Electric vehicles to pay for detroit bailout?

[mheslep]

..http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/15/tech/cnettechnews/main5312545.shtml

Yes I saw the Frankfurt comments. Actually if the car folks fail to get the business model right, I agree with the Toyota VP. EV's need battery exchange to decouple the battery cost and lifetime from the vehicle, and to make long distance trips viable. Thing is, many car companies don't like exchange because it blows their vertically integrated 'we own or charge for everything that touches our vehicle'. Renault/Nissan is doing exchange in the four EV's they unwrapped in Franfurt.

I don't have a source for GM saying they don't plan to make a EV to the US as it is something a couple of their R&D engineers told me, not something I read online.

No doubt, GM is completely wedded to their plug in hybrid idea. Fine, but that's causing them to sell a $25k car (Volt) for $35/40k.

I never said oil was practical. There's other alternatives besides batteries. Both Toyota and GM (along with Honda) are planing to bring hydrogen fuel cell powered cars to the US market sometime well before 2020. If you want sources for this I'll post them but there's info for it all over the web.

Sorry for my snark. I was looking to find common ground for the definition for practical, but we lost that on the suggestion of fuel cell cars. In the next two years over a dozen car manufactures have announced dates mass production EVs and unveiled the models, several more have done so with plug-in hybrid EVs. I call that practical, even if the production runs are tens of thousands versus millions.

BTW,prior post to McKinsey cost study on gas/diesel/EVs/PHEVs US and Europe.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19278&d=1244668702
I think they are substantially high on EV battery cost.

 

[Topher925]

No doubt, GM is completely wedded to their plug in hybrid idea. Fine, but that's causing them to sell a $25k car (Volt) for $35/40k.

I wouldn't say they are "wedded" to hybrids. GM knows the future is hydrogen, and without a doubt they are correct. The Volt is just something to fill the gap between a oil and the hydrogen economy until FCVs make their way to the showrooms. According to their business model it probably doesn't make sense to even research EV powered cars as it would just be waste of capital.

I was looking to find common ground for the definition for practical, but we lost that on the suggestion of fuel cell cars.

How so? Do you believe that FCVs aren't practical?

In the next two years over a dozen car manufactures have announced dates mass production EVs and unveiled the models,... ...I call that practical, even if the production runs are tens of thousands versus millions.

And how many of these companies are major auto manufacturers that are releasing these cars to the US and marketed as a vehicle that can replace a gasoline powered car? From what I know, most of these companies will be smaller start-ups targeting niche markets (aka, poor countries and/or trendy people) and not focusing on replacing oil. Not everyone can afford Tesla Roadsters, and not every part of the US has the infrastructure to power very many of them.

 

[mheslep]

I wouldn't say they are "wedded" to hybrids.

I mean in the electric world in the debate between plug-in hybrids and pure EV's, they are clearly committed to the hybrid path.

GM knows the future is hydrogen,

C'mon. Even if you 'know a guy' that works at GM, GM has made no such claim and you don't know otherwise.

How so? Do you believe that FCVs aren't practical?

No, not yet.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

also, statement from NAE
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2122121&postcount=56
and from Science:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1712339&postcount=51

... From what I know, most of these companies will be smaller start-ups targeting niche markets (aka, poor countries and/or trendy people) and not focusing on replacing oil. Not everyone can afford Tesla Roadsters, and not every part of the US has the infrastructure to power very many of them.

Google is your friend.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090202/AUTO01/902020354/1148/rss25

...2010 Ford: A battery-electric vehicle based on the Transit Connect compact work van (fleet customers only)...
2011 Ford: A battery-electric vehicle based on the new global Ford Focus platform
2012 Toyota: An as-yet unnamed electric "city car" with a 50-mile range

Plugin Hybrids

2009 Toyota: A plug-in hybrid Prius (fleet customers only)
2010 GM: Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle
2012 Ford: A plug-in hybrid vehicle

EVs on display at Frankfurt:
http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/.../frankfurt_auto.html
http://www.thebigmoney.com/.../frankfurt-auto-show-its-electric
Renault Fluence
BMW (Mini)
Audi
Volkswagen
Porsche

Then there's two or three Chinese makes (BYD); there are another dozen or so small fry - Fisker, Tesla, etc.

 

[WhoWee]

There is going to have to be huge leaps in technology to develop a EV that can haul a load of freight over the road, to take the place of trains or to power a plane in flight if we have to rely on batteries for energy storage. I would think it would be far more effective to concentrate on power generation instead of the power consumption side of the equation.

Compared to an electric model, I think T. Boone Pickens proposal to fuel semi trucks with natural gas is worth discussion. I'm restricting my comments to the semi truck part of the proposal only.
http://www.boonepickens.com/media_summary/061109.pdf

We have abundant natural gas reserves and truck stops/points of distribution are located primarily in rural areas, near natural gas pipelines. The truck stop operators are well capitalized (able to make investments in equipment) and familiar with the truck fuel market. The semi trailers also have on-board storage capacity.

 

[mheslep]

...BTW,prior post to McKinsey cost study on gas/diesel/EVs/PHEVs US and Europe.
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=19278&d=1244668702
I think they are substantially high on EV battery cost.

That is, McKinsey reports a lifetime cost of $0.04/km shown for its BEV80(km), and the BEV80 has the lowest total life cycle cost for any vehicle type ($0.17/km), even in the US with its lower fuel costs. Then McKinsey shows the battery cost per distance doubling and more than tripling for the longer range BEV200(km) and BEV500(km). I assert that with a battery exchange model, the battery cost per mile remains constant at 4 cents/km. The reasoning: the cost for a 100km range battery is about $7000, and with 3000 cycles lasts about 170,000 km, the life of the vehicle, thus ~4 cents/km. For a battery of twice that range, 200km, the upfront cost doubles to $14,000, but McKinsey still traps that cost over 170,000 km with the original vehicle owner, even though the battery is good for 340,000km. That makes sense if the battery is indeed trapped in the vehicle, but in a battery exchange system the vehicle owner need only pay for the 170k km driven, so the price can remain 4 cents/km.

 

[mheslep]

Compared to an electric model, I think T. Boone Pickens proposal to fuel semi trucks with natural gas is worth discussion. I'm restricting my comments to the semi truck part of the proposal only.
http://www.boonepickens.com/media_summary/061109.pdf

We have abundant natural gas reserves and truck stops/points of distribution are located primarily in rural areas, near natural gas pipelines. The truck stop operators are well capitalized (able to make investments in equipment) and familiar with the truck fuel market. The semi trailers also have on-board storage capacity.

Would you know what T Boone says is the premium for making a natural gas powered semi vs a diesel? Also, I seem to recall there have been several big attempts to push NG vehicles elsewhere in the world but they collapsed. I'm curious as to why.

 

[WhoWee]

Would you know what T Boone says is the premium for making a natural gas powered semi vs a diesel? Also, I seem to recall there have been several big attempts to push NG vehicles elsewhere in the world but they collapsed. I'm curious as to why.

Aside from the few points I listed, Pickens made a convincing argument some time ago regarding the way diesel fuel effects the price of a barrel of oil. I can't find a direct link. Accordingly, I'll do a quick extrapolation.

This source is useful.
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/PainAtThePump/Story?id=4353789&page=1

"A barrel of oil contains 42 gallons of crude. During the refining process, additives increase the "refined yield" of the barrel. In the end, about 44 gallons of various products are produced from each barrel.

Here is a breakdown of what that oil creates:

22.6 gallons of gasoline — enough to drive 622 miles in the average American car

6.7 gallons of diesel — enough to drive 41.7 miles in a tractor-trailer "

This link provides truck data.
http://truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm

"How many trucks operate in the U.S.?
Estimates of 15.5 million trucks operate in the U.S.. Of this figure 2 million are tractor trailers. "
"How much fuel does the transportation industry utilize in a year?
trucks consumed 53.9 billion gallons of fuel for business purposes."
"How many miles does the transportation industry transports good in a year?
In 2006 the transportation industry logged 432.9 billion miles. Class 8 trucks accounted for 139.3 billion of those miles, up from 130.5 billion in 2005 "

This is another informational link.
http://www.atri-online.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=54


*************
My point - Diesel only represents 6.7 gallons of a 42 gallon barrel. Tractor trailers are class 8 and they accounted for 139.3 billion miles / 41.7 miles per barrel = 3.34 billion barrels of oil are required to fuel these truck miles.

This "middle of the barrel" pressure can drive prices up.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5630/is_200609/ai_n23646360/

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601207&sid=aUUXIwDvjbt8

If only 1/3 of our tractor trailers could be converted to natural gas, it's possible we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 1 billion barrels per year.

 

[mheslep]

Aside from the few points I listed, Pickens made a convincing argument some time ago ...

I'm interested in the vehicle cost premiums, not the fuel issues.

 

[WhoWee]

I'm interested in the vehicle cost premiums, not the fuel issues.

I understand. However, my interest lies in the price pressures on oil due to diesel consumption coupled with the logistics of distribution - the do-ability.

I'll try to find the estimated conversion costs and other investment requirement estimates as well as operating estimates. I saw a report a few months ago (somewhere?).

 

[WhoWee]

The problem with Pickens plan.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/reporters-notebook-pickens-eyes-oils-rebound?dist=msr_1

"But as Pickens likes to remind us, the U.S. imports nearly 70% of its oil, up from 24% in 1970, and the figure is growing. He added that countries like Mexico, where the U.S. gets plenty of oil, is running dry and itself will become a bigger oil-importer than they are today.

Pickens, who runs BP Capital Management, has first set his sights on getting 350,000 18-wheeler trucks converted to natural gas through a federal subsidy program. He explained that 20% of every barrel of oil the U.S. imports is used by 18-wheelers running on diesel gas.

The idea is to get an $80,000 tax incentive to convert the trucks that haul goods across the country. About 2,000 fueling stations would also have to be built as well as 89 liquefied natural gas plants. Pickens further said big-truck rigs can't run on more fuel-efficient car batteries being developed. So natural gas is an alternative. "

 

[Topher925]

C'mon. Even if you 'know a guy' that works at GM, GM has made no such claim and you don't know otherwise.

True, they have not publicly made that claim, but in the battery and fuel cell automotive world it is a widely excepted belief. Despite what Stephen Chu claims, there is really only ONE thing holding FCVs back. Once that problem is resolved, and it will be, you will start seeing H₂ powered cars hit the market.

No, not yet.
http://www.physorg.com/news85074285.html

Guh, not this stupid report again. The guy that developed this report is from the battery side of the alternative energy argument and so of course his argument is completely bias towards batteries. Their model is also completely flawed and *** backwards as far as future power and hydrogen generation goes.

How do you think nuclear power plants will most likely operate in the future? Do you think they will always use the rankin cycle and never be able to get past the 40% efficiency mark? With newer high temperature nuclear reactor technology thermochemical cycles can be used to generate hydrogen directly from the heat of the reactor instead of using steam and a turbine. By using hydrogen generated from thermochemical reactions (at high pressures btw) stationary electricity can be generated by the use of SOFCs. Or, you can use that hydrogen and power cars, boats, or what ever else with it. And by using thermochemical cycles and SOFC for power its also possible to achieve much greater efficiencies than 40% out of a nuclear power plant.

Heres a link from the same website you cited for your article giving a little more information
http://www.physorg.com/news114866922.html

Theres also been quite a few papers published lately about thermochemical nuclear reactor design. I found this one last week and thought it was pretty good read.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V3F-4VPV8N0-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1040787398&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=1e601258864fa708d26d483f9f8d117f"

Google is your friend.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090202/AUTO01/902020354/1148/rss25

"The electric version will have no gasoline motor, but will be limited to a range of 100 miles on a single charge -- enough, Ford says, because most motorists in America average less than 40 miles a day.
Analyst Jim Hall of 2953 Analytics LLP in Birmingham disagrees.
"There still is not a viable market for a pure electric vehicle because of the range limitations,""

The point I was trying to make is that even though there are a lot of emerging EVs hitting the market within the next few years, they will by no means be able to replace a gasoline powered car if the EV only has a range of 100 miles. What are you going to do if you have to run all over town all day or do something besides drive to work and back. The EVs like the ones being released by Ford and Nissan are great for secondary vehicles but they can by no means be a practical replacement for an ICE vehicle. This is why the only people who will buy them are people in niche markets or who can afford more than one car.

 

[mheslep]

...The point I was trying to make is that even though there are a lot of emerging EVs hitting the market within the next few years, they will by no means be able to replace a gasoline powered car if the EV only has a range of 100 miles. What are you going to do if you have to run all over town all day or do something besides drive to work and back. ...

Agreed, unless they can pull in and switch in a new fully charged battery in 60 seconds, and go another 100 miles.
http://www.engadget.com/2009/05/13/video-better-places-automated-electric-vehicle-battery-switch/#

 

[mheslep]

The guy that developed this report is from the battery side of the alternative energy argument and so of course his argument is completely bias towards batteries. Their model is also completely flawed and *** backwards as far as future power and hydrogen generation goes.

I'm not interested in his stance (he's a fuel cell expert), but the figures on that chart. Aside from replacing electrolysis, do you disagree with any of them? 10% loss in compression, 20% loss in transport, then take a 50% loss in the fuel cell in the vehicle, or worse in a rankine cycle burning H.

... By using hydrogen generated from thermochemical reactions (at high pressures btw) stationary electricity can be generated by the use of SOFCs. Or, you can use that hydrogen and power cars, boats, or what ever else with it. And by using thermochemical cycles and SOFC for power its also possible to achieve much greater efficiencies than 40% out of a nuclear power plant.

This doesn't change anything on the chart except for replacing the electrolysis. Then one still has compress and transport molecules, not electrons, and build all of the H fueling infrastructure to go along with it. No, to the extent hydrogen becomes part of the energy infrastructure, it will be used to make electricity in big central turbines, it'll never get to end vehicles, my take.

 

[Topher925]

I'm not interested in his stance (he's a fuel cell expert), but the figures on that chart. Aside from replacing electrolysis, do you disagree with any of them? 10% loss in compression, 20% loss in transport, then take a 50% loss in the fuel cell in the vehicle, or worse in a rankine cycle burning H.

This doesn't change anything on the chart except for replacing the electrolysis. Then one still has compress and transport molecules, not electrons, and build all of the H fueling infrastructure to go along with it.

I disagree with everything on it except for transport and the PEMFC losses. The original source of energy would be nuclear energy from a reactor (just an example, doesn't have to be) and not electricity. The hydrogen which came from the plant is produced more efficiently than it would if the nuclear reactor would produce electricity. The chart doesn't even take this into account. Second, you have little to no compression since you can generate hydrogen at high pressure. Thirdly, you will obviously lose the AC-DC losses leaving only losses in transport and in the fuel cell. Also not accounted for is that FHVs can be made lighter than EVs for a given range providing a much more efficient vehicle in terms of kwh per mile. When you take all this into account, the chart starts to look very different.

If you want to use EVs or FHVs, either way you have to build a new infrastructure. The current one can not support either and both will be probably equally expensive.

No, to the extent hydrogen becomes part of the energy infrastructure, it will be used to make electricity in big central turbines, it'll never get to end vehicles, my take.

I don't understand why you would combust hydrogen in a turbine to make electricity? That makes absolutely no sense to me. And why exactly couldn't we just use the H2 directly from the power plant and put it in cars? If its coming from a thermochemical cycle its still 100% pure.

 

[mheslep]

...I don't understand why you would combust hydrogen in a turbine to make electricity? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

NREL example
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/44082.pdf , page 17 (ICE, not turbine)

And why exactly couldn't we just use the H2 directly from the power plant and put it in cars? If its coming from a thermochemical cycle its still 100% pure.

Because the H2 has to be transported, incurring energy losses, across an H2 network that doesn't exist, stored in cars that can't accommodate the volume even at 10k PSI, and then burned in fuel cells that are unreliable over the vehicle lifespan.

 

[mheslep]

...If you want to use EVs or FHVs, either way you have to build a new infrastructure. The current one can not support either and both will be probably equally expensive.

This is wrong on the EV network, the current grid can support pretty much even the entire US light duty fleet replaced with EVs. There have been numerous studies done about this, some posted on PF. As to the user end where the vehicles are plugged in, there will need to be numerous charging points - several companies make them already at $200 to $1000 for 6kw street side units, plus battery exchange stations in one scenario. This works out to less than 1% of the cost of the EV. There's no comparison to a theoretical H2 network.

 

[Topher925]

NREL example
http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/pdfs/44082.pdf , page 17 (ICE, not turbine)

I can't believe they put that in there. That would be a pretty asinine thing to do. Anyway, a much smarter way to produce electrical work from H2 would be to just use SOFCs or PAFCs. SOFC stands for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell which are crazy efficient and reliable energy conversion devices. They are common in applications where steady reliable power is required. They are also now finding their way onto large boats and semi trucks as APUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell

Because the H2 has to be transported, incurring energy losses, across an H2 network that doesn't exist, stored in cars that can't accommodate the volume even at 10k PSI, and then burned in fuel cells that are unreliable over the vehicle lifespan.

I disagree. We already transport hydrogen for relatively low cost in high pressure canisters. We also have a natural gas infrastructure all over the country, why can't we do the same for H2? Cars can accommodate enough volume at 10K psi and travel adequate distances. The vehicles that Honda and GM lease to the general public prove it. And what about FC technology makes it unreliable compared to battery technology? PEMFCs have been shown to last over 7,000 hours of cycling conditions (well over 150k miles on a car). Can batteries do that? (the answer is no, they can't)

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/epact_743_fuel_cell_school_bus.pdf

 

[Topher925]

This is wrong on the EV network, the current grid can support pretty much even the entire US light duty fleet replaced with EVs.

DOE estimates up to 180 million or about 80%, but that doesn't include all locations. In areas where the electric grid is older and weaker, EVs could not be that well supported. For example, in the area I live in they are building a new nuclear power plant in order to maintain the already struggling electrical grid.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/180_million_plu.php

 

[mheslep]

I can't believe they put that in there. That would be a pretty asinine thing to do. Anyway, a much smarter way to produce electrical work from H2 would be to just use SOFCs or PAFCs. SOFC stands for Solid Oxide Fuel Cell which are crazy efficient and reliable energy conversion devices. They are common in applications where steady reliable power is required. They are also now finding their way onto large boats and semi trucks as APUs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxide_fuel_cell

Can we drop 'crazy' hyperbole and 'asinine' government labs assertions and the Wiki links, and stick to what can be demonstrated?

I disagree. We already transport hydrogen for relatively low cost in high pressure canisters.

No we don't. Those are mostly 3000psi trucks. It requires roughly a dozen or so such loads of H2 to provide the same energy in one common semi-tanker of gasoline. This is reflected in Bossel's graph up thread - 20% hit.

We also have a natural gas infrastructure all over the country, why can't we do the same for H2?

Not without spending a fortune. Google. There's a lot of literature on why moving the tiny H2 molecule around is much much harder than CNG. Larger diameter pipes required to push the same joules, linings required, metal embrittlement, etc, etc.

Cars can accommodate enough volume at 10K psi and travel adequate distances. The vehicles that Honda and GM lease to the general public prove it.

WHAT distance? How much does the vehicle cost? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=az48qD9Cl_kQ"

And what about FC technology makes it unreliable compared to battery technology? PEMFCs have been shown to last over 7,000 hours of cycling conditions (well over 150k miles on a car). Can batteries do that? (the answer is no, they can't)

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/epact_743_fuel_cell_school_bus.pdf

I posted a link on why above, again:

...The committee observes that the federal government has been active in fuel cell research for roughly 40 years, while proton exchange membrane (PEM) fuel cells applied to hydrogen vehicle systems are a relatively recent development (as of the late 1980s). In spite of substantial R&D spending by the DOE and industry, costs are still a factor of 10 to 20 times too expensive, these fuel cells are short of required durability, and their energy efficiency is still too low for light-duty-vehicle applications. Accordingly, the challenges of developing PEM fuel cells for automotive applications are large, and the solutions to overcoming these challenges are uncertain.

The committee estimates that the fuel cell system, including on-board storage of hydrogen, will have to decrease in cost to less than $100 per kilowatt (kW)4 before fuel cell vehicles (FCVs) become a plausible commercial option, and that it will take at least a decade for this to happen.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10922&page=4

Edit: I see the 2008 FC improved reliability under table 1 of the school bus FC paper. I also see below that

...While these advancements are significant, PEM fuel cell technology for light-duty fuel cell vehicles is not yet ready for the commercial market. Cost remains a major hurdle, and durability must be proven.

Batteries: LiFePO batteries 3000 deep cycles retaining 90% DoD. For a sedan w/ a 25kWh (100mi) pack that's nearly 300,000 miles.
http://www.a123systems.com/a123/technology/life

DOE estimates up to 180 million or about 80%, but that doesn't include all locations. In areas where the electric grid is older and weaker, EVs could not be that well supported. For example, in the area I live in they are building a new nuclear power plant in order to maintain the already struggling electrical grid.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/180_million_plu.php

Ok so we agree there is a commercial, economic EV back end infrastructure mostly in place now, and commercial H2 infrastructure is virtually non existent. BTW, 'weak' or old grids are not the issue. Where ever there exists over capacity for daytime peak demand, there's idle capacity at night to charge EVs.

 

[Topher925]

Can we drop 'crazy' hyperbole and 'asinine' government labs assertions and the Wiki links, and stick to what can be demonstrated?

OK. The wiki link has examples of SOFCs being used but you can also find that many industrial manufacturers produce SOFCs, like Siemens for example:http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/fuel-cells/fuelcells.htm

For large scale applications (~20 MWe) staged reheat cycles have indicated that electrical generating efficiencies could reach as high as ~70%.

http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/fuel-cells/sofc-gt-hybrid/

A lot higher than any thermal cycle I know of.

No we don't. Those are mostly 3000psi trucks. It requires roughly a dozen or so such loads of H2 to provide the same energy in one common semi-tanker of gasoline. This is reflected in Bossel's graph up thread - 20% hit.

Again, I would like to stress that this is only with current methods. I'm sure better methods will become available once an infrastructure is actually created like using hydride technology. Our lab buys 3,000psi five-9 H2 for about 4 bucks a kilogram delivered with no infrastructure. Thats not to far off the cost of gasoline. We also have a choice of driving 10 miles south and getting it from a hydrogen fuel station for about 4 bucks a kilogram at 10k psi. Of course this doesn't reflect the efficiency of transport, but I would call that rather economical. The transport of energy via H2 will never be as good a electricity. However, the methods we use to generate energy can help make up for that loss.

Not without spending a fortune. Google. There's a lot of literature on why moving the tiny H2 molecule around is much much harder than CNG. Larger diameter pipes required to push the same joules, linings required, metal embrittlement, etc, etc.

And the natural gas lines didn't cost a fortune either?

WHAT distance? How much does the vehicle cost? http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=az48qD9Cl_kQ"

The FCX goes about 280 miles on 4kg of H2. How much do you think a low volume production of a Toyota Corolla costs? How about the first few Tesla roadsters? Low volume production is going to be expensive regardless of kind of car it is which is why you can't compare it actual production costs.

While we've yet to hear any more about Toyota's planned tests of its plug-in hybrid, the company has apparently made quite a bit of progress with its fuel cell vehicles, two of which recently made a non-stop 350 mile trip from Osaka to Tokyo (with the air conditioning on, no less). What's more, according to MSNBC, the vehicles still had 30 percent of their fuel remaining, giving them a total potential range of 480 miles.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/28/toyota-shows-off-fuel-cell-car-with-480-mile-range/
(FYI, this article dates back to 2007)

Batteries: LiFePO batteries 3000 deep cycles retaining 90% DoD. For a sedan w/ a 25kWh (100mi) pack that's nearly 300,000 miles.
http://www.a123systems.com/a123/technology/life

Lab testing does not equal field testing. 3,000 cycles in the lab does not equate to 300k or 10 years of real use. Not to mention that I don't think any major auto manufacturer is using A123 cells because their energy density is just way to low to be used in cars.

 

[Topher925]

That article "GM, Toyota Fuel-Cell Plans Clash With U.S. Battery Car Push " makes a good point about how far US is behind.

“Germany has come out with a very strong program to develop infrastructure; we don’t have anything like that on the federal level,” Dunwoody said.

Government support for the goal is stronger in Germany and Japan than in the U.S., according to GM’s Freese and Samuelsen of the fuel cell center. Germany plans 1,000 hydrogen stations by 2015, and Japan has a similar goal.

The German government is working with utilities and Linde AG, the world’s second-biggest maker of industrial gases, to set up a station network, Bharat Balasubramanian, Daimler’s vice president for product innovations, said in Los Angeles.

“It might look right now that EVs and plug-ins are winning the race, certainly in terms of federal funding, but that’s because they’re a bit more near term,” Kammen said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20602099&sid=az48qD9Cl_kQ

 

[mheslep]

...How much do you think a low volume production of a Toyota Corolla costs?

No more than $100-200k to make a single vehicle. Not $1 million. Toyota I see is claiming they will bring the price down in future models. So far no actual cheap ($100k) prototypes though.

...Low volume production is going to be expensive regardless of kind of car it is which is why you can't compare it actual production costs.

Sure you can. Divide by ~ten.

 

[mheslep]

...Lab testing does not equal field testing. 3,000 cycles in the lab does not equate to 300k or 10 years of real use. Not to mention that I don't think any major auto manufacturer is using A123 cells because their energy density is just way to low to be used in cars.

<shrug> They're at least 100 wh/kg, maybe much higher, I dunno. Regardless, most of the EV vendors are going w/ LiFePO, which is stable and exhibits high cycle life.

 

[mheslep]

FPL and Duke Power are replacing their entire car and truck fleet (10,000) with EV's starting next year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090924-705557.html" .
This makes since 1) they don't need long distance, 2) on a cost per mile basis the EVs are at least break even today, and can only become more cost effective in the future.

There seem to be a dozen or so bucket truck vendors, who all buy their chassis from either GM, Ford, or International. I'll be curious to see which one steps up w/ an EV chassis and one of them will, as they're not going to give a foreign make an entry into the truck market.

 

[mheslep]

Detroit (GM) hates Battery Switchers (unless it's them)

Some electric vehicle infrastructure people and General Motors got together for a panel discussion last week, including the Better Place the battery switch company. I don't think BP and GM like each other much.

Face Off: GM and Better Place on Electric Car Services
http://www.reuters.com/article/mnGreenAutos/idUS427988708320091016

GM:

...will other carmakers warmly embrace Better Place's model? Not according to panelist Byron Shaw, who manages GM's advanced technology office in Palo Alto. "If there's money to be made on batteries, we're going to be one of the competitors trying to make money on it." Shaw said that GM has been "on the short end of the stick for quite some time" when it comes to providing energy and other service for gas-powered cars. That could change with electric or plug-in hybrid cars, like the upcoming Chevy Volt. "There's going to be a lot of competitors in the space and we certainly intend to be one."

Shaw disagreed with the cell phone analogy, saying that there's a big difference between a $100 cell phone, and a vehicle, which costs at least tens of thousands of dollars. He believes that the carmaker is best positioned to provide all the post-purchase services. "Do you want another bill from another service provider that has nothing to do with your vehicle? Buying the battery from General Motors with the vehicle and the financing agreement in one integrated package is the advantage an OEM (original equipment manufacturer) provides."

GM's Shaw pointed to the company's OnStar crash notification system as a platform that could be used to help plug-in car owners monitor and maintain batteries.

BP:

Wolf of Better Place responded, "OnStar is an example, I wouldn't go as far to call it a good example, of the things a car can do once it becomes a network device. It doesn't matter what the propulsion is. But when you start thinking about networks connected to the vehicle, you have a lot of capabilities." Wolf specifically mentioned entertainment services and "advertising industry needs" that a networked car could provide. He added, "In looking at how industries cannibalize and change themselves, it doesn't usually happen from the incumbents."

 

[mheslep]

Another data point for battery energy density, this time with zinc/air chemistry. Zinc/Air has been around for a long time in non-rechargeable form. The Scandanavian research group SINTEF and a Swiss company ReVolt found an effective way to make Zinc Air rechargeable. My Linden handbook shows Zinc Air traditionally at 440 watt-hours / kg, or about triple current rechargeable Li ion batteries [1][2]. Cycle life on the ReVolt device is still too limited for EV use.

LLNL took a shot at this in the 1990's, and actually ran a modified bus off a zinc/air battery that was 'refueled', i.e. the zinc in an electrolyte was pumped out and replaced a depletion, the depleted electrolyte was then recycled.[3] For vehicle sized batteries, I expect something like the LLNL approach is the best one if 1) the zinc oxide can be reduced efficiently, and 2) recharging electrically is supported by the same device so that the zinc/air EV's are not tethered to refueling stations (as w/ petroleum).

The price structure of current non-rechargeable zinc air presents some interesting issues. The specific energy capacity for zinc air has long been inexpensive, some $50 per kWh per this dated source, or about 15x cheaper than Li-ion. A 120 mi range sedan EV battery would then cost only $1500 (plus the recharging technology premium via ReVolt). However, the power capacity of zinc air is about 4x less than Li ion ( ~80 Watts/kg zinc/air, 340 Watts / kg for Li ion). Such a battery would provide cruising horsepower (30HP/ 22kW), but would need a power supplement, such as Li Ion or ultracaps for shorter bursts of power.

[1] http://books.google.com/books?id=M-...nden+battery+handbook&ei=9JboSvyVL5m8M_LxxZ8M
[2] http://www.technologyreview.com/business/23812/
[3] https://www.llnl.gov/str/pdfs/10_95.1.pdf\
[4] 320 Wh/kg commercial non-rechargeable product. http://www.efbpower.com/ba-8180.html
[5] Novel zinc-air battery for EVs, 1995. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=398494

 

[mheslep]

PBS NOW episode on EVs, mainly about the howto/why on the EV infrastructure coming to Denmark 2010 and 2011.
http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/544/index.html
Usual suspects make appearances - DONG CEO, BP CEO, Lomborg. Lomborg says money would be better spent elsewhere. Perhaps just based on climate change, but Denmark also puts a premium on energy independence (reasonably given their history). The latter carries the EV low taxes argument in my view.

 

[russ_watters]

Older post, but...

FPL and Duke Power are replacing their entire car and truck fleet (10,000) with EV's starting next year.

...on a cost per mile basis the EVs are at least break even today, and can only become more cost effective in the future.

What does an electric company pay for electricity? I've designed the HVAC and electrical systems for a few power plant buildings and the owners haven't tended to care about things like energy efficient lighting and insulation.

That said, due to infrastructure needs and specific driving constraints, fleet vehicles are probably where most EVs are going to start.

 

[mheslep]

Older post, but... What does an electric company pay for electricity? I've designed the HVAC and electrical systems for a few power plant buildings and the owners haven't tended to care about things like energy efficient lighting and insulation.

Probably they don't care either. I expect they do care about what they're paying now gasoline/diesel. Or, they care what they might pay if oil spikes again, because unlike, say, an oil company they require regulatory approval to raise rates to increase revenue. Or, how they are going to roll trucks (at any cost) if there's a supply crisis (caused by the latest Ayatollah wingnut, refinery hurricane)?

That said, due to infrastructure needs and specific driving constraints, fleet vehicles are probably where most EVs are going to start.

Makes sense to me. The USPS just did a large study on converting their fleet (I posted either here or in your 'Energy Crisis' thread). They've turned it down for now.

 

[mgb_phys]

That said, due to infrastructure needs and specific driving constraints, fleet vehicles are probably where most EVs are going to start.

For in-town, stop/start driving there are a lot of advantages.
Apart from oil cost, they are silent, low maintenance, deal well with constant stop start and are less likely to be stolen.
Anyone British (and >30) should remember milk floats, they would make a lot of sense for mail vans, store deliveries etc.

Also for a commercial fleet the capital cost is irrelevent, they get a good deal from the maker, they will keep the vehicles for years and it's a tax right-off anyway.

 

[mheslep]

...Also for a commercial fleet the capital cost is irrelevent,

No, not true, especially not for early EVs.

 

[mheslep]

Re the prognosis for commercial EV truck fleets, this is interesting. Chrysler recently released an 'electrification' plan. First out of the shoot is not another me too electric sedan, but an HEV and the PHEV version of the Dodge RAM truck of all things.

http://earth2tech.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/chrysler-electrification-nov409.gif

Now they don't show a pure BEV, no ICE tag along in the truck path forward, which is a mistake in my view. The ICE is only needed as range extender, and many of this commercial fleet trucks have a known fixed range requirement, inside the range of the battery. So the hybrid ICE with all its overhead is unnecessary cost, and someone will then make a BEV truck for less.

 

[mheslep]

FPL and Duke Power are replacing their entire car and truck fleet (10,000) with EV's starting next year.
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090924-705557.html" .
This makes since 1) they don't need long distance, 2) on a cost per mile basis the EVs are at least break even today, and can only become more cost effective in the future.

There seem to be a dozen or so bucket truck vendors, who all buy their chassis from either GM, Ford, or International. I'll be curious to see which one steps up w/ an EV chassis and one of them will, as they're not going to give a foreign make an entry into the truck market.

I saw one of Dominion Virginia Power's hybrid bucket trucks on the road today. Altec is the integrator, International builds the chassis. Hybrid's are half way to a pure EV, so I expect International will end up making the FPL trucks above too.

http://www.dom.com/about/environment/images/hybrid_truck.jpg
http://www.automotive-fleet.com/Channel/Leasing/News/Story/2009/04/Dominion-Virginia-Power-Shows-Off-Biodiesel-Hybrid-Trucks.aspx?interstitial=1

 

[mgb_phys]

I think it's going to be a while before you see plugin trucks like that.
According to the specs the electric drive is only 60hp compared to the 300hp motor.
It doesn't list the battery capacity but even with a total hybrid weight of 400lbs it's not going to have a huge range.
The min use of the hybrid is probably power for the hydraulics so you don't need to run the engine when working.

 

[mheslep]

I think it's going to be a while before you see plugin trucks like that.
According to the specs the electric drive is only 60hp compared to the 300hp motor.
It doesn't list the battery capacity but even with a total hybrid weight of 400lbs it's not going to have a huge range.
The min use of the hybrid is probably power for the hydraulics so you don't need to run the engine when working.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2396343&postcount=129" Florida Power & Light is ordering plug-in bucket trucks starting next year. Of course the hybrid truck's electric system provide's only partial power - that's the nature of the hybrid. The point is some major mfn's have stepped up to electrifying truck size drive trains, and have already developed some know-how. In my view, the reason why EV is a particularly good fit for these fleets is that the range requirement is limited - they know before they leave the depot where they're going on the call.

A quick run of the numbers shows me that a pure plug-in EV (no ICE) 120 mile range truck breaks even at ~42 cents / mile with a diesel truck getting 9 mpg. That includes the cost of the battery ($800/kWh) and electricity (at retail) versus today's cost of diesel ($3.9/gal). Also, the electric drive train should eventually be cheaper than the ICE+radiator+fuel system+transmission+exhaust system+lubrication system. Finally, a power company like FPL may write off the electricity to charge batteries, if so then the EV is a clear win for them already, and tomorrow the price of diesel is only going up.