Plug-In Hybrids Are on the WayCars with advanced batteries get 100 mpg and boast far greater range than all-electric vehicles.
Last week in Washington, DC -- even as top executives from Ford, Chrysler, and GM asked lawmakers to subsidize the installation of more ethanol pumps at filling stations -- makers of new battery systems were letting U.S. senators test-drive prototype cars that get over 100 miles per gallon, but don't require any new infrastructure.
The vehicles in this road show, which are called plug-in hybrids, were Toyota Priuses retrofitted with large advanced battery packs that can be charged overnight and used to power the cars electrically for short trips. "If you look at how people typically drive cars, about half of the driving that you use gasoline for you could be using the electricity that comes out of your wall," says Martin Klein, CEO of Electro Energy of Danbury, CT, which developed the battery pack and control system for one of the cars on display in Washington. What's more, he says, the existing power grid means that "the infrastructure is all in place." [Click here for some shots of plug-in hybrids.] Ordinary hybrids get all their energy from gasoline, but they are much more efficient than conventional cars because extra energy from the engine and braking is stored in a battery pack, which powers an electric motor to boost acceleration and even fuel the car completely for short distances at low speeds. The boost allows hybrid automakers to use a smaller, more efficient internal-combustion engine without sacrificing performance. And hybrids also save gas by turning off their engines when stopped in traffic or at a stoplight. Overall, the fuel economy of a conventional Prius is around 50 miles per gallon. Plug-in hybrids have a larger battery pack, which allows them to run on the electric motor much longer -- for 20-25 miles in the case of the Electro Energy car. The battery is charged from an ordinary electrical outlet. Thus, a commuter who drives 10 or 15 miles to work on city streets could recharge the battery at night and make the commute entirely on electricity. Others would need the gasoline engine at highway speeds, but could rely on the battery while driving in the city. When the energy stored up overnight runs out, the car slips into conventional hybrid mode until the next charge. This gives the vehicle an advantage over all-electric vehicles, which have been hampered by limited range due to limited battery storage capacity.
|
E-mail
Audio »
Print
Favorite
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
Better than Hybrids
04/24/2006
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Comments
(Okay, yeah, I know there wouldn't be a large percentage of the population buying these cars any time soon, but still.)
05/23/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
My main concern would be that the electricity coming out of the plug is not really all that efficient from a thermodynamic point of view.
05/27/2006
Posts:1
06/01/2006
Posts:1
It can be recycled easily.
Lithium isn't a hazardous material, however so it's not a threat even if someone is dumb enough to want to dispose of it.
asdar
08/07/2007
Posts:69
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
This also amounts to 150 kwh over the course of a month. Currently the average house uses about 700 kwh per month.
So I disagree with your assertion that that draw is "tiny... compared to a television or home appliance."
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/26/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
its still in the prototype stage but its looks promising.
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,54917,00.html
05/27/2006
Posts:1
burritos
06/06/2007
Posts:2
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
Most power plants can't raise and lower output based on demand. They have constant output. Therefore, charging them at night would use power that would otherwise be wasted.
06/02/2006
Posts:1
To keep from burning more coal, the next step should be solar powered garages at home to plug electric cars into.
Imagine if malls and parking structures had solar panels on top, and sockets at every parking space so you could recharge during the day while at work, and in smaller topups while shopping.
Susan K
02/21/2007
Posts:2
(510) 537-1796
05/24/2006
Posts:1
We need a way out of oil, and this is one way that's sure to help and almost painless.
asdar
08/07/2007
Posts:69
Are there estimates as to how much a "recharge" will cost even at off-peak rates?
One needs to ask not just MPG but also MPD (miles per dollar - what the consumer looks at) and put gas and electricity into the same equation.
05/24/2006
Posts:1
The other factor is gasoline price, that goes from 190 to 700 cent/gallon according to where you live, be it Dubai or London. This equals for a 50 mpg Prius to a range of 3.8 to 14 cent/mile.
From this it becomes obvious that even in Dubai, you gain in operating costs by driving with electricity.
05/24/2006
Posts:1
After power plant and battery cycle efficiencies 'plug-ins' are NOT more effective than direct gasokine engines. The cost estimates above need about a 3X multiplier !
So while the cars could run on 'coal' that would be the extent of the gains, poluting (and CO2 at the power plant site instead of the city. This is a small effect with Pzf cars !!!
05/24/2006
Posts:1
On the other hand, the question that you raise has already been answered by Professor Andy Frank of the University of California at Davis, even in the worst case scenario of electricity produced from coal an electric vehicle is still producing less CO2/mile then a standard car.
In the case of the Prius that difference is lower, but because the plug-in package also improves the regen capability of the car, it still exist. Especially in the hills or on mountain roads where much regen must be done.
05/24/2006
Posts:1
burritos
06/06/2007
Posts:2
05/25/2006
Posts:1
What is like the chicken and egg is that if we have the cars, then making more solar/wind and other alternatives makes more sense, because we'd have the storage to make better use of it.
asdar
08/07/2007
Posts:69
With regard to cost, Priusmaniac under quoted the range of the cost of electricity. A kWh in my area already costs 20 cents, and I know I don't live in the most expensive power region in the US. Other countries as a whole pay as much as 30 cents.
05/24/2006
Posts:1
Yes it takes fuel to produce the electricity to charge the batteries but that is usually not oil. It also takes energy to transport oil and refine it. How much I don't know.
By the way, my electricity costs between 3 and 9 cents per kwh depending on how much I use.
06/02/2006
Posts:1
But the main advantage of plug-ins could be reducing dependence on oil
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
Consumers would be faced with higher up front costs for vehicles. They are also the first to want 100MPG AND the first to demand warranty repairs if those batteries and recharging systems don’t perform ( more risk for Honda – the other hybrid Mfr- I love my Honda!)
So where is all the Freedom Car and PNGV money going? Maybe our tax dollars should be shifted to reward patents on batteries or tuition for continuing education of physical sciences ( math, chemistry, physics…)
PHEV need better batteries and that has been the mantra ever since California tried to push EV’s . Don’t hold your breath!
05/24/2006
Posts:1
Upfront costs for PHEVs will deter all but the yuppies and the EV lunatics who will pay anything to say they are driving only with electricity. Most people will do the math and realize the cost savings will never exceed the initial costs. And unfortunately not too many people really care about the environmental benefits over the impact on their pocketbooks.
Research money needs to be put towards much much better battery technology to increase life, reduce weight, and reduce cost, before PHEVs or EVs will be successful. Sorry EV fanatics! Reality bites.
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
We are even planning to refinance the house and take the equity to install solar panels on the roof. It would eliminate our electric bill. And, we would be using clean solar power. The loan payment would be about the same as our electric bill but tax deductable. And, after the loan is paid off, we would have no more electric bill to pay. It would also increase the resell value of the house.
The solar energy hitting your roof are wasted everyday if you don't use it. It is free. What's better than free?
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
Details in my upcoming book on plug-in hybrids. See www.sherryboschert.com
05/24/2006
Posts:1
9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil. But even the worst plant is much more effiicent at extracting energy from the fossil fuel than your car's gasoline engine. A coal plant will produce much less CO2 powering electric autos than those auto's burning gasoline would produce.
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil. But even the worst plant is much more effiicent at extracting energy from the fossil fuel than your car's gasoline engine. A coal plant will produce much less CO2 powering electric autos than those auto's burning gasoline would produce.
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
(PDF)
http://www.ases.org/climatechange/climate_change.pdf
We just need to commit to a future thats based on clean energy.
The difficulty is that there's some pretty entrenched interests already making a living out of digging energy out of the ground.
Susan K
02/21/2007
Posts:2
9 percent natural gas, and 4 percent oil. But even the worst plant is much more effiicent at extracting energy from the fossil fuel than your car's gasoline engine. A coal plant will produce much less CO2 powering electric autos than those auto's burning gasoline would produce.
05/25/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
IF the batteries are made durable and quickly rechargeable the next should be taxis and delivery trucks which can amortize the capital cost of the batteries over many miles per week.
The French should come next. High fuel prices, some time of day pricing and so many nukes that they have to reduce the power output of some reactors during the night.
05/26/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
05/29/2006
Posts:1
Life in a grass house
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/7/03949/82426
In short, cellulosic ethanol is not infinitely sustainable (soil depletion) and not cheap (cutting, transportation, processing, enzymes...). Driving less, in smaller cars, must be mentioned as an important part of any solution.
05/25/2006
Posts:1
05/26/2006
Posts:1
05/24/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
05/25/2006
Posts:1
05/28/2006
Posts:1
Thoughts? Comments? Critiques? Flames? <grin>
05/25/2006
Posts:1
Comments –
--We need to reduce consumption of foreign oil, coal miners are not typically anti American.
--See William Millard’s comments (above)
--Recycling of cars is very efficient. Most all batteries from hybrids will be recycled. It is the consumer NiCd that are a problem
--When fuel prices are consistently between $3-$4/gal , other options become profitable (plug in HEVs , diesel, ethanol and hydrogen). Until then, hybrids will continue to be just an “interesting” transition, a very LONG transition (unless batteries take some technical leaps – keep working A123)
05/26/2006
Posts:1
06/21/2006
Posts:1
05/26/2006
Posts:1
http://www.sigmaautomotive.com/electrocharger/electrocharger.php
05/28/2006
Posts:1
Don't forget that Oil and car manufacturing companies are among the strogest lobbies. I have been looking to retrofit my Volkswagon Westfalia for some time but finding a suitable electric motor and controller have so far made it totally unfeasable.
05/29/2006
Posts:1
05/27/2006
Posts:1
Unfortunately, there are a lot of folks who'll resist giving up their internal combustion engines. Can you imagine replacing the sound of a well-tuned V8 engine with the high-pitched sound of an electric motor?
I suspect that those who drive large or overpowered vehicles for no apparent reason are just compensating, and will be the biggest opponents of electric vehicles of any kind. Expect to see a lot of opposition to electric vehicles, and a multitude of reasons to continue using internal combustion engines. Meanwhile, PHEV's will start to show up on our roads because they make sense.
http://solarjohn.blogspot.com
John
Solar John
06/29/2007
Posts:14
08/07/2006
Posts:1
bertodan
11/09/2006
Posts:1
rac
01/03/2007
Posts:2
I'm not for nuclear because of the time for waste to become safe. I would be for nuclear if the only threat was terrorists.
asdar
08/07/2007
Posts:69
For the extra $5000-$10,000 per vehicle per person that plug-in hybrid technology is going to cost, we could build a great rapid transit system.
Don't assume the cost will go down with increased production. We are in a world with ever increasing demand on limited resources. If enough people use hybrids to make any difference, the cost of whatever is used to make the batteries is going to climb dramatically.
I predict in 50 years the automobile will go the way of the horse. People will store them in garages in the country and only use them for fun drives on the weekend. This would bring the passion and fun back to driving!!!
And for travelling larger distances, high-speed rail rocks:
http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/train/index.aspx
rac
01/03/2007
Posts:2
ricmauricio
06/25/2007
Posts:2