BYD's All-Electric e6: Will It Be A Game Changer In The U.S. Market?

[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:

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/020905/Nanotubes_crank_out_hydrogen_Brief_020905.html"
http://www.physorg.com/news10940.html"
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:

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.

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 https://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:

http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/020905/Nanotubes_crank_out_hydrogen_Brief_020905.html"
http://www.physorg.com/news10940.html"
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 that's 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 https://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 occurring 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 occurring 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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELcbUq5E4cU

 

[Ivan Seeking]

There it is. Beautiful!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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:

"[URL
Does Science Matter?[/URL]
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 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.