Chevy Volt's "230 mpg"?

[Pengwuino]

So apparently, it's expected that the new Chevy Volt is going to get a 230mpg city rating. After reading up on it, I'm not sure how it's going to work. On a "full" charge, they expect 40 miles off pure battery. Then the engine will take over to power the generator which will have up to a 50mpg rating. Now, the devil is in the details; how does the EPA calculate mpg for vehicles like this? On a long drive, I assume the rating tends towards the rating the engine/generator would have, however in the daily grind of big city driving, I can't even imagine what it would tend towards if you keep it charged all the time (charge at home then possibly charge at work? makes me wonder if a business would charge their employees to plug in their cars :P)?

DISCUSS!

Wait, no "discuss", i just want an answer :rofl:.

[Integral]

Answer 2 questions.

How far did you go?

How much gas did you use?

What else matters?

That being said they should be finding a "gas equivalence" for the charge time, then adding that figure to the gas consumed.

[mgb_phys]

It's designed to meet the EPA's new rating for in-city (or the EPA's new rating is designed for this). You are allowed to start with a full charge and then use the IC when the charge runs out for the last few ( 10 ? ) miles.
So if you make a hybrid with 10% more electric range it looks like you do twice as many miles/gallon.
It's currently being ridiculed all over the net - with people claiming that their SUV does infinite mpg if you only count the 40miles downhill.

[junglebeast]

Ok...so in other words,

Gallons used = max(0, miles traveled - 40) / 50

As miles traveled goes to infinity, miles per gallons goes to 50.

This car gets 50 MPG. Not 230.

[Pengwuino]

Ok...so in other words,

Gallons used = max(0, miles traveled - 40) / 50

As miles traveled goes to infinity, miles per gallons goes to 50.

This car gets 50 MPG. Not 230.

Now there's the problem, that's miles traveled continuously. The ideal situation is you drive to work, run some errands, come home, plug back in, all hopefully within that first 40 miles of pure electricity and you effectively divide by zero. The Volt violates the laws of math!!!

[junglebeast]

Now there's the problem, that's miles traveled continuously. The ideal situation is you drive to work, run some errands, come home, plug back in, all hopefully within that first 40 miles of pure electricity and you effectively divide by zero. The Volt violates the laws of math!!!

Miles per gallon is a ratio. The amount of gas used over time is a graph. The ratio they give should be the same ratio as this graph. Any adjustment in the first few miles is irrelevant in the long term. They should take a hint from Big-O notation / complexity analysis.

If they want to advertise better gas mileage, they should do it honestly: it is 40 free miles + 50 mpg after that. Saying that it has 230 miles per gallon is flat out lying, and should make them liable to class action lawsuit IMO.

[Alfi]

If I start with a full charge and one liter of gas. Drive till I can't go any further.
It is true that I just look at the odometer and say I went x Kilometers on one liter of gas.

But I will get a different number if I want to go from a to b ( 600km ) in a single trip.

Either way, It's a whole lot better than any other car out there.

[Kurdt]

I remember when reading about the tesla roadster that they said it had equivalent mpg. Here is the wiki article about the tesla and equivalent MPG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster#Petroleum-equivalent_efficiency

[Moonbear]

This is one of the problems that arises with trying to compare fuel efficiency when you're using two different fuels, each of which is measured in different units. The same problem will arise in trying to compare different electric-only vehicles, though. The amount of electricity used to get from A to B seems the best measure, but here you can already see with the Volt they aren't telling you that. They are instead telling you how many miles you can go on a full charge. That would be like saying the big F250 pickup truck with dual gas tanks has the same fuel efficiency as the Honda Civic because they can go the same distance before stopping to refuel.

I think the most honest answer is that GASOLINE gets you 50 mpg, which isn't that bad even on it's own. If you run out the batteries without any opportunity to stop and recharge, you can get another 40 miles.

On vehicles that get plugged in, once people start plugging them in and watching their electric bills rise, they are also going to also want some real numbers on how much electricity it takes to charge those batteries in KWh so they can figure out how much it costs per recharge based on their electric rates. Here and other places where I've seen this car discussed, I keep hearing the phrase, "The first 40 miles is free," but that's not true either. Afterall, it does cost something for the electric to charge those batteries to go that first 40 miles. And, how "green" those first 40 miles are highly depends on how the electric is generated in your area.

Afterall, what people really want out of these numbers is the answer to "How much will it cost me to operate this car the way I intend to use it?" How much will you be spending each month if you use it for your commute back and forth to work? With these types of cars, you can't just multiply mpg by the number of miles you commute. You need to factor how far electric will get you and how far gas needs to get you, and a lot of that also depends on the speeds you need to drive as to how much the gas engine needs to start contributing, and how far you need to get before you can plug it back in. If you have a 10 mile commute on back roads, that's going to be very different than if you have a 60 mile commute mostly on interstates, and not just because of the distance driven, but because of the relative contributions of electric vs. gas.

As hybrid and electric cars become more popular or common, it's going to be very important to revise the way fuel efficiency is measured and apply a standard that allows more reasonable comparisons between cars and that keeps manufacturers honest.

[mgb_phys]

I think people will just ignore the consumption figures, they only have a very limited relationship to your real driving anyway.

It's only in the US that city/highway figures are even quoted or used by consumers - in Europe where gas costs $8-10/gallon nobody reads them, you just look at the engine size. You know if you bought a 3.5L BMW you aren't going to care about the cost of gas, if you are worried you buy the 1.2L Lupo instead of the 1.4L Golf - if you buy the 1L Citroen diesel your main worry is forgetting where the filler cap is when you do run out.

I think people who do manage to just use a hybrid over it's plugin range are going to be very happy about the cost.
If you believe the makers figures for the volt a 9kWh charge will do 40miles, at 10c/unit (overnight off-peak rate) you are talking about a couple of cents/mile half of the cost of even 50mpg gasoline.

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact is that the increased cost of the plug-in over a standard fuel-efficient vehicle is more than the lifetime cost of fuel for the latter.

With a unit production cost to GM of about $35,000, suggesting a sales price of about $40K, at least for now, this car is way too expensive to be of any practical value. It is a novelty for yuppies.

[Alfi]

The fact is that the increased cost of the plug-in over a standard fuel-efficient vehicle is more than the lifetime cost of fuel for the latter.

With a unit production cost to GM of about $35,000, suggesting a sales price of about $40K, at least for now, this car is way too expensive to be of any practical value. It is a novelty for yuppies.

The atomic bomb is NOT practical. But how many Billions got wasted on that?
This car is a good start. The Idea is Well worth developing.
Such as the Wright Bros. first plane was.

[Ivan Seeking]

The atomic bomb is NOT practical. But how many Billions got wasted on that?
This car is a good start. The Idea is Well worth developing.
Such as the Wright Bros. first plane was.

I wasn't dissing the approach, just the current product. Very few people are going to buy a $35,000 [after federal tax credit] Corolla.

Of course, effectively lying about the mileage and saying it gets 230mpg will help for a short time - a wow factor for the suckers.

[mgb_phys]

The top 113 fuel efficent models in the UK do better than 50mpg-US combined.

These aren't Smart microcars, they are mostly 90+Hp turbo diesel hatchbacks.

For some strange reason none of these seem to be available in the US/Canada, even though some of them are built by an American company.
Seat and Skoda aren't familar in America - they are basically rebadged VW Polo/Golf


Maker Model Urban Highway Combined (mpg US)

SEAT Ibiza 1.4 TDI 48.0 73.5 61.9
Volkswagen Polo 1.4 TDI 48.0 73.5 61.9
Mini MINI 50.0 67.2 60.3
Citroen C1 1.4HDi 44.4 69.2 57.4
Mini MINI R55 48.0 65.4 57.4
Skoda Fabia 1.4 TDI 44.4 69.2 57.4
Fiat 500 1.3 16v 44.4 65.4 56.0
Ford Fiesta 44.4 67.2 56.0
Ford Fiesta 1.6 TDCi 45.2 65.4 56.0

Anyway to format tables here?

[Alfi]

Sorry to come across so strong.
It seems to me a lot of negatives are being expressed and not enough 'it's a good start' type of expressions.
I disagree with false advertising as well.
I do agree with the idea of getting away from oil addiction, and therefore support many efforts in electric car ideas.
Screw status symbols, screw high speed performance. I want to see practical.

:)

[skeptic2]

It seems to me there are two different figures that are of interest here.

1. How much CO2 does a coal or gas fired power plant produce to generate enough electricity to charge batteries to go 50 miles compared to a gallon of gas.

2. How much does the electricity required to charge the batteries enough to drive 50 miles cost compared to a gallon of gas?

[mgb_phys]

1. How much CO2 does a coal or gas fired power plant produce to generate enough electricity to charge batteries to go 50 miles compared to a gallon of gas.
If we assume 9kWh/40miles for the Volt.
A US coal fired power station produces about 1kg CO2/kWh.
So 40miles = 1 charge = 9kg CO2
A gasoline engine releases about 2.2Kg CO2 / litre = 18.3 kg CO2/gallon(US)
So if it does 50mpg, it is about 2x as much CO2 on gas as on plugin

2. How much does the electricity required to charge the batteries enough to drive 50 miles cost compared to a gallon of gas?
A unit of electric costs around 10c, so around $1 per 40mi charge, 40miles on ICE would take around 1 gallon = $2-3 ?

[mgb_phys]

It seems to me a lot of negatives are being expressed and not enough 'it's a good start' type of expressions.

Thats the debate.
Is the current generation of hybrids a pointless diversion from just driving small efficent turbo diesel (european style) cars?
Or is it a first step toward a clean cheap electric vehicle?

Since 50% of US grid power comes from coal, and coal+electric is only about 50% the CO2 emission per km of gasoline is this a big saving?

Then there is the current range of hybrids available in the US.
If you are cynical they are a deliberate attempt to make electric look bad, 2x the price of a regular car, limited battery life, poor efficiency on gas. Just enough to keep the government off their backs with one hand while convincing everybody to keep buying Jeeps with the other.
If you are feeling more generous they are a 'toe in the water', small production run status symbols to get people used to the idea and to build technical knowledge for the next generation.

[Topher925]

The top 113 fuel efficent models in the UK do better than 50mpg-US combined.

These aren't Smart microcars, they are mostly 90+Hp turbo diesel hatchbacks.

For some strange reason none of these seem to be available in the US/Canada, even though some of them are built by an American company.


US emissions are much more strict than in European countries.

Have a look here. (Be sure to convert mi to km or vice versa!)
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld.php
http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/eu/ld.php

The tables don't show emissions for sulfur dioxide but I think you get the idea. Low sulfur type emissions means lower efficiency and higher cost. Combine this with the fact that the US uses ultra-low sulfur diesel (15ppm of S) instead of "regular diesel (50ppm of S) makes the fuel more expensive and less available, you have some pretty good reasons why small turbo diesel cars aren't more popular in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel


I for one am a big fan of the Volt. The 230mph rating is in fact correct under EPA standards. It can be somewhat misleading to the laymen but if it sells cars, I don't think GM cares and neither do I. In order for the Volt to be successful, the car doesn't have to be drastically cheaper than current vehicles, it only has to come close to breaking even. This (with any luck) will be the first series hybrid vehicle on the road made by a major OEM. This will be a pretty big leap in hybrid technology and design which can also be applied to hydrogen powered vehicles in the future.

[mgb_phys]

US emissions are much more strict than in European countries.
There was always a complaint that the US figures based on ppm rather than g/km were designed to assist large engines.
So a small efficent 1.4litre engine would be penalised compared to a 4.8 litre engine which used 4x as much fuel to generate twice as much power. The rules also effectively banned turbo diesels.

eg. An eu 'A' rated car (typical 1.4L turbo diesel) does better than 100 g CO2/km but doesn't meet US pollution specs.
A Jeep Grand Cherokee or a Escalade with a 6litre engine puts out 380 g CO2/km but is 'greener' according to the EPA.

Combine this with the fact that the US uses ultra-low sulfur diesel (15ppm of S) instead of "regular diesel (50ppm of S) makes the fuel more expensive and less available, you have some pretty good reasons why small turbo diesel cars aren't more popular in the US.
Low sulphur diesel in the eu is <10ppm and is the only stuff available (at least for cars) for years.
Non-road diesel is a big problem, my colleagues in air quality in ca are trying to convince people not to burn garden waste when the ships in the port and the railway servicing them are allowed to do pretty much anything.

[mheslep]

Also deduct the $7500 tax credit (thanks Mr/Ms Taxpayer).

I agree the Volt is too expensive to catch on in the 1st model, and will likely remain so for a few years. I believe there is an affordable alternative business model: GM makes the battery swappable and leases it per mile to the car owner (ala cellphone minutes). The battery amortization would be only about 2-3 cents/mile for the Volt, and can only improve while gasoline cost gets worse. In that case one would drive off the lot minus the battery cost in a ~$25,000 car that for most of its short distance driving costs ~7 cents/mile to operate including electricity and battery costs.- a winner. Battery swap solves other problems too: 1) worry about battery life (who cares if one can swap it out for free like a tire), 2) it solves the range problem - eliminating the need for the gasoline engine backup (and its associated costs in the drive train)

[junglebeast]

No matter how fuel efficient these new cars are, they aren't going to be economically practical in comparison to buying a crappy old used car that gets average gas mileage. I can only assume they are trying to appeal to the environmentally conscious baby boomer generation who doesn't mind paying extra for a new car to do their part in helping the environment by using less gas. It will take a decade for these new cars to be cheap cars on the used market, but probably they will be in such short supply (as used cars) that they will be more expensive than other used cars of the same age (my guess)....and we may have to wait 20 or more years before hybrids and electrics actually start to become affordable as used cars for college students and the like.

[mheslep]

The 230 mpg is derived from some convoluted formula forced on everyone by the EPA, because that's how its always been done. But we need not follow.

When the Volt is running off its batteries with no background charge it uses no gasoline. Indeed, it's possible that many owners driving say, 20 miles roundtrip every day to work never put any gasoline in the vehicle. So in that mode of operation the miles-per-gallon efficiency figure is what, infinite? Meaningless? Convoluted in converting gasoline BTUs at one cost to electric kWh at another? All of the above. However, we do have an efficiency figure on the Volt that makes sense for an electrically powered vehicle: ~4 miles per kilowatt-hour (http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/11/chevy-volt-gets-230-mpg-city-epa-rating/), or $2.50/100 miles on the utility meter in the US (average).

When the Volt is running its small (~70HP) gasoline engine an mpg figure is applicable. I don't know what that is, somebody can hunt it down. (Edit ~50mpg) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Fuel_efficiency) The generator-engine runs essentially at constant rpm, as combustion engines like to do, so it must be quite efficient.

So I say use both figures when attempting to make sense of hybrid EVs: 4 miles/kWh electric, and 70 mpg gas. It is after all a hybrid, two cars in one.

[Ivan Seeking]

Thats the debate.
Is the current generation of hybrids a pointless diversion from just driving small efficent turbo diesel (european style) cars?
Or is it a first step toward a clean cheap electric vehicle?

Since 50% of US grid power comes from coal, and coal+electric is only about 50% the CO2 emission per km of gasoline is this a big saving?

I would phrase it differently: It is a matter of betting on which technology will be cost effective first; biofuel technologies, or batteries for electric cars?

Diesel cars are a proven technology - a great option ready to go. Electric motors are already 90%+ efficient, though too expensive. But the race ultimately becomes one of biodiesel vs batteries. Biodiesel from food crops is a competitive option at about $3 per gallon, but we could never produce enough to supply the entire US petro market. It also puts food into direct competition with energy. The key to practical, carbon-neutral fuel sources will be second generation biodiesel fuel sources - fuel obtained from algae or other organisms - or third generation sources such as bioengineered algae or bacteria, not food crops

To the best of my knowledge, the limits on battery technology are fundamental. Advances in battery technology may or may not follow a similar price/capacity curve as we saw with integrated circuit technology. Such a curve is implied anecdotally, but we don't know when we will see the next significant advances or how significant they will be. While we may see great advances in the future, it is also conceivable that we are approaching a limit and the next great advances will never come.

With advanced fuel technologies, the limits seem to be more a matter of engineering and applied biology, and not a matter of making fundamental advances. Therefore, I think the most logical bet is to drive towards advanced fuel technologies and the use of clean diesel cars over the next ten years. There is already plenty of impetus in the market to incentivize advances in battery technologies, so allow that to drive the electric car option rather than driving it artificially. Meanwhile, the advanced fuel technologies needed to end our reliance on petroleum completely - something not even conceivably possible at this time with electric technologies - seem to be well within our grasp now.

Biodiesel or related products [pure oils] can be used to power all forms of transportation - cars and trucks, heavy trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft - as well being compatiable with heavy industrial needs such as cranes, generating stations, etc.

[mheslep]

No matter how fuel efficient these new cars are, they aren't going to be economically practical in comparison to buying a crappy old used car that gets average gas mileage. ...Nah, been there, done that motor head gig and you are assuming a great deal to make that statement true. First, the crappy old car tends to break down often because its crappy, so repairs are going to get you. Then it is going to leave you on the side of the road somewhere, sometime, and that has a cost, maybe a very large one. Now one might have a high level of motor head skill and assume you can fix everything yourself, but that puts a relatively low value on your time. A crappy old car makes sense for somebody with the skills, but even then its a hobby not a practical proposition. It makes sense to do it once perhaps, early in life, as the under the hood know-how is always valuable down the road.

[Proton Soup]

if i spend $35K on an electric car, what's going to keep the people that get my money from turning it into BTUs ?

[Kenneth Mann]

It's designed to meet the EPA's new rating for in-city (or the EPA's new rating is designed for this). You are allowed to start with a full charge and then use the IC when the charge runs out for the last few ( 10 ? ) miles.
So if you make a hybrid with 10% more electric range it looks like you do twice as many miles/gallon.
It's currently being ridiculed all over the net - with people claiming that their SUV does infinite mpg if you only count the 40miles downhill.

The fallacy with the "down hill" example is the fact that the SUV, if it is to continue running, must go back up the hill, and is guaranteed then not to get a good average. The methodology used is perfectly valid. The average is for the car if it were run entirely on battery - - which is a good case for those who confine their trips to short daily runs within the urban limits. The first point - - electric drives are considerably more efficient than present internal combustion engines. The second - - electric power is cheaper per kilowatt (or horsepower) than comparable power generated from gasoline. It is these two comparisons that are important. There's no reason to require fuel economy depend on gasoline (or diesel fuel). An "equivalent mpg" is derived simply because most of us have become programmed to think in these terms. 230 "equivalent" mpg is perfectly valid.

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

Answer 2 questions.

How far did you go?

How much gas did you use?

What else matters?

That being said they should be finding a "gas equivalence" for the charge time, then adding that figure to the gas consumed.

For "charge", not "charge time", and there's no need to add to gas consumption when the car is running entirely on its charge. This is the scenario that is being described for the 230 "equivalent" MPG comparison.

KM

[mgb_phys]

But it doesn't really tell the customer very much.
The Volt does 40miles on charge, then 10miles at 50mpg = 50mi with 1/5 gallon = 250mpg
The Nissan hybrid can do 45miles on a charge, so on the same scale would get 500mpg
But is it twice as efficent to the buyer?

If you could load this hybrid up with enough batteries to run for 49.9miles it would score higher than the Volt.
http://www.liebherr.com/catXmedia/me/Thumbnails/1e18f1d3-334e-4669-aae8-759c0c207fe4_W300.jpg

[Kenneth Mann]

Ok...so in other words,

Gallons used = max(0, miles traveled - 40) / 50

As miles traveled goes to infinity, miles per gallons goes to 50.

This car gets 50 MPG. Not 230.

Your comparison is incorrect! The 230 figure is derived for the case for which the car is driven entirely on its charge, and the gasoline consumption is zero - - perfectly valid for people who drive no further than 40 miles each day and recharge every night while they sleep. This makes sense for a lot of city folks.

KM

[Proton Soup]

Your comparison is incorrect! The 230 figure is derived for the case for which the car is driven entirely on its charge, and the gasoline consumption is zero - - perfectly valid for people who drive no further than 40 miles each day and recharge every night while they sleep. This makes sense for a lot of city folks.

KM

nyet. you need to compare miles/btu (kilometers/kilowatt) to make sense of it.

[Kenneth Mann]

But it doesn't really tell the customer very much.
The Volt does 40miles on charge, then 10miles at 50mpg = 50mi with 1/5 gallon = 250mpg
The Nissan hybrid can do 45miles on a charge, so on the same scale would get 500mpg
But is it twice as efficent to the buyer?

If you could load this hybrid up with enough batteries to run for 49.9miles it would score higher than the Volt.
http://www.liebherr.com/catXmedia/me/Thumbnails/1e18f1d3-334e-4669-aae8-759c0c207fe4_W300.jpg

No! No! No! No! No!
You insist on dredging up a carefully concocted situation, the EPA guided figures are based on a situation which exists in great abundance in the real world - - city driving. I don't know anything about a Nissan hybrid, but claims for the Nissan all-electric is for over 300 "equivalent" MPG. Is this what you're describing? These figures are both derived without the confusion of mixing in situation confounding quantities of gasoline. When you do that it simply makes the whole comparison meaningless.

Re the earth hauler - - - think about it!

KM

[mgb_phys]

So if the car does 40mi on a 9kWh charge, thats 4.5mi/unit

What is the 230mpg based on?
The cost of grid power or the equivalent CO2 emmision from the average grid plant?

Re the earth hauler - - - think about it!
It's a hybrid - you probably get $7500 back!

[Kenneth Mann]

nyet. you need to compare miles/btu (kilometers/kilowatt) to make sense of it.

BTU and Kilowatt are not equivalent! On the other hand, any attempt to intermingle battery efficiencies and gasoline efficiency equivalencies for a serial hybrid are meaningless.

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

So if the car does 40mi on a 9kWh charge, thats 4.5mi/unit

What is the 230mpg based on?
The cost of grid power or the equivalent CO2 emmision from the average grid plant?


Mainly cost (I'm guessing)- - the other varies too much from plant to plant. The problem - - gasoline costs vary from day to day. Nobody's perfect.


KM

[Proton Soup]

BTU and Kilowatt are not equivalent! On the other hand, any attempt to intermingle battery efficiencies and gasoline efficiency equivalencies for a serial hybrid are meaningless.

KM

you're right, and i should have said kilowatt-hours or kilojoules, etc.

so you agree that the 250 mpg number is meaningless?

[Kenneth Mann]

Now there's the problem, that's miles traveled continuously. The ideal situation is you drive to work, run some errands, come home, plug back in, all hopefully within that first 40 miles of pure electricity and you effectively divide by zero. The Volt violates the laws of math!!!

It's not zero. EPA assigns a "gallons" equivalent to a Watt-Hour of energy.

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

If they want to advertise better gas mileage, they should do it honestly: it is 40 free miles + 50 mpg after that. Saying that it has 230 miles per gallon is flat out lying, and should make them liable to class action lawsuit IMO.

Their method is perfectly honest - - it just considers the car as a battery electric, rather than a hybrid - - and it is really designed as a battery electric - - with a back-up mode as a hybrid, so you won't get stranded.

KM

[mgb_phys]

So if 230miles = 1 gallon = 8.8Kg CO2 = $3

Each charge = 40miles = 9kWh = $1
So 230miles = 5.7charges = 52 kwH = $5.7
average CO2 from grid = 0.6kg/kwh or 1kg/kWh from coal
52Kwh = 230mi = 30 - 50 kg CO2 depending on source

Can't see where they get 230mpg from

[Kenneth Mann]

The Volt is far more efficient as an electric than it is as a hybrid.

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

It's only in the US that city/highway figures are even quoted or used by consumers - in Europe where gas costs $8-10/gallon nobody reads them, you just look at the engine size. You know if you bought a 3.5L BMW you aren't going to care about the cost of gas, if you are worried you buy the 1.2L Lupo instead of the 1.4L Golf - if you buy the 1L Citroen diesel your main worry is forgetting where the filler cap is when you do run out.

I think people who do manage to just use a hybrid over it's plugin range are going to be very happy about the cost.

And this would make the Volt much better suited for Europe (and Japan) than for America (or China). Still, it would suit a lot of people in the US and China too.

[Kenneth Mann]

The fact is that the increased cost of the plug-in over a standard fuel-efficient vehicle is more than the lifetime cost of fuel for the latter.

With a unit production cost to GM of about $35,000, suggesting a sales price of about $40K, at least for now, this car is way too expensive to be of any practical value. It is a novelty for yuppies.

And this is the car's biggest drawback. On the other hand, GM admits that the production costs will drop. They should probably do what Toyota did with the early Prius, and sell it at cost. This would drop the cost to about $27,500 with the anticipated $7500 Government rebates. It would probably increase sales considerably and help make the car viable sooner (or even be the deciding factor).

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

I wasn't dissing the approach, just the current product. Very few people are going to buy a $35,000 [after federal tax credit] Corolla.

Of course, effectively lying about the mileage and saying it gets 230mpg will help for a short time - a wow factor for the suckers.

They are not lying! They are just using EPA formula for the case in which the car is driven as an all-electric.

KM

[mheslep]

I would phrase it differently: It is a matter of betting on which technology will be cost effective first; biofuel technologies, or batteries for electric cars?

Diesel cars are a proven technology - a great option ready to go. Electric motors are already 90%+ efficient, though too expensive. But the race ultimately becomes one of biodiesel vs batteries. Biodiesel from food crops is a competitive option at about $3 per gallon, but we could never produce enough to supply the entire US petro market. It also puts food into direct competition with energy. The key to practical, carbon-neutral fuel sources will be second generation biodiesel fuel sources - fuel obtained from algae or other organisms - or third generation sources such as bioengineered algae or bacteria, not food crops

To the best of my knowledge, the limits on battery technology are fundamental. Advances in battery technology may or may not follow a similar price/capacity curve as we saw with integrated circuit technology. Such a curve is implied anecdotally, but we don't know when we will see the next significant advances or how significant they will be. While we may see great advances in the future, it is also conceivable that we are approaching a limit and the next great advances will never come.

With advanced fuel technologies, the limits seem to be more a matter of engineering and applied biology, and not a matter of making fundamental advances. Therefore, I think the most logical bet is to drive towards advanced fuel technologies and the use of clean diesel cars over the next ten years. There is already plenty of impetus in the market to incentivize advances in battery technologies, so allow that to drive the electric car option rather than driving it artificially.
While I feel the argument for the EV is stronger, your post is one of the better articulated one page comparisons of the two competitors Ive seen lately, and there are many lesser ones to see.

Meanwhile, the advanced fuel technologies needed to end our reliance on petroleum completely - something not even conceivably possible at this time with electric technologies - seem to be well within our grasp now.

Biodiesel or related products [pure oils] can be used to power all forms of transportation - cars and trucks, heavy trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft - as well being compatiable with heavy industrial needs such as cranes, generating stations, etc.This part is particularly interesting so two responses here.

First I'd argue that the problem with a 100% biofuel replacement of petroleum is that at current efficiencies of the transportation fleet biofuel crops can't handle the demand with out causing more problems along the way. I'm not inclined to rerun the miles/perBTU/per acre game one more time here; but I'll go ahead and suggest that BF at that scale requires too much land and water, inevitably displacing good land in use for something else. Now here's the big caveat: a BF takeover can work in a BTU sense if the efficiency of transportation goes up by 2 to 3x, which takes us back around to replacement of the internal combustion engine w/ the electric motor.

Regards the limitations of which transportation type can or can not conceivably be run by an electric motor: I am not aware of any that can not. The last one I could think of was jet travel, and now even that appears doable with HTS electric ducted fans. It's a reach, but certainly conceivable and NASA and the AF are pursuing. Powering the electric motors of theoretical long distance jet aircraft or long distance trains from electro chemical batteries is not doable at current energy densities, but that gets back to your point about fundamental limits.

[jpreed]

from an article on gm-volt.com

Here’s my guess:

Mike Duoba from Argonne National Lab devised a method to determine the MPG of an EREV; first the car is driven from a full battery until it reaches charge-sustaining mode, then one more cycle is driven. If we use the highway schedule, the first 40 miles are electric. One more cycle is 11 more miles. If the Volt gets 50 MPG in charge sustaining mode, it will use .22 gallons of gas for that 11 miles. Thus 51 miles/.22 gallons = 231.8 MPG.

[Kenneth Mann]

No matter how fuel efficient these new cars are, they aren't going to be economically practical in comparison to buying a crappy old used car that gets average gas mileage. I can only assume they are trying to appeal to the environmentally conscious baby boomer generation who doesn't mind paying extra for a new car to do their part in helping the environment by using less gas. It will take a decade for these new cars to be cheap cars on the used market, but probably they will be in such short supply (as used cars) that they will be more expensive than other used cars of the same age (my guess)....and we may have to wait 20 or more years before hybrids and electrics actually start to become affordable as used cars for college students and the like.

Don't forget Obama. He probably has a few surprises ready for those of us with old guzzlers. We've already seen the carrot - - is the stick coming?

KM

[russ_watters]

If we assume 9kWh/40miles for the Volt.
A US coal fired power station produces about 1kg CO2/kWh.
So 40miles = 1 charge = 9kg CO2
A gasoline engine releases about 2.2Kg CO2 / litre = 18.3 kg CO2/gallon(US)
So if it does 50mpg, it is about 2x as much CO2 on gas as on plugin


A unit of electric costs around 10c, so around $1 per 40mi charge, 40miles on ICE would take around 1 gallon = $2-3 ?
I think that's the answer to how the government is going to need to start mandating ratings. All cars should have a sticker on them with the following information:

-Fuel capacity in kwh (if there are two fuels, list them separately)
-Average range in total and by fuel individually
-Divide one by the other and you get fuel economy in miles per kwh
-Then in big, bold letters, the bottom line: $$ per mile for each fuel and combined, for city and highway.

[russ_watters]

Your comparison is incorrect! The 230 figure is derived for the case for which the car is driven entirely on its charge, and the gasoline consumption is zero - - perfectly valid for people who drive no further than 40 miles each day and recharge every night while they sleep. This makes sense for a lot of city folks.

KM

They are not lying! They are just using EPA formula for the case in which the car is driven as an all-electric. No they aren't. Though it is speculative because GM didn't say how they reached it exactly, it is believed they did a lot with the battery and a little with the gas engine: It was not immediately clear how GM reached the 230 mpg in city driving, but industry officials estimated the automaker's calculation took into consideration the Volt traveling 40 miles on the electric battery and then achieving about 50 mpg when the engine kicked in. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090811/ap_on_bi_ge/us_gm_volt_mileage

[mheslep]

I think that's the answer to how the government is going to need to start mandating ratings. All cars should have a sticker on them with the following information:

-Fuel capacity in kwh (if there are two fuels, list them separately)
-Average range in total and by fuel individually
-Divide one by the other and you get fuel economy in miles per kwh
-Then in big, bold letters, the bottom line: $$ per mile for each fuel and combined, for city and highway.Exactly

[Kenneth Mann]

I think that's the answer to how the government is going to need to start mandating ratings. All cars should have a sticker on them with the following information:

-Fuel capacity in kwh (if there are two fuels, list them separately)
-Average range in total and by fuel individually
-Divide one by the other and you get fuel economy in miles per kwh
-Then in big, bold letters, the bottom line: $$ per mile for each fuel and combined, for city and highway.

For the Volt:
1) miles per kwh equivalent to 40 mpg running on ICE.
2) miles per kwh equivqlent to 230 mpg when running on battery
3) when taken together - - hopeless -- because Volt doesn't have a consistent
duty cycle like the other hybrids.

KM

I placed about 15 insertions yesterday, but when it was finished the count was the same as when I started. Why?

[Kurdt]

I placed about 15 insertions yesterday, but when it was finished the count was the same as when I started. Why?

If you're referring to your post count, then GD and forum feedback do not contribute to it.

[russ_watters]

For the Volt:
2) miles per kwh equivqlent to 230 mpg when running on battery Again, that's not what is apparently being claimed. The link I posted and the analysis someone else did imply that that is gas consumption while running in a mostly electric mode.
3) when taken together - - hopeless -- because Volt doesn't have a consistent
duty cycle like the other hybrids. The EPA will just have to make a standard and have car companies stick to it. They already have a driving course for city and highway driving for other cars, so there is no reason they can't set up a similar standard for hybrids/plug-ins.

Perhaps to reflect the fact that people who commute tend to commute less than 40 miles a day, they will need to add another couple of data points, for "city commute" and "highway commute".

Or perhaps they could even do a customize fuel economy report for everyone. Fill out an online questionaire about your driving habits and it could give you your predicted fuel economy with different cars.

[Kenneth Mann]

If you're referring to your post count, then GD and forum feedback do not contribute to it.

Thanks!

KM

Here (http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=YYGDVLQYSJDAMQSNDLOSK HSCJUNN2JVN;?articleID=217201230) is an article that might be of interest.

[mheslep]

For the Volt:
1) miles per kwh equivalent to 40 mpg running on ICE.
GM claims 50 mpg.
The generator is small, 70HP, running near constant RPM, so 50 mpg is doable.
http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/

[mheslep]

For the Volt:
2) miles per kwh equivqlent to 230 mpg when running on battery
You do not want to do that 'mpg' 'equivalent' bit on the battery. Its hopelessly misleading. Can you travel 230 continuous miles with one gallon in the tank? No. On batteries then? No. Does the gallon of gas cost the same as the same equivalent energy placed in the battery from a wall plug? No.

[mheslep]

It occurs to me that GM knows full well their recent release of the '230 mpg' figure would be controversial, confusing, and would be challenged. I also believe that's exactly what they want. They need people to start talking about this car, to get this very new thing into the daily discussion. We've been obliging them nicely.:uhh: More than a few people will try out controversial new things, but very few people will try out something they've little or never heard of.

[Kenneth Mann]

You do not want to do that 'mpg' 'equivalent' bit on the battery. Its hopelessly misleading. Can you travel 230 continuous miles with one gallon in the tank? No. On batteries then? No. Does the gallon of gas cost the same as the same equivalent energy placed in the battery from a wall plug? No.

Maybe there is desire not to do that by some - - it is done - - by EPA. It is obviously confusing, judging from the confusion that has occurred in this string - - but it is perfectly valid. There is no general derivational relationship to MPG (equivalent or not) that requires driving a certain number of miles. Battery capacity of the Volt limits its 230 MPG capability to 40 miles. After that, economy drops to 50 MPG (using gasoline).

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

GM claims 50 mpg.
The generator is small, 70HP, running near constant RPM, so 50 mpg is doable.
http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/

Thanks, I didn't check it.

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

Just to hint at how confusing the equivalent mileage can be, if both battery and gasoline economies are combined, I've figured a few examples. The only quick-and-easy cases are those of runs of under forty (40) miles, for which cases, the economy will always be 230 (equivalent)MPG. Once the travel goes over 40 miles (approximately), the MPG gets incrementally lower.

Take, for example, a travel of 50 miles from start (full charge):
For the first 40 miles, we get:
40 Mi/230 MPG = 0.1739 Gal (equivalent)
For the next 10 miles, we get:
10 M/50 MPG = 0.2 Gal
For the full 50 miles:
50 M/0.3739 Gal = 133.7 MPG

For a 60 mile run from start:
60M / .5739 Gal = 104.5 MPG

For a 90 mile run from start:
90M / 1.1739 Gal = 76.6 MPG

For a 240 mile run from start:
240M / 4.1739 Gal = 57.5 MPG

I hope this gives some idea of what to expect from the Volt. Obviously unless you average nearly 250 miles driven per day, the turbo diesel won't beat it in economy (until someone puts out a serial hybrid turbo diesel).
The Prius simply won't match it in economy.

KM

[Phrak]

Just to hint at how confusing the equivalent mileage can be, if both battery and gasoline economies are combined, I've figured a few examples. The only quick-and-easy cases are those of runs of under forty (40) miles, for which cases, the economy will always be 230 (equivalent)MPG. Once the travel goes over 40 miles (approximately), the MPG gets incrementally lower.

Take, for example, a travel of 50 miles from start (full charge):
For the first 40 miles, we get:
40 Mi/230 MPG = 0.1739 Gal (equivalent)
For the next 10 miles, we get:
10 M/50 MPG = 0.2 Gal
For the full 50 miles:
50 M/0.3739 Gal = 133.7 MPG

For a 60 mile run from start:
60M / .5739 Gal = 104.5 MPG

For a 90 mile run from start:
90M / 1.1739 Gal = 76.6 MPG

For a 240 mile run from start:
240M / 4.1739 Gal = 57.5 MPG

I hope this gives some idea of what to expect from the Volt. Obviously unless you average nearly 250 miles driven per day, the turbo diesel won't beat it in economy (until someone puts out a serial hybrid turbo diesel).
The Prius simply won't match it in economy.

KM

You used their 230 mpg figure, which is questionable.

From previous calculations, I assume 27% efficiency for an internal combustion engine from fuel to axle. For Lithium polymer batteries, 67% efficiency from plug to axle. Use your own numbers for cost of the electric utility and gasoline, to find an mpg equivalent. I would go 10c per KWHr and $320 per gallon. You might have better numbers.

[Redbelly98]

http://gm-volt.com/chevy-volt-faqs/

Check out the last item in that faq:
Q: Will tall people fit in it?
A: Bob Boniface, chief of Volt design says the car is being designed to accommodate drivers from 5th percentile females up to 95th percentile height males.

So the car will accommodate 95% of women and only 5% of men? That means the car would be marketed primarily for single women. Or am I misinterpreting this statement?

[lisab]

Check out the last item in that faq:


So the car will accommodate 95% of women and only 5% of men? That means the car would be marketed primarily for single women. Or am I misinterpreting this statement?

I interpret that to be: the car will fit all but the shortest 5% of women, and all but the tallest 5% of men.

[russ_watters]

That's a height range. A 5th percentile female is near the shortest and a 95th percentile male is near the tallest. In other words, it will fit 95% of all people.

[Redbelly98]

I interpret that to be: the car will fit all but the shortest 5% of women, and all but the tallest 5% of men.

That's a height range. A 5th percentile female is near the shortest and a 95th percentile male is near the tallest. In other words, it will fit 95% of all people.

Okay, that makes sense. :slappinghead: Thanks to you both.

[Kenneth Mann]

Again, that's not what is apparently being claimed. The link I posted and the analysis someone else did imply that that is gas consumption while running in a mostly electric mode.

I don't know what this "mostly electric" mode is. The Volt is a serial hybrid, and as such should either operate as "all from battery" or from "electricity generated" from the gasoline. I suppose that the system could operate from electricity coming from both the generator and the battery, but what would be the point of this? This would simply reduce the overall efficiency from that gained if running totally from battery. The only purpose of this would be either to make up for the inadequacy (current capacity) of running from battery - - or to obfuscate the true operational cost (by ignoring that derived from battery - - a cynical assumption).

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

The EPA will just have to make a standard and have car companies stick to it. They already have a driving course for city and highway driving for other cars, so there is no reason they can't set up a similar standard for hybrids/plug-ins.

Perhaps to reflect the fact that people who commute tend to commute less than 40 miles a day, they will need to add another couple of data points, for "city commute" and "highway commute".

Or perhaps they could even do a customize fuel economy report for everyone. Fill out an online questionaire about your driving habits and it could give you your predicted fuel economy with different cars.

Good luck! (Now I'm being cynical, but this just doesn't seem likely.)

KM

[Kenneth Mann]

You used their 230 mpg figure, which is questionable.



Why do you question it? If the number came from Honda would you question it? If it is incorrect, approximately what should it be, and why.

KM

[Ivan Seeking]

While I feel the argument for the EV is stronger, your post is one of the better articulated one page comparisons of the two competitors Ive seen lately, and there are many lesser ones to see.

This part is particularly interesting so two responses here.

First I'd argue that the problem with a 100% biofuel replacement of petroleum is that at current efficiencies of the transportation fleet biofuel crops can't handle the demand with out causing more problems along the way. I'm not inclined to rerun the miles/perBTU/per acre game one more time here; but I'll go ahead and suggest that BF at that scale requires too much land and water, inevitably displacing good land in use for something else. Now here's the big caveat: a BF takeover can work in a BTU sense if the efficiency of transportation goes up by 2 to 3x, which takes us back around to replacement of the internal combustion engine w/ the electric motor.

That is why, imo, the majority of biofuel will be produced using closed, salt-water algae systems: No competition for land or fresh water, and plenty of water. Not to mention that the ocean [or lakes when appropriate] can be used to provide natural temperature regulation, which has a high energy and or financial cost for many land-based designs. It also removes the cost of land, which is significant to the final cost of the fuel produced.

As for ideas like an electric 797, while it may be possible one day, I think we are a long way from that one. When I have a practical and cost effective electric car, we can talk. :biggrin:

The latest news about algae.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/news_pub_algae_factsheet.pdf

[russ_watters]

I don't know what this "mostly electric" mode is. Probably should have said "mostly in electric mode". Ie, 40 miles on battery, 10 miles on the engine.

[Phrak]

Why do you question it? If the number came from Honda would you question it? If it is incorrect, approximately what should it be, and why.

KM

The energy content of gasoline is about 34 KWhrs per US gallon.

[daveg360]

I think I fill the tank on my diesel once every couple of months. It's a 2 litre tank and I probably do 600 miles between fill-ups. So I reckon I get 1100+MPG.

Of course I'm talking about the screenwasher tank but it seems to be just as relevant as measuring gas mileage for a journey mostly done on power from the powerstation down the road.

(can I get my gas mileage up by pushing my car 90% of the way to work everyday?)

[mheslep]

That is why, imo, the majority of biofuel will be produced using closed, salt-water algae systems: No competition for land or fresh water, and plenty of water. ...I don't see how that's feasible - a closed system on the open ocean? Certainly there's the sheltered lagoon or bay to work with, but I don't see how that scales up to the square miles that are needed.

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't see how that's feasible - a closed system on the open ocean? Certainly there's the sheltered lagoon or bay to work with, but I don't see how that scales up to the square miles that are needed.

Floating bags of mostly water? Not so hard. While there are some engineering challenges to be considered, it appears to be far simpler to do than is tidal power generation, for example. Also, not to be underestimated is the significance of eliminating the need for land, thermal regulation, and competition for water. Those are all critical issues.

[mheslep]

Floating bags of mostly water? ...Yes ok. After I posted I recalled that enclosed open ocean fish farms are big business now, so perhaps not so difficult for algae.

[Kenneth Mann]

I would phrase it differently: It is a matter of betting on which technology will be cost effective first; biofuel technologies, or batteries for electric cars?

Diesel cars are a proven technology - a great option ready to go. Electric motors are already 90%+ efficient, though too expensive. But the race ultimately becomes one of biodiesel vs batteries. Biodiesel from food crops is a competitive option at about $3 per gallon, but we could never produce enough to supply the entire US petro market. It also puts food into direct competition with energy. The key to practical, carbon-neutral fuel sources will be second generation biodiesel fuel sources - fuel obtained from algae or other organisms - or third generation sources such as bioengineered algae or bacteria, not food crops

To the best of my knowledge, the limits on battery technology are fundamental. Advances in battery technology may or may not follow a similar price/capacity curve as we saw with integrated circuit technology. Such a curve is implied anecdotally, but we don't know when we will see the next significant advances or how significant they will be. While we may see great advances in the future, it is also conceivable that we are approaching a limit and the next great advances will never come.

With advanced fuel technologies, the limits seem to be more a matter of engineering and applied biology, and not a matter of making fundamental advances. Therefore, I think the most logical bet is to drive towards advanced fuel technologies and the use of clean diesel cars over the next ten years. There is already plenty of impetus in the market to incentivize advances in battery technologies, so allow that to drive the electric car option rather than driving it artificially. Meanwhile, the advanced fuel technologies needed to end our reliance on petroleum completely - something not even conceivably possible at this time with electric technologies - seem to be well within our grasp now.

Biodiesel or related products [pure oils] can be used to power all forms of transportation - cars and trucks, heavy trucks, trains, ships, and aircraft - as well being compatiable with heavy industrial needs such as cranes, generating stations, etc.


I am still an advocate of hydrogen use. It would present a solution to both our environmental and our balance of trade problem (if OPEC will allow us). It could be used in either turbo diesel, or hybrid (or hybrid turbo diesel for that matter), or fuel cell or other applications. We know the most obvious problems attributable to hydrogen. These are cost of production and on-board storage. Now, there may be new approaches to both of these problems - - both from nanotubes. For this consider the following:

Production example. (http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/020905/Nanotubes_crank_out_hydrogen_Brief_020905.html)
Storage example one. (http://www.physorg.com/news10940.html)
Storage example two. (http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=28939)

KM

[OmCheeto]

So apparently, it's expected that the new Chevy Volt is going to get a 230mpg city rating. After reading up on it, I'm not sure how it's going to work. On a "full" charge, they expect 40 miles off pure battery. Then the engine will take over to power the generator which will have up to a 50mpg rating. Now, the devil is in the details; how does the EPA calculate mpg for vehicles like this? On a long drive, I assume the rating tends towards the rating the engine/generator would have, however in the daily grind of big city driving, I can't even imagine what it would tend towards if you keep it charged all the time (charge at home then possibly charge at work? makes me wonder if a business would charge their employees to plug in their cars :P)?

DISCUSS!

Wait, no "discuss", i just want an answer :rofl:.

Well, I was all ready to jump on the "Go Volt" bandwagon this morning when I saw this thread. But I did a bit of calculating, and even in full electric mode, gasoline would have to reach $6.33/gallon for the car to get the 230 mpg cost equivalent. At $2.70/gal, the volt only gets 98 mpg in pure electric. I've always used cost per mile for the conversion.

But I still like the idea of this vehicle, for the following reason:

78% (http://www.bts.gov/publications/omnistats/volume_03_issue_04/html/figure_02.html) of Americans drive 40 or fewer miles to and from work each day.
This means that 78% of the people who drive the Volt will use little to no gasoline.
The remaining 22% will have to burn some fuel. KM has done the math for those people.

Chevrolet Volt Expects 230 mpg in City Driving (http://media.gm.com/servlet/GatewayServlet?target=http://image.emerald.gm.com/gmnews/viewpressreldetail.do?domain=12&docid=56132)
Under the new methodology being developed, EPA weights plug-in electric vehicles as traveling more city miles than highway miles on only electricity. The EPA methodology uses kilowatt hours per 100 miles traveled to define the electrical efficiency of plug-ins. Applying EPA's methodology, GM expects the Volt to consume as little as 25 kilowatt hours per 100 miles in city driving. At the U.S. average cost of electricity (approximately 11 cents per kWh), a typical Volt driver would pay about $2.75 for electricity to travel 100 miles, or less than 3 cents per mile.


And my apologies for spreading the 230 mpg lie in my post (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2307587&postcount=113) two days ago.

[Ivan Seeking]

I am still an advocate of hydrogen use. It would present a solution to both our environmental and our balance of trade problem (if OPEC will allow us). It could be used in either turbo diesel, or hybrid (or hybrid turbo diesel for that matter), or fuel cell or other applications. We know the most obvious problems attributable to hydrogen. These are cost of production and on-board storage. Now, there may be new approaches to both of these problems - - both from nanotubes. For this consider the following:

Production example. (http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/020905/Nanotubes_crank_out_hydrogen_Brief_020905.html)
Storage example one. (http://www.physorg.com/news10940.html)
Storage example two. (http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=28939)

KM

It is my perception that biodiesel from algae may be a stepping stone to a hydrogen economy. There are groups, including one at MIT, working on getting hydrogen from algae. In fact the biological production of hydrogen always seemed to be one of the more promising paths to a hydrogen source. But, the potential of algae to produce biodiesel has been explored in far greater detail than other options and is in principle a technology possible today. Also, biodiesel is already compatible with the existing infrastructure and engine technologies. The change to biodiesel from gasoline and petrodiesel would be as transparent and painless and any other option on the table.

If you look back four to six years, you will find a number of threads in which I strongly argue for implementing a hydrogen economy. I see biodiesel from algae as the best means to that end. The evolution of advanced algae technologies for biodiesel should serve the hydrogen option well. After all, the basic requirement of large-scale algae farms is the same for either fuel source.

But most important of all, biodiesel is imo the shortest path to energy independence, which is now a national security issue. Also, as T. Boone Pickens commented, by importing $600 billion a year in crude, we are engaged in the largest transfer of wealth in history. This must end. Next, since biodiesel is CO2 neutral, it takes the issue of climate change off the table.

People can oooo and ahhhhh all they want over the Chevy Volt, but very few people will buy one. The first rule of energy independence is that the options must be cost competitive. If they can get the price down to something reasonable, great! But I see very little market value in this technology for now. China has a car - a plug-in hybrid - that is alleged to have greater range than the Volt, and a sales price of something like $20,000! Recall that the Volt cost GM something close to $35,000 to build. If a car like the BYD hybrid can meet US auto standards, GM is in big trouble, and this might change the equation significantly. At $20K+, I may be in the front of the line to buy one, but I wouldn't bet the farm that the BYD car is everything it is claimed to be.

It may be noteworthy, however. that Warren Buffet has a stake in the Chinese BYD Co.
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/sp/article/2009/200901/20090112/article_387724.htm

[Topher925]

China has a car - a plug-in hybrid - that is alleged to have greater range than the Volt, and a sales price of something like $20,000! Recall that the Volt cost GM something close to $35,000 to build. If a car like the BYD hybrid can meet US auto standards, GM is in big trouble, and this might change the equation significantly. At $20K+, I may be in the front of the line to buy one, but I wouldn't bet the farm that the BYD car is everything it is claimed to be.

Like stated, the BYD is probably not what it claims to be. I can guarantee you that the technology GM uses in the Volt is probably at least 5 years ahead of BYD, and in battery years thats a lot. Like every other Chinese auto manufacturer, their promises and statements about quality and performance is most likely just a lie. The reason the cost is so much lower is only because of the labor and BYD is willing to cut corners on durability and safety.

If I wasn't a grad student and had the money I would definitely buy a Volt over all other similar priced cars. Series hybrids will always dominate parallel hybrids in terms of efficiency. Plus, the Volt is a sharp looking car too.

[bassplayer142]

Personally I believe that the real answer is in mass transit rather then independent vehicles. But when it comes to electric cars you always have to remember the chemicals and Co2 output in the manufacturing of the car and batteries. If these catch on I would like to see battery charging stations at local gas stations.

I read an article a while ago about a new type of battery that charges in 10 seconds or so. It would probably require a large amount of amps but would be more beneficial to gas.

As for the original question... I think it was answered on the first page?

[Ivan Seeking]

If I wasn't a grad student and had the money I would definitely buy a Volt over all other similar priced cars.

Why? Why finance technology that is not competitive?

Of course, once you start dropping $40K on a car, you are into novelty and cushy waste anyway.

[Topher925]

Why? Why finance technology that is not competitive?

Of course, once you start dropping $40K on a car, you are into novelty and cushy waste anyway.

But the technology is competitive in the future market. Perhaps not at current numbers but when fuel approaches $5 a gallon again it will be. No one else has a vehicle which can match or beat the Volts capabilities (yet) without using a novel infrastructure. This is obviously subject to change, but I haven't seen solid numbers from other automakers for their series hybrids yet.


Ivan, if algae based biodiesel is so competitive then why not start making it yourself? I'm not trying to sound like a smart ***, its a serious question. I don't know enough about algae's capabilities as a fuel source to have an opinion about it, but if its practical and easy to implement then why not show the world by example?

[Integral]

But the technology is competitive in the future market. Perhaps not at current numbers but when fuel approaches $5 a gallon again it will be. No one else has a vehicle which can match or beat the Volts capabilities (yet) without using a novel infrastructure. This is obviously subject to change, but I haven't seen solid numbers from other automakers for their series hybrids yet.


Ivan, if algae based biodiesel is so competitive then why not start making it yourself? I'm not trying to sound like a smart ***, its a serious question. I don't know enough about algae's capabilities as a fuel source to have an opinion about it, but if its practical and easy to implement then why not show the world by example?

It is a problem of scale, you need to develop the ability to process tons of algae along with the ability to grow tons of algae. It does not scale well. Unfortunately it appears that large scale algae projects will take the resources best available to large corporations rather then individual entrepreneurs.

[Ivan Seeking]

But the technology is competitive in the future market. Perhaps not at current numbers but when fuel approaches $5 a gallon again it will be. No one else has a vehicle which can match or beat the Volts capabilities (yet) without using a novel infrastructure. This is obviously subject to change, but I haven't seen solid numbers from other automakers for their series hybrids yet.

I don't see that we know it will be competitive. As I said earlier, there is nothing to suggest that the next big advance in battery technology will come.

Ivan, if algae based biodiesel is so competitive then why not start making it yourself? I'm not trying to sound like a smart ***, its a serious question. I don't know enough about algae's capabilities as a fuel source to have an opinion about it, but if its practical and easy to implement then why not show the world by example?

As a matter of fact, I tried. I dedicated a good bit of two years of my life, and a good bit of cash, in trying to start a company that could do this. After many months of research, and then testing of basic concepts, including the design and testing of a crude bioreactor that worked extremely well, I recruited a noted chemist that is active in the world of biodiesel, as well as a land expert, a biologist, a number of potential investors, and one pf staff member in particular; all in an effort to put together a team that could get this done. But, as Integral mentioned, this is not a technology that scales well, and the ability to proceed was stifled by the millions needed for development. The collapse of the economy didn't help much either. In fact the one potential investor who was capable of putting up the millions needed, just went bankrupt due to his close association with the auto industry.

But the motivations for my effort were the many misguided efforts to develop this technology. It seems clear to me that this is our best option and it needs to be pursued in a serious way again. It was studied for twenty years by the DOE, beginning back in the 70s, but the price of crude was just too low to justify commecialization. Only in the last few years has the price of crude risen high enough to justify the effort again. Now that Exxon and other major players see the potential, and the price of crude is up, the sense of personal urgency is waning. What remains is the need for public education about the superiority of diesel technology [when compared to IC engines, and esp ethanol!], esp when coupled with the use of domestically produced biodiesel.

The only option that exists today that can solve the entirety of the energy problem and eliminate the production of CO2 from fossil fuels,, is biodiesel from algae or other third-generation fuel technologies. We gain nothing by artificially financing a technology like [what should be at least] a $40K plug-in hybrid that can only solve a small part of the problem, before it is even ready. What has always been the death of alternative technologies are the pipe dreams. I've been promised a viable electric car for forty years now.

[mheslep]

But the technology is competitive in the future market. Perhaps not at current numbers but when fuel approaches $5 a gallon again it will be. No one else has a vehicle which can match or beat the Volts capabilities (yet) without using a novel infrastructure. This is obviously subject to change, but I haven't seen solid numbers from other automakers for their series hybrids yet....EV technology is competitive today by my calculations, yes at $3/gal gasoline, but only if taken over the lifetime of the battery. What's needed is for someone to find a way to cut loose the battery financing from the remaining vehicle up front cost, and that likely means some infrastructure roll out for the batteries and cooperation of some vehicle manufacturers.

[mheslep]

...
The only option that exists today that can solve the entirety of the energy problem and eliminate the production of CO2 from fossil fuels,, is biodiesel from algae or other third-generation fuel technologies. ....Well not quite eliminate. If algae is capturing CO2 from fossile fuels, then that CO2 is eventually released into the atmosphere, though fossile CO2 fed algae is twice as efficient on an energy production per emissions basis - it uses the same CO2 twice before its released.

[mheslep]

Moved here (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2311795&postcount=284), the algae thread.

[Ivan Seeking]

Well not quite eliminate. If algae is capturing CO2 from fossile fuels, then that CO2 is eventually released into the atmosphere, though fossile CO2 fed algae is twice as efficient on an energy production per emissions basis - it uses the same CO2 twice before its released.

Assuming that we only use naturally occuring sources of CO2, it does eliminate the production of additional CO2. The energy net would be CO2 neutral and presumably get its CO2 from that naturally circulating in the biosphere. The key is that we would no longer be producing CO2 with fossil fuels. We would be sequestering an additional source - CO2 being produced naturally right now beyond that from fossil fuels - and using that carbon.

As for CO2 fed from a coal plant, I say lose the coal and burn algae biomass or oil. Loop closed.

As for electric cars, if we already powered all of our mining operations, smelting and refining plants, as well as our production plants, on nuclear power, we could claim the same benefit would be derived from electric cars that we get from second or third-generation biofuels. But we don't - it may be that we never could - and as a result, electric cars have a large carbon footprint before they ever hit the road. While this is true of a diesel as well, there is certainly less energy required to make a diesel engine than for exotic battery technolgies, rare-earth motors, etc. And unlike battery technologies, we CAN run mines, smelting plants, truck fleets, etc, using algae power.

Ivan's loosely proposed rule of carbon: Using advanced technologies over simple ones tends to increase the production-related carbon footprint for that application. It has been my experience that the financial cost of a technology is often directly related to the size of the respective carbon footprint. It used to be that this was true for active solar power, as compared to passive solar power, but with thin films and the latest in solar cell technology, I think that industry is beating the implicit carbon problem; and we will see a corresponding reduction in the market prices. Of course it would be probably be scary to know the entirety of the carbon footprint attributable to the evolution of the solar cell [PV] industry.

[mheslep]

Assuming that we only use naturally occuring sources of CO2, it does eliminate the production of additional CO2. The energy net would be CO2 neutral and presumably get its CO2 from that naturally circulating in the biosphere. The key is that we would no longer be producing CO2 with fossil fuels. We would be sequestering an additional source - CO2 being produced naturally right now beyond that from fossil fuels - and using that carbon.

As for CO2 fed from a coal plant, I say lose the coal and burn algae biomass or oil. Loop closed. Ok, no fossile sources for the required algae CO2. But I was unaware that there were any workable algea plans that could use atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

As for electric cars, if we already powered all of our mining operations, smelting and refining plants, as well as our production plants, on nuclear power, we could claim the same benefit would be derived from electric cars that we get from second or third-generation biofuels. But we don't - it may be that we never could - and as a result, electric cars have a large carbon footprint before they ever hit the road.
EVs have a larger carbon footprint than what? Than existing gasoline cars? No, I don't think so, even for the case of coal based electric power. If you mean EV's have a larger footprint than biofueled cars, true, but as well we've in another thread, once one has a practical biofuel source (algae or whatever), then it is more efficient to use the biofuel to produce electricity for EV's than to distribute the biofuel and burn it in internal combustion engines.
While this is true of a diesel as well, there is certainly less energy required to make a diesel engine than for exotic battery technolgies, rare-earth motors, etc....That's not obvious to me. Without running this down, I imagine the energy required for steel production would always dominate, and if so then a big 1000 kg steel engine block + heavy transmission + big radiator + exhaust system would always require more energy in production than an electric motor and a lithium/graphite battery.

[Ivan Seeking]

Ok, no fossile sources for the required algae CO2. But I was unaware that there were any workable algea plans that could use atmospheric concentrations of CO2.

That is all a matter of cost per unit area of algae. If the cost is low enough, say for example by eliminating the cost of land and water, one might produce fuel at a competitive price without any CO2 augmentation at all. There are also other natural and artificial sources, such as the exhuast from cement plants, or the gases produced by rotting vegetation.

The fact is that I achieved what was calculated as ~70% of the required yield per unit area per unit time, on my first attempt, and without any CO2 augmentation, just aeration. Part of what I see as the flaw in popular approaches is the tendency to shoot for theoretical limits. Rather than trying to drive the algae to maximum yields, instead use much less expensive approaches and live with reduced production. The net profit is all that matters.

EVs have a larger carbon footprint than what? Than existing gasoline cars? No, I don't think so, even for the case of coal based electric power. If you mean EV's have a larger footprint than biofueled cars, true, but as well we've in another thread, once one has a practical biofuel source (algae or whatever), then it is more efficient to use the biofuel to produce electricity for EV's than to distribute the biofuel and burn it in internal combustion engines.

I am talking about the materials used to make the car, as well as production costs. Much of that cost can be traced back to energy requirements, thus carbon. As for distribution of energy, there is no option for anything but limited-use cars. Everything else needs fuel. So its not like we can eliminate the transportation fuel infrastructure. But we can eliminate the oil tankers coming from the ME and abroad.

That's not obvious to me. Without running this down, I imagine the energy required for steel production would always dominate, and if so then a big 1000 kg steel engine block + heavy transmission + big radiator + exhaust system would always require more energy in production than an electric motor and a lithium/graphite battery.

Come on, look at the weight of an electric car compared to the same HP in a diesel car. Look at all of the materials as well as the refining of those materials. Again, follow the money. Energy is largely what drives the cost of production. The Tesla uses something like $40K worth of batteries. We have to look at all of those highly refined materials used in both the motors and batteries, and track those all the way back to raw materials, as well as include the recycling of the materials, and all of the energy [carbon] costs along the way - the cradle to grave energy costs.

Beyond a doubt, the Chevy Volt doesn't even make economic sense today. That is the bottom line when it comes to any option, and every good capitalist knows it.

[Ivan Seeking]

BMW is running a series of diesel commercials. I just saw one that is really good, but it's not up on YouTube yet. Here is another

ELcbUq5E4cU

[Ivan Seeking]

There it is. Beautiful!

H6hU35Vzelc

[mgb_phys]

Review of an all electric car being launched in europe.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2009/08/14/review_e_car_mitsubishi_imiev/

But since it costs 2x as much as the petrol version (which itself does 62mpg-us) you are going to need to do a lot of miles or be seriously green to benefit.

ps Slightly confusingly the petrol version is listed as a zero emission vehicle, this just means it emits <100gCO2/km

[OmCheeto]

Gads. You kids can NOT stick to the topic. But while we are at it. I was at work today thumbing through Time magazine and read the following:


Does Science Matter? (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1916078-4,00.html)
In China, I watched Chu tour the headquarters of a company called ENN — the name is a hybrid of energy and innovation — that was founded as a tiny gas supplier in 1989 by a cabdriver with $200 in his pocket and has expanded into a clean-energy conglomerate with more than 24,000 employees. Chu peppered his hosts with technical questions as he checked out a sleek factory churning out superefficient solar panels, a greenhouse where genetically engineered algae were excreting fuel, a prototype for a coal-gasification plant in Inner Mongolia and a research lab with 300 scientists. It felt like an only-in-America business story, except we were in Langfang, just outside Beijing.

Of course I thought of Ivan and his diesel fuel pooping algae.

BUT WE HAVE TO GET BACK ON TOPIC!

Why did GM opt for a 70 hp kicker engine?

My guess is that it was purely psychological.

[Ivan Seeking]

Comparing this option to others is entirely on topic.

AKA: Why this car is a bad choice and uncompetitive.

[mheslep]

That is all a matter of cost per unit area of algae. If the cost is low enough, say for example by eliminating the cost of land and water, one might produce fuel at a competitive price without any CO2 augmentation at all. There are also other natural and artificial sources, such as the exhuast from cement plants, or the gases produced by rotting vegetation.

The fact is that I achieved what was calculated as ~70% of the required yield per unit area per unit time, on my first attempt, and without any CO2 augmentation, just aeration. Part of what I see as the flaw in popular approaches is the tendency to shoot for theoretical limits. Rather than trying to drive the algae to maximum yields, instead use much less expensive approaches and live with reduced production. The net profit is all that matters.Interesting.


... As for distribution of energy, there is no option for anything but limited-use cars. Everything else needs fuel. So its not like we can eliminate the transportation fuel infrastructure...There are already trial programs in place for EV 18 wheelers (80,000 lbs - Port of LA), trains can run electric (not off batteries, yet). NASA has a program for that electric 797. Granted these things are in their infancy, but at $20/$30 gal (if we listen to the Independent article) and with no large production plants in existence yet, then so is 3rd gen biofuel. Another way to view the limitations: algae/cellulosic has the vehicle ~ready to go, it has to prove it can scale up the energy production; where as EVs have the energy ~ready to go, it has to prove it can scale up the vehicle production.

Come on, look at the weight of an electric car compared to the same HP in a diesel car. Look at all of the materials as well as the refining of those materials. Again, follow the money. Energy is largely what drives the cost of production. The Tesla uses something like $40K worth of batteries. We have to look at all of those highly refined materials used in both the motors and batteries, and track those all the way back to raw materials, as well as include the recycling of the materials, and all of the energy [carbon] costs along the way - the cradle to grave energy costs.I've seen the weight balance between an ICE and EV before (and posted it if I recall). It turns out that the weight balance between a pure EV and an ICE vehicle is roughly a wash, IF the battery capacity is limited to 100 miles (~25kWh). That's with a current battery such as A123's or LG-Chem's. A 100 mi battery, such as the one in the Nissan Leaf (http://www.autoblog.com/2009/08/01/2010-nissan-leaf-electric-car-in-person-in-depth-and-u-s-b/), weighs ~200kg, and probably costs $9,000-$14,000. An electric motor can weigh less than half its ICE equivalent in power. Also subtract from the EV budget the usual items found along side the ICE: large radiator and cooling system, exhaust system, fuel system, large transmission, etc.
...Make no mistake, though, as despite clever construction methods, the Leaf's batteries remain heavy, at around 200 kg per car (over 440 pounds). Despite this, Nissan projects that the car's total weight will be similar to that of a comparable gas car because the electric motor is lighter than a traditional internal-combustion engine and because there is no need for a conventional transmission. Of course, there is the added bulk of a power inverter, but on the whole, Nissan believes the car's center-of-gravity will be lower than an I.C. car, so handling might actually be better than the aforementioned Versa.

The Tesla has a 220 mile battery, using laptop cells (lithium cobalt).

Regarding the overall energy budget embodied in a car, somebody did a study on this and it is indeed substantial: it comes out at 15-20% if I recall of the total traveling energy used by the car in its lifetime, but to our point they found the difference in embodied energy by drivetrain (gasoline, diesel, electric) to be very small. No doubt you are skeptical, so I'll look it up and post tomorrow.

Beyond a doubt, the Chevy Volt doesn't even make economic sense today. That is the bottom line when it comes to any option, and every good capitalist knows it.Agreed. I favor pure EV's, not PHEV's, and battery exchange which I think so configured are economical and practical. Then, without the battery cost up front, a $17,000 car equivalent to a Malibu or a Camry is doable. If its done this way (EV - battery exchange), I believe EV's will win in the market, without exchange I doubt they'll do much in in even 20 years.

Edit: With all the focus on carbon emissions, it's easy to forget about NOx, SOx, and particulate emissions which are a fact of life when burning any kind of hydrocarbon. We're better off if those emissions are out by the power plant (which might not emit any at all), which EVs allow.

[mheslep]

Why did GM opt for a 70 hp kicker engine?

My guess is that it was purely psychological.If they wanted that 300 mile range on top of a 40 mile range battery then something in that range was necessary. If the road could be guaranteed mostly flat, then a ~30-40HP engine would do while running the electric motor off the battery in 'charge sustain' mode at 60 mph. Then consider the case where the road is 150 miles of average uphill followed by 150 miles average downhill, so that it is the energy equivalent of the flat road case. More HP would be required from the engine on the uphill portion to prevent battery depletion. This might mean that for steep long grades (e.g. the Rockies), the Volt might have a problem - even though it has a 150HP electric motor on board adequate to the climb it would not be able to use that motor at more than half power for the longer distances.

[OmCheeto]

If they wanted that 300 mile range on top of a 40 mile range battery then something in that range was necessary. If the road could be guaranteed mostly flat, then a ~30-40HP engine would do while running the battery in 'charge sustain' mode at 60 mph. Then consider the case where the road is 150 miles of average uphill followed by 150 miles average downhill, so that it is the energy equivalent of the flat road case. More HP would be required from the engine on the uphill portion to prevent battery depletion. This might mean that for steep long grades (e.g. the Rockies), the Volt might have a problem - even though it has a 150HP electric motor on board adequate to the climb it would not be able to use that motor at more than half power for the longer distances.

hmmm... I wonder what percentage of Americans routinely drive over the Rockies? The logic eludes me as to why they would target the electric range of the vehicle to 78% of drivers, and then put in a kicker motor that targets about 0.00002% of drivers. I'd have put in a 20 hp turbo diesel. Perhaps it's in the (planned obsolescence) works. New for 2015: the 500 mpg(not really) Volt.

Comparing this option to others is entirely on topic.
AKA: Why this car is a bad choice and uncompetitive.

Ok. I agree that it's price tag is out of my league, but IMHO, it is the closest thing to the perfect American car that Detroit has ever offered us.

[mheslep]

hmmm... I wonder what percentage of Americans routinely drive over the Rockies? The logic eludes me as to why they would target the electric range of the vehicle to 78% of drivers, and then put in a kicker motor that targets about 0.00002% of drivers. I'd have put in a 20 hp turbo diesel. Perhaps it's in the (planned obsolescence) works. I think you're missing the point OmC. The 20hp would not work on anything except a flat or even slightly downhill road with the A/C off. Then you would take minutes not seconds to enter a freeway and come up to speed. That turbo diesel would add even more to the cost of the Volt, which can't spare any more. Are there any light duty diesels running in the US? I had the impression the EPA's extreme NOx and particulate limits were keeping the European makes out (warning: conspiracy theory dead ahead)

[mheslep]

hmmm... I wonder what percentage of Americans routinely drive over the Rockies? The logic eludes me as to why they would target the electric range of the vehicle to 78% of drivers, and then put in a kicker motor that targets about 0.00002% of drivers. I meant much slighter grades like driving W/E around the East coast required the 70HP engine, and that the Rockies might be a problem for the current Volt.

[mheslep]

Interview with GM hybrid drive train exec:
http://greenfuelsforecast.com/ArticleDetails.php?articleID=550
One criticism from detractors of the E-Flex architecture has been the engine won't maintain vehicle performance while operating in charge sustaining mode, requiring lower speeds or "turtling." At the original introduction of the concept, GM officials acknowledged this was one of the issues with the EV1 when its battery charge level dropped too low.

Regarding the Volt, Nitz says that this criticism "is not true to start with." The Volt will be equipped with a 16kWh battery pack that will nominally operate between a 35 and 85 percent state of charge. Vehicles typically do not use the full performance capabilities at all times. When cruising at a relatively constant speed on the highway or even in around town driving, only a small fraction of the performance capability is being used. The full capability typically is only used for transient conditions, such as accelerating along a highway on-ramp or passing another vehicle.

"The range extender does not have the full power to do the dynamic response that the electric side can so you do have to depend on the battery," Nitz says.

The range extender will provide approximately 50kW while the electric drive provides 100kW.

"That vehicle will never use more than 50kW on a continuous basis," Nitz adds.

Even if the battery is at the level where the range extender is engaged, it still has a significant amount of charge left and can provide full power to drive the vehicle in those transient conditions.

"Zero to sixty, passing maneuvers, you'll be fine, the ability to actually use more than about 50kW doesn't exist very frequently," says Nitz.

The battery can be drawn below the 35 percent charge level briefly to support these driving conditions. When steady state driving resumes, the demand on the battery falls below the output of the range extender - allowing the charge to be replenished faster than it is consumed.

"It's designed to be able to go up Baker Hill," a steep hill between Los Angeles and Las Vegas as well as other mountain grades at reasonable speeds "just with the engine," Nitz explains.
A 20HP engine would not allow repeated "Zero to sixty, passing maneuvers," and long hill climbs.

BTW, this "35 to 85%" of charge operating range is an aspect of plugin hybrids that is a large disadvantage economically - a lot of mostly dead weight battery on board. This is not the case with a pure EV.

[mheslep]

...Regarding the overall energy budget embodied in a car, somebody did a study on this and it is indeed substantial: it comes out at 15-20% if I recall of the total traveling energy used by the car in its lifetime, but to our point they found the difference in embodied energy by drivetrain (gasoline, diesel, electric) to be very small. No doubt you are skeptical, so I'll look it up and post tomorrow....Following up:

Electric Powertrains: Opportunities andChallenges in the U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle Fleet, Kromer & Heywood May 2007. Sloan Automotive Laboratory, Laboratory for Energy and the Environment
MIT
http://web.mit.edu/sloan-auto-lab/research/beforeh2/reports.htm
...A recent study out of Argonne National Labs (ANL) [Moon et al 2006] modeled the embodied energy and GHG emissions for a range of vehicle technologies. Their results estimate that vehicle embodied energy accounts for about 21% of total lifecycle GHG emissions and 18% of total energy use in a conventional spark-ignition vehicle – a sizeable piece of the total. However, the difference between different powertrain technologies is only a fraction of this amount. Figure 6 shows the change in lifecycle energy, relative to the NA-SI engine, for different technologies. In the case of the hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicle, there is little change. While there are non-trivial differences in the manufacturing energy used for these vehicles, the differences are masked by the fact that this embodied energy is only 20% of the total – hence, it is a fraction of a fraction.NA-SI = naturally aspirated - spark ignition, i.e. current gasoline engines.

[Mech_Engineer]

My wife and I just bought a used 2006 VW Jetta TDI, and we are very happy with it. I have to say that it's hard to beat it bang-for-buck in my opinion, being that we bought it for a little under $13K. We have been able to get about 40mpg combined driving and as high as 50mpg hwy at 65-70 mph. The 100hp, 200ft-lb tq turbodiesel engine is a peppy little guy, and is overall very nice to drive.

The car was economically a good choice for us, and at the same time it doesn't feel like we had to make a huge sacrifice in power or drivability like the Prius, or even compared to "better/larger" cars like the Chevy Malibu with an eco-crap 4-cylinder. Its quite surprising to me that there aren't more turbodiesel-powered cars in the US, they are really amazing little engines.

[mheslep]

My wife and I just bought a used 2006 VW Jetta TDI, and we are very happy with it. I have to say that it's hard to beat it bang-for-buck in my opinion, being that we bought it for a little under $13K. We have been able to get about 40mpg combined driving and as high as 50mpg hwy at 65-70 mph. The 100hp, 200ft-lb tq turbodiesel engine is a peppy little guy, and is overall very nice to drive. ..I'm curious about what caused the diesel price premium last year - ~20% over gasoline. Seems to be gone now.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/gcprrets.gif
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/oog/info/gdu/dcprrets.gif

[russ_watters]

I meant much slighter grades like driving W/E around the East coast required the 70HP engine, and that the Rockies might be a problem for the current Volt. I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is, but I've driven a 92 horsepower Eagle Talon that could eventually wind itself up to over 100 mph (no torque) but couldn't handle any kind of hill and a 75 (I think) horsepower diesel VW Rabbit that was light and had a lot of torque, but still could barely get up to highway speed. I'm wondering what the actual output of the Volt's drivetrain is. I guess we'll find out during review testing if it can hold speed on a grade for 5 or 10 minutes. That kind of thing is common in Pennsylvania too (same mountains as WV).

[mheslep]

I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is, but I've driven a 92 horsepower Eagle Talon that could eventually wind itself up to over 100 mph but couldn't handle any kind of hill and a 75 (I think) horsepower diesel VW Rabbit that was light but still could barely get up to highway speed. I'm wondering what the actual output of the Volt's drivetrain is. I guess we'll find out during review testing if it can hold speed on a grade for 5 or 10 minutes. That kind of thing is common in Pennsylvania too (same mountains as WV).Its relevant in that it partially demonstrates why OmC's 20HP engine won't do.

To be clear, the electric motor is the only motor mechanically connected to the wheels in a serial hybrid plugin like the Volt and that motor is rated 150HP - adequate for hill climbing when it is supplied with rated current. One mode of operating the vehicle then is for the first 40 miles the 70HP ICE is simply off, and the electric motor runs only from the battery. When the battery reaches 30% state of charge, then the ICE kicks on and starts generating power for the battery. If the tractive load on the electric motor is, say, ~70HP (neglecting losses) from a slight grade or acceleration demand, then the vehicle meets the demand of the driver and the battery is not further depleted with the ICE running at full power.

If the vehicle is climbing a major hill as you described, then let us say the electric motor has to draw ~150HP to climb it, and it will deplete the battery at rate of 80HP down below 30% of full charge for the time to climb the hill. The vehicle controller has some programmed limit as to how long it will allow that to happen before it says no more and forces the power supplied to the motor back to down to 70HP. It will not allow the battery to ever reach full discharge, or anywhere close to that.

Figure 7 from the Kromer et al reference above attached to illustrate the two modes in PHEVs like the Volt - charge depletion (1st 40 miles), and charge sustaining.

[russ_watters]

If the tractive load on the electric motor is, say, ~70HP (neglecting losses) from a slight grade or acceleration demand, then the vehicle meets the demand of the driver and the battery is not further depleted with the ICE running at full power.

If the vehicle is climbing a major hill as you described, then let us say the electric motor has to draw ~150HP to climb it, and it will deplete the battery at rate of 80HP down below 30% of full charge for the time to climb the hill. The vehicle controller has some programmed limit as to how long it will allow that to happen before it says no more and forces the power supplied to the motor back to down to 70HP. It will not allow the battery to ever reach full discharge, or anywhere close to that. And that's my question: what is that performance like, when the car is running as a direct gas-electric? In a regular car, it is my understanding that you lose something like 35% of your power via the drivetrain. So that would mean a 70 hp engine can put 70*.65=45.5 hp to the ground. How much horsepower can the volt put to the ground in this mode? Possible sample calc:

Gas engine drivetrain loss: 10% (I'm assuming a gearbox and clutch).
Generator efficiency: 95%
Power conversion efficiency: 95%
Electric motor efficiency: 95%
Electric motor to wheel drivetrain loss: 10%

Resultant horsepower to the ground: 70*.9*.95*.95*.95*.9=48.6 hp.

I think people are going to want to know what that performance is actually like, lest they find themselves unpleasantly surpised when they suddenly can't go more than 35 mph on a moderately graded highway in the poconos.

Incidentally, a couple of years ago I went on a trip from PA to WV to see a WVU football game and my buddy's Saturn could not maintain highway speed on the interstate on the way there. He had to drop a gear and run at around 55 mph. My Mazda 6i, with 160 hp (but a much bigger car than a Saturn or a Volt) is marginal on similar roads in PA (I can keep 70 mph, but have to do it in 4th gear).

[Mech_Engineer]

I'm curious about what caused the diesel price premium last year - ~20% over gasoline. Seems to be gone now.

I'm not sure what caused that spike. From what I understand diesel prices tend to rise in the winter (due to higher heating oil demand) and fall in the summer, but I'm not sure what other drivers affect diesel pricing.

I'm not sure how relevant the comparison is, but I've driven a 92 horsepower Eagle Talon that could eventually wind itself up to over 100 mph (no torque) but couldn't handle any kind of hill and a 75 (I think) horsepower diesel VW Rabbit that was light and had a lot of torque, but still could barely get up to highway speed.

Our diesel Jetta has 100hp (but more importantly 200ft-lbs of torque) and is able to easily maintain 75 or even 65 mph on a 10% grade in 6th gear. It's no slouch in acceleration IMO either (0-60 is around 9 seconds I think) and can get to 100mph no problem. Overall it's very zippy in highway driving and passing situations. Of course you don't get maximum mileage when you're flooring it though...

My point is that it takes more than horsepower to determine driving performance...

[Kenneth Mann]

Here are a few more articles on the volt, etc.

KM

chevy-volt-gets-230-mpg-city-epa-rating (http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/11/chevy-volt-gets-230-mpg-city-epa-rating/)
gm-still-claims-volt-will-get-40-all-electric-miles-both-highway-and-city-but-under-what-conditions (http://gm-volt.com/2009/08/13/gm-still-claims-volt-will-get-40-all-electric-miles-both-highway-and-city-but-under-what-conditions/)
the-chevy-volts-electric-range-is-40-miles-in-both-highway-and-city-driving/ (http://gm-volt.com/2009/04/24/the-chevy-volts-electric-range-is-40-miles-in-both-highway-and-city-driving/)
under-what-conditions-is-the-chevy-volts-quoted-40-mile-electric-range-modelled (http://gm-volt.com/2007/10/22/under-what-conditions-is-the-chevy-volts-quoted-40-mile-electric-range-modelled/)
driving-the-mini-e-electric-car-the-first-1200-miles (http://gm-volt.com/2009/07/08/driving-the-mini-e-electric-car-the-first-1200-miles/)
gm-planning-all-electric-city-car (http://gm-volt.com/2009/05/08/gm-planning-all-electric-city-car/)
report-mitsubishi-confirms-it-will-launch-extended-range-electric-car-in-2010 (http://gm-volt.com/2009/07/31/report-mitsubishi-confirms-it-will-launch-extended-range-electric-car-in-2010/)
is-tesla-planning-to-build-an-e-rev-too (http://gm-volt.com/2007/12/07/is-tesla-planning-to-build-an-e-rev-too/)

[mheslep]

And that's my question: what is that performance like, when the car is running as a direct gas-electric? In a regular car, it is my understanding that you lose something like 35% of your power via the drivetrain. So that would mean a 70 hp engine can put 70*.65=45.5 hp to the ground. How much horsepower can the volt put to the ground in this mode? Possible sample calc:

Gas engine drivetrain loss: 10% (I'm assuming a gearbox and clutch).
Generator efficiency: 95%
Power conversion efficiency: 95%
Electric motor efficiency: 95%
Electric motor to wheel drivetrain loss: 10%

Resultant horsepower to the ground: 70*.9*.95*.95*.95*.9=48.6 hp.

I think people are going to want to know what that performance is actually like, lest they find themselves unpleasantly surpised when they suddenly can't go more than 35 mph on a moderately graded highway in the poconos.I think you're mostly right about the loss assumptions. I'd drop possibly the gear/clutch on the gas engine - as the generator should be able to take whatever the engine cares to put out, at a pace the engine likes, and add another 5% power conversion loss going in/out of the battery.

The combustion engine power delivered to the ground, whatever it is, is sufficient to climb a 6% grade continuously at 'reasonable speed' (inferring from the Baker Hill (http://www.norkarecreation.com/ride542/Graphics/updatedprofile.jpeg) in Ca statement by GM above). The Volt will climb steeper still by temporarily depleting the battery below its 'sustain' point, but that can't last long (couple minutes?)

Another way to think about the Volt is to imagine a regular combustion engine vehicle with a 150HP motor, but with only enough gas in the tank to go about 45 miles. Once you hit 40 miles, further imagine someone starts slowly trickling more gas into the tank, with the trickling rate such that with average driving one can go another couple hundred miles. At any time you can, if you like, stomp on it but if you keep your foot down you'll get ahead of the trickle.

[OmCheeto]

Yes. The Baker Hill scenario makes sense. Though one thing that went through my mind yesterday was the actual output of the 70 hp engine. Few engines are run at full power continuously. Those that are, have fairly short lifespans: outboard motors, indy racers, etc. I would imagine that the ICE would actually only be required to generate a few hp during daily, non-Pikes Peak Rally, back and forth to work treks. So a 70 hp engine does make sense. Though I think they should offer a 20 hp option for people in Kansas. Or maybe 21 hp if they make a lot of trips to the top of Mt. Sunflower. :rolleyes:

[mgb_phys]

Thats the advantage of a turbo diesel. You can build a 20-30hp engine that is perfectly adequate for driving around town but put a 100-120Hp sticker on it so people will buy it.

[mgb_phys]

The electric version of the Smart:
Power: 30 kW (41 hp) from 13.2 kWh battery
Range 110 kilometers / 68 miles (193 Wh/mile)
Recharge time (80%): four hours (100%): eight hours
Top speed: 120 km/h 74.6 mph


Although somehow I don't think this is going to catch on in the USA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Smart_EV_Police_Car.JPG/250px-Smart_EV_Police_Car.JPG

[mheslep]

The electric version of the Smart:
Power: 30 kW (41 hp) from 13.2 kWh battery
Range 110 kilometers / 68 miles (193 Wh/mile)
Recharge time (80%): four hours (100%): eight hours
Top speed: 120 km/h 74.6 mph


Although somehow I don't think this is going to catch on in the USA
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e3/Smart_EV_Police_Car.JPG/250px-Smart_EV_Police_Car.JPGBase price of the gasoline version is apparently $12k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#Made_for_US_market). I wonder how much the EV version costs? The 13 kWh battery should cost ~$6k, or about 4cents/mile.

[mgb_phys]

Base price of the gasoline version is apparently $12k
UK price is estimated 12,000 GBP (the gas version is around 9000 GBP)

Interestingly (for this thread) the eu catagorise them on khw/100km (or wh/mile for the uk) but also on the amount of CO2 they emit based on the source of the grid power. So this is road tax exempt because charging it emits 60 gCO2/km, the limit is 100 gCO2/km which the smart diesel also manages.

[mheslep]

UK price is estimated 12,000 GBP (the gas version is around 9000 GBP)

Interestingly (for this thread) the eu catagorise them on khw/100km (or wh/mile for the uk) but also on the amount of CO2 they emit based on the source of the grid power. So this is road tax exempt because charging it emits 60 gCO2/km, the limit is 100 gCO2/km which the smart diesel also manages.The source of the grid power? How does one determine that, other than to average all sources (coal, wind, nuclear,...)? Also, I thought part of the reason for allowing only zero emission vehicles into, say London during the day, was to cut on the downtown toxic emissions - SOx, NOx and particulates. The EV zeros those emissions in the city while the diesel never will.

[mheslep]

UK price is estimated 12,000 GBP (the gas version is around 9000 GBP)So a difference of ~$5,000. Sounds about right. $6,000 battery minus some savings for a cheaper electric only drive train. Still, they need to separate the battery from the upfront purchase price somehow - perhaps make it a subscription per mile - otherwise the EV is too expensive.

[Andre]

The top 113 fuel efficent models in the UK do better than 50mpg-US combined.

These aren't Smart microcars, they are mostly 90+Hp turbo diesel hatchbacks.

For some strange reason none of these seem to be available in the US/Canada, even though some of them are built by an American company.
Seat and Skoda aren't familar in America - they are basically rebadged VW Polo/Golf


Maker Model Urban Highway Combined (mpg US)

SEAT Ibiza 1.4 TDI 48.0 73.5 61.9
Volkswagen Polo 1.4 TDI 48.0 73.5 61.9
Mini MINI 50.0 67.2 60.3
Citroen C1 1.4HDi 44.4 69.2 57.4
Mini MINI R55 48.0 65.4 57.4
Skoda Fabia 1.4 TDI 44.4 69.2 57.4
Fiat 500 1.3 16v 44.4 65.4 56.0
Ford Fiesta 44.4 67.2 56.0
Ford Fiesta 1.6 TDCi 45.2 65.4 56.0

Anyway to format tables here?

Hmm
Hmm wasn't my car (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peugeot_308) world record holder mileage? 90.2 mpg. But then again that must be the diesel hybrid. Mine (1.6, 110hp TDi) is not better than about 60 mpg.

[mheslep]

Anyway to format tables here?
Latex, but it's cumbersome at first.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2230803&postcount=405
http://www.physicsforums.com/latex_images/22/2230803-0.png

[mheslep]

The top 113 fuel efficent models in the UK do better than 50mpg-US combined.

These aren't Smart microcars, they are mostly 90+Hp turbo diesel hatchbacks.

For some strange reason none of these seem to be available in the US/Canada, even though some of them are built by an American company.
Seat and Skoda aren't familar in America - they are basically rebadged VW Polo/Golf... As I understand it, the EPA's extremely strict diesel emissions standards keep most of those vehicles out of the US. There maybe a bit of a fix here. I suspect Detroit encouraged the EPA to raise diesel standards in order to keep the Euro diesels out, since generally they grown better at making diesel engines.

[Integral]

Base price of the gasoline version is apparently $12k (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_Fortwo#Made_for_US_market). I wonder how much the EV version costs? The 13 kWh battery should cost ~$6k, or about 4cents/mile.

I was at about mile marker 220 in Oregon heading south doing about 70mph when a Smart car with California plates PASSED me. Since no one lives in the northern 200mi of Cali, this lady was probably looking at another 500mi in that little thing. Wonder if she could maintain 75mph over the Syskiyous?

[mgb_phys]

The source of the grid power? How does one determine that, other than to average all sources (coal, wind, nuclear,...)?
I assume an average, don't know if it's all-eu or per-country. It's an interesting statistic though at 60g/km the electric Smart is only about 30% better than the diesel version.

Also, I thought part of the reason for allowing only zero emission vehicles into, say London during the day, was to cut on the downtown toxic emissions - SOx, NOx and particulates. The EV zeros those emissions in the city while the diesel never will.
it's mostly congestion, there are discounts for electric vehicles but given the small number of the it's mostly just green-washing.
Since ultra-low sulphur diesel and some new buses the traffic pollution has improved - it's now less than a city like Vancouver, it helps that photo-chemical smog isn't usually a big problem in the UK!

The big carrot and stick is that gas+diesel is around $8/gal and road tax is linked to the CO2 emmissions, so it's free for a diesel Smart up to around $500/year for a large SUV

[OmCheeto]

I was at about mile marker 220 in Oregon heading south doing about 70mph when a Smart car with California plates PASSED me. Since no one lives in the northern 200mi of Cali, this lady was probably looking at another 500mi in that little thing. Wonder if she could maintain 75mph over the Syskiyous?

One of these days, you are going to be passed by one of these (http://www.commutercars.com/performance.html):

http://home.europa.com/~garry/tango_ev.jpg

Funniest moment at the NEDRA was when this car beat a big block in the quarter mile. The announcer said: "That poor guy. He's gonna have to go home tonight, and tell his friends, that he got beat, by a fish."

http://home.europa.com/~garry/tesla_n_tango.jpg

Not quite as pretty as the 5 Tesla's that drove down from Seattle.
http://home.europa.com/~garry/3burgandyteslas.jpg
But damn, that car(?) appeared to have violated all of the laws of physics.

[mheslep]

I assume an average, don't know if it's all-eu or per-country. It's an interesting statistic though at 60g/km the electric Smart is only about 30% better than the diesel version....If we believe the average statistic. In the future with new nuclear and wind efforts the EV CO2 figure can continue to drop substantially. No so that diesel. And its all imported (or does the UK have some North Sea shares?).

Edit: 60g/km checks out. I have 953g CO2 / kWh generated from coal (EPA), and you have the Smart EV at 8.4km/kWh (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2315313&postcount=112), or 114 grams CO2/km if the grid were 100% coal based.

[mgb_phys]

If we believe the average statistic. In the future with new nuclear and wind efforts the EV CO2 figure can continue to drop substantially.
And a beneficial cycle, as the batteries and motor gets more efficient they use less electricity and hopefully nuclear and wind (probably not solar in the UK!) will increase.

No so that diesel. And its all imported (or does the UK have some North Sea shares?).
The UK is roughly self sufficent in oil and gas - for now at least.

60g/km checks out. I have 953g CO2 / kWh generated from coal (EPA), and you have the Smart EV at 8.4km/kWh[/URL], or 114 grams CO2/km if the grid were 100% coal based.
The UK is about 40% Methane, 35% Coal, 20% nuclear and a bit of hydro.

[mheslep]

The UK is roughly self sufficent in oil and gas - for now at least.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/United_Kingdom/images/image010.gif
Wow, _just_ for now.

Consumption has been nearly constant for two decades? That's amazing.

[Moonbear]

I've seen a few Smart cars around here, even, but am not expecting to see them on the roads come winter. If I still lived in NJ, and all my commutes were on relatively flat, well-maintained roads, I'd give something like that a consideration, especially since the ability to squeeze a teeny car into a teeny space for parallel parking would be quite an advantage on city streets. Unfortunately, even my previously beloved little Focus wouldn't handle the roads around here. Not at all an issue in the summer, other than a slightly larger engine means I can get up the hills at about the speed limit instead of 10 mph below it, but in winter, having AWD and a slightly heavier car is the difference between getting home or being stranded halfway up a mountain or in a ditch. I'm getting to the point where I have enough lectures recorded that I could stay home on snow days and offer my students a pre-recorded lecture instead (so they can stay home too), but when the snow starts while I'm already at work, I really do prefer being able to get home again.

If I had a spouse and could share a vehicle on bad weather days, I'd certainly consider these little, more economic cars as a second car for daily commuting, but I really can't justify to myself owning two cars for one person just so I can have a good weather and bad weather car.

[mgb_phys]

I once had to drive from Thunder Bay (Canada) in the middle of winter - and the only thing the car hire place had left was PT cruisers.
They also sold Smarts and you got a free set of winter tires! Apparently they aren't bad, they are fairly light and the engine is over the front wheels so you get decent grip.

The electric ones could be better day-day, the problem with Smarts I have driven is that being very light but tall (very high seating position) you have to fight any cross wind at freeway speeds. So if the battery adds a lot of underfloor weight it could be a good thing.

[Moonbear]

The problem here is the mountains. I never had any problem driving in MI, no matter what the road conditions were. Anything from ice to 18 inches of snow, I managed to get to the lab with my old Ford Tempo. But the roads were flat. Here, the smaller cars struggle just with the incline alone, on a good day, so when you add snow or ice, they just can't make it to the top. Believe me, I wish they would. I didn't want to give up my Focus, that was one of my favorite cars ever. It got good mileage, had good pep, and had rear seats that dropped down to expand the cargo capacity of the trunk.

Fighting crosswinds is a big problem for light cars in places where icy roads are common. In some of the Canadian provinces, too light of a car is going to wind up stranded in a ditch, simply because it will get blown off the road by the wind. I'd worry about the same problem in the US in some places (not an issue everywhere, so it's very dependent on where you plan to use the car...not too many people plan cross-country vacations in winter anyway). When I drove my coworker's Prius in OH, I could tell that wind was a problem for that car. I don't have problems with wind where I live now, but when I lived in OH, wind across the very flat land in some parts was noticeable when driving. It was a struggle for a Prius to hang on in wind. I think a Smart car might have even more problems with wind. Where I am now, I'd worry more about it becoming a very efficient snow ski! Just to note, vehicles on the other end of the spectrum don't do well here either. One of my friends wrecked his pick-up truck last year because once the road got too icy even for 4WD to help, it was a very heavy weight to slide downhill into a building. An SUV probably would have just rolled over. It's the middle-sized cars with all-wheel drive that seem to be surviving winters the best around here. Nothing too tall, nothing too heavy, nothing too light.

[OmCheeto]

I once had to drive from Thunder Bay (Canada) in the middle of winter - and the only thing the car hire place had left was PT cruisers.
They also sold Smarts and you got a free set of winter tires! Apparently they aren't bad, they are fairly light and the engine is over the front wheels so you get decent grip.

The electric ones could be better day-day, the problem with Smarts I have driven is that being very light but tall (very high seating position) you have to fight any cross wind at freeway speeds. So if the battery adds a lot of underfloor weight it could be a good thing.

hmm..... I'd have thought I'd have to explain the Smart's only to an American......

They were designed as urban vehicles.

Why the hell are people taking them on the freeway? That's what Corvette's are for.

[Mech_Engineer]

They also sold Smarts and you got a free set of winter tires! Apparently they aren't bad, they are fairly light and the engine is over the front wheels so you get decent grip.


A Smart ForTwo is a rear engine rear wheel drive layout, sounds like the "salesman" fed you a line. Having a good amount of experience in snowy poor driving conditions, I would NOT want to drive a Smart in a snowstorm, snow tires or not.

Front-wheel drive cars do pretty well in snowy conditions however, especially with traction control and snow tires.

[OmCheeto]

A Smart ForTwo is a rear engine rear wheel drive layout, sounds like the "salesman" fed you a line. Having a good amount of experience in snowy poor driving conditions, I would NOT want to drive a Smart in a snowstorm, snow tires or not.

Front-wheel drive cars do pretty well in snowy conditions however, especially with traction control and snow tires.

Perhaps you should consider a rear wheel drive Tango. With 57% (http://www.commutercars.com/specs.html) of the weight in back, they make pretty good little snow plows.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/uhGCLnAPG88&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/uhGCLnAPG88&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Quite the steal at only $121,000 (http://www.commutercars.com/TangoOrderForm.pdf). :eek:

[mgb_phys]

A Smart ForTwo is a rear engine rear wheel drive layout, sounds like the "salesman" fed you a line. Having a good amount of experience in snowy poor driving conditions, I would NOT want to drive a Smart in a snowstorm, snow tires or not.
It wasn't much fun driving 400km in snow in a PT cruiser either!

Front-wheel drive cars do pretty well in snowy conditions however, especially with traction control and snow tires.
My VW Golf always struggled with snow+hill but it was so old that it probably only had half the rated power.
My new Subaru though is amazing :biggrin: I live at the top of a very steep hill in Canada. When it snows only me and a neighbour's Jeep Wrangler get home everytime.
I don't know how you make all the wheels on a fancy SUV spin but the people here seem to manage it.

[mheslep]

BYD (China) is going ahead with an electric sedan roll out in the US next year, though not mass market. Like the Volt, BYD's car is also too expensive. Sounds like it will also have a ~100 mile range.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125085247014949083.html?mod=wsjcrmain

XIAN, China -- BYD Co., the Chinese auto maker part-owned by Warren Buffett's company, is finalizing plans for an all-electric battery car that would be sold in the U.S. next year, ahead of the original schedule, Chairman Wang Chuanfu said.
...
Mr. Wang said the company plans to pick a specific region within the U.S. and initially market "a few hundred" e6s, priced at slightly more than $40,000, through a small number of dealers. "In the beginning, our target customers are going to be government agencies, utilities and maybe some celebrities," Mr. Wang said. He added that BYD hopes to enter Europe with a similar strategy in 2011 or later.
...
One source of Mr. Wang's confidence in attacking the U.S. car market is BYD's ties with MidAmerican Energy Holding Co., the unit of Mr. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. that paid about $230 million for a 9.9% stake in BYD.

The BYD e6 is a five-seat electric-powered passenger car. The company says it takes about seven to nine hours to fully charge when plugged into a regular home outlet. BYD already sells a plug-in hybrid car with a small gasoline engine to charge batteries that is called the F3DM
...