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

[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 I've 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 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.

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.

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:

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 .

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