A Fortune Magazine article by Alex Taylor points to qualifiers on claims of the performance of the forthcoming Chevy Volt pluggable hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). Read the whole article. But I found the part about batteries most interesting.
That's not all. Also under scrutiny is GM's oft-repeated assertion that the Volt will have an all-electric range of 40 miles. Critics point out that the car needs ideal conditions to do that.
For one thing, the 40-mile range depends on ambient temperatures of 60 degrees to 65 degrees. When the temperature drops below 60, the batteries become less efficient. And if it gets hotter than 65, the air conditioner can impose an additional load on the Volt's batteries. Either way, the range diminishes.
But no quantitative information about how range goes down with dropping temperature. A question for any reader who knows a lot about battery performance: How much does battery performance decline with temperature? What sort of range can a guy in Wisconsin or upstate Minnesota expect in January with a Volt that can go 40 miles in late spring?
Also, how does battery performance fare in the Mojave Desert in July?
Also, does the extent of battery performance decline with temperature vary by battery technology? How do lead acid, NiMH, and Lithium ion batteries compare? Do some lithium chemistries to better than others in cold weather?
If battery range drops only to, say, 30 miles then that doesn't seem like a show-stopper. The majority of the American commuting public goes less than 30 miles round trip to work every day.
Update: In the comments "bbm" reminds me that GM has built the Volt to have a substantial margin its battery capacity. Of the 16 kwh of battery capacity the Volt needs only 8 kwh to go 40 miles. GM does not want to discharge more than 70%. So effectively there's a 2.4 kwh reserve available for colder weather. So the Volt might start out with 10.4 kwh available in mild weather.
Also in the comments agesilaus points to a research paper about Li ion battery performance in cold weather. At least with the Li ion battery used as an example the battery lost 15% going down to 0 C (32 F) from a mild temperature. Well, a 15% loss off of 10.4 kwh would still leave the volt above 8 kwh. at -10 C (14 F) the Volt would lose another 10% and might be slightly below 40 mile range. Though I wonder how much heater power would be needed to stay warm with an outside air temperature that cold.
Dr. Robert Wilder describes the charging of his Tesla Roadster's battery.
But before you knock the Roadster for increasing our energy demand, remember: We're not paying a penny for gasoline. And the Roadster has supercar performance and a correspondingly large battery. This battery holds 54 kWh, giving this car great speed and a good range but therefore needing much (solar) 'juice' -- certainly more than a smaller EV that might be used mainly for short trips or inter-city commuting and errands.
Due to cooling and other losses in charging, filling from empty takes about 68 kWh, or 26% more than 54 kWh the battery holds. This 68 kWh is the seminal amount; it quantifies how much truly is needed. We'll reference this number to determine how far we can go from power of the sun alone.
What I find most interesting here: Charging up the Tesla requires 26% more electricity than the battery holds. 26% additional gets wasted. Batteries getting charged heat up. That heat is waste.
What I want to know: Will the Chevy Volt and other pluggable hybrids and pure electric cars have similar amounts of electricity waste when charging their batteries? Does anyone reading this have some data on battery charging efficiency for other lithium battery chemistries?
Wilder charges his Tesla at night when electric rates are cheaper. But he lives in an area where electric power prices are quite high.
Crucially, we do all EV charging overnight because with Time Of Use (TOU) meter rates, the cost here is 'only' 18 cents/kWh during off-peak hours at night.
By contrast, a peak rate is far higher at 30 cents/kWh from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m., when our PV makes surplus power from the sun and sells it back to the utility, giving us a credit on our bill.
So even though he has photovoltaic panels he charges his Tesla at night since his daytime electricity is worth more to sell to his local electric utility.
In sunnier areas at sunnier times of the year really cheap PV could eventually make late morning the cheapest time to buy electricity. The big spike in demand happens in the late afternoon in warmer climes. If the price declines in PV continue then eventually this trend might cause a decline in electric power prices in the morning and a sharper spiking of electricity prices in the late afternoon and early evening.
Of course, given enough electric cars and sufficient battery longevity the late afternoon electric power price spike could be dampened by selling electric power from car batteries out onto the grid.
The range on a Tesla depends heavily on how fast you drive. You can go over 200 miles if you drive slowly enough. A blog post by Tesla CTO JB Straubel shows how fast drag increases and electric power usage doubles as the Tesla Roadster goes faster.
To cruise at 60 mph takes about 15kW. However, if you double that to 30kW you will only accelerate to about 80mph — far less than twice as fast. And if you double it again to 60kW you will accelerate to about 107 mph using 4 times as much power as you did at 60mph, yet you’d only travel about 1.8 times as fast.
Check out the first graph at that page. The Tesla is using slightly over 250 Watt-hours per mile at 60 mph but at 30 it drops to only 150 Wh per mile and bottoms out at about 135 Wh per mile around 17 mph. So the big losses in efficiency occur over 60 mph.
Energy storage devices called ultracapacitors could lower the cost of the battery packs in plug-in hybrid vehicles by hundreds or even thousands of dollars by cutting the size of the packs in half, according to estimates by researchers at Argonne National Laboratory in Argonne, IL. Ultracapacitors could also dramatically improve the efficiency of another class of hybrid vehicle that uses small electric motors, called microhybrids, according to a recent study from the University of California, Davis.
Ultracapacitors will also enable a different trade-off in car battery designs where the batteries are more dense and higher capacity but slower chargers.
Hurray for ultracapacitors. Hope they reach the market in pluggable hybrids before the price of oil skyrockets.
General Motors CEO Fritz Henderson and other GM brass are claiming the pluggable hybrid Chevrolet Volt will get 230 mpg.
General Motors says the electric Chevy Volt will get 230 miles a gallon in city driving, calling it a “game-changer,” the WSJ reports.
Another GM executive says the Volt will score a 230 MPG rating from the US EPA.
At GM’s Fast Lane blog, Volt co-creator Jon Lauckner said GM was confident it would have a triple-digit combined mileage rating from the Environmental Protection Agency, which measures these things. Mr. Lauckner said “These preliminary numbers are based on Volt development testing with our pre-production vehicles and the draft federal fuel economy methodology developed by EPA for [extended-range electric vehicles] like the Volt.”
One needs to make assumptions in order to reach that number. The key assumption: how far will people drive between recharges? For someone who never goes more than 40 miles between recharges the number of gallons of gasoline burnt in a year would very well be 0. That's right, no gasoline at all. Why? As long as you recharge before the battery goes dead you can get around in a Volt only on electric power.
The Volt works less well for people who take a lot of longer trips. A Toyota Prius or a VW Jetta Diesel would work better for someone who takes a lot of few hundred mile road trips. The Volt is really a commuter car for people with moderate length commutes. People with too short of commutes do not burn enough gasoline for the money saved to add up far enough to justify the extra bucks for a Volt. People who drive much longer distances will spend too little of each trip on batteries.
It is that intermediate zone for perhaps 30-50 miles per day where the Volt shines. Any readers fit this driving profile? If you do an even longer commute but can get your car charged while at work then the Volt's pay-off is much faster. People who drive 40 miles each way and can plug their car in to electric power while work are really the ideal buyers for Volts. They become even more ideal Volt drivers once oil goes back up above $120 per barrel again.
Some argue the payback on the Volt takes too long. But that also depends on some assumptions. Most notably, it depends on future prices of gasoline. If the world production of oil peaks in 2020 or even more so in 2015 then the Volt will pay back its higher price a lot sooner.
People who just a few years ago were plopping down $50k for an SUV can (if they are still in upper tax brackets) afford $40k for a PHEV car. Therefore those people can keep cruising down the road even if gasoline hits $20 per gallon.
Chuck Squatriglia of Wired takes a look at Zero Motorcycles electric motorcycle model Zero S.
The 4-kilowatt-hour lithium-manganese battery is good for an average range of 40 to 45 miles and a maximum of 60, depending upon how hard you twist the throttle. Once it's dead, you're looking at four hours to charge it from a 110-volt outlet. You can plug it into a 220-volt line but it won't charge any faster because the charger is limited to 1,000 watts, and at 110 volts, a 15-amp U.S. wall outlet already exceeds that by 650 watts.
It goes for $9,950 and accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in less than 4 seconds. The price is in the realm of the affordable for most people in industrialized countries.
The threat of Peak Oil (also see here) has me looking for affordable technologies that can help us transition away from oil for transportation uses. While electric cars seem an obvious alternative the problem is that electric cars cost too much while having limited range.
General Motors is frantically trying to bring the Volt in for less than $40,000 when it goes into production late next year, and even then expects to lose its shirt. The Mitsubishi iMiEV city car is as small as its $50,000 price tag is large. And even the Coda, a four-door, five-passenger family car with all the pizzazz of a Hyundai Sonata, will set you back $45,000 when it goes on sale in California next year.
One can hope that will change. But if it doesn't we might find ourselves riding electric motorcycles in 5 to 10 years.
The Zero S's 4 kilowatt-hours for 40 miles works out to 100 watt-hours per mile. That's less than half the 217 watt-hours per per mile of the Tesla Roadster. The Roadster's 244 mile range gives it 4 to 6 times the range of the Zero S. But for commuters the Zero S would work. At $109,000 the Roadster costs 11 times as much as the Zero S.
But if $10k for an electric motorcycle is above your price range cheaper approaches for electric bicycles will hit the market once world oil production goes into global decline.
Afraid to buy that Hummer you are hankering for because you fear the coming of Peak Oil? Fear no more. Across the desolate landscape of post-peak post-apocalyptic America will stride an electric Hummer good for 40 miles per battery charge.
The Hummer is the poster child of excess consumption and inefficiency, but a Utah company is converting the much-maligned SUVs into a range-extended electric vehicle good for 100 mpg and a range of 40 miles.
Raser Technologies will unveil the Raser H3 on Monday in Detroit. It promises a 90 mph top speed, off-road capability and a lithium ion-battery you can recharge in as little as three hours. What's more, the company says the drivetrain can be installed in other trucks and it hopes to have 2,000 converted vehicles on the road by the end of next year.
Use electric power to cruise away from the starving crowds of collapsing cities. Make for your country hide-out which has what you need to feed your Hummer: A big wind mill up on a local hill and solar panels on your sprawling ranch house. You'll of course use the Hummer to trade food and guns with people in neighboring valleys.
Hopefully before the collapse higher energy density batteries will come to market to enable you to increase the size of your trading route.
Update: I almost forgot to mention: Those solar panels on your sprawling ranch house will be made out of silicon-based photovoltaics. None of those cheap 9% efficiency thin film solar panels for sissies. Uh-uh. No way. You go with the high efficiency stuff to get you the juice you need to power your hummer. Plus, you convert that PV electric power into 240V for fast recharges. None of that wimpy 110V power.
The momentum behind electric cars keeps building. The top leadership of China has decided to turn China into a big maker of electric cars.
TIANJIN, China — Chinese leaders have adopted a plan aimed at turning the country into one of the leading producers of hybrid and all-electric vehicles within three years, and making it the world leader in electric cars and buses after that.
Since this command is coming from the top and the Chinese can move mountains with that level of commitment you can be sure that this initiative will take off.
Beyond manufacturing, subsidies of up to $8,800 are being offered to taxi fleets and local government agencies in 13 Chinese cities for each hybrid or all-electric vehicle they purchase. The state electricity grid has been ordered to set up electric car charging stations in Beijing, Shanghai and Tianjin.
Government research subsidies for electric car designs are increasing rapidly. And an interagency panel is planning tax credits for consumers who buy alternative energy vehicles.
The US could soon find itself in permanent 3rd place for electric car manufacture.
BEIJING -- SAIC Motor Corp., one of China's biggest state-owned auto makers, is turning to American technology suppliers to engineer a gasoline-electric hybrid car that could go on sale in China as soon as next year.
SAIC is planning to use technology from A123 Systems, a closely held battery maker based in Watertown, Mass., and auto-parts maker Delphi Corp., based in Troy, Mich., according to a Delphi statement and people familiar with the matter.
Chinese mobile phone maker BYD has designed the batteries for its own electric car.
When BYD Auto launches one of China's first mass produced fully electric sedans later this year, it will be trying to conquer the world rather than save it. But such is the explosive growth of China's car market and thirst for petrol that the two goals are likely to become ever more synonymous.
The E6 plug-in is currently under wraps at the company's sprawling industrial complex in Shenzhen, but it will soon be at the vanguard of a company's – and a nation's – plans to dominate the global market for "clean-transport".
Electric cars look expensive with today's gasoline prices. But when an economic recovery kicks in and demand recovers the economics of electric vehicles will become a lot more favorable.
Ford is also working with auto supplier Magna International to release an all-electric compact sedan in 2011, which will get about 70 percent better mileage than non-hybrid models. This car will be a Focus-size vehicle that will go 100 miles on a charge, said Greg Frenette, the assistant chief engineer of battery electric-vehicle applications at Ford.
Ford also has a pluggable hybrid coming in 2012.
Ford's first pure electric vehicle looks like a crossover van for moving people. Previous articles reported this vehicle as aimed at the taxi market.
During an exclusive interview with FOXNews.com, Lisa Drake, Chief Engineer for Ford Global Hybrid and Battery Electric Vehicles told the FOX Car Report LIVE! program that her company’s upcoming electric vehicle will be priced between $50,000 and $70,000 when it goes on sale in 2010.
What I wonder: How fast for a recharge? If you've got the amps and 220V can it get recharged in, say, a half hour? If so, a shop that sends out, say, plumbing repair workers or other local driving workers could recharge the vehicle and lunch and go thru 2 recharge cycles a day. That sort of usage pattern would maximize the return on investment.
So I'm reading this Wall Street Journal article on surplus cars in storage and the thought occurs to me: If only these cars were all electric they could be used for grid load balancing while they were waiting to be sold. All those batteries could shift electric power from night to day.
Practically every small car in the market is stacked up at dealerships. At the end of February, Honda Motor Co. had 22,191 Fits on dealer lots -- enough to last 125 days at the current sales rate, according to Autodata Corp. In July, it had a nine-day supply, while the industry generally considers a 55- to 60-day supply healthy.
For other models the supply situation is even worse. Toyota Motor Corp. has enough Yaris subcompacts to last 175 days. Chrysler LLC has a 205-day supply of the Dodge Caliber. And Chevrolet dealers have 427 days' worth of Aveo subcompacts. At the current sales rate, General Motors Corp. could stop making the Aveo and it wouldn't run out until May 24, 2010.
Got any ideas on how to put Chevy Aveos to constructive use?
But one of the main justifications GM offers for its long-term survival, "leadership in advanced propulsion technology," has been shaken by a report from Carnegie Mellon University.
The study concludes that plug-in hybrids like the Chevy Volt - GM's most publicized technology project - "are not cost effective in any scenario." GM says the Volt can go 40 miles on a single charge. But a better choice, according to the report, is a car that goes less than 20 miles on a charge.
I think one of the problems with pluggable hybrids is the high frequency with which they will need to get plugged in for recharge. You just want to pop out of our car and walk inside. If your commute round trip is over 20 miles per day then you'll need to plug the Volt in for recharge every commuting day. With a 20 mile range you would need to plug in for recharge after a commute of over 10 miles. I would rather have the higher battery capacity just to avoid the need to drag out a power cable to the car on a daily basis. For anyone who doesn't park in their own garage the need to recharge is especially onerous.
But Jon Lauckner, a GM VP involved in Volt product development, argues that the Carnegie Mellon researchers assumed too high a cost for the batteries.
The mistake in the study that "jumps of the page," Lauckner told AutoObserver, is the assumed baseline cost of the lithium-ion batteries used by the Volt and, most likely, other future PHEVs: $1,000 per kilowatt-hour.
"That's very high compared to the cost we're paying today," said Lauckner of the Volt's prototype lithium-ion batteries developed by Korean battery expert LG Chem. "And very, very high compared to the (battery cost) in the near future," once even modest engineering improvements and economies of scale kick in, Lauckner added.
The cost of batteries is not the only important assumption for a study on pluggable hybrid cost effectiveness. One also needs to make assumptions about future prices for gasoline. Well, Saudi Arabia might already have passed its oil production peak and non OPEC-12 oil production peaked in 2004. Khebab expects a sharp decline in world oil production starting in 2010. The Volt might come to market at a time of far higher oil prices. The decline in oil demand has caused its price to plummet. But such a low price has prompted a huge reduction in new oil projects. Since existing fields suffer from declining production a reduction in new oil field development will lead to lower production in future years. Oil prices will likely retrace their previous rise once economic recovery begins.
One wonders what GM expects to pay for batteries 3, 4, 5 years from now. The rate at which battery prices fall will play a large role in determining how easily we can move away from our reliance on dwindling supplies of oil.
A Seattle test of hybrids modified to be rechargeable and theoretically to run 30 miles on electric power produced disappointing results so far. 14 specially customized plug-in hybrid Toyota Priuses did not do much better than standard Priuses in fuel efficiency. (thanks "Fat Man")
Try 51 miles per gallon, city and highway combined. Not counting the cost of the electricity.
It's what 14 plug-in Priuses averaged after driving a total of 17,636 miles. The pilot project is one of the few in the nation to subject plug-in hybrid cars to regular motor-pool duty, as opposed to being driven by hypermilers or alt-energy enthusiasts.
Vehicles engineered for production quality will probably do better than these customized cars.
The article also points to Google's own fleet of hybrids and plug-in hybrids. At that web page Google provides data on how these vehicles compare in fuel efficiency. Their Ford Escape hybrids are averaging 28.6 mpg while their pluggable versions of the Escape hybrd get 37.7 mpg for a 32% improvement. Not earth shattering. Their conventional Prius hybrids get 42.8 mpg while their pluggable Priuses get 54.9 mpg for a 28.3% improvement Again, not exactly the end of the oil era. Google breaks out the numbers by car. The best has done 60.5 mpg. But if you look at single day results you can find cars hitting 107 mpg.
Why these disappointing results? A fleet car could get driven a lot in a day and run down its batteries. To maximize the benefit of a pluggable hybrid one really need to drive almost the battery's range each day but no more. Someone who happens to commute a distance that is a little less than the range of a hybrid's battery is the best candidate to get maximal benefit. People who drive too little will pay for higher battery costs that take a long time to pay back. People who drive too much will run much of the time on gasoline.
I also wonder how motivated fleet car users will be to plug in every time they stop somewhere they can plug in. Then there's the need to stop at places where plugging in is even possible. There's no golden bullet for replacing oil.
Tony Posawatz, Chevrolet's vehicle line director for the Volt, sounds optimistic on the Chevy Volt hitting the market in 2010.
"We definitely feel that we're on schedule, that we will be able to deliver the Volt before the end of 2010," Posawatz said. "We're working closely with our battery developers, and based on their progress, we're definitely on track to hit that 2010 date."
Eighteen months ago, many in the industry thought that the internally-mandated 2010 date was just too much to expect, given all of the technology and cost implications.
"Well, it is definitely a compressed time frame," Posawatz conceded. "It is unusual to develop a new vehicle and a new propulsion system at the same time. But the analogy that Mr. Lutz used was when he compared it to President Kennedy saying that we were going to send a man to the moon by the end of the decade, not 'whenever we feel like it.'
GM is not alone among the US automakers in terms of a PHEV commitment. Though GM sounds like they are in the lead.Chrysler expects to get one of four electric vehicles to market by 2010.
Chrysler showed four new electric vehicles: two extended-range electric vehicles that have gas-fed generators to feed electricity to the car when a 40-mile-range battery wears down; an all-electric sports car with a range of 150-200 miles; and a four-door neighborhood-electric-vehicle, which can be used in retirement and closed communities and on streets with speed limits of 25 mph or less.
Most likely the first will probably be a sports car that competes with the Tesla. Chrysler has recently released a couple of full-sized hybrid SUVs.
Ford has committed to a plug-in (PHEV) version of their Escape hybrid. Given the coming Fusion Hybrid on the same drivetrain as the Escape Hybrid it seems reasonable to expect a PHEV Fusion as well. Ford hasn't committed to a date yet. Ford sees pure electric vehicles as the ultimate destination.
General Motors engineers think the individual cells in the candidate battery for the Chevrolet pluggable hybrid Volt design perform well. But the packaging of the batteries presents many problems which do not yet have verified solutions.
Even a few defective cells or connections can dramatically lower the performance of the pack. What's more, the pack includes complex electronic controls for charging each cell, delivering power, and capturing energy from braking to improve vehicle efficiency. And maximizing the battery's life requires a good cooling system. To make matters worse, methods for testing whether a battery pack will last for the life of the car are only now being developed.
"There's only so much known about how to accelerate the testing of batteries," says Greg Cesiel, GM's program director for the E-Flex Vehicle Team, which is developing the Volt and related electric vehicles. Questions remain about how to simulate driving the car and charging the pack, and how to confirm that the pack will survive vibrations and exposure to hot and cold temperatures over the life of a vehicle.
GM still might make their late 2010 release date. But the initial production will be low. My guess is uncertainty about the battery pack longevity is one of the reasons for the initial low production rate. If they end up having to do expensive recalls to fix battery problems better to have few of the cars out on the road. The initial buyers will definitely be extended range testers.
If you have your heart set on buying a Volt and find the battery story worrisome stop and ask yourself whether you can afford the price. GM is initially expected to sell the Volt for $40k and lose money at that price.
Come late 2010 world oil production might be starting down its final decline path. So even at $40k the Volt might seem quite attractive to some drivers. Anyone who can afford $50,000 for an SUV can afford $40,000 for a pluggable hybrid car.
I'm less concerned about getting a pluggable hybrid for myself than seeing that we have the technology to keep industrial society running when world oil production starts its rapid decline.
The ports around LA have been under regulatory pressure to pollute less. They use a lot of older diesel tractor trucks that are especially polluting because those trucks aren't considered reliable enough for long range driving but are still reliable enough for shorter trips within the ports and to nearby warehouses. Well, custom electric trucks built for the Port of Los Angeles cut pollution and lower fuel costs at the same time.
The electric truck, which takes about three hours to charge, has a range of about 30 miles while pulling a 60,000-pound cargo container, and about 60 miles empty. Although that distance may not sound useful, much of freight hauling within the port complex is from terminals to nearby train yards.
It costs about 20 cents a mile to operate, or about four to nine times less than a diesel truck, depending on fluctuating fuel costs and operating conditions.
I do not find these results surprising. Electric vehicles lack range. But in applications where only short range is needed but where the vehicles are used heavily the cost per mile for the electric power is less than that of liquid hydrocarbons by a pretty substantial multiple.
What I wonder: How long does it take to run down the batteries on these trucks? The frequency and length of time needed to recharge reduces the number of hours per day available to operate the trucks.
I expect we will see the vehicle fuel market fragment with many more vehicles powered by batteries and natural gas than is currently the case. Fuel costs rise as we go from electricity to natural gas to diesel to gasoline. That slope is getting steeper from electricity to the other power sources. But the cost advantage of diesel over gasoline has shrunk some and it is not clear to me whether it will shrink further. You can track the trends in diesel versus gasoline prices here.
Of course, fuel cost is not the only cost in vehicle operation. Battery costs are still a big obstacle in the way of wider spread use of pure electric and pluggable hybrid electric vehicles. How fast battery costs fall will determine in very large part how easily we can adjust to the coming decline in world oil production. Battery technology is more important than wind or solar or nuclear technologies. Though the combination of wind, solar, and nuclear technologies matter more than battery technology.
Jonathan Rauch has written an article for The Atlantic about the development of GM's Chevy Volt pluggable hybrid entitled Electro-Shock Therapy. In the article he talks to GM electrical engineer Lance Turner who claimed in December 2007 that the battery picture looked great for the Chevy Volt.
During this visit, I found the technical center brimming with optimism, and the battery lab was no exception. One of two suppliers, a company called Compact Power (a subsidiary of a big South Korean chemical and advanced-materials company, LG Chem), had delivered two copies of its version of the battery, and on the bench they were testing brilliantly. “They may not look beautiful,” Turner said—the battery was a six-foot-long T-shaped object from which wires, clamps, and circuit boards protruded—“but as far as the data goes, they’re the best I’ve worked with.” Heat is a problem with lithium-ion batteries, but this one was staying cool even when run hard—and the cooling system had yet to be attached.
Moreover, improvements were being incorporated as fast as they could be conceived; the battery would be on its second generation in January, its third in June. “It’s incredible,” Turner said. “The design they’ve come up with for thermal changed 10 times before they delivered the first battery.” And all of this was before the arrival of a competing battery that might be as good or even better, designed jointly by the Massachusetts-based company A123 Systems and the German company Continental A.G. “We’re inventing and creating on the critical path,” Turner said. He was using the industry jargon for the countdown to production, when time is money and delays can cost millions. “I’ve got guys trying to release things before they’re actually invented.”
On the bright side the article reports that GM has lifted the bureaucratic process off of the Volt development team and they make much more rapid progress than the average GM car development team.
But by February 2008 the batteries looked like a big problem. By late March the chief engineer for the Volt still says the battery looks like the pacing engineering problem.
In late March, at the New York auto show, I checked back in with Andrew Farah, the Volt’s chief engineer, and asked for an update. “Still just as bad as before,” he said. When I mentioned that another executive had said the underbody was a well-proven design that didn’t need much testing, he shot me a look of disbelief. “There’s a big gaping hole down the center of this car where the battery goes.”
Is this delay a matter of months or years? Even if GM achieves their stated schedule only 70,000 Chevy Volts will be on the road by the end of 2012. That's not enough to make a substantial dent in the problem of declining oil availability.
Some people are optimistic about our ability to shift smoothly from gasoline to electric power for transportation. I'm not so optimistic. I expect we will be able to do so eventually. But I am reminded of the sinking Titanic. Other ships did come to help rescue survivers eventually. When there's a big time gap between when you need something and when you actually get it then you are going to suffer some pain.
Update: On May 14 GM Vice Chairman struck what sounds like a more optimistic note on the battery.
Lutz confirmed that in GM's dynamometer tests last week of the Volt's lithium-ion batteries, engineers raised ambient temperatures and shut off the cooling system. The result was what GM had hoped: The battery showed only a slight rise in temperature and the heat was consistent across all of the battery cells with no pockets of intense heat.
Challenges Other Than the Battery Remain
"I can almost say the battery is the least of our problems," Lutz told AutoObserver.
Without knowing how big the other problems are it is hard to interpret this.
On June 5, 2008 he admits the battery testers still do not know about the longevity of the batteries. So GM really does not know if they've got a battery solution.
Our battery teams in Warren and in Germany are working hard in our battery labs to determine that these batteries will work for the life of the vehicle. Still, the conditions in a real-world environment – where the battery is exposed to shaking, moisture and rapidly changing temperature conditions – are much more extreme than the controlled settings of the lab.
But I think it’s important to point out that in the six months since we’ve received the battery pack, we’ve tested it in the lab, then on the dynamometer, and now on the track.
In engineering you often do not know for weeks and months whether you've solved some problem. Testing takes a long time. That might be where GM is now. But they might even still be at the stage where they have known problems without potential solutions in testing. I would want to hear a fresh opinion of the battery test engineers to know where things really stand.
General Motors Corp. aims to manufacture 10,000 plug-in electric Chevrolet Volts in 2011, the vehicle's first full year of production, and 60,000 the following year, Vice Chairman Bob Lutz told the Free Press in an e-mail Thursday.
So thru the end of 2012 only 70,000 will be on the road. Do not expect these cars to save you from $200 per barrel gasoline if the price of oil goes that high in the next 5 years.
GM will not make a profit on Volt sales.
Lutz said the first-generation Volt will retail for about $40,000 and generate no profit for GM. The company hopes to make money as it rolls out later versions of the vehicle and other plug-in models.
Tougher environmental and fuel-economy regulations make electric vehicles "the only path to salvation," Lutz said. These government mandates could also help keep the momentum if oil prices fall, he said.
Assuming all that, Lutz said, by 2020 or 2025 between a quarter and half of all new vehicles sold in the U.S. will be electric or hydrogen-powered.
That's a quarter of all new vehicles, not a quarter of all vehicles on the road. But it could happen quicker if battery prices fall fast enough. Wish I had insight on that one.
GM wants a $7k tax credit for buyers of the Volt.
General Motors is lobbying for a $7,000 tax credit for buyers of the
$30,000$40,000 2011 Chevy Volt — more than double that originally offered for Prius buyers.
GM argues that the battery in the Volt is at least twice the capacity of the one in the Prius (actually well more than double), saves that much more oil, and so deserves a bigger subsidy. Gotta say, a bigger tax credit for the Volt makes sense for another reason (and someone tell GM's lobbyists): The tax credit for a Prius buyer subsidizes Nickel Metal Hydride batteries that are a technological dead-end. Whereas GM will use some sort of lithium battery (maybe the A123Systems lithium nanophosphate batteries) which is the future of car batteries according to many experts. Better to subsidize the future than the past. GM is working on the future with this Volt.
My take on all this: People will have to reduce their oil demand by driving smaller cars and conventional hybrids and by reducing the number of miles driven. In the next 5 years few will be able to reduce their gasoline consumption by plugging their car into a wall socket.
My question: How high do gasoline prices have to go to deliver a large enough shock to cause a rapid decline in demand? I just did a post where I asked and most responders in the first day basically said they aren't changing very much. Basically, without explicitly saying so they are insisting on $5, $6 gasoline before they make substantial changes. Okay, so we are going to get $5, $6 gasoline. Your choice. So no complaints please.
Update: It is perhaps too early to judge how much consumption will drop due to current prices. SUV sales are tanking in the last 2 months. Also, As we head into the summer driving period gasoline consumption has actually dropped for 8 weeks in a row.
Record gasoline prices are causing consumers to cut back on fuel purchases. On June 17, MasterCard Inc. said U.S. gasoline demand fell 3.2 percent from a year ago, according to its weekly SpendingPulse report.
Consumers purchased an average 9.305 million barrels of gasoline a day in the week ended June 13, down from 9.614 million a year earlier.
Given that Gasoline consumption rose 3% per year from 1985 to 2004 American drivers have given back 2 years of that growth in the last year and most of that in the last few months. At least into April gasoline consumption hadn't fallen by much. But some sort of tipping point has been reached. At least in the United States I expect to see a continued decline in fuel consumption. But in China, India, and other developing countries demand will probably continue to rise as buying power increases.
In a few years an electric car for the masses will let you go at least 125 miles between charges.
An electrified people's car for the 21st century, the Ox is a preview of Think's next-generation production vehicle, due out in 2011. Roughly the size of a Toyota (TM) Prius, the Ox can travel between 125 and 155 miles before needing a recharge, and zips from zero to 60 miles per hour in about 8.5 seconds. Its lithium-ion batteries can be charged to 80% capacity in less than an hour, and slender solar panels integrated into the roof power the onboard electronics. Inside, the hatchback includes a bevy of high-tech gizmos such as GPS navigation, a mobile Internet connection, and a key fob that lets drivers customize the car's all-digital dashboard. Pricing has yet to be announced, but the company's current vehicles cost less than $25,000.
I wonder how it will do on crash safety tests. Also, its cost will depend heavily on the price of lithium batteries in 2011.
An affordable 125 mile range electric car would go far toward ameliorating the most damaging effects of declining world oil production.
Toyota doesn't want to get beat to market by GM's Volt.
Toyota, rightly or wrongly, is widely considered the greenest automaker, and the company hopes to solidify its hold on the title and move beyond oil through a sweeping plan to produce cleaner, more efficient cars -- beginning with a plug-in hybrid it will produce by 2010.
It's no secret Toyota's been working on a plug-in hybrid to compete against the forthcoming Chevrolet Volt, but Wednesday's announcement sets a firm deadline and makes it clear Toyota has no plans of ceding the green mantle to General Motors. It also underscores how quickly the race to build a viable mass-market electric car is heating up.
The initial pluggable in 2010 will be aimed at fleet customers. I take that to mean that you and I won't be able to buy it. Does this mean they can't afford to sell a large number of them for a loss (due to expensive batteries) and therefore plan to restrict sales?
Toyota is just now starting up an internal battery research department for this hybrid. That seems like a big risk in their plan.
Worried about the coming energy crunch as world oil production starts declining? Here's one way to adapt to it: Spend $10,000 to upgrade a Prius to run 35-40 miles on a battery from A123 Systems.
Beginning this week, a company in the Boston area will be taking orders for what it says is the first mass-produced aftermarket conversion kit. The company, A123 Systems, is starting out with the Toyota Prius, with what it calls a range extender module. The module fits in the well normally occupied by the spare tire, with a charging port installed on the back bumper.
The A123 conversion will allow a Prius driver to substitute electricity, at about 3 cents a mile, for gasoline at three or four times that price.
In the United States electricity sells for an average of 10.64 cents/kwh (see the link for state level electricity costs). So a recharge would cost you about 55 cents (depending on the extent of heat losses). At 40 mpg and $4/gallon the Prius will cost you 10 cents a mile on gasoline.
The Hymotion conversion kit includes a 5000 watt-hours battery (as compared to the 300 watt-hours of the original Prius battery) that replaces the spare tire in a Prius. A123Systems is one of 2 front-runners to supply batteries for GM's forthcoming pluggable hybrid Chevy Volt which is also expected to do about 40 miles on battery.
Before you rush out to upgrade your Prius keep in mind that when using the standard electric motors in a Prius the top speed is either 35 mph or 42 mph (and can someone find an authoritative source on this?). I can't find anything on the A123 Systems web site for the Hymotion conversion kit that suggests they raise the speed limit with their conversion kit. So if you do a highway commute you probably aren't going to be able to cruise on only electric power. The coming pluggable hybrids such as the Chevy Volt probably won't suffer this limitation.
That 5000 watt-hour (or 5 kilowatt-hour) battery could push a pure electric big SUV about 10 miles. Getting that battery to push a Prius 4 times that far seems a bit of a stretch. Anyone have a good engineering reason to think under electric power a Prius would only use 125 watt-hours per mile? That seems low to me.
One of these conversion kits might make sense for a Prius used to travel many miles each day city driving. But the Prius's already high fuel efficiency makes it hard to earn back the cost of the upgrade. The battery takes 4 hours to charge up. If you travel 40 city miles to work every day (doing 40 mpg with gasoline power pre-conversion) and if you can charge up your car while in the office then you'll save 2 gallons a day. Well, that doesn't describe a whole lot of people. But if you could save 2 gallons a day then when gasoline goes to $5.50 per gallon you could save $10 per day (assuming $1 for the electricity to charge up twice a day) or $2500 per year.
Now, put the price of gasoline up to $11 per gallon and the pay-back period cuts in half. But if you wait to upgrade to a pluggable hybrid you'll get one once gasoline prices are much higher and battery prices much lower. Plus, cars designed from the start as pluggables will be cheaper and offer better performance than after-market upgrades. In other words, the economics of pluggables are going to improve a great deal in a few years time.
We really aren't ready for Peak Oil and we aren't going to be ready in a few years. GM's pluggable electric hybrid Chevy Volt was originally projected to cost $30,000. GM's latest estimate for the Volt's cost? $48,000.
Figuring out how to make wipers, a stereo and other accessories that don't kill the Volt's range has proven a tough nut to crack, and it's one reason the Volt's price seems to be rising. The Volt came with a $30,000 price tag when GM unveiled it at the North American International Auto Show last year. At this year's show, Lutz told us it could hit $40,000. Now he's saying it could hit $48,000 and it could be years before GM sees a profit from it.
GM wants the Volt to go 40 miles on electric power before switching over to gasoline. The 40 miles is enough to let most people drive to work and back. Then to avoid gasoline usage you'd have to plug the car in every day. Easy to do if you park in your own garage. Not so easy if you don't.
GM will probably start out selling the Volt at a loss. Though if oil production starts declining by 2010 then the demand for electrically powered cars might allow GM to sell the Volt at a much higher price.
"When GM brings out that electric car, they're going to be taking a huge loss on that for a number of years," UAW President Ron Gettelfinger said in a speech to a business group.
Battery cost is a big problem.
The Volt's 300-pound battery pack will be among its most-expensive components. Menahem Anderman, a battery analyst based in Oregon House, Calif., has estimated each such lithium-ion pack may cost about $10,000.
GM is attempting to show the batteries will last 10 years.
"Production timing of the Volt is directly related to our ability to predict how this battery will perform over the life of the vehicle," said Frank Weber, Chevrolet Volt and E-Flex systems global vehicle chief engineer. "The challenge is predicting 10 years of battery life with just two years of testing time."
At 10 years life expectancy the cost per year for the batteries works out to over $1000 once interest on the money is considered. But maybe the batteries will last longer.
Manufacturing costs for hybrids are dropping.
By the end of this year, Ford Motor Co.'s hybrid vehicle program is expected to be profitable for the first time.
Nancy Gioia, Ford's director of sustainable mobility technologies and hybrid vehicle programs, said that since production started in 2004, Ford has chopped about 30 percent of the cost out of making the Escape, Mercury Mariner and Mazda Tribute hybrid SUVs.
Yes, hybrids have been loss leaders. That they are becoming profitable is good news. The longer we go before world oil production starts declining the easier it'll be to handle it. Advances in hybrid and battery technologies as well as in wind turbines, photovoltaics, and nuclear technologies will all make the migration away from fossil fuels easier.
Toyota President Katsuaki Watanabe says Toyota is already making money on hybrids.
To the amazement of many in the industry, Watanabe also declared that Toyota is making money on hybrids -- and could soon expect to make more. "As of today, there is no problem with the profitability of hybrids. Of course there is room for improvement. The next generation will be one-half the size and one-half the cost."
GM isn't just trying to produce a pluggable Volt hybrid by 2010. Turns out GM will also release a shorter range pluggable Saturn Vue by 2010 as well.
Meanwhile, GM executives announced this week that they hope to introduce the plug-in version of the Saturn Vue hybrid in 2010. The plug-in hybrid SUV would be capable of going 10 miles when fully charged before the gasoline engine kicks in, according to GM, and it would get roughly double the gas mileage of a typical SUV on the road today.
This Saturn Vue might beat the more radical Volt design to market just because the Vue is a smaller step. So ths PHEV Saturn Vue might turn out to be the first mass production pluggable hybrid car. How many people will want to put up with the hassle of recharging just about every day to maximize the use of cheaper electric power? I think it depends on where you live and where you park your car. If you park it in a garage then plugging it in every night would be a lot easier.
You might have heard that Toyota is trying to beat GM to market with a pluggable hybrid. Well, Toyota's 2010 release date for a pluggable hybrid is for a very low volume vehicle that would be sold to a small number of fleet customers (i.e. not in dealerships).
However, in another sign of the steep technological hurdles carmakers face to make the cars commercially viable, a Toyota spokesman said initial sales would be in "the hundreds", and the company did not say when it planned to mass-produce plug-ins for retail customers.
The 2010 Toyota pluggables sound like experimental vehicles.
Watanabe announced that Toyota will market a test fleet of rechargeable hybrid vehicles to companies or government agencies by the end of 2010.
Even though people in the auto industry do not know exactly when the lithium battery problem will be solved many in the auto industry expect to see high volume lithium batteries for cars in a few years.
"I think within three to five years you'll see lithium-ion hybrid electric vehicles out there in some volume," Ford's chief hybrid engineer, Sherif Marakby, said on Tuesday.
A study from the Rand Corporation finds that diesels pay off bigger than hybrids but both are net money savers.
Fuel taxes are excluded in the societal case, which is typical of benefit-cost analysis. And the costs are estimations that illustrate relative performance.
The results assume fuel prices of $2.50 per gallon for gasoline, $2.59 per gallon for diesel fuel, and $2.04 per gallon for E85 (including tax credit). The report also examines scenarios where fuel costs are much higher and much lower.
Among the key findings from the consumer perspective:
- For all three vehicle types, the advanced diesel offers the highest savings over the life of the vehicle among the options considered. These savings increase with the size and fuel use of the vehicle: $460 for the car, $1,249 for the SUV and $2,289 for the large pick-up truck;
- The hybrid option has smaller but still considerable savings for SUV applications ($1,066), moderate savings for pick-up applications ($505) but minimal savings over the life of the vehicle for car owners ($198);
- The vehicles operating on E85 cost all three owners more over the vehicle life, with a greater net cost burden for larger vehicles and increased fuel consumption: (-$1,034 for cars, -$1,332 for SUVs, -$1,632 for pick-ups).
Of course they found E85 ethanol to be a loser. But what is getting the biggest push in Washington DC? Ethanol of course. Stupid is as stupid does? Or corrupt is as corrupt does?
Both the hybrid and diesel vehicles are more fuel efficient than their gasoline-powered counterparts: 25 to 40 percent better for hybrid and 20 to 30 percent for diesel, depending on the vehicle.
These numbers suggest that from the standpoint of what is in the best economic interest of car buyers people seem to be underusing both hybrid and diesel technologies. After all, a number of SUVs and regular cars are available in hybrid versions yet most of those models are sold in non-hybrid configurations. Why is that? I can think of two reasons. First off, lack of knowledge. People lack the economic chops to calculate the economic costs and benefits of hybrids and diesels. Another potential reason is more problematic. People might have such high discount rates (preferences for quicker gratification) that they aren't willing to spend more on a car now to gradually derive benefits of saved gas money over a period of years.
If you are expecting still higher prices then the benefits of diesels and hybrids are even more compelling. When you buy a car try to guess what is going to happen with the prices of gasoline and diesel fuel.
If we can believe the information coming out of Mercedes Benz about their forthcoming E320 hybrid diesel then combination of diesel and hybrid technologies will almost double highway fuel miles per gallon. Beyond that additional efficiency can be achieved with lighter weight materials, aerodynamic improvements, and smaller cars. But at current prices in the United States of about $3 per gallon the value proposition for diesel hybrid as compared to diesel is likely to be negative. I say that because the value proposition for just plain hybrid above is not that big and adding hybrid to a diesel vehicle won't boost its fuel efficiency by as large a percentage as it does for gasoline vehicles. Until gasoline prices go much higher we are not going to see many diesel hybrids on the road.
On the bright side, when oil production starts declining we already have existing technologies to embrace that will provide large boosts in fuel efficiency. Plus, battery technology advances look promising. General Motors and Volt might manage to produce a pluggable hybrid electric vehicle in a few years time.
On the not-so-bright side, I see multiple reasons why even with current technological capabilities such as diesels and hybrids we are going to be economically hard hit if we come off of the world oil production plateau in a downward direction. First off, a decline in oil production will obsolesce an absolutely huge amount of capital equipment. Chemical plants, oil refineries, farm tractors, and huge numbers of other pieces of equipment will have less oil and oil-derived products to use as inputs. Plus, it will necessitate big shifts in spending toward insulation, newer cars (more like the cars in Europe) which are more efficient, and other measures. These shifts in spending will happen while economies shrink. So I expect drops in living standards, at least during the early years of the post-peak oil period.
An article in BusinessWeek surveys the pros and cons of hydrogen and argues that batteries beat hydrogen when compared for energy efficiency.
Electrolysis of water is the easiest method for producing hydrogen -- but only about 70% of the electric power used in the process gets stored in the hydrogen it creates. Hydrogen then needs to be either compressed or cooled to a liquid in order to store large enough volumes to be useful in a car -- gas compression is the more efficient of the two processes, but still costs a further 10% of the stored energy. The efficiency of the fuel cell storage unit itself is realistically estimated at around 36% under normal driving load -- leading to a dismal overall power-grid-to-wheels efficiency of less than 25%. That is, less than a quarter of the power used to produce the hydrogen is ever actually used to propel the car.
Batteries are a clear winner in the grid-to-wheels efficiency battle. Conventional Lithium-ion batteries charge at about 93% efficiency and operate at about the same efficiency, leading to an overall efficiency of over 85%. For the same energy input, you'll get three times the power out of a battery than out of a fuel cell.
If someone can explain how hydrogen as an energy source makes sense I'd really like to hear it. So much effort is going into a hydrogen push that I figure I must be missing something.
David Pogue of the New York Times interviews Martin Eberhard, a top executive at Tesla Motors about their pure electric sports car.
David Pogue: So give me the gist of the Tesla Roadster. Zero to 60 in...?
Martin Eberhard: This is zero to 60 in under four seconds.
DP: And the range of the battery is?
ME: It's over 200 miles. [DP note: This week, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded its testing of the Tesla. Its official measurement: 245 miles per charge.]
That range is telling. They've got a car they've designed with very light and expensive materials. They probably have little or no luggage space. I bet it doesn't do well in crash tests either. They are using the best batteries they can find. Yet it is good for only 245 miles. Plus, once you've driven three and a half to four hours with it you've got to stop and wait just as long for it to recharge. This is a local car, not suitable for cross-country travel. In order for batteries to totally replace liquid fuels future batteries have got to store more electric power per unit weight and be capable of recharge in 1% of the time of current best-of-breed batteries. Is this physically possible?
DP: And time to recharge the battery?
ME: From empty to full, about three and a half hours.
DP: O.K. And price of the car?
ME: This is a $98,000 base model.
Tesla claims to have over 500 orders and that they will start shipping first quarter of 2008.
Tesla can afford to charge a hundred grand for a high end sports car. But obviously this sports car isn't going to revolutionize transportation at that high end price. The Roadster has a carbon fiber body that contributes to its high cost along with the pricey lithium ion batteries. The key question here: How fast will lithium battery prices fall? That's the multi-billion dollar question.
Given cheap high density batteries we would not have to worry about Peak Oil. Why? We do not face a general energy shortage. But we seem to be facing a growing liquid fuel energy shortage. Great batteries would make that shortage irrelevant. With the ability to move around using electricity our energy cost per mile will actually drop. A full sized SUV might use only 460 watt-hours/mile (0.46 kwh/mile) (warning: PDF file). Well, assume 11 cents per kwh for the electric cost (I'm rounding up a bit since I'm expecting higher electric prices). So then 0.46 wh/mile times 11 cents/kwh gives us a cost of about 5 cents a mile. Even if we add another penny in for recharge heat losses we are still at 6 cents per mile. Though in a higher electric cost state like New York we'll be at .46*17 + 1 = 9 cents per mile to push a big SUV around. How does that work out? If you drive 12,000 miles per year and live in New York you will spend $1080 per year to move your SUV around and you'll lose more money to depreciation. In a cheap electric state like Washington you'll pay less than half that amount. If you live in Washington state and drive a compact electric car it'll probably cost you less than $300 per year to keep it charged up. Your car insurance will cost more.
Since electricity is so cheap for transportation the biggest issue with electric cars is battery cost. Other notable issues include battery weight, safety, and longevity. Lithium batteries are much lighter than lead acid batteries and probably light enough at least for medium range cars. EnerDel claims to have solved the heat safety problem. Other battery makers such as A123Systems might have solved the heat safety problem too. EnerDel also claims to have solved the longevity problem. But cost continues to be a problem. Will A123Systems, EnerDel, and other competitors solve the cost problem?
Update: If you are wondering how urgently we need electric cars to replace gasoline-powered and diesel-powered vehicles read here and here for some recent analyses of oil production trends. Scary stuff if you ask me.
Looking out 30 or 40 years I do not see the human race limited by energy availability. Nuclear and solar power will become much cheaper and we'll find ways to convert those sources of power into forms usable for transportation. But I'm less sure about the next 5 to 10 years. We could be headed for a wrenching readjustment replete with severe recessions and declining living standards. Also, biomass ethanol is not the answer and hydrogen looks like a longer term prospect at best. So do we get great batteries in a timely manner or do our economies go through much more severe restructurings?
Toyota Motor Corp., which used the green image of its gasoline-electric Toyota Prius to propel a U.S. sales surge, has decided to delay by one to two years the launches of new high-mileage hybrids with lithium-ion battery technology because of potential safety problems. The slowdown could offer General Motors Corp. and other rivals a chance to narrow the gap in the race to define future clean-vehicle technology.
Until recently, Toyota was preparing to roll out a dozen new and redesigned hybrids using new lithium-ion battery technology in the U.S. between 2008 and 2010. Its hybrids now use nickel-metal-hydride batteries. But safety concerns with the lithium-ion technology have forced Toyota to back away from that timetable, people familiar with the company's strategy say.
Toyota is also slipping plans for hybrids for other models including the Tundra and Sequoia.
Officially, the car was not postponed because Toyota had never published an introduction date, but such a decision would have major implications: reverting to nickel-metal hydride batteries in today's Prius means finding room for a larger and heavier power pack. A Toyota spokesman, John Hanson, said that while the company saw "huge potential" in lithium-ion batteries, it wanted to assure future Prius buyers the same levels of affordability and reliability they experience in today's models.
But Toyota really has introduced an unexpected delay in their plans.
Speaking in February, Toyota chief Katsuaki Watanabe told BusinessWeek that the next-generation Prius, expected in late 2008 or early 2009, would use li-ions (see BusinessWeek.com, 3/5/07, "Toyota's Bid for a Better Battery"). But in recent months, Toyota appears to be having difficulties meeting that timeline.
Meanwhile GM has selected batteries from A123 Systems to make next gen hybrids.
General Motors Corp. (GM) said Thursday it has an agreement with battery developer A123 Systems to create a battery cell for the auto maker's planned Chevrolet Volt electric car, a move that could help the auto maker win a global hybrid-electric vehicle race that currently is dominated by Toyota Motor Corp. (TM).
During a speech here, GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz said A123 will be a key supplier for GM's E-Flex system, which essentially is the propulsion designed to power the Volt and other electric cars the auto maker hopes to make. E-Flex uses an electric motor to drive a vehicle, backed up by a more traditional engine for when battery power is not adequate.
Bob Lutz says the A123 Systems battery design avoids the thermal issues that cause some lithium ion batteries to catch fire. If A123 Systems can pull this off - and at an affordable price - then pluggable hybrids will take off in a big way. GM would score big time.
We need some big steps forward in battery technology so that electric power can replace gasoline and diesel fuel for most transportation needs. With great batteries the peak in world oil production will be easy to handle. Without great batteries our post-peak living standards will take much bigger hits as oil production declines.
Due to Peak Oil (world oil production peaking and declining) we might be less than 5 years away from almost $200 per barrel oil (though I think inelasticity of oil demand is not high enough to make that possible). So then are we all going to start walking around with shotguns fighthing over dwindling food supplies in a post-oil apocalyptic society? Of course not - at least not in industrialized countries. What then? Electric motorcycles.
The Vectrix scooter ($11,000) uses nickel metal hydride batteries--the same type used now in the popular Toyota Prius hybrid. This type of battery is lighter than lead-acid batteries and more durable: Vectrix claims it has a 10-year lifetime. Lithium-ion batteries, in turn, are lighter than nickel metal hydride, and new chemistries have made them durable as well, lasting as long as or longer than nickel metal hydride batteries. The Vectrix scooter weighs about 200 kilograms, while the lithium-ion-powered Enertia ($12,000), made by Brammo Motorsports of Ashland, OR, weighs just 125 kilograms.
Curiously, the two lithium ion (Li ion) bikes have shorter ranges than the nickel metal hydride (NiMH) bike.
The Zero motorcycle is now available with a 40-mile-range battery, and it will have an optional 80-mile pack, Saiki says. The Vectrix scooter can go up to 60 miles on a charge, while the Enertia can go up to 45 miles.
That might reflect high costs for the Li ion batteries at this point. Brammo is using A123 Systems batteries in their Zero. If A123 wins a production contract from GM and scales up production for cars I'm expecting substantial price drops for their batteries. If another competitor wins a GM production contract then that competitor will start selling for much cheaper. Either way, the price will come down as Li ion batteries move into production for cars and trucks.
Enertia is claiming a fuel efficiency of 2.42 kilometers (km) per megajoule (MJ). What does that mean? First off, 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity is 3.6 MJ. So then 1 kwh (which costs about 10 cents/kwh on average in the United States) can move the motorcycle 2.42 km (1.5 miles) times 3.6 for 8.7 kilometers (5.4 miles). That's less than 2 cents per mile. If you were to ride it 10,000 miles it would cost you $200. If you live in the highest electric cost state of Hawaii (22 cents/kwh) then it'll cost you $440. For California (14.32 cents/kwh) it would cost you $286. That is why Peak Oil won't cause a total collapse of civilization. The world is going to shift to electricity for transportation: electric cars, electric trains, electric motorcycles, and the Segway. We can generate the electricity with nuclear, wind, and eventually solar power.
Update: The Enertia uses .185 kwh/mile (1/5.4). In the comments of an earlier post Nick pointed me to a US Department of Energy Pacific Northwest National Laboratory report on the feasibility of pluggable hybrid electric vehicles (i.e. hybrids that can get recharged at home and run off cheaper wall socket electricity for part of the time). Table 1 on page 9 has an interesting table of kwh/mile for 4 sizes of vehicles:
Vehicle Class Specific Energy Requirements
[kWh/mile]Size of Battery for PHEV33
[kWh]Compact sedan 0.26 8.6 Mid-size sedan 0.30 9.9 Mid-size SUV 0.38 12.5 Full-size SUV 0.46 15.2
This chart is problematic for those who hope that the end of the fossil fuels era will spell the death of the large SUV. With sufficiently advanced battery technology you could take 2 round trips across the United States of 12,000 miles total and if you charge up at the average rate of about 10 cents/kwh then you'll only spend $552 in fuel costs. If you charge up late at night using off-peak pricing then you might be able to cut your cost down to a third or less.
That rosy scenario for cheap SUV travel requires a few elements. First, it requires batteries that can store a lot of energy per weight. The batteries would have to be fairly cheap and last through many charges. Plus, the batteries would need to charge quickly so that you could stop for lunch and recharge while you eat.
To get down to super cheap prices for travel would require government regulatory agencies to allow dynamic pricing based on level of demand so that late night electric power could cost much less than daytime power. I think that once electric cars take off the interests of the electric car owners will create pressure for such reforms.
Even before we get batteries suitable for long trips we'll get batteries suitable for shorter commuting hops. The third column in the table above describes how much battery capacity is needed for a car to travel 33 miles on a single charge. That would encompass most commuting round trips and other daily round trips.
At an event to announce a deal with Southern California Edison to field test some plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) Ford CEO Alan Mulally said Ford expects to start selling PHEVs in 5 to 10 years.
"Within five to 10 years we will start to see this technology in our hands," Mr Mulally said on the sidelines of a press event to announce an alliance between Ford and utility Southern California Edison to test 20 rechargeable electric vehicles.
When asked if that meant plug-in hybrids would be available on showroom floors, Mr Mulally said, "Yes. Sure."
5 years puts us in 2012 when the world's demand for oil will have so outpaced production growth that people will be clamoring for a way to escape from our liquid fuels dependency. 10 years is way too late. Why does Mulally think it will take that long to get viable batteries for PHEV use?
By contrast, General Motors Vice Chairman Bob Lutz claimed in March 2007 that GM might manage to get its Volt PHEV into production by 2010.
"We have set an internal target of production in 2010. Whether we can make that or not, this is still kind of an unpredictable program for us," Lutz told reporters on the sidelines of the Geneva auto show.
He added: "We're sort of outside our comfort zone."
Production in 2010 might mean it is for the 2011 model year. GM says the needed lithium ion batteries might not be available till 2012. They aren't sure yet. Even once available that's only one model. But if the price of gasoline keeps going up it could be a very popular model.
GM is initially aiming for a 40 mile range on batteries. For people who have 20 mile commutes you'd have to plug the car in every night to recharge it. That would get tiresome. Depending on where you live plugging in a car at home might be problematic or even impossible. Apartment building residents with a shared lot or street parking probably couldn't plug in their car every night. Electric cars work better for people with driveways and garages.
When will we see batteries that can power cars for 120 or even 200 miles?
RICHLAND, Wash. – If all the cars and light trucks in the nation switched from oil to electrons, idle capacity in the existing electric power system could generate most of the electricity consumed by plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. A new study for the Department of Energy finds that
Researchers at DOE's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory also evaluated the impact of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, on foreign oil imports, the environment, electric utilities and the consumer.
"This is the first review of what the impacts would be of very high market penetrations of PHEVs, said Eric Lightner, of DOE's Office of Electric Delivery and Energy Reliability. "It's important to have this baseline knowledge as consumers are looking for more efficient vehicles, automakers are evaluating the market for PHEVs and battery manufacturers are working to improve battery life and performance."
The average commuting trip in the United States is 33 miles per day.
Current batteries for these cars can easily store the energy for driving the national average commute - about 33 miles round trip a day, so the study presumes that drivers would charge up overnight when demand for electricity is much lower.
Daily recharging would get old real fast. Every time you come home the need to plug the car into an electric socket would become an annoying chore. Plus,. some people do not live in places where this is practical. Say you live in an apartment building and park on the street or in a big lot. You may have no practical way to plug in your car. Even if you can plug in your car is that always practical? What about running an electric cable out to the car when it is raining? Works okay if you keep it in a garage. But most park their cars outside - including most who have car garages.
The areas which get their power from hydroelectric will need to build more coal or nuclear plants. Natural gas? North American production can't keep up with demand. More electric demand means more coal with smaller amounts of other types.
Researchers found, in the Midwest and East, there is sufficient off-peak generation, transmission and distribution capacity to provide for all of today's vehicles if they ran on batteries. However, in the West, and specifically the Pacific Northwest, there is limited extra electricity because of the large amount of hydroelectric generation that is already heavily utilized. Since more rain and snow can't be ordered, it's difficult to increase electricity production from the hydroelectric plants.
They didn't include nuclear plants because those operate around the clock supplying base electric demand.
"We were very conservative in looking at the idle capacity of power generation assets," said PNNL scientist Michael Kintner-Meyer. "The estimates didn't include hydro, renewables or nuclear plants. It also didn't include plants designed to meet peak demand because they don't operate continuously. We still found that across the country 84 percent of the additional electricity demand created by PHEVs could be met by idle generation capacity."
I suspect the power plants that are shut down at night have higher electric generation costs. So a shift toward using those power plants at night might raise electric costs for all purposes on average.
The coal-fired plants would emit more. But the reduction in gasoline burning might lead to a net reduction in carbon dioxide. However, a big decrease in US demand for oil would lower world prices and therefore lead to a greater demand for oil for other purposes. So I'm not as optimistic when looking at this path from a global level.
The study also looked at the impact on the environment of an all-out move to PHEVs. The added electricity would come from a combination of coal-fired and natural gas-fired plants. Even with today's power plants emitting greenhouse gases, the overall levels would be reduced because the entire process of moving a car one mile is more efficient using electricity than producing gasoline and burning it in a car's engine.
More coal burning means more sulfur emissions. It also means more mercur, particulates, and other pollutants.
Total sulfur dioxide emissions would increase in the near term due to sulfur content in coal. However, urban air quality would actually improve since the pollutants are emitted from power plants that are generally located outside cities. In the long run, according to the report, the steady demand for electricity is likely to result in investments in much cleaner power plants, even if coal remains the dominant fuel for our electricity production.
Newer electric plants could be built to tougher emissions requirements if the political will exists to make that happen. More stringent requirements on emissions from coal fired plants will push more new construction toward nuclear power plants. Tougher emissions regulations would raise the cost per kilowatt-hour of electricity.
"With cars charging overnight, the utilities would get a new market for their product. PHEVs would increase residential consumption of electricity by about 30 - 40 percent. The increased generation could lead to replacing aging coal-fired plants sooner with newer, more environmentally friendly versions," said Kintner-Meyer.
"The potential for lowering greenhouse gases further is quite substantial because it is far less expensive to capture emissions at the smokestack than the tailpipe. Vehicles are one of the most intractable problems facing policymakers seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Pratt.
Big power plants can have big emissions control equipment and highly skilled technical staff to manage the equipment. The capture and management of sulfur, mercury, particulates, carbon dioxide, and other pollutants is far easier than with cars running on gasoline.
If utilities were to change their rate structures to charge more during periods of high demand and less during periods of low demand (aka dynamic pricing) then pluggable hybrids would pay off more quickly and people would move toward them more quickly.
Finally, the study looked at the economic impact on consumers. Since, PHEVs are expected to cost about $6,000 to $10,000 more than existing vehicles - mostly due to the cost of batteries -- researchers evaluated how long it might take owners to break even on fuel costs. Depending on the price of gas and the cost of electricity, estimates range from five to eight years - about the current lifespan of a battery. Pratt notes that utilities could offer a lower price per kilowatt hour on off-peak power, making PHEVs even more attractive to consumers.
The pluggable hybrids could be connected to electric sockets with smart electronic switches that waited till electric prices dropped below some settable minimum before starting to charge.
Dynamic pricing combined with pluggable hybrids that can easily respond to pricing changes will do something else too: They will create more growth potential for energy sources that are not reliable. Wind and solar photovoltaics will both become more useful if a large portion of the demand for electricity was highly responsive to pricing changes. Pluggable hybrids will provide such a use for electric power.
To make pluggable hybrids most effective we need better batteries. Venture capital start-ups and established companies are chasing that goal. I'm confident the battery advances will come. The growing demand for hybrid vehicles has provided the financial incentive to invest in better battery technology.
We also need regulatory reform in the electric power market to make dynamic pricing a reality. Here I'm less optimistic. Government regulators and electric utilities don't have much incentive to push through a shift to dynamic pricing and I do not expect the public to be excited about it.
Update: A large increase in the demand for over night electricity would tend to cause a phase out of electric generator plants that provide peak power (notably natural gas burners) in favor of base line electric power generators (mostly coal and nuclear). Why? Because the base load suppliers are cheaper per kwh but only if they can run constantly. Coal and especially nuclear plants cost more to build but use cheaper fuel. They need to operate constantly to pay for their higher capital costs.
The exact mix of coal versus nuclear is going to depend on the regulatory environment and on technological advances. Tougher emissions regulations will favor nuclear. Technological advances might lower the costs of one more than the other. My guess is that nuclear has a greater potential for cost declines from technological advances. But when will those technological advances come?
Washington, D.C.— Plug-in hybrid vehicles could contribute greatly to reducing automobile oil consumption and emissions, but reaching those goals requires major progress in key areas. According to a report released today by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, the environmental and economic appeal of plug-in hybrid vehicles will depend heavily upon cleaner power sources and further battery advances. The report, Plug-In Hybrids: An Environmental and Economic Outlook, examines the benefits of plug-ins relative to today’s hybrids. It finds that greenhouse gas emissions reductions associated with a plug-in powered by today’s electric grid would be about 15% on average across the nation, ranging from 32% using California electricity to zero using Upper Midwest electricity.
Note the lack of mention of particulates or mercury from coal burning electric plants.
Plug-ins’ oil savings could be quite large. Battery size and cost rise steeply with the amount of fuel savings, however, suggesting that plug-ins with modest electric-only range will appear first. According to report co-author James Kliesch, the “electric-then-gasoline” depiction of plug-in operation is not realistic and has contributed to overstatements of the fuel savings potential of plug-ins in the popular media. “Achieving adequate battery lifetimes and minimizing battery costs will require a vehicle control logic that turns on the internal combustion engine when extra power is needed, even within the ‘electric-only’ range of the vehicle,” said Kliesch. The ACEEE report estimates fuel savings relative to today’s hybrids of 30% for a plug-in with a 20-mile electric-only range and 50% for a 40-mile range.
We need better battery technology to make plug-ins cost effective.
Where the electricity comes from determines whether plug-ins deliver a net environmental benefit.
For a plug-in owner in California, where most electricity on the grid is generated by low-pollution facilities, driving a PHEV might cut emissions of carbon dioxide by one-third compared with driving a regular hybrid.
But if the same PHEV were charged in the Midwest, where coal-fired power plants supply the electricity, reduction of CO2 emissions would be nil. Nitrous-oxide emissions (which form smog) would fall slightly, but sulfur-dioxide emissions (which contribute to acid rain) would quadruple.
Still, environmental gains are possible.
Plug-ins would chop CO2 emissions by 15 percent on a national average, compared with conventional hybrid cars, the ACEEE report found. At the same time, the plug-in would emit 157 percent more sulfur-dioxide pollution. The need, plug-in proponents say, is for policies that would clean up the electricity grid so that PHEV technology supplies cleaner skies along with energy independence.
This report overstates the environmental benefits of plug-in hybrids. Anyone see the reason why? Hint: large scale use of plug-ins would require construction of new power plants. What about those plants would make things worse?
Answer: New electric power plants will be more heavily weighted toward coal burners than the existing fleet. Natural gas has become too expensive. Hydro power is all tapped out with limited potential for expansion and environmentalists want to see some existing dams dismantled. Nuclear power has fallen out of fashion. Coal looks set to become a larger percentage of total electric generating capacity. Not only would the coal put out more sulfur but also particulates, mercury and other bad stuff.
In California coal faces big regulatory obstacles and the politicians are forcing a big push into renewables. So a shift toward plug-ins here would probably improve air quality. But the cost in electricity will be higher. In the last year nationally electric power costs rose on average from 9.08 cents to 10.15 cents per kilowatt-hour (kwh) or 11.8%. But in California the cost rose from 11.82 cents to 13.84 cents for a 17% increase. New electric power capacity in California (e.g. wind mills) is much more expensive than existing capacity. So the demand for electric power to run cars will drive up average electric prices for all uses.
We could have regulations that require cleaner coal generators nationally. But that too would raise average electric prices. Plus, as demand grows the percentage of total electric power that comes from cheaper hydro-electric dams will decline and the average cost will rise for that reason as well.
If new electric power capacity came from nuclear plants then shifting to plug-in hybrids would deliver a clear and quite substantial environmental benefit. The same will hold some day when photovoltaics become much cheaper. But right now higher electric power demand translates into higher coal burning electric plant construction in most parts of the United States and in other parts it translates into higher electric power prices.
An article in Technology Review reports the Altair Nanotechnologies lithium ion battery has the fast charging and discharging needed for all electric vehicles.
Advances in lithium-ion battery technology over the last few years have experts and enthusiasts alike wondering if the new batteries may soon make high-performance electric vehicles widely available. Now one company, Altair Nanotechnologies of Reno, NV, has announced plans to start testing its new batteries in prototype electric vehicles, with road tests scheduled to begin by year-end.
The batteries can be recharged in 6 to 8 minutes.
Also, Gotcher says an electric vehicle using their batteries could charge in about the time it takes to fill a tank of gas and buy a cup of coffee and snack -- six to eight minutes.
...
Gotcher says the new battery materials can be produced for about the same cost as conventional lithium-ion materials, but will have two to three times the lifespan of today's batteries.
Lithium is lightweight. Lithium-based batteries could make electric cars feasible.
Nanoparticles that provide much more surface area allow the batteries to charge and discharge much more rapidly.
The added surface area of nanoscale particles on electrode materials helps the ions escape, freeing more of them to travel and provide bursts of power or quick recharging.
Some electrochemists think lightweight high energy density batteries are within the realm of the physically possible. Development of long lasting, quick charging, cost competitive, and lightweight batteries could make electric cars commonplace. Such a development would greatly reduce our dependence on oil and allow any energy source that can produce electricity (e.g. nuclear, coal, wind, solar) to replace oil for most transportation needs.