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

[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, that's 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, that's 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 I've 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 without 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

http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/...JDAMQSNDLOSKHSCJUNN2JVN;?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. 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.