Slashdot Mirror
Plug-In Hybrids Aren't Coming, They're Here
Wired is running a story about the small but vocal, and growing, number of people who aren't waiting for automakers to deliver plug-in hybrids. They're shelling out big money to have already thrifty cars converted into full-on plug-in hybrids capable of triple-digit fuel economy. "The conversions aren't cheap, and top-of-the-line kits with lithium-ion batteries can set you back as much as $35,000. Even a kit with lead-acid batteries — the type under the hood of the car you drive now — starts at five grand. That explains why most converted plug-ins are in the motor pools of places like Southern California Edison... No more than 150 or so belong to people like [extreme skiing champion Alison] Gannett, who had her $30,000 Ford Escape converted in December. Yes, that's right. The conversion cost more than the truck."
Doesn't efficiency call for a better designed vehicle, rather than just a different fuel source?
From a previous article:
"Plug-in Hybrids May Not Go Mainstream, Toyota Says"
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/02/210250
translated (directly from the accounting department): "We have run the numbers, and the industry is set to lose X billions of dollars through lost part sales over the coming decades as the masses step from hybrids to full electric for that around-town runner.
No, we never want to help or see hybrids go mainstream, ever. Keep it all business as usual: hard to maintain combustion engines are expensive for the consumer and good for our bottom line. Furthermore, it essentially costs us nothing to FREELOAD the longer term consequences of combustion engines onto the environment and society as a whole, so it is a sound short term strategy to satisfy our immediate obligations to investors."
A tiny number of wealthy people custom-retrofitting cars at uneconomical cost isn't really what advocates of plug-in hybrids have in mind, so I wouldn't say the concept is "here" yet.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I converted my POS gas car to a "mild" plug in hybrid: removed the alternator and added a deep cycle battery. I reduce the mechanical load on the engine by removing the alt. I have more power available for speed and acceleration and I get better mpg. I recharge the battery using solar and since I park outside at home and work, it gets plenty of time to charge. All the parts were originally for a full home solar system that I have yet to make space for, so there isn't any additional cost for the car conversion. Some data shows that you can get up to a 10% increase in efficiency by going alternatorless.
------ Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say fuck the government.
also, i'm not seeing the point of TFA - rich people can afford expensive status symbols? electric cars and plugin charging has been around for a decade or more in this form....
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Maybe you're just being short-sighted. If our goal is to eliminate our dependence on oil for transportation, then commercializing (partially) electric storage and drive systems is certainly a step in the right direction.
You are entirely right. A hybrid car makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever. Todays hybrids basically use a big gas motor and an electric motor to help go easier on the gas. The problem with this method is that its carrying TWO BIG ENGINES so more weight means you have to be that much more efficient. If you want to help save the environment you'd build a fully electric car but the problem with that is electric motors are retardedly simple and surprisingly clean to maintain (only a little grease/oil on the moving parts).
The idea behind plug-in hybrids is to make the electric motor the big engine and have a small gasoline motor who's only job is to charge the batteries when they get low. This makes a bit more sense than the current hybrid model does as your primary source of 'fuel' is your batteries. If you don't go very far like what is it 60-80 miles a day you probably don't need an Internal Combustion Engine in the first place. Electric cars have a 60-80 mile range currently and that pretty much covers your typical urbanites driving habits well enough. A plug-in hybrid with a gasoline engine for recharging purposes would be more than enough for anyone except for long haul trips for those things like gasoline and possibly hydrogen or biodiesel in the coming years might be popular for road trips.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
The problem in Australia is that every model of car that gets registered must undergo a crash test, and significant modifications count a as new model. That rules out one off conversions. You have to build at least two and hand one over to the authorities to get totaled. An expensive exercise.
Have you seen the cost of high-power batteries?
Especially the ones that can survive the strain of driving electric-only (charge-drain-charge-drain)? try $3000,--
Unless you own a Hybrid, according to Car & Driver
"battery replacement will cost $5,300 for the Toyota and Lexus hybrids, and the Ford Escape replacements run a whopping $7,200."
Also, someone needt to make room for those batteries somewhere in the car.
The required equipment (for modifying the car itself) and man-hours also cost money.
"I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
The result of removing the alternator in cars can be sub-optimal lighting, ignition and fuel injection when running on battery only. This even applies to Diesels nowadays - because the injection is controlled by the EMC. The general rule has to be, and I cannot recommend this too strongly, the manufacturer designed it that way for a reason, don't fuck with it.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
If we are going to accept an absurd pricetag for these bad boys, why not skip the dreaded battery idea entirely, and use SuperCaps instead? APowerCap [ http://www.apowercap.com/?pg=2&lang=eng&rand=81001670 ] (is just one brand that) offers supercaps with internal efficiency ratings of over 90%. (Meaning, more than 90% of the energy used in the charging process is able to be used in a useful manner.) This far exceeds the internal efficiency of even LiON battery packs. Additionally, these devices can reach full charge in a matter of seconds when provided with wall outlet power, and can do so safely without overheating. They can also deliver more charge, more quickly, and more efficiently than chemical batteries. From a technological point of view, they are just all around better, AND (Surprise) they even have a better energy density to weight ratio then LiON. Why even bother with batteries with this kind of budget, when there are FAR superior storage solutions?
"If you want to help save the environment you'd build a fully electric car but the problem with that is electric motors are retardedly simple and surprisingly clean to maintain"
That makes no sense - simple and easy to maintain would be win-win for everyone. The reason why pure electric cars aren't common is the pricey battery required to push a *mainstream* car a decent distance. Americans simply aren't ready to make the jump to the ultra-light tiny cars that would be viable in an all electric model.
To put it into perspective, my Altima Hybrid (which by many measures could be considered an average and desirable size for most Americans) weighs 3500 pounds and can drive about 1 mile with just its 100 pound battery. Propelling this car any decent distance would require literally a ton of batteries and cost tens of thousands of dollars. To put things in perspective, my engine weighs less than 300 pounds. You *could* start cutting out serious mass, but most Americans I know wouldn't be willing to sacrifice the comfort and safety of their sedans.
Of course, this doesn't even bring up another sticking point - most people like the freedom of being able to travel more than 50 miles without plugging their car in for hours.
I've got four more years left of warranty on my 2005 Prius. With a 12 mile commute each day, I'd go from filling the tank once a month to maybe once every six months with a plug-in kit. But at $9999 (the crash tested Hymotion kit), forget about it being cost effective, it's simply not within my means. It's sad that Toyota is waffling about a plug-in Prius; seems to me that they are underestimating the rethink of the two car family: the "urban" electric car for short commutes, and the "guzzler" for distance driving.
www.itjerk.com
"The problem with this method is that its carrying TWO BIG ENGINES so more weight means you have to be that much more efficient."
Think you'll not have to prove your point if you write BIG often enough, and CAPITALIZED, no less? Ah, well... Wiki says:
The Prius uses a 1.5 liter 4-cylinder "1NZ-FXE internal combustion engine (ICE) using the more efficient Atkinson cycle instead of the more powerful Otto cycle. Because of the availability of extra power from the electric motors for rapid acceleration the engine is sized SMALLER [all caps just for you] than usual for increased fuel efficiency and lowered emissions with acceptable acceleration."
Now, the Volt does what you propose, and uses the gasoline engine simply to recharge the batteries. As such, it should be much SMALLER. Let's see, it's... oh my, a 1.4 L 4-cylinder engine. Tenth of a liter difference? Doesn't sound that much smaller, now does it?
Huh. Well, also according to your theory the Prius is going to need a huge electric motor in addtion to the gas engine in order to cart around all of that extra weight. So... the Prius has a 30 kW (40 hp) electric motor, while the Volt, a pure series hybrid, has... a 111 kW (150 hp) electric motor.
Double huh.
See, the flaw in your reasoning lies in the fact that it takes X amount of power to propel a 2,000 lb vehicle at Y speed for Z distance. Once the battery gets low, the extra power in a PHEV has to come from somewhere. And it does, in the form of an engine powerful enough to recharge the battery while ALSO providing enough juice to keep things in motion.
Bottom line? A tensy, tiny 2-cycle lawnmower engine isn't going to cut it.
And the Volt needs an electric motor 3X larger because it's the only thing moving the car. The gasoline engine is just so much dead weight in that regard, UNLIKE in a Prius, where the engine can also kick in to help out when needed in a much more symbiotic relationship.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
If you have a truck, you'll be able to mow down a whole group rather than just the front rank!
Deleted
except if your REALLY trying to reach that goal you would not be making a HYBRID engine. Your still using gas, there is no going around that fact. And as I pointed out your likely still using MORE gas than many various ways you can make a non-hybrid powertrain use less. You can try to play with MPG figures all you want with your hybrids, but I can still see a 20 year old Geo that gets better gas milage than a hybrid prius or insight without the useless weight of a electric motor, and I can still see trucks out there that make better gas milage than their hybrid versions as long as the driver knows how to actually drive and not pump the gas as hard as possible.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
>> And as I'm sure others will point out, she's just shifting the emissions to a power plant, which may end up being worse than burning fuel in her car depending on the fuel the plant uses,
With Xcel In Minnesota you can specify wind source.
She's green? And drives an SUV by herself? Why does this make no sense?
What she is, would be non-petroleum - but not "green". So she uses coal instead of petroleum ... both are damaging to the environment, both are in limited supply.
I would think she could get a Focus, or even a bicycle, for much less the cost of the hybrid plug-in. And then, she would actually be conserving!
Not green ... just gullible. $35,000 gullible.
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
The fantasy that the American automobile is the penultimate mode of transportation will be our un-doing. The fact that we cannot imagine a world with less automobiles speaks volumes our selfishness and short-sightedness.
At this point in time, America needs to be investing in other means of transportation and starting to alternative living arrangements that include, moving closer to work, building public infrastructure to move you around besides the car (subway, train, bus, street car, walking, cycling) and have all of these system interconnected.
As we enter the decline of the age of oil, which side do you want to be on? Stuck on the freeway with no gas while the train goes by on its way to NYC?
We need to examine our motivations very closely here. Why are we so attached to the automobile. I think it might just come down to classism and racism. Why, you wouldn't want to have to associate with the blacks and the poor people would you?
Q. What is Calvin's monster snowman called? A. The Torment Of Existence Weighed Against The Horror of Non Being
The fact that the CPU and the electronic peripherals will run down to 8V - which is necessary because of battery volt drop on cranking - is irrelevant. It is the lights and the actuators that are affected by reduced battery voltage. In fact, looking at the linked article, the guy admits that he does not run without an alternator after dark, which at least shows some element of self preservation.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
The idea behind plug-in hybrids is to make the electric motor the big engine and have a small gasoline motor who's only job is to charge the batteries when they get low.
I've always wondered if having a regular gasoline engine to turn the generator is as efficient as a small turbine. Supposedly turbines are most efficient at constant speed/load, which the generator would be. Anybody have any hard numbers?
Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
I read about an interesting hybrid concept a while ago - it basically eliminated the transmission from the car to save weight. The car would use the (small) gasoline engine to charge the battery and drive the electric motors as long as the car was going below the normal highway crusising speed, and engage a clutch to directly power the wheels with the gasoline engine once the crusing speed was reached. Advantages were the lack of a transmission (= weight and space that can be used for batteries instead) while still being able to power the wheels directly (making use of the efficiency of the gasoline engine when cruising).
"A new study for the Department of Energy finds that "off-peak" electricity production and transmission capacity could fuel 70% percent of the U.S. light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet, if they were plug-in hybrid electrics. (Note: an earlier version of this release referenced 84% capacity based on LDV fleet classification that excluded vans)."
Looks like they went and changed one of the numbers on me. Oh well, 70% is still a respectable number.
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.asp?id=204
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
Hear! Hear!
Add this: Converting your car to electricity eliminates a point-source of pollution. If you moved all of your transportation's emissions back to the power plant, we can deal with them better. (The pollution controls at the power plant are better than the ones on your car: they don't get bumped around, have more consistent operating conditions, etc.)
Now if EVERYONE did this, we might get enough concentration that we could actually DO something with it. Problem is, our pollution's too diffuse to be exploited.
Consider: district heating. "Neighborhood" generators can be a way to exploit the waste heat.
Carbon sequestration: this still remains a sham-dance IMHO, but maybe we can pull it off when we've got enough stack-emissions in one place. Sure not putting an Einstein-Szilard fridge on your car's tailpipe to catch the CO2.
So mod the parent up. It's as simple as this: convert the energy as few times as possible (how did that gas get into your tank?) and concentrate the pollution where you can hopefully get some value from it.
Call me back when GM is actually producing them and selling them. Your hypothetical price for the Volt strikes me as being extremely low. Wikipedia says that the price is currently unknown and could be as high as $48,000 depending on a lot of factors which simply can't be determined until it starts being sold.
Meanwhile I bought a Malibu used for $13,000 several years ago. It gets 35MPG on the highway, drives great, and has plenty of power. I also routinely make trips longer than 40 miles with it, imagine that. Seems like the right choice to me!
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
Whenever you can't disprove something, make it encompass so many other items that it becomes incomprehensible without the services of a complete auditing team. Then extend it just a little to include data that you probably can never collect.
We saw this with TCO studies that tried their hardest to show that Linux might not be cheaper than $800 per seat licenses of Windows. While many people saved money by switching (Sherwin Williams, Fender Gituars, etc.) most complained about the intangible losses that they couldn't prove which justified their non-action.
We saw this with global warming. Most argued about specific point data that didn't follow the average (hint there's outliers in every interesting data set), argued that costs would never be calculable for the issue, and built a model of "let's wait and see" which justified their non-action.
We're seeing this with electric (or semi-electric) vehicles. It should be enough to note that we will mostly be charging the cars during non-peak hours, when the grid's capacity is most likely to meet the demand. It should be enough to note that for the same amount of used energy, the electric company can provide it to us cheaper than the gasoline distribution chain. It should be enough to note that at least a dozen ways in which the vehicles are cheaper to maintain offset the initial costs of not having a mass market's cost structure.
Instead, we have to calculate the exact dollar of every line man, telephone pole, coal miner's life insurance plan, etc, ad infinitum. I'll give you a hint: The power company already does this, and it's called your electric bill, which is still cheaper than your gasoline bill.
Just because you don't have it itemized doesn't mean it's more expensive.
For those that enjoy these sort of games, have you even considered the operational costs of the thousands of oil tankers? How about the costs of all those oil platforms? How about the costs of the fire policies on those platforms? etc... ad infinitum.
Prove to me that my electric bill will be higher than my gas bill, and I'll go with the parent poster's observation. It is the only sensible metric. And oddly enough, it should include all of those "other" costs, because if it didn't the company would be out-of-business before you know it.