150 mpg Hybrid SUV outperforms gas powered SUVs

[robinson]

I saw a News story about this last night. Not a scam, but definitely going to upset a few applecarts.

http://www.afstrinity.com/

k-cPHtQ0tTw

Meanwhile, Detroit and Japan are working on it.

:D

Seems they were pretty secretive about this until after the official testing was done.

bxzAdTMrq-I

AFS Trinity Perfects Plug-in Hybrid Saturn Vue
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1386
Restraining his obvious pride and excitement, he explained that a standard Saturn VUE Green Line can accelerate from zero to sixty in 12.5 seconds. Despite weighing some 1,400 lbs (635 kg) after its PHEV upgrade, the VUE demonstrated 11.6 second 0-60 performance in electric-only mode. But even more impressive, Furia told me with obvious delight, in full hybrid mode, it turned in an impressive 6.9 seconds, faster than a Porsche Cayenne.

Furia stressed that the vehicle makes use of largely off-the-shelf components and that in mass production, he estimates the weight of the plug-in drive system could reduced to the point that overall vehicle weigh could be reduced from 500-1000 pounds.

Equipped with a custom-made Ricardo Engineering transmission, the SUV has a theoretical top speed of 90 mph -- Furia said it's been test driven at Michelin's Laurens, South Carolina proving grounds to 87 mph with four adults on board. It was at the same track that it drove 41.9 miles in EV-only mode, achieving that GM is hoping to accomplish with its Volt and clearly besting Toyota's own plug-in Prius efforts.

The combination of high-power ultracapacitors, which discharge from 100-20% in seconds and are recharged in just "a couple minutes", and high-energy lithium-ion batteries, mean the trademarked "FastEnergy" system appears to address the need for both a long-life and high energy-density storage system. Furia told me that he hopes to license it to automakers who are looking for a plug-in hybrid solution that can bypass the shortcomings of battery-only approaches.

Interesting.

Full electric mode for 40 miles, high performance, 150 mpg. 8,000 bucks add on kit.

[nimzov]

Questions.

How many charge/discharge cycles on these lithium-ion batteries ?

And what will be the cost of replacing the battery ?

nimzo

[Bikewer]

Yes, that seems to be the limiting factor with these vehicles; the batteries are of limited life-span, and expensive to replace.
It' well known that electric motors feature very good torque characteristics.

[technoextreme]

Yes, that seems to be the limiting factor with these vehicles; the batteries are of limited life-span, and expensive to replace.
It' well known that electric motors feature very good torque characteristics.
For those that don't know maximum torque occurs when an the electric motor is stalled.

[not_so_new]

So here is what I have often wondered.

The guy here says something to the effect that if you want to limit greenhouse gas emissions and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels the "obvious" answer is electric hybrid cars. But isn't hooking my car up to the existing grid to get power just pushing back the burning of fossil fuels from under the hood of my car to the power plants that are still mostly coal fired?

Don't get me wrong, I am REALLY interested in this technology and I see all sorts of positives for "me" not the least of which is decreased dependence on foreign oil (a dependance which only serves to supply tribal cultures with a great deal of wealth to practice tribal customs).

I just don't see how this car has positive effects for the environment, other than to say we hope someday the electric generation plants all take huge steps towards greening their processes.

So, an honest question, am I missing something there? I hope I am but as far as I see, there is no free lunch to energy production and a car like this is still coming at the same cost to the environment from a different source, fossil fuel at the power plant vs. fossil fuel at the pump.

Thanks in advance.....

[GodMark2]

So here is what I have often wondered.

The guy here says something to the effect that if you want to limit greenhouse gas emissions and decrease our reliance on fossil fuels the "obvious" answer is electric hybrid cars. But isn't hooking my car up to the existing grid to get power just pushing back the burning of fossil fuels from under the hood of my car to the power plants that are still mostly coal fired?

Don't get me wrong, I am REALLY interested in this technology and I see all sorts of positives for "me" not the least of which is decreased dependence on foreign oil (a dependance which only serves to supply tribal cultures with a great deal of wealth to practice tribal customs).

I just don't see how this car has positive effects for the environment, other than to say we hope someday the electric generation plants all take huge steps towards greening their processes.

So, an honest question, am I missing something there? I hope I am but as far as I see, there is no free lunch to energy production and a car like this is still coming at the same cost to the environment from a different source, fossil fuel at the power plant vs. fossil fuel at the pump.

Thanks in advance.....

What you're missing is that electricity is able to be produced through several non-fossil fuel dependent means (solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear). So, by using a fully electric car, we're allowing for a reduction in the need for a fossil fuel distribution system, and increasing the demand for a 'charge my car' distribution system. Currently, 'charge my car' means "burn fossil fuels to make electricity", but that can change in the future (and probably will, if fuel prices continue to rise).

Right now, the big limitation for all electric cars is that you can't charge them up anyplace but your own home, or maybe a willing friend's home (Sorry, kids, no trip to JellyStone national park this year.). But with enough electric cars out there, someone will most likely start trying to make a profit off of charging them. Currently, there is almost exactly zero profit to be made doing this, as the number of chargeable cars is close enough to zero to be discounted.

But introduction of hybrid "You can charge me at home, and fuel me on the road" cars allow for the customer to use the easily generated electric most of the time, but not be tethered to his charging station. This in turn will create a possible profit motive for charging stations to be built, which will reduce the amount of fuel necessary to run the cars.

Chargeable Hybrid Electric cars are not a solution, but more of a way of allowing the solution to be implemented. You won't necessarily see much improvement in carbon emissions right away.

[robinson]

So, by using a fully electric car, we're allowing for a reduction in the need for a fossil fuel distribution system, and increasing the demand for a 'charge my car' distribution system. Currently, 'charge my car' means "burn fossil fuels to make electricity", ...

Uh, no. Wind, solar, hydro and Nuclear are all part of the grid. Adding a solar film to a vehicle means it charges itself in the parking lot all day.
Can you see the Oil execs hearing about that?



...Currently, there is almost exactly zero profit to be made doing this, as the number of chargeable cars is close enough to zero to be discounted.

Actually there are quite a few full electric vehicles. They just don't go on the highways. And communities that use them do have charging stations all over. They ar called "wall outlets", where you plug the car in.


But introduction of hybrid "You can charge me at home, and fuel me on the road" cars allow for the customer to use the easily generated electric most of the time, but not be tethered to his charging station. This in turn will create a possible profit motive for charging stations to be built, which will reduce the amount of fuel necessary to run the cars....

Shucks, even if you don't charge the SUV, it reduces the gas needed by at least 60%. This is a huge matter. And one that car companies keep trying to say can't be done.

...Chargeable Hybrid Electric cars are not a solution, but more of a way of allowing the solution to be implemented. You won't necessarily see much improvement in carbon emissions right away.

I don't know enough about it yet, but if this same technology was used for all vehicles, it would reduce vehicle emissions by 80%. It doesn't seem possible, does it?

Lets look at one possible scenario. Here is an SUV, it gets 20 mpg on a good day.

Here is the same SUV, it costs more, but it gets 150mpg, goes faster, and if you charge it up doesn't need any gas for the first 40 miles.

Which one would you buy?

Of course the batteries are going to be an issue. What do you dump into your ecosystem? Used batteries every few years? Or tons of pollution into the air, a little every day?

[robinson]

So, by using a fully electric car, we're allowing for a reduction in the need for a fossil fuel distribution system, and increasing the demand for a 'charge my car' distribution system. Currently, 'charge my car' means "burn fossil fuels to make electricity", ...

Uh, no. Wind, solar, hydro and Nuclear are all part of the grid. Adding a solar film to a vehicle means it charges itself in the parking lot all day.
Can you see the Oil execs hearing about that?
"What? What They don't have to buy gas? How did that happen?"


...Currently, there is almost exactly zero profit to be made doing this, as the number of chargeable cars is close enough to zero to be discounted.

Actually there are quite a few full electric vehicles. They just don't go on the highways. And communities that use them do have charging stations all over. They ar called "wall outlets", where you plug the car in.


But introduction of hybrid "You can charge me at home, and fuel me on the road" cars allow for the customer to use the easily generated electric most of the time, but not be tethered to his charging station. This in turn will create a possible profit motive for charging stations to be built, which will reduce the amount of fuel necessary to run the cars....

Shucks, even if you don't charge the SUV, it reduces the gas needed by at least 60%. This is a huge matter. And one that car companies keep trying to say can't be done.

...Chargeable Hybrid Electric cars are not a solution, but more of a way of allowing the solution to be implemented. You won't necessarily see much improvement in carbon emissions right away.

I don't know enough about it yet, but if this same technology was used for all vehicles, it would reduce vehicle emissions by 80%. It doesn't seem possible, does it?

Lets look at one possible scenario. Here is an SUV, it gets 20 mpg on a good day.

Here is the same SUV, it costs more, but it gets 150mpg, goes faster, and if you charge it up doesn't need any gas for the first 40 miles.

Which one would you buy?

Of course the batteries are going to be an issue. What do you dump into your ecosystem? Used batteries every few years? Or tons of pollution into the air, a little every day?

[not_so_new]

What you're missing is that electricity is able to be produced through several non-fossil fuel dependent means (solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear). So, by using a fully electric car, we're allowing for a reduction in the need for a fossil fuel distribution system, and increasing the demand for a 'charge my car' distribution system. Currently, 'charge my car' means "burn fossil fuels to make electricity", but that can change in the future (and probably will, if fuel prices continue to rise).

Yep, I agree with that.... in fact that is why I said in my post

I just don't see how this car has positive effects for the environment, other than to say we hope someday the electric generation plants all take huge steps towards greening their processes.

:D

LOL

[GodMark2]

Uh, no. Wind, solar, hydro and Nuclear are all part of the grid.
They are a part, but even in my neck of the woods, where we pride ourself on the extensive network of dams on the Columbia river system, we still get 42% of our electricity from coal, and 14% from natural gas. Hydro only makes up for 41% of the total. The amount from wind, solar, "waste" (burning garbage), and "other" isn't even 3%. So a plug in hybrid, charging from my home wall outlet, still gets most of it's energy from burning fuel.

Adding a solar film to a vehicle means it charges itself in the parking lot all day.
Sorry, I must have missed where in the thread someone mentioned adding solar film to the car itself.

Actually there are quite a few full electric vehicles. They just don't go on the highways. And communities that use them do have charging stations all over. They ar called "wall outlets", where you plug the car in.
And, if you can't take it on the highway, then either you'll need two cars (which most people can't afford), or a different one that can go on the highway. Plus, if it gets it's power from a 'wall outlet', then it's really just burning fuel anyway.

Shucks, even if you don't charge the SUV, it reduces the gas needed by at least 60%. This is a huge matter. And one that car companies keep trying to say can't be done.

I don't know enough about it yet, but if this same technology was used for all vehicles, it would reduce vehicle emissions by 80%. It doesn't seem possible, does it?
And I agree it would be a Good Thing, assuming the external costs aren't too large.

Lets look at one possible scenario. Here is an SUV, it gets 20 mpg on a good day.

Here is the same SUV, it costs more, but it gets 150mpg, goes faster, and if you charge it up doesn't need any gas for the first 40 miles.

Which one would you buy?
Does it get those 40 miles for free? Oh, you have to "charge it up" from the "wall outlet" all night to get those miles. That means the power company has to burn fuel. Well, at least the emissions won't be coming out of your tailpipe.

Of course the batteries are going to be an issue. What do you dump into your ecosystem? Used batteries every few years? Or tons of pollution into the air, a little every day?
How, exactly, do those batteries get produced? What and how much waste products are created in the process? How many tons of used batteries each year would need to be 'dumped'? Without those answers, you trying to compare apples to spanners.

But, all that said, Hybrids are still a good idea, if only because they allow for competition in the "What do I use to power my car" market. Currently, the choices are Fuel A (gasoline) or Fuel B(diesel). Adding "Any electric generator" to the mix allows for a market shift and more competition. Hybrids allow for this, without compromising the utility of the vehicle (tethered to home charging station).


Can you see the Oil execs hearing about that?
"What? What They don't have to buy gas? How did that happen?"
We can dream of the day...

[Ziggurat]

What you're missing is that electricity is able to be produced through several non-fossil fuel dependent means (solar, geothermal, hydro, nuclear).

At this point that's irrelevant, because marginal electricity (that is, any additional electricity generated because of the increased demand) comes from fossil fuels, and will for the forseable future. The only real greenhouse advantage you get with a plugin is if the electric generation/charging process happens to be more efficient than the internal combustion engine, which is possible but not likely dramatic. But there is another advantage, which is that coal can be used to generate that marginal electricity, and we have lots of domestic coal.

[Hellbound]

Ziggurat:

There is another advantage to electric, assuming all other factors even out: centralized production. Just the fact that the power, and thus, the pollution and by-products, are all produced in one area instead of spread out all over (as in IC engines) makes it easier to contain and/or clean up the leftovers. Not to mention that it makes it easier to implement improvements in technology that can increase output and efficiency.

Of course, there will be costs associated with any cleaning or containment that might well through the energy efficiency out the window *shrug*..and I don't know what effect the need for increased distribution systems would have.

There's always trade-offs, and contrary to what many seem to argue, it's rarely a black and white issue.

[Cuddles]

Shucks, even if you don't charge the SUV, it reduces the gas needed by at least 60%. This is a huge matter. And one that car companies keep trying to say can't be done.

And yet this was in fact built by a car company.

Here is the same SUV, it costs more, but it gets 150mpg, goes faster, and if you charge it up doesn't need any gas for the first 40 miles.

I doubt it goes faster. It certainly accelerates faster, but that is not the same thing. The hybrid version only has a theorectical top speed of 90mph, and hasn't actually reached that in reality (although it's come pretty close). I don't know how fast the original could go, but I seriously doubt it was that slow.

[IllegalArgument]

And yet this was in fact built by a car company.



I doubt it goes faster. It certainly accelerates faster, but that is not the same thing. The hybrid version only has a theorectical top speed of 90mph, and hasn't actually reached that in reality (although it's come pretty close). I don't know how fast the original could go, but I seriously doubt it was that slow.

Top speed, as long as it can go say 80 MPH, shouldn't be a concern, except possibly for emergency vehicles.

It's only our American obsession with cars that makes this even a concern. It's my understanding that going over 70 or 75 MPH is grossly inefficient for almost all cars.

[quarky]

specialized roadways would help.
and going 40 mph instead of 80

why must we move so fast when we aren't really going anywhere?

[Cuddles]

Top speed, as long as it can go say 80 MPH, shouldn't be a concern, except possibly for emergency vehicles.

It's only our American obsession with cars that makes this even a concern. It's my understanding that going over 70 or 75 MPH is grossly inefficient for almost all cars.

Inefficient and illegal. However, while this hybrid SUV does look interesting, there's no point pretending it's better than it actually is, and I seriously doubt it can go as fast as the original petrol version, given that I've seen 20 year old, 1 litre scrapheaps go faster than 90mph. It isn't at all surprising really, as technoextreme said, electric motors are best when stationary and less powerful at high speeds, so good acceleration but low top speed is exacly what would be expected.

[Cuddles]

There is another obvious problem with this. It's an SUV. No matter how much more effcient you make them, they're still far bigger, heavier and less efficient than they need to be. A normal estate car or people mover is more than enough for the vast majority of people. I know for a fact that a fairly small estate can fit four adults, four kayaks and all their clothes and kit for a week, and still break the speed limit and be more efficient than most SUVs are when empty. Just think how much better it would be if they were making improvements to cars like this instead of wasting their time with penis extensions.

[IllegalArgument]

There is another obvious problem with this. It's an SUV. No matter how much more effcient you make them, they're still far bigger, heavier and less efficient than they need to be. A normal estate car or people mover is more than enough for the vast majority of people. I know for a fact that a fairly small estate can fit four adults, four kayaks and all their clothes and kit for a week, and still break the speed limit and be more efficient than most SUVs are when empty. Just think how much better it would be if they were making improvements to cars like this instead of wasting their time with penis extensions.

I agree. SUVs are a waste for 99% of the people that own them.

A quality mini-van or station wagon would be better for most families.

[soylent]

Questions.

How many charge/discharge cycles on these lithium-ion batteries ?

And what will be the cost of replacing the battery ?

nimzo

It depends on the batteries. Typically the batteries never really die; they just gradually lose capacity and charge/discharge rate over time. Normal lithium-ion batteries tend to do about a 1000 cycles before their capacity has dropped to 80%. It's possible to build them much better, but the goals of capacity, discharge rate and durabillity tend to be in competition with each other.

[Prometheus]

I'm trying to find an article I read about a year ago which mentioned a hybrid system in development that will use a 1 or 2 horsepower gas motor that runs 24 hr.s/day at full throttle to charge batteries for an electric primary drive system. Supposedly, this produces the same total energy that most people use in a couple hours per day of stop-and-go driving, but uses a lot less gas because IC engines are grossly inefficient when not operating at full throttle.

[Ziggurat]

I'm trying to find an article I read about a year ago which mentioned a hybrid system in development that will use a 1 or 2 horsepower gas motor that runs 24 hr.s/day at full throttle to charge batteries for an electric primary drive system. Supposedly, this produces the same total energy that most people use in a couple hours per day of stop-and-go driving, but uses a lot less gas because IC engines are grossly inefficient when not operating at full throttle.

I'm not sure what the advantage of that over a pure electric is. You can do the recharging a little more gradually, but that's not a major advantage over an overnight recharge, but you still need the battery capacity to go long distances for the car to have any chance at market penetration. That's the primary barrier for all-electrics anyways, and I don't think this would actually solve that problem. The extra power generated while driving may be offset by the fact that you can't put in as large a battery as you could with an all-electric. If battery capacity ever gets large enough, this could be useful in that you could drive cross-country using existing gas stations without worrying about finding places to plug in, but we're not there yet, so that advantage is irrelevant for the moment.

[quarky]

efficiency of individual vehicles can't be divorced from the overall efficiency of what it is we want to use the power for.

if its about driving around aimlessly, because its more fun than not doing that; and we're americans, by god, and we deserve a fuel-heavy life-style, because we can....

then its all very hopeless.

otoh, if it ever comes down to it, american could cut its energy consumption in half tommorrow, and most people would be fine.

happy, even.

we're such dip-wads about this.

we got conned into this gluttony. we invented this extraordinary need.

[Prometheus]

I'm not sure what the advantage of that over a pure electric is. You can do the recharging a little more gradually, but that's not a major advantage over an overnight recharge, but you still need the battery capacity to go long distances for the car to have any chance at market penetration. That's the primary barrier for all-electrics anyways, and I don't think this would actually solve that problem. The extra power generated while driving may be offset by the fact that you can't put in as large a battery as you could with an all-electric. If battery capacity ever gets large enough, this could be useful in that you could drive cross-country using existing gas stations without worrying about finding places to plug in, but we're not there yet, so that advantage is irrelevant for the moment.

I'm not sure I'm remembering the article correctly, but I think the idea was to use regenerative brakes that recapture a lot of energy when you slow down (transforming some of the forward motion back into stored electricity rather than waste heat). The whole design would have a much smaller battery capacity than a full electric because it would still be storing most of it's energy in the form of gasoline. The battery only needs to be enough for two or three average length non-highway trips. On long distance trips, most of the battery power would go into accelerating the car to highway speed, and then relying on the full output of the gas motor to provide the power needed to maintain that speed. When you stop you'd have to let the battery recharge a little while before continuing on.

[Prometheus]

Aww. Forget the SUV. I want one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliica)!!

8-wheel drive: They eliminate the need for a transmission, axels, differentials, and drive shaft (replacing all that weight with batteries) by putting a separate small electric motor inside the hub of each wheel!

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure I'm remembering the article correctly, but I think the idea was to use regenerative brakes that recapture a lot of energy when you slow down (transforming some of the forward motion back into stored electricity rather than waste heat). The whole design would have a much smaller battery capacity than a full electric because it would still be storing most of it's energy in the form of gasoline. The battery only needs to be enough for two or three average length non-highway trips.

But that's not good enough. With such a small motor, recharging would be too slow to extend this range significantly, the range would remain severely limited, and the car would be useless for anything other than commuting, just like all-electrics. Having to stop for a few hours in order to drive further isn't something consumers will accept, and so it's no real advantage over all-electrics. Such a car is simply not marketable. Almost nobody would want it. The only way around that is to significantly boost the size of the engine, at which point you're converging back on a standard hybdrid.

[Prometheus]

But that's not good enough. With such a small motor, recharging would be too slow to extend this range significantly, the range would remain severely limited, and the car would be useless for anything other than commuting, just like all-electrics. Having to stop for a few hours in order to drive further isn't something consumers will accept, and so it's no real advantage over all-electrics. Such a car is simply not marketable. Almost nobody would want it. The only way around that is to significantly boost the size of the engine, at which point you're converging back on a standard hybdrid.

I agree that the idea seems deficient in that way. However, I'm not sure that it doesn't have some marketability, particularly for the many American families that maintain 2 or more cars.

For my own part, the way I normally use my car would probably be fine: 5 days a week I make 2 10-mile trips, and 2 1-mile trips. On weekends, I make a lot of trips between 2 and 8 miles, but always with at least an hour between them. Once or twice a month I make 2 45-mile trips with several hours between, and once a year I make 2 100-mile trips with 2-3 days between. I'd have no trouble at all replacing my car with such a system.

On the other hand, it seems likely to me that there will be far more efficient technologies coming along before the one I described ever gets off the ground. I just brought it up because it seemed like an interesting potential niche-player.

[robinson]

I'm slightly miffed nobody has pointed out that the HX doesn't really get 150mpg.

[Ziggurat]

I agree that the idea seems deficient in that way. However, I'm not sure that it doesn't have some marketability, particularly for the many American families that maintain 2 or more cars.

Seems like it would have more potential use for commercial clients, where the demands on the vehicle are typically much more specific (for example, making ocassional local deliveries), than for families, where versatility is generally a requirement. There's another problem which occured to me which puts a serious damper on any consumer use of such a vehicle: you do NOT want to leave a running engine in your garage. That's a carbon monoxide accident waiting to happen. With a commercial fleet, leaving the vehicle outside, or making parking structures with lots and lots of ventilation, is a lot more feasible.

[Walter Wayne]

I'm slightly miffed nobody has pointed out that the HX doesn't really get 150mpg.
Well, they never really state how they measured that. i.e. Does it include plug in time.

I suspect they are feeding us a lie, and I wonder if one could use it without ever plugging it in.

[fishbob]

Restraining his obvious pride and excitement, he explained that a standard Saturn VUE Green Line can accelerate from zero to sixty in 12.5 seconds. Despite weighing some 1,400 lbs (635 kg) after its PHEV upgrade, the VUE demonstrated 11.6 second 0-60 performance in electric-only mode. But even more impressive, Furia told me with obvious delight, in full hybrid mode, it turned in an impressive 6.9 seconds, faster than a Porsche Cayenne.

Furia stressed that the vehicle makes use of largely off-the-shelf components and that in mass production, he estimates the weight of the plug-in drive system could reduced to the point that overall vehicle weigh could be reduced from 500-1000 pounds.


Bad math alert:

A standard VUE weighs probably around 3000 to 3600 lbs.
The modified VUE weighs 1400 lbs? And is now lighter than the smallest Toyota, Honda, Chevy, or Suzuki?

The article didn't say anything about anti-gravity technology, so I suspect bad reporting.

[robinson]

I think that should say 1,400 lbs more.

The mpg is explained. You have to read some to find it.

[ddt]

I'm slightly miffed nobody has pointed out that the HX doesn't really get 150mpg.Well, they never really state how they measured that. i.e. Does it include plug in time.

I suspect they are feeding us a lie, and I wonder if one could use it without ever plugging it in.
Yes, it is a lie. Their number is explained on this page, 2/3 down (http://www.afstrinity.com/xh.htm), in the section with the black background.

In hybrid mode, it gets to 30mpg. In electricity-only mode, it gets - tada! - infinity mpg. I'd call that indeed a lie.

The hybrid mode number isn't earth-shattering at all. And for a fair comparison, I'd like to see how many mpg it does in electric mode, based on fossil-fuel power plants.

[ddt]

There is another advantage to electric, assuming all other factors even out: centralized production. Just the fact that the power, and thus, the pollution and by-products, are all produced in one area instead of spread out all over (as in IC engines) makes it easier to contain and/or clean up the leftovers. Not to mention that it makes it easier to implement improvements in technology that can increase output and efficiency.
As an example of that: in Holland, around the big cities, the speed limit on motorways as been lowered from 120 or 100 km/h to 80 km/h because of the pollution of the cars.

Of course, there will be costs associated with any cleaning or containment that might well through the energy efficiency out the window *shrug*..and I don't know what effect the need for increased distribution systems would have.

There's always trade-offs, and contrary to what many seem to argue, it's rarely a black and white issue.

Has anyone ever done a study on the efficiency of using grid power for your car? As you say, power plants can be more efficient, but the cleaning systems and the distribution losses weigh against it.

[Hellbound]

ddt:

I haven't seen a study, but I haven't really spent a lot of time looking, either. It would probably be hard to find one that could be trusted, though, as I have seen a few "total energy" studies that make wildly different conclusions. There's a lot of question about what to include and what not to include, and at what levels. It's a very complex problem, and at this point it's been so politicized that it's very, very hard to find unbiased data (IMHO), especially for a non-expert like me.

[DRBUZZ0]

This is not something that is a really new concept. Plug-in hybrids make a lot of sense in terms of how they can fit into the current infrastructure and provide an imediate way of reducing auto emissions and gasoline consumption.

But it's very important to note that these, like other electric-centric transportation measures and other means of moving toward cleaner energy sources are entirely dependant on a clean base source of energy. Actually, burning coal for electricity dwarfs the co2 by cars and light trucks. If that does not get taken care of, all the electric-based transit and other processes are worthless.


Here's a nifty chart I found a while back: http://www.quaker.org/fep/Grid_apr2007.jpg

[robinson]

The novel factor seems to be the capacitors, which eliminate the need for a big gasoline engine, and prevents battery drain while accelerating. Dumping the energy from braking into the capacitors is a pretty cool trick. It makes the off the shelf batteries last longer, and allows for that bad ass acceleration.

[casebro]

....
Here's a nifty chart I found a while back: http://www.quaker.org/fep/Grid_apr2007.jpg

I take it your nifty chart is "CO2 sources"?

A pie chart would have been better at showing the comparisons. Plus I noticed that highway transportation has been broken into at least three categories, cars, light trucks, heavy trucks.

Who put out that biased chart, the anti-coal coalition? Certainly not the Society to Advance the Electric Car.

[rwguinn]

I agree that the idea seems deficient in that way. However, I'm not sure that it doesn't have some marketability, particularly for the many American families that maintain 2 or more cars.

For my own part, the way I normally use my car would probably be fine: 5 days a week I make 2 10-mile trips, and 2 1-mile trips. On weekends, I make a lot of trips between 2 and 8 miles, but always with at least an hour between them. Once or twice a month I make 2 45-mile trips with several hours between, and once a year I make 2 100-mile trips with 2-3 days between. I'd have no trouble at all replacing my car with such a system.

On the other hand, it seems likely to me that there will be far more efficient technologies coming along before the one I described ever gets off the ground. I just brought it up because it seemed like an interesting potential niche-player.

Niche, yes.
Thebig problem with these Litium-Ion and other high-energy density batteries is the charge time. You cannot stuff charge into them without causing "Rapid discharge with flame"--(an exciting concept that has cost me 2 model aircraft and 3 radios...), so they will petty much be restricted to short distance commuter use, not long distance family trips.
My usage is different--But I am from the US West. My daily commute is 20 miles each way.
My family all live within 400 miles (that's a weekend trip--preferably 3-day)--except my son, who is in colege 640 miles away. He flys back, but has a 90 mile round trip commute to the airport, and we have a 60 mile commute to the nearest airport.
We refuse to live like lemmings, or NewYork City denizens, or those continental folks who keep bellyakin about our driving habits....:D
You have hardly any need for an automobile at all, with your usage--and could make use of Mass transit or even a taxi...That option is unavailble and impractical for me.

[Prometheus]

Niche, yes.

Actually, while looking for the original article I read, I've learned of a number of more recent developments that render the idea in it obsolete before it ever got off the ground. The main one being computer controlled variable valve timing which is rapidly improving towards the point at which an ICE engine will be equally efficient at all operating speeds. With this new technology, a hybrid like the one in the OP, with capacitors for fast acceleration and fast re-charging, seems a lot better.

Also, the link I posted above to the all-electric 8-wheel drive car makes some interesting points. That car supposedly has a range close to 200 miles on a charge. A less extreme version of that car (I don't often need to go 200mph!) could use lighter, less powerful electric motors and just 4 wheels. With the addition of the capacitor-based fast charging system in the OP, such a set up might even fulfill your driving needs.


You have hardly any need for an automobile at all, with your usage--and could make use of Mass transit or even a taxi...That option is unavailble and impractical for me.

Actually this isn't really true at all. Mass transit is not available to me for the vast majority of trips I need to make. Taxis are available, but unreliable and rarely show up less than an hour after you call. Not particularly convenient. Also, I've figured out that the total cost of ownership/maintenance/operation of my car (purchased used--after most of the depreciation had taken place--with no financing), and including insurance and gasoline, is lower than what I'd pay a taxi for the same distances when I average it out over 8 years. There's also a major safety advantage to actually having a car available at a moment's notice, which I would never even think of doing without, with young children.

[Prometheus]

I found this press release (http://www.toshiba.co.jp/about/press/2005_03/pr2901.htm) from Toshiba, claiming a new Li-ion battery that recharges to 80% capacity in only one minute. (it's dated 2005, though, so maybe it didn't pan out).

If it works as claimed, a bank of them on a platform like the Eliica + a small, high efficiency 6-stroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_stroke_engine) multi-fuel ICE engine/generator, would be pretty much the holy grail of hybrids.