|
September/October 2007 Electric Cars 2.0Plug-in hybrids could bring gas-free commutes. But will they make it to market? By Kevin Bullis
It's a hot and smoggy day in Washington, DC, and things aren't going well for Les Goldman, a longtime energy lobbyist whose latest project is a new kind of car that is supposed to slash gasoline consumption and reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. We're outside his office, a block from the White House and a quick trip down Pennsylvania Avenue from Capitol Hill. And Goldman is sweating at the back of the "plug-in" hybrid that I'm supposed to test-drive, checking electrical connections and trying to figure out why it isn't working. The car is a modified Toyota Prius with an extra battery installed in the spare-tire compartment. Conventional hybrids like the Prius run on an electric motor part of the time, but the electricity they use is generated by a gasoline engine and by capturing energy from braking. In the plug-in version of the car, the extra battery can be recharged from an electrical outlet. The battery stores about 40 miles' worth of electricity; if it's depleted, the car reverts to conventional hybrid mode. The few plug-in vehicles on the road today are prototypes that, as Goldman is discovering, aren't always reliable. But recent advances in battery technology have attracted the attention of major manufacturers, raising the possibility of a mass-produced plug-in car. General Motors has announced that it is developing plug-in hybrids that use advanced lithium-ion batteries and could be ready within a few years. One of the GM designs--for a car known as the Volt--calls for a gasoline engine that kicks in after 40 miles just to recharge the battery. Toyota also says it is researching lithium-ion batteries and testing plug-in vehicles. An electric battery with a 40-mile range could nearly eliminate trips to the gas station for many drivers, since Americans drive just over 30 miles a day on average. But unlike earlier, all-electric cars, the new hybrids could handle longer commutes; the Volt is designed to travel 600 miles using its backup gas tank to charge the battery. And electricity from the grid is cheap: the equivalent of a gallon of gas costs less than a dollar. The environmental arithmetic is also favorable. Generating the electricity to power plug-in cars causes less greenhouse-gas pollution than burning gasoline does, according to a recent study by the Electric Power Research Institute and the National Resources Defense Council. Even in the worst-case scenario, in which a plug-in vehicle got all its electricity from coal-fired plants (in reality, electricity in the United States comes from a mix of sources that on average release less carbon dioxide than coal plants do), it would still be responsible for a third less greenhouse-gas pollution than a conventional car. And though plug-ins and conventional hybrids would account for similar amounts of greenhouse-gas emission in most parts of the country, plug-ins in areas with clean sources of electricity, such as hydroelectric power, would be responsible for about half the carbon dioxide emissions of other hybrids. Unlike other alternative technologies, such as cars powered by hydrogen fuel cells, plug-ins don't require any significant new infrastructure. Existing gas stations would provide the fuel for long trips, and electrical outlets in garages would provide the power for short commutes. (Eventually, charging stations could be installed for city dwellers.) And plenty of electricity is available, particularly overnight. According to a study from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, there's already enough excess generating capacity at night to charge 84 percent of the cars, pickups, and SUVs on the road today, if they were all suddenly converted into plug-in hybrids. |
Audio »
Share »
Digg this
Add to del.icio.us
Add to Reddit
Add to Facebook
Slashdot It!
Stumble It!
Add to Newsvine
Add to Connotea
Add to CiteUlike
Add to Furl
Googlize this
Add to Rojo
Add to MyWeb
Favorite
Print
E-mail
Does Car-Mounted Solar Make Sense?
07/14/2008
Comments
thmlco on 08/15/2007 at 2:08 AM
4
Well, they changed before, under nearly the same exact circumstances when Japan was eating their lunch with better, smaller, more efficient vehicles. The the real questions, as the article indicates, is can they do it again?
asdar on 08/15/2007 at 12:09 PM
62
I think that GM has gotten a bad rep for the EV-1, partly because of that very biased movie "Who killed the electric car"
If you look into the real story, which is out there, you'll see that GM has done more than any other car company toward the development of electric cars. They spent millions on research, more than any other car company. The Tesla owes much to GM both for their controls system, and AC Motor configuration.
AC Propulsions founder got his start in the EV-1 program developing the electric systems.
The EV-1, at it's best and latest stage would not sell today. It had a horrible range of less than a 100 miles, and a long recharge time. It cost nearly as much as the Tesla, and the battery life wasn't long enough that it ever paid for itself.
If you blame GM, and spread anti-GM propaganda, then I think you're betraying the cause of the EV.
By unfairly bashing them, and spreading bad publicity about the Volt, you're halting the advance of an important technological step toward electric vehicles.
See what's really there, judge the Volt, on the Volt's qualities, and not on what you think you know about the EV-1.
Tysto on 08/15/2007 at 7:56 PM
16
asdar on 08/16/2007 at 9:29 AM
62
GM developed an AC motor that changed EV's from unresponsive to quicker than ICE efficiently. They developed control systems that are critical in the current EV situation in maximizing battery performance.
The EV-1 was a decent car held back from being a great car by the batteries.
The Prius is a near waste of expensive battery material that barely cuts fuel usage. It's real value is only in changing people's perception from thinking that EV's are impossible to possible.
Toyota gets great credit for knowing the market was there, and GM gets some deserved criticism for not seeing that it was there.
Just the same, when we're driving EV's I think the technology will be a decendent of GM more than Toyota.
mstalanon on 08/16/2007 at 10:06 AM
1
If the EV-1 was so horrible, why didn't they allow people to buy them? Granted, when they first came out, they had a super limited range, but after they converted to the NiMH batteries, it all worked out. a 100 mile range is QUITE doable for a commuter. Only long range communtes would be a problem.
And this was in the 1990s! If Chevron wasn't in control of the patent, those larger NiMH batteries would be making QUITE the noise on the open market.
I'd rather go with the proven technologies than holding my breath on the LiON awaiting in the wings.
asdar on 08/16/2007 at 3:09 PM
62
They didn't sell those cars because the cars were a huge liability. One single car accident with a law suit would have cost them a fortune, even if they won, and it would have been bad publicity. All for letting a couple hundred people drive around in an electric.
It was a good business decision at the time to crush those cars. They're not responsible for the Rav.
If you took the EV-1 today it wouldn't sell for a profit. No way no how, It would still cost $60k and you'd need to pay to have the battery recycled every 5 years or so even in San Diego where the temperature is steady. It was a toy car for rich people that could afford two.
I'm an environmentalist too, but think of it from the business side. The car could never make a profit, at the time there was nothing developing in the battery department that showed any signs of making it work, and even if you could make it work decently it would cost the company offset profit from their ICE market.
Nobody that was thinking business first would have made a different decision.
The Volt on the other hand is a car that can succeed if people don't take an attitude toward GM because of a movie that showed one side of the argument.
The Volt is the right way to go. Flexible, because electricity is the ultimate energy, convenient because of the range of the generator and the decreased maintenance, fun because of the performance GM can put into the engine without cost to efficiency.
zerogas on 09/04/2007 at 2:12 AM
1
My EV1 with NiMH batteries got up to 120 miles per charge and always got more than 100. The long recharge time was meaningless because it always charged while I was sleeping. The right comparison is between the 10 seconds to plug it in at night and the time spent at gas stations and repair shops for gasoline cars. I have had no battery or motor problems in 8 years of commuting in electric cars.
There are millions of households with multiple cars and they are certainly not all rich. The market for second cars is plenty big enough to make an impact on emissions and to jump start an electric industry.
The EV1 was costly, but it should have been the first of a series of cars. GM blew the chance to be viewed as the leader and anyone who watched them lobby against emissions standards and fuel economy standards is naturally suspicious of their new found religion with the Volt. I hope they prove us wrong and follow through with high volume production, not just more concept cars.
asdar on 09/04/2007 at 8:47 AM
62
Just under or just over a 100 mile range is still too short to sell to the masses. The reason they stopped making them wasn't to kill the environment. That's my point, they made a business decision that was smart in business.
The car wouldn't sell at the $60-80k, at the time there was no technology that would make it enough better that would have shown any potential to ever sell at that price point.
The decision to crush those cars was what anyone with a half a brain would do. No smart person would want that liability with no return.
The big point I'd like to leave people with is that GM didn't do anything morally wrong. They're not rapists or anything. Look at the Volt with open eyes, or you're the one hurting the environmental movement and you don't have the excuse of trying to make wise business decisions.
Gurthang on 09/04/2007 at 12:49 PM
13
asdar on 09/06/2007 at 9:07 AM
62
GM has done great things for the electric car field, and they still have their technology lead because of it.
If people open their eyes and see that GM did more good than harm in the electric field, or just give them a fair chance then the Volt is the car that will change everything.
The Prius is a joke. Without plug in it's a waste of valuable material that just barely offsets it's own energy usage.
brucebudd on 10/20/2007 at 9:07 PM
1
peasler on 08/15/2007 at 1:11 PM
1
Phil
kentt on 09/21/2007 at 6:40 PM
1
My electricity cost ~ 17 cents/kWh
(state of MD, no overnight discount)
Gasoline at $3 a gallon and 36.6 kWh per gallon = 8 cents/kWh
Am I missing something? Are electric cars somehow much more efficient? (however note that the above does not include any charging/battery efficiency
losses.) Perhaps the issue here is comparing a wholesale, discounted electricity price to the retail gasoline price.
JackSlims on 01/10/2008 at 6:12 PM
1
What you should compare is gallons of gas per mile and kWh per mile, converted by $ by retail price.
chuckpiot on 08/31/2007 at 11:17 AM
1
JeffD on 09/04/2007 at 9:34 AM
1
vitotao on 06/10/2008 at 1:25 AM
1
Secondly - imho hybrid's revolution won't succeed until one barrel of oil cost around 200$.
Today there is a lot of mess (in media) with developing new technology and people still more eagerly buy old-school-gasoline cars, becouse of... some kind of fear to the unknown?
The matter of enviroment is so delicate and ambigous that sometimes I feel like being cheated just for companies good.
Qtip on 07/18/2008 at 9:11 PM
1