetic energy of the vehicle. Hybrids can capture and store that energy for use later. Also, a car that is cruising on the highway that only needs 30 hp to maintain speed could get that from an electric motor. If you were to run the car off electric only, then switch to gasoline-engine only (and recharging what was used when running on electric) and repeating, you would get better mileage than just cruising on gasoline (also note, this would not be effective at saving energy for a diesel car). Another thing about hybrids is that they generally size the engine and motor to match an equivalent gasoline only offering. That is, the gasoline engine is sized smaller, but the total available power is the same. That results in increased efficiency. And yes, I know there are ones like the Accord where the hybrid offers better acceleration than any other offering, but those are not the highest sellers, nor what people think of with hybrids. But even then, they are more efficient than if there were an offering with a just petrol engine which matched the acceleration.

    Add to that the plug-in hybrids (which could spend much of their lives as if they are electric-only), and you have some very efficient choices.

  6. Solar cells need a lot of work... and politics by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Current silicon-based PV really sucks as a general purpose power source because you need so much high qualility energy input to make the stuff. For a quick illustration, lets just use a 10 year energy payback number.

    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.
  7. It's nuketastic by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. Re:Hopefully not by smilindog2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  9. However, I have an issue with all this by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  10. Re:I'm betting ... by Andrew+Kismet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Re:I'm betting ... by Miseph · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  12. Re:Hopefully not by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Biofuels will have their place, and I hope that farmers can finally make a few bucks on corn and soybeans.

    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