Slashdot Mirror
Company Builds Fast Charging Station For Electric Cars
thecarchik writes "Japanese based JFE Engineering has released its ultra-fast charge station. Designed to comply with the CHAdeMo standard developed by Tokyo Electric Power Company, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Subaru and Toyota, the system is capable of charging a 2011 Mitsubishi i-Miev from empty to 50% full in just three minutes. Even just three minutes plugged into the fast-charge station was enough to enable a standard 2011 Mitsubishi i-Miev to travel a further 50 miles before further charging was required."
This thing is putting nearly a quarter megawatt (240kw) drain on the power grid during use.
I wonder if it has some sort of means of load smoothing and a limited duty cycle, or if it's going to need its own substation.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
I have never owned or even driven one save for a golf cart. My experience with the golf cart leaves me doubt as to whether an electric car can deliver enough torque to climb steep inclines.
Heck, what happens when you are stuck in snow all the while, the spinning of wheels eating away at your juice? Scary, isn't it?
they lack the range to be useful outside of a commuter scenario
And that scenario only makes up, what, about 80% of the passenger car miles driven in North America?
If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
The burning of oil is non-reversable. Once used it is gone for good. Batteries may degrade with use but the original material is still there and available for reconditioning.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The way to make a hydrogen car viable is to take your nth generation series hybrid car and replace the engine/generator with a hydrogen fuel cell. Once you are mainly using electricity off the grid, you only need to refill your gas tank occasionally, since you are only doing it every now and again, going to a hydrogen dispensary is less of an issue, even if there isn't one right around the corner. As hydrogen/electric cars become more palatable, hydrogen fuelling plants become more common, eventually you don't need as big of a battery to get between them.
A migration path is key. series hybrid cars let companies experiment with different supplimental energy sources without producing vehicles completely dependent on some external infrastructure.
Heck, I'd like to see a 'standard' for pluggable electric generators in series hybrid cars, pull out the diesel engine, replace it with a hydrogen fuel cell, or a bigger battery pack, or just leave it out and have a pure electric car.
http://notanumber.net/
So you can go over 900 miles with your car. Thats over 9000 decimiles.
God spoke to me.
Oh and you math geeks, figure out how many pounds of coal was burned to charge that battery halfway.
How about none? I'm not a huge fan of nuclear power, but guess what runs the grid in much of Japan?
The CB App. What's your 20?
Electric vehicles will become widely available starting in 2011. The current Administration supports a goal of one million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. A previous PNNL study showed that America’s existing power grid could meet the needs of about 70 percent of all U.S. light-duty vehicles if battery charging was managed to avoid new peaks in electricity demand.
http://www.pnl.gov/news/release.aspx?id=365
I'm not that worried. There is plenty of nighttime generating capacity.
I think that, on some level, owning a car actually represents a certain measure of personal freedom to many individuals in our society: specifically, the freedom to be able to go to and fro, wherever one wants, and whenever they want. I think that this association is made subconsciously even if they don't actually exercise that liberty. To that end, I believe that people's problem with the range of EV's is less of an issue of actually needing a really large range on a daily basis and more an issue of having the freedom to drive almost anywhere they might want to on a spur of the moment, if they should so choose.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Even three minutes is a long time to spend actually at the charger, and as another poster noted that produces a hell of a load on the electrical grid which limits the practicality of deployment for further speed improvements in charging.
I saw an article a bit ago doing the math about how many cars can move through a electric equivalent of a gas station, and something like 10x more gasoline powered cars are able to fuel up FULLY over the course of an hour. And of course if you are only charging for 50 miles station congestion will only be worse.
Purely electric cars are simply not a practical thing, and really don't mesh well with how people like to use cars in America.
That's why I think the alternative fuel of choice will (and should) be Hydrogen. People (consumers and stations and providers) already know how to deal with liquids, it's just an adaptation of existing infrastructure.
Yes it's bloody hard to store and expensive to produce right now. But imagine how much less so it would be (especially production) if the same amount of money were being poured into R&D around Hydrogen cars as we see being poured into electric and solar power.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I agree completely. As with most issues, it's a matter of separating the emotional part from the practical part.
This source also has some more technical details, like charging current, how much current the charging station will draw from the grid (20kW), that the charging station has twin batteries with different properties, that car makers need to adopt new battery types for it to work:
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20100621/183598/
Electric engines are roughly 3-4 times as efficient as gasoline ones. So you get 3-4 times the effective energy density out of batteries.
More importantly you don't need that much energy, almost all car rides are short and electricity can be recharged at home unlike gasoline.
Oh and you math geeks, figure out how many pounds of coal was burned to charge that battery halfway.
Less pollution wise than you'd get from gasoline, someone did look into it. Natural gas is a lot better, and used in quite a few places, but even coal beats out gasoline engines.
I'm sorry, but really, hydrocarbons are not a liquid form of hydrogen, and cars are not powered on hydrogen now. Those things are just wrong!
Your post I find amusing, as it posit a world with abundant hydrogen, looking for a way to make it useful!
I, for one, refuse to buy an electric vehicle until it has a range of 1000 miles on a single charge, and can be fully recharged in under 30 seconds. Anything less is completely impractical. I also want 12 cup holders. When they achieve this performance level, I will find another rediculous excuse not to buy one.
And I will continue to insist on my god given right to mis-spell rediculous.
Some charger manufacturers claim amazingly short charge times of 30 minutes or less. With well-balanced cells and operating at moderate room temperatures, nickel-cadmium batteries designed for fast charging can indeed be charged in a very short time. This is done by simply dumping in a high charge current during the first 70% of the charge cycle.
In the second phase of the charge cycle, the charge current must be lowered. The efficiency to absorb charge is progressively reduced as the battery moves to a higher state-of-charge. If the charge current remains too high in the later part of the charge cycle, the excess energy turns into heat and high cell pressure. Eventually, venting will occur, releasing oxygen and hydrogen. Not only do the escaping gases deplete the electrolyte, they are highly flammable!
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
"Electric engines are roughly 3-4 times as efficient as gasoline ones. So you get 3-4 times the effective energy density out of batteries."
Sure, but who wants to buy a car that only gets 100 miles, then needs to be recharged every 50 miles? This might be a good second or third car, but it's not that practical as your main vehicle, and the fact that an electric vehicle must be charged nightly limits it to only being useful to homes with garages.
This is why SUVs have been so popular in the US despite their poor gas mileage. You can fit 5 to 7 adults comfortably and still have room for luggage.
Electric cars will fail, and series hybrids like the Chevy Volt will succeed. When the batteries run low a gas generator keeps the batteries charged enough to power the vehicle. This is brilliant: I get my electric car for my short daily commutes, but I still have gas for those rare times when I need to drive hundreds of miles in a day. I have the best of both worlds with no sacrifices.
Also series hybrids means we can finally use turbines: gas turbines are the most efficient engine. While a gasoline engine is only 20-30% efficient, a gas turbine is over 80% efficient. In 1999 GM made a EV1 Series hybrid using a turbine generator. The vehicle achieved up to 100mpg while charging the battery using 90s technology and a 220 lbs turbine (modern turbines are much smaller)
In ten years when series hybrids become the norm we'll look at vehicles like the Prius the same way Prius owners look at SUV owners today.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Electric engines are roughly 3-4 times as efficient as gasoline ones. So you get 3-4 times the effective energy density out of batteries.
Please explain what you mean. Your premise and conclusion are not related, which makes your statement completely nonsensical.
More importantly you don't need that much energy, almost all car rides are short and electricity can be recharged at home unlike gasoline.
And if that were the issue, we wouldn't even be discussing it. I can already get electric cars that are completely useful and practical for short trips around town, so that the car spends most of its time at home charging. The problem is that none of them are any good at all for leaving town, since there's no available means to recharge them easily, quickly, or without special arrangements.
Less pollution wise than you'd get from gasoline, someone did look into it. Natural gas is a lot better, and used in quite a few places, but even coal beats out gasoline engines.
Citation, please. Adding generation losses, transmission losses, DC conversion losses, battery storage losses, and drivetrain losses to compare it to the total efficiency of an internal combustion engine is a nontrivial thing. Just because some dude on Slashdot assures me that "someone did look into it" does not at all make me satisfied that reality is in any way supportive of the claim.
Kid-proof tablet..
Here is a link (PDF warning: 154 pages) to the ANL study. Skip to page 133 of the PDF.
If you really, really want to go crazy, then head on over to Argonne Nation Labs and check out this.
Testing has shown that the Tesla roadster is around 250 watt*hours of electricity per mile. The Rav4 EV (which uses a less efficient drive train) is around 300 watt*hours per mile. You can plug this in to the EPA Power Profiler and get CO2 per mile for various areas. But all in all, the real advantage of an electric car is that electricity comes from renewables and nukes and gas does not yet do so.
Responsibility is an addiction
Virtue is a temptation
Community is a cartel
The correct answer is actually hydroelectric power from Hokkaido. There is some nuclear power available though, and with enough warning it can be ramped up to full capacity for quite a while to provide even more.
It makes perfect sense in the 1970s and may do again - electricity available if there is a naval blockade by China. Expensive, high maintainance, awkward waste problems but ultimately it works in that situation. That's the sort of niche nuclear advocates should be arguing for and improving to turn it from the expensive alternative energy everyone hates into a commercial reality.
a gas turbine is over 80% efficient
:-)
I imagine they're also very efficient at annoying the neighbors with the noise.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Sure, but who wants to buy a car that only gets 100 miles, then needs to be recharged every 50 miles?
I do! My work is located ~15miles from my home and I could charge the car (for free!) all day while I'm working. A car which could go ~100 miles would cover almost all my personal transportation needs (not only to and from work), and if I would need to go longer I could rent or borrow another car (or take a bus / cab).
That car might get 100mi on a charge but thats the market in Japan. If you are going further WTF wouldn't you take the train? It wouldn't make sense. The Tesla Model S gets 300mi to a charge; Thats Boston to Philadelphia in one go. Think about how often you make a trip that long... or half that long.
A better way to put it, Would you be willing to take a 3~5minute break every 3hours of driving? To help the environment? I think that is a fairly minor lifestyle change at this point.
Another point is that there is a world outside of the US. Newcastle to London is 300mi; Rome to Modena. In many places 300mi is horribly excessive. Hell, all of Ireland is 150mi across.
Anyways I think the Volt is an amazing transition vehicle until infrastructure gets in place... eventually people will no longer feel the need to shell out x dollars for the turbine and it'll fade away.
Indeed, hybrids are far more practical, but it seems that you are misrepresenting the promise of microturbines. From the wikipedia article:
Typical microturbine efficiencies are 25 to 35%. When in a combined heat and power cogeneration system, efficiencies of greater than 80% are commonly achieved.
In automotive applications, the waste heat goes unused; so the efficiency will be in the 25 to 35% range.
Another promising option for hybrids is the OPOC engine, which is a simple, efficient, and clean 2-stroke engine. It is a very interesting design, with a number of other advantages as well.
When coupled with a capacitor/flywheel/etc. to allow for regenerative braking and acceleration, the requirements for the power source in a hybrid are actually very minimal. This allows for the creation of an extremely efficient vehicle, and as far as energy density goes, you can't do much better than hydrocarbons.
http://www.google.com/search?q=hydrocarbon+fuel+cell
What's needed:
1) Cheap enough source of energy (maybe newer nuclear or wind or thermal solar).
2) Cheap source of CO2 (CO2 tends to occur in higher concentrations in water).
3) Efficient way to get H2
4) Cost effective hydrocarbon fuel cells that work efficiently, reliably, and can last a long enough time in the harsh environment of a car.
5) Cost effective filters that can tolerate and filter out common undesirable impurities in the fuel, in order to protect the fuel cells.
Is that harder than making a good enough battery (capacity + lifespan + cost)? Maybe. Maybe not.
Lastly, jet planes aren't going to be running on batteries, and the world is not as nice without air travel, so it's probably a good idea to look for a good way of creating hydrocarbons anyway.
Pure hydrogen jet planes might work, but retooling is going to be such a big pain, and storage space is a big problem on planes.
So in a possible future the airplanes may burn "renewable" hydrocarbons, the long distance road vehicles may use fuel cells, or burn hydrocarbons, and short distance/commuter vehicles might use batteries.
Sure... currently. I wouldn't get this as my main vehicle. But an electric is perfect for my commuting vehicle. Especially if I can convince my employer to offer charging in our parking garage.
Also, you need to think a little more long-term. If electrics start to become popular with the commuter crowd, then we'll see infrastructure developed to help support them. Cities will install charging stations in various parking spaces. I can imagine that one day we'll have major coast-to-coast highways with full-length induction charging available. Imagine being able to drive your electric car from New York to San Francisco, non-stop! You can't do that in a gas-fueled vehicle.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
Your imagination hasn't had to drive long distances with women in the car. You have to stop at least once every 2 hours for them to go pee -- usually more frequently.
Every mans' island needs an ocean; choose your ocean carefully.
Whereas 90% of journeys have 1 adult and no luggage.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
That's wonderful bunch of anecdotes, but it doesn't really invalidate the case for the electric vehicle.
There are more people in NYC metro area (NYC, northern new Jersey, eastern CT) then there are in Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Idaho, and Alaska combined....
Sure, but who wants to buy a car that only gets 100 miles, then needs to be recharged every 50 miles? This might be a good second or third car, but it's not that practical as your main vehicle, and the fact that an electric vehicle must be charged nightly limits it to only being useful to homes with garages.
Me! I want one. I've never commuted more than 30 miles a day round-trip, and currently I commute 4 miles to work, my wife commutes 6 miles to work, and the vast majority of our trips in a commuter vehicle would be 30 miles. Even the big days would be 50 miles, taking the kids to events, driving myself to teach (I run a fife and drum corps) 1/2 way around our city, or driving to/from our datacenter to play hands/feet is only 32 miles round-trip.
That said... to avoid owning a dedicated trip-to-grandma's-vehicle I actually want a Volt for the reasons you cite, once a month or less trips to distant locations. And I want an all electic motorcycle too just for kicks. But I want my Volt in diesel, and I want to be able to plug my house into it, instead of it into my house, when there's a power outage or we need electricity camping or something.
Electric cars will fail, and series hybrids like the Chevy Volt will succeed. When the batteries run low a gas generator keeps the batteries charged enough to power the vehicle. This is brilliant: I get my electric car for my short daily commutes, but I still have gas for those rare times when I need to drive hundreds of miles in a day. I have the best of both worlds with no sacrifices..
And all those other times when you are not driving 100 miles in a day you are lugging around a heavy and useless generator. That you paid good money for. And when you are driving more than 100 miles a day, you are lugging around huge battery packs that are doing very little good (outside of some regenerative braking and acceleration boost which are negligible on the Interstate at a constant speed.) It sounds to me like the worst of both worlds. I think I would rather have a small all electric car to get me to work on a daily basis and a large gas SUV for longer trips (and it would be great if I could just rent the SUV when I needed it.)
And no, you cannot get anywhere close to 80% efficiency with gas-in, electricty out turbines.
A substantial amount of the population drives less than 100 miles in a given multi-day period. I think an all electric car could be a primary vehicle for most purposes, while for longer trips a secondary gas or hybrid model would work.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
And exactly what charges your batteries ?
Hint : probably electricity from a coal-fired lower plant.
That's a stupid argument because the solution is obvious: use wind, hydro, solar or nuclear energy to charge the vehicle.
For gasoline engines, no clean solution exists at all.
while true;do echo -e -n "\033[s\n\033[u\134_\033[B";done
Many families already rent a vehicle when driving out of state. Rental of that second vehicle would be more cost effective and efficient than purchasing the second vehicle, if it's only used one or two weekends per month. As a bonus, you're always driving a new-ish car, of the latest model, and it can change based on the needs of that special event! SUV for a family road trip, sporty coupe for a weekend getaway with the missus, the possibilities are endless, and much better than driving a 13-mpg Suburban 24/7 just in case you have to immediately leave work to drive 1800 miles for a surprise vacation to Yellowstone where you'll have to offroad to get to your cabin.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.