ElectricVehicle News
Energy Options That Might Not Destroy Us.
Tesla Roadster Runs Quarter Mile In 12.7 Seconds
Thursday, December 25, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Current Electric Vehicle News
12/22
China Set To Usurp The US Auto Industry?
Robert Llewellyn's rant about EVs
Electrical Energy Storage Ultra Capacitors
Zap Execs Say Bailout Money Should Go To Electric Startups
12/20
Money Should Go To Electric Start-ups
Zap Electric Cars (Zero Air Polution) Has Delivered More Than 100000 Electric Vehicles Since 1994
Coming Soon To Hawaii, Electric Car Battery Swapping Stations
How To Fix Global Warming
Active Wheel Affordable Electric Car.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Auto Industry Can Be Saved
November 25, 2008 by preplan
I just read yet another article stating that the American auto
industry is a decade or more away from being able to profitably
produce and market alternate energy vehicles. They have been saying
this for 30 years. The problem is, that compared to gasoline and
diesel powered cars, all electric and electric hybrid cars are
substantially more expensive. Some claim that Toyota loses money on
every Prius it sells. I’m not sure why that needs to be, but let’s
just accept the cost differential as fact. I’ve said it before, the
answer is simple, eliminate the competition - pass legislation
banning the production and import of gasoline and diesel powered
vehicles. Poof, problem solved, now all car companies will be
competing with each other to produce the most desirable next-gen
vehicles. All car companies will not be distracted developing and
marketing a dozen different lines of vehicles that compete with
next-gen vehicles. The rush will be on to design, develop, and tool
up, and as I also said before, if we can produce hundreds of
thousands of tanks, aircraft, jeeps, and heavy weapons in the span
of 4 years during World War II, with our robot driven highly
efficient production methods today, we certainly can do what it
takes to solve this problem.
The focus has been on the cost of the car when in reality the focus
should be on the cost of ownership. Cost of ownership includes the
purchase price, service, and all operating costs such as fuel and
oil. When we look at operating costs and if we come up with the
most cost effective means of fueling alternative vehicles, the
next-gen vehicles win hands down even if you need to replace a
$6,000 battery every 5 years!
Anyone that has been following my articles knows that I have been
pushing the PRE-Plan, a plan to allow every electricity consumer,
individual and business alike, to invest directly in large-scale
renewable energy and get their share of the electricity produced as
their return on investment. I won’t rehash the PRE-Plan, you can
read about it in my book or visit the web site. Lets take two
vehicles, a $30,000 gasoline powered car and a $45,000 all electric.
I’m going to add $5,000 to the all-electric vehicle to invest
(using the PRE-Plan) in large-scale renewable energy, enough to
eliminate my fuel expense for 20 to 30 years. So, I now have a
$30,000 gasoline powered car and a $50,000 all electric.
Let’s assume that gasoline remains relatively cheap for the next
10years ($3/gallon average) and that our cars last exactly 10 years.
An all electric vehicle doesn’t need much regular service, doesn’t
need the oil changed, has an all electric transmission, and is
basically significantly less mechanical than the gasoline powered
cars. We might expect to spend $500 per year on regular maintenance
for the gasoline powered car and perhaps $100 per year for the
all-electric. With current battery technology it is estimated that
we may need to replace the battery as often as every 5 years and
possibly only every 10 years, we’ll go with 5. Let’s assume we drive
15,000 miles a year and the gasoline powered car gets 30 miles to
the gallon.
Gasoline All Electric
Purchase Price $30,000 $45,000
Annual Service $5,000 $1,000
Battery Replacement $0 $6,000
Fuel $15,000 $5,000
Total $50,000 $56,000
The alternative fuel vehicle turns out to be $6,000 more expensive,
but that’s not the whole picture. I said before, the added $5,000 to
purchase electricity through the PRE-Plan covered 20 to 30 years,
yet we are assuming our vehicle only lasts 10 years. That implies
that we have an additional 10 to 20 years worth of pre-paid fuel for
our next vehicle(s), thus reducing the initial costs of those by at
the very least $5,000 each. We can also anticipate that gasoline and
even electricity prices ten years from now will be substantially
higher, substantially tilting the equation in favor of an
all-electric vehicle.
There are a number of advances in battery technology that may
already be nearing production, but even if they aren’t widely
available for ten years, such advances will further and further tilt
the cost advantage of all-electric. These new batteries promise to
receive a full charge in as little as 5 minutes, offer 15 or more
years of useful life, and be relatively cheap to produce and be
environmentally friendly. Assuming all other things remain equal and
the cost of these new battery technologies is the same as existing
batteries, we would end up eliminating the $6,000 battery
replacement cost from the table above and since we have already
pre-paid for the electricity, we eliminate the added $5,000 for fuel
and this holds true for not only our next car but our next two cars;
a total saving of $11,000 per purchase or $22,000.
As long as the auto industry is allowed to produce gasoline and
diesel powered vehicles they will be compelled to do so at the
expense of the environment while pitting their existing gasoline and
diesel marketing strategy against next-gen vehicles. The above
formulas won’t work as well if we assume that automakers can boost
the average gas mileage to 60 miles per gallon, yet that ignores the
reality of our need to eliminate out dependence on foreign oil and
to address climate change. Once again, we tend to lose focus when
we look at the window sticker price in isolation. We should not
allow the car companies to continue adding to the problems of oil
dependency and global warming and the car companies should be
begging the government to impose such legislation, thus eliminating
the fall-back on gasoline and diesel. If the vehicles end up
costing more in order to be profitable, fine, that’s the price we
pay.
One of the things we all know to be true but haven’t found a way to
quantify are the hidden costs of gasoline and diesel powered
vehicles. There are health costs, terrorism tied to our Middle East
dealings over oil, military expenditures, and on and on. We all
know that a gallon of gasoline should cost closer to $10/gallon, we
just can’t figure out how to get from the current $2 to the $10
figure, nor do any of us want that. What we want is for these
sticky problems to go away and for us to be able to drive as far and
fast as we wish and for it to cost little or nothing and cause no
pollution and no hardship.
If we don;t use the PRE-Plan to fund the electricity used to power
all-electric vehicles, we might be looking at electric costs of
around $100/month depending on where you live and the cost of
electricity. For people living in an area where electricity costs
$0.06/kWh, their cost might be less than $50, for people living in
Hawaii or Alaska, thier price might be over $200. With the
PRE-Plan, assuming that the cost to build the reneable energy
projects are essentially the same from one region to the other, the
cost of conventionally produced electricity is irellevant and our
$5,000 investment will purchase all the electricity needed
regardless of if you live in Hawaii or Spokane which have vastly
different costs for electricity. To really understand how we can
save the auto industry, the economy, and the environment all at the
same time, I suggest you read my book. The book was written before
the current financial meltdown but it is even more viable now that
our economy is teetering on the brink of disaster.
I just read yet another article stating that the American auto
industry is a decade or more away from being able to profitably
produce and market alternate energy vehicles. They have been saying
this for 30 years. The problem is, that compared to gasoline and
diesel powered cars, all electric and electric hybrid cars are
substantially more expensive. Some claim that Toyota loses money on
every Prius it sells. I’m not sure why that needs to be, but let’s
just accept the cost differential as fact. I’ve said it before, the
answer is simple, eliminate the competition - pass legislation
banning the production and import of gasoline and diesel powered
vehicles. Poof, problem solved, now all car companies will be
competing with each other to produce the most desirable next-gen
vehicles. All car companies will not be distracted developing and
marketing a dozen different lines of vehicles that compete with
next-gen vehicles. The rush will be on to design, develop, and tool
up, and as I also said before, if we can produce hundreds of
thousands of tanks, aircraft, jeeps, and heavy weapons in the span
of 4 years during World War II, with our robot driven highly
efficient production methods today, we certainly can do what it
takes to solve this problem.
The focus has been on the cost of the car when in reality the focus
should be on the cost of ownership. Cost of ownership includes the
purchase price, service, and all operating costs such as fuel and
oil. When we look at operating costs and if we come up with the
most cost effective means of fueling alternative vehicles, the
next-gen vehicles win hands down even if you need to replace a
$6,000 battery every 5 years!
Anyone that has been following my articles knows that I have been
pushing the PRE-Plan, a plan to allow every electricity consumer,
individual and business alike, to invest directly in large-scale
renewable energy and get their share of the electricity produced as
their return on investment. I won’t rehash the PRE-Plan, you can
read about it in my book or visit the web site. Lets take two
vehicles, a $30,000 gasoline powered car and a $45,000 all electric.
I’m going to add $5,000 to the all-electric vehicle to invest
(using the PRE-Plan) in large-scale renewable energy, enough to
eliminate my fuel expense for 20 to 30 years. So, I now have a
$30,000 gasoline powered car and a $50,000 all electric.
Let’s assume that gasoline remains relatively cheap for the next
10years ($3/gallon average) and that our cars last exactly 10 years.
An all electric vehicle doesn’t need much regular service, doesn’t
need the oil changed, has an all electric transmission, and is
basically significantly less mechanical than the gasoline powered
cars. We might expect to spend $500 per year on regular maintenance
for the gasoline powered car and perhaps $100 per year for the
all-electric. With current battery technology it is estimated that
we may need to replace the battery as often as every 5 years and
possibly only every 10 years, we’ll go with 5. Let’s assume we drive
15,000 miles a year and the gasoline powered car gets 30 miles to
the gallon.
Gasoline All Electric
Purchase Price $30,000 $45,000
Annual Service $5,000 $1,000
Battery Replacement $0 $6,000
Fuel $15,000 $5,000
Total $50,000 $56,000
The alternative fuel vehicle turns out to be $6,000 more expensive,
but that’s not the whole picture. I said before, the added $5,000 to
purchase electricity through the PRE-Plan covered 20 to 30 years,
yet we are assuming our vehicle only lasts 10 years. That implies
that we have an additional 10 to 20 years worth of pre-paid fuel for
our next vehicle(s), thus reducing the initial costs of those by at
the very least $5,000 each. We can also anticipate that gasoline and
even electricity prices ten years from now will be substantially
higher, substantially tilting the equation in favor of an
all-electric vehicle.
There are a number of advances in battery technology that may
already be nearing production, but even if they aren’t widely
available for ten years, such advances will further and further tilt
the cost advantage of all-electric. These new batteries promise to
receive a full charge in as little as 5 minutes, offer 15 or more
years of useful life, and be relatively cheap to produce and be
environmentally friendly. Assuming all other things remain equal and
the cost of these new battery technologies is the same as existing
batteries, we would end up eliminating the $6,000 battery
replacement cost from the table above and since we have already
pre-paid for the electricity, we eliminate the added $5,000 for fuel
and this holds true for not only our next car but our next two cars;
a total saving of $11,000 per purchase or $22,000.
As long as the auto industry is allowed to produce gasoline and
diesel powered vehicles they will be compelled to do so at the
expense of the environment while pitting their existing gasoline and
diesel marketing strategy against next-gen vehicles. The above
formulas won’t work as well if we assume that automakers can boost
the average gas mileage to 60 miles per gallon, yet that ignores the
reality of our need to eliminate out dependence on foreign oil and
to address climate change. Once again, we tend to lose focus when
we look at the window sticker price in isolation. We should not
allow the car companies to continue adding to the problems of oil
dependency and global warming and the car companies should be
begging the government to impose such legislation, thus eliminating
the fall-back on gasoline and diesel. If the vehicles end up
costing more in order to be profitable, fine, that’s the price we
pay.
One of the things we all know to be true but haven’t found a way to
quantify are the hidden costs of gasoline and diesel powered
vehicles. There are health costs, terrorism tied to our Middle East
dealings over oil, military expenditures, and on and on. We all
know that a gallon of gasoline should cost closer to $10/gallon, we
just can’t figure out how to get from the current $2 to the $10
figure, nor do any of us want that. What we want is for these
sticky problems to go away and for us to be able to drive as far and
fast as we wish and for it to cost little or nothing and cause no
pollution and no hardship.
If we don;t use the PRE-Plan to fund the electricity used to power
all-electric vehicles, we might be looking at electric costs of
around $100/month depending on where you live and the cost of
electricity. For people living in an area where electricity costs
$0.06/kWh, their cost might be less than $50, for people living in
Hawaii or Alaska, thier price might be over $200. With the
PRE-Plan, assuming that the cost to build the reneable energy
projects are essentially the same from one region to the other, the
cost of conventionally produced electricity is irellevant and our
$5,000 investment will purchase all the electricity needed
regardless of if you live in Hawaii or Spokane which have vastly
different costs for electricity. To really understand how we can
save the auto industry, the economy, and the environment all at the
same time, I suggest you read my book. The book was written before
the current financial meltdown but it is even more viable now that
our economy is teetering on the brink of disaster.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Study Confirms Future Of Electric Vehicles(UK)
Electric vehicles recharged from the national grid could
potentially cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 40% compared
to vehicles powered by carbon-based fuels, new research has found.
The study by Arup and Cenex on behalf of the Department for Business
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport,
also found that contrary to common perception, the UK electricity
grid has sufficient generating capacity to cope with a greater
uptake of electrified vehicles.
"Beyond the long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions created
by switching to electric vehicles, it also makes sense to try to use
the surplus capacity in the grid during off-peak times,” said Arup's
director of advanced technology and research, Neil Ridley.
"And one of the keys to an improved uptake of electric and hybrid
cars will be the collaboration between stakeholders including
manufacturers, local authorities and energy providers to address
issues related to standards for charging, consumer education and the
development and deployment of new technologies."
The news follows confirmation of the largest public funding of any
initiative aimed at developing technology within the automotive
industry, with the government pledging £100 million to develop low
carbon vehicles in the UK and private companies pledging a further
£100 million.
A raft of major projects have since been announced, all aimed at
rapidly advancing low-carbon vehicle technology and developing a
mass market for these vehicles.
One such project will see 10 public sector fleets trial low-carbon
vans in real-world fleet conditions.
Adrian Vinsome, programme manager for the Low Carbon Vehicle
Procurement Programme, which is overseeing the project, said: “We
recognised the broad desire among local authorities to reduce carbon
emissions from their sizeable fleets and improve operational
efficiency.”
Alongside this, a new £10 million initiative has also been announced
that will see 100 low-carbon demonstration vehicles trialled by
fleets across the country.
It is expected that these vehicles will be on the road within 12
months.
potentially cut greenhouse gas emissions by more than 40% compared
to vehicles powered by carbon-based fuels, new research has found.
The study by Arup and Cenex on behalf of the Department for Business
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport,
also found that contrary to common perception, the UK electricity
grid has sufficient generating capacity to cope with a greater
uptake of electrified vehicles.
"Beyond the long-term reduction in greenhouse gas emissions created
by switching to electric vehicles, it also makes sense to try to use
the surplus capacity in the grid during off-peak times,” said Arup's
director of advanced technology and research, Neil Ridley.
"And one of the keys to an improved uptake of electric and hybrid
cars will be the collaboration between stakeholders including
manufacturers, local authorities and energy providers to address
issues related to standards for charging, consumer education and the
development and deployment of new technologies."
The news follows confirmation of the largest public funding of any
initiative aimed at developing technology within the automotive
industry, with the government pledging £100 million to develop low
carbon vehicles in the UK and private companies pledging a further
£100 million.
A raft of major projects have since been announced, all aimed at
rapidly advancing low-carbon vehicle technology and developing a
mass market for these vehicles.
One such project will see 10 public sector fleets trial low-carbon
vans in real-world fleet conditions.
Adrian Vinsome, programme manager for the Low Carbon Vehicle
Procurement Programme, which is overseeing the project, said: “We
recognised the broad desire among local authorities to reduce carbon
emissions from their sizeable fleets and improve operational
efficiency.”
Alongside this, a new £10 million initiative has also been announced
that will see 100 low-carbon demonstration vehicles trialled by
fleets across the country.
It is expected that these vehicles will be on the road within 12
months.
To Bailout Or Not To Bailout?
GoGreenSolar.com
Blog Roll
Monday, November 17, 2008
Support Electric Cars, Let the Big Three Fall
Did you know over 3 million jobs will be lost if the Big Three Fail?
As a clean energy supporter and free markets advocate I say SO WHAT!
Not because I am a heartless soul, I do understand the human impact
that will be caused by the collapse of these dysfunctional companies
but because I have an insider's view of the huge opportunity in
terms of vehicles that are very efficient and take advantage of
renewable energy, they're on the market today and getting better
everyday.
The Big Three automakers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) should not get
bailed out because their actions are the reasons why the automakers
are in the position they are in today. Some people don't know, but
GM released an electric car called the EV-1 back in 1996 which could
only be leased with a clause in the contract making it impossible
for the lessee to ever purchase the car! In 2003, GM decided to
cancel the electric vehicle project and destroyed their fleet of
electric vehicles. According to GM's CEO Rick Wagoner said the worst
decision of his tenure at GM was, "axing the EV1 electric-car
program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t
affect profitability, but it did affect image."
In 2007, GM R&D chief Larry Burns stated in a Newsweek article, "I
wish GM did not kill the electric vehicle project and If we could
turn back the hands of time we could have had the Chevy Volt 10
years earlier." The Chevy Volt is an prototype electric vehicle that
GM is rushing to complete, but does not know if the Volt will ever
hit the market due to GM's unstable position today.
It does not make sense..there was surging demand for the EV-1, long
waiting lists, customers begging GM to buy the cars, but the
automaker refused. Any savvy Business man would take the customer
feedback as a sign of moving forward with a project. So why are the
American automakers notorious for making fuel inefficient vehicles?
It's quite obvious the Oil Industry is in bed with the Big Three
Automakers.
The Toyota Prius Hybrid is the best selling fuel efficient car in
the US. Although full electric vehicles being manufactured by Tesla
Motors right here in the good ole USA are in high demand too. Fisker
Automotive is another company that is developing a sports Hybrid.
Electrorides is selling an Electric Mini Cooper and a very
interesting Utility Truck called the ZeroTruck, sweet an all
electric truck!
The point I'm trying to make is that there are entrepreneurial
companies out there that can create a better car, that people are
demanding today. If the Big Three fall, it would create a huge
opportunity in the automobile market in which many new jobs would be
formed, simulating the economy. People are already retrofitting
hybrids with solar panels and charging up electric vehicles from
solar electric systems. These new vehicles would also simulate the
"new energy economy". Should we bail the US auto industry out too?
Can we afford to?
Blog Roll
Monday, November 17, 2008
Support Electric Cars, Let the Big Three Fall
Did you know over 3 million jobs will be lost if the Big Three Fail?
As a clean energy supporter and free markets advocate I say SO WHAT!
Not because I am a heartless soul, I do understand the human impact
that will be caused by the collapse of these dysfunctional companies
but because I have an insider's view of the huge opportunity in
terms of vehicles that are very efficient and take advantage of
renewable energy, they're on the market today and getting better
everyday.
The Big Three automakers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) should not get
bailed out because their actions are the reasons why the automakers
are in the position they are in today. Some people don't know, but
GM released an electric car called the EV-1 back in 1996 which could
only be leased with a clause in the contract making it impossible
for the lessee to ever purchase the car! In 2003, GM decided to
cancel the electric vehicle project and destroyed their fleet of
electric vehicles. According to GM's CEO Rick Wagoner said the worst
decision of his tenure at GM was, "axing the EV1 electric-car
program and not putting the right resources into hybrids. It didn’t
affect profitability, but it did affect image."
In 2007, GM R&D chief Larry Burns stated in a Newsweek article, "I
wish GM did not kill the electric vehicle project and If we could
turn back the hands of time we could have had the Chevy Volt 10
years earlier." The Chevy Volt is an prototype electric vehicle that
GM is rushing to complete, but does not know if the Volt will ever
hit the market due to GM's unstable position today.
It does not make sense..there was surging demand for the EV-1, long
waiting lists, customers begging GM to buy the cars, but the
automaker refused. Any savvy Business man would take the customer
feedback as a sign of moving forward with a project. So why are the
American automakers notorious for making fuel inefficient vehicles?
It's quite obvious the Oil Industry is in bed with the Big Three
Automakers.
The Toyota Prius Hybrid is the best selling fuel efficient car in
the US. Although full electric vehicles being manufactured by Tesla
Motors right here in the good ole USA are in high demand too. Fisker
Automotive is another company that is developing a sports Hybrid.
Electrorides is selling an Electric Mini Cooper and a very
interesting Utility Truck called the ZeroTruck, sweet an all
electric truck!
The point I'm trying to make is that there are entrepreneurial
companies out there that can create a better car, that people are
demanding today. If the Big Three fall, it would create a huge
opportunity in the automobile market in which many new jobs would be
formed, simulating the economy. People are already retrofitting
hybrids with solar panels and charging up electric vehicles from
solar electric systems. These new vehicles would also simulate the
"new energy economy". Should we bail the US auto industry out too?
Can we afford to?
Monday, November 17, 2008
Deny The Bailout
Kicking Our Oil Addiction Back to Opinion
Denying Big Three a Bailout Can Be a Historic Opportunity to Get America off Oil and Save Detroit
Edwin Black November 17th 2008
The impulse to accede to political pressure and jobs blackmail from the Big Three for a $25 billion bailout offers America a historic turning-point opportunity. This is the country’s chance to both reform the auto industry and ignite a massive shift off of oil in one master stroke. How?
The $25 billion in lending should not go to the Big Three as a reward for consciously addicting this country to oil and subverting the alternatives. A better idea is to allocate the same $25 billion in lending—but not to the Big Three. Instead, offer loans at rates as low as student loans to any American citizen or fleet manager willing to buy an alternative fuel, flex-fuel, open fuel standard, or alternative propulsion vehicle--new or retrofitted. This would provide an immediate incentive for Detroit and Torrance, California to spend the approximate $100 per vehicle necessary to make every car and truck a multi-fuel or open-fuel vehicle.
When we say open-fuel or multi-fuel, we are not talking about the governmental cash cow currently going to the corn ethanol-big oil combine. We are talking about fuel systems that can function on all forms of combustibles from methanol (the Chinese use 50 million gallons a year while we use none) to second generation biofuel such as cellulosic ethanol. There is already pending legislation advocating the open-fuel standard and the multi-fuel approach. Why wait?
At the same time, legislation should immediately eliminate the $.54 per gallon penalty tax assessed to every gallon of sugar cane ethanol that Brazil struggles to export to America’s Southeast. In the process, we should cut the $8 billion in government subsidies annually handed to the corn ethanol-big oil combine and use that money to both fund 25 percent of the bailout money and open a string of multi-fuel service stations throughout the country offering everything from compressed natural gas (CNG) to methanol to hydrogen to electric charging.
Washington can also use a portion of that $25 billion to fund surge production of alternative fuels and propulsion from trash-to-gas to hydrogen to electric. Dozens of small companies are waiting to implement their ideas or expand beyond their mom-and-pop operations into regional or national purveyors.
A few billion dollars of that loan money should also go to fund any company that will retrofit America’s existing 250 million gas-consuming vehicles to alternative propulsion fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electric and multi-fuel. A vehicle can be converted to CNG for $4,000 to $10,000 depending on the particular vehicle. A company in California can convert any internal combustion vehicle to electric for $10,000 to 16,000. Naturally, there would have to be a temporary suspension of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations that prohibit retrofitting cars off gasoline without being subjected to onerous bureaucratic obstruction and $50,000 to $100,000 in processing fees. The Iranians are currently converting 20 percent of their automotive fleet annually from gasoline to CNG in an effort to circumvent anticipated sanctions against its importing of gasoline. The cost in Iran is about $50 per vehicle; the vehicles go in during the morning and come out in the afternoon.
Some of those billions can also fund Big Three transition to open-fuel or multi-fuel vehicles. The cost is about $100 per vehicle. About 1.5 million vehicles are produced monthly in the United States. Carmakers can be paid by the vehicle.
If Washington funds the purchase of alternative fuel and alternative propulsion vehicles and fuels, and mandates their use, the Big Three automakers will scrap their plans for sexed-up gas guzzlers and start producing and retrofitting the non-oil vehicles the entire nation needs.
Fund the public, not the problem. Help the country, not the corporations.
If all this sounds like a Manhattan Project, it should. The proposed Big Three bailout is $25 billion. The World War II Manhattan Project, in today’s money, only spent $22 billion.
Edwin Black is the author of The Plan: How to Rescue Society the Day the Oil Stops--or the Day Before (Dialog Press).
Copyright © 2007-2008 The Cutting Edge News
Denying Big Three a Bailout Can Be a Historic Opportunity to Get America off Oil and Save Detroit
Edwin Black November 17th 2008
The impulse to accede to political pressure and jobs blackmail from the Big Three for a $25 billion bailout offers America a historic turning-point opportunity. This is the country’s chance to both reform the auto industry and ignite a massive shift off of oil in one master stroke. How?
The $25 billion in lending should not go to the Big Three as a reward for consciously addicting this country to oil and subverting the alternatives. A better idea is to allocate the same $25 billion in lending—but not to the Big Three. Instead, offer loans at rates as low as student loans to any American citizen or fleet manager willing to buy an alternative fuel, flex-fuel, open fuel standard, or alternative propulsion vehicle--new or retrofitted. This would provide an immediate incentive for Detroit and Torrance, California to spend the approximate $100 per vehicle necessary to make every car and truck a multi-fuel or open-fuel vehicle.
When we say open-fuel or multi-fuel, we are not talking about the governmental cash cow currently going to the corn ethanol-big oil combine. We are talking about fuel systems that can function on all forms of combustibles from methanol (the Chinese use 50 million gallons a year while we use none) to second generation biofuel such as cellulosic ethanol. There is already pending legislation advocating the open-fuel standard and the multi-fuel approach. Why wait?
At the same time, legislation should immediately eliminate the $.54 per gallon penalty tax assessed to every gallon of sugar cane ethanol that Brazil struggles to export to America’s Southeast. In the process, we should cut the $8 billion in government subsidies annually handed to the corn ethanol-big oil combine and use that money to both fund 25 percent of the bailout money and open a string of multi-fuel service stations throughout the country offering everything from compressed natural gas (CNG) to methanol to hydrogen to electric charging.
Washington can also use a portion of that $25 billion to fund surge production of alternative fuels and propulsion from trash-to-gas to hydrogen to electric. Dozens of small companies are waiting to implement their ideas or expand beyond their mom-and-pop operations into regional or national purveyors.
A few billion dollars of that loan money should also go to fund any company that will retrofit America’s existing 250 million gas-consuming vehicles to alternative propulsion fuels such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electric and multi-fuel. A vehicle can be converted to CNG for $4,000 to $10,000 depending on the particular vehicle. A company in California can convert any internal combustion vehicle to electric for $10,000 to 16,000. Naturally, there would have to be a temporary suspension of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulations that prohibit retrofitting cars off gasoline without being subjected to onerous bureaucratic obstruction and $50,000 to $100,000 in processing fees. The Iranians are currently converting 20 percent of their automotive fleet annually from gasoline to CNG in an effort to circumvent anticipated sanctions against its importing of gasoline. The cost in Iran is about $50 per vehicle; the vehicles go in during the morning and come out in the afternoon.
Some of those billions can also fund Big Three transition to open-fuel or multi-fuel vehicles. The cost is about $100 per vehicle. About 1.5 million vehicles are produced monthly in the United States. Carmakers can be paid by the vehicle.
If Washington funds the purchase of alternative fuel and alternative propulsion vehicles and fuels, and mandates their use, the Big Three automakers will scrap their plans for sexed-up gas guzzlers and start producing and retrofitting the non-oil vehicles the entire nation needs.
Fund the public, not the problem. Help the country, not the corporations.
If all this sounds like a Manhattan Project, it should. The proposed Big Three bailout is $25 billion. The World War II Manhattan Project, in today’s money, only spent $22 billion.
Edwin Black is the author of The Plan: How to Rescue Society the Day the Oil Stops--or the Day Before (Dialog Press).
Copyright © 2007-2008 The Cutting Edge News
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The news today is full of Congress debating whether we should bail out
the auto industry. They didn't ask for help when they arbitrarily lowered
the average miles per gallon ratings by foisting the suvs and trucks on us.
They didn't ask for help when they pulled back the electric vehicles because
they were too good (no gas, no mantainance). They didn't ask for help when they okayed exorbinant pay and fringes for the workers (and execs). They didn't
ask for help when they were the largest seller of vehicles in the world
(they lost that distinction to Toyota recently).
But now, when all of the ineptness becomes apparent ,they ask for help.
Wow, we are one dumb country if they get it. They should wallow in their
own mess.
Let the new companies that are producing electric vehicles we need reap the benefits and assimilate the workers displaced.
the auto industry. They didn't ask for help when they arbitrarily lowered
the average miles per gallon ratings by foisting the suvs and trucks on us.
They didn't ask for help when they pulled back the electric vehicles because
they were too good (no gas, no mantainance). They didn't ask for help when they okayed exorbinant pay and fringes for the workers (and execs). They didn't
ask for help when they were the largest seller of vehicles in the world
(they lost that distinction to Toyota recently).
But now, when all of the ineptness becomes apparent ,they ask for help.
Wow, we are one dumb country if they get it. They should wallow in their
own mess.
Let the new companies that are producing electric vehicles we need reap the benefits and assimilate the workers displaced.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Electric vehicles on the move
We all know is that there is no panacea for our green transport problems. Solutions will come from a variety of different sources from use of lightweight materials, even better engineered internal combustion engines, more refined fuels, bio-fuels, hybrids, etc. And one option gaining increased favour is the electric vehicle. With fuel cell technology improving the possibility of wider take-up of this solution, we are hearing of more trials taking place.
The latest news is that Amey is trying out Smart electric cars in Birmingham, Oxford and Plymouth. This comes hot on the heels of an electric scooter being tested by Lothian and Borders Police in Edinburgh as a potential replacement for the patrol car.
One of the arguments against the electric vehicle is that you are replacing one kind of carbon footprint for another. If you charge an electric vehicle, you need to extract energy from the national grid, which means burning fossil fuels at local power stations.
Research conducted on behalf of the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport (DfT) has now placed a green cost on recharging electric vehicles. According to the study, greenhouse gasses could be cut by as much as 40 per cent even though there is reliance on burning fossil fuels to charge the electric vehicles.
The study by Arup and Cenex also indicates that the national grid has sufficient capacity to handle the extra demand placed on it despite denials today by government that in ten years time the lights could go out at regular intervals.
Furthermore, as charging would take place mostly overnight, drivers of electric vehicles would be taking advantage of off-peak electricity.
Last month, the Technology Strategy Board unveiled a £10m project, co-funded by the DfT, to pilot up to 100 low-carbon demonstration vehicles across the UK to promote electric and hybrid vehicles in real-life situations. The Board is also to invest a further £10m on the ‘electrification’ of road transport.
It would appear that fresh impetus has been given to promoting the take-up of electric vehicles, which undoubtedly are a good solution in urban areas. The only major drawback I see is one of silence. How will pedestrians avoid stepping out into the path of electric vehicles when for years now they have not had the familiarity of listening out for the local milk float? Technology will have to be deployed to make such vehicles better heard on the road.
One thing’s for sure, the rise in popularity of the electric vehicle will give new meaning to the ‘Plug and Go’ slogan!
We all know is that there is no panacea for our green transport problems. Solutions will come from a variety of different sources from use of lightweight materials, even better engineered internal combustion engines, more refined fuels, bio-fuels, hybrids, etc. And one option gaining increased favour is the electric vehicle. With fuel cell technology improving the possibility of wider take-up of this solution, we are hearing of more trials taking place.
The latest news is that Amey is trying out Smart electric cars in Birmingham, Oxford and Plymouth. This comes hot on the heels of an electric scooter being tested by Lothian and Borders Police in Edinburgh as a potential replacement for the patrol car.
One of the arguments against the electric vehicle is that you are replacing one kind of carbon footprint for another. If you charge an electric vehicle, you need to extract energy from the national grid, which means burning fossil fuels at local power stations.
Research conducted on behalf of the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Department for Transport (DfT) has now placed a green cost on recharging electric vehicles. According to the study, greenhouse gasses could be cut by as much as 40 per cent even though there is reliance on burning fossil fuels to charge the electric vehicles.
The study by Arup and Cenex also indicates that the national grid has sufficient capacity to handle the extra demand placed on it despite denials today by government that in ten years time the lights could go out at regular intervals.
Furthermore, as charging would take place mostly overnight, drivers of electric vehicles would be taking advantage of off-peak electricity.
Last month, the Technology Strategy Board unveiled a £10m project, co-funded by the DfT, to pilot up to 100 low-carbon demonstration vehicles across the UK to promote electric and hybrid vehicles in real-life situations. The Board is also to invest a further £10m on the ‘electrification’ of road transport.
It would appear that fresh impetus has been given to promoting the take-up of electric vehicles, which undoubtedly are a good solution in urban areas. The only major drawback I see is one of silence. How will pedestrians avoid stepping out into the path of electric vehicles when for years now they have not had the familiarity of listening out for the local milk float? Technology will have to be deployed to make such vehicles better heard on the road.
One thing’s for sure, the rise in popularity of the electric vehicle will give new meaning to the ‘Plug and Go’ slogan!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The “E”: Mini’s New Electric Car
Written by Adam Shake
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The BMW Group is about to become the first manufacturer of premium automobiles to deploy a fleet of nearly 500 all electric vehicles for private use in daily traffic. Powered by a 150 kW (204 hp) electric motor and fed by a high-performance rechargeable lithium-ion battery, the vehicle will be nearly silent and emissions free.
The Mini E will have a range of about 150 miles and will initially be offered to select private and corporate customers in California, New York and New Jersey, but will first be given its world premiere at the LA Auto Show on November 19th and 20th, 2008.
As for its speed, BMW claims that it will offer acceleration to 62 mph in 8.5 seconds with a top speed that is electronically limited to 95 mph.
BMW Group says that putting 500 cars on the road under real daily traffic conditions will make it possible to gain widely applicable hand-on experience. Evaluating these finding will generate valuable know-how, which will be factored into the engineering of mass-produced vehicles.
Based on the current Mini model, the car will initially be available as a two-seater. (The space in the back seat will initially be taken up by the lithium-ion battery.) The battery can be plugged into all standard power outlets and its charge time is strongly dependent on the voltage and amperage of the electricity flowing through the grid. That’s why, in the USA, buyers will receive a wall-box that will ship with every Mini E. The wall-box will be installed in the customer’s garage, enabling higher amperage. Wall-boxes will fully recharge the batteries after two-and-a-half hours.
The Mini E’s styling is a bit different. A specially designed logo in Yellow, depicting a power plug in the shape of an “E” is set against a silver backdrop. It will be applied to the roof, the front and back, and the charger port lid.
Production of the approximately 500 cars will take place at the company’s Oxford and Munich sites and is scheduled for completion before the end of 2008.
If you’re like me, you’ll be eagerly anticipating seeing these new cars on the road.
Written by Adam Shake
Sunday, October 19, 2008
The BMW Group is about to become the first manufacturer of premium automobiles to deploy a fleet of nearly 500 all electric vehicles for private use in daily traffic. Powered by a 150 kW (204 hp) electric motor and fed by a high-performance rechargeable lithium-ion battery, the vehicle will be nearly silent and emissions free.
The Mini E will have a range of about 150 miles and will initially be offered to select private and corporate customers in California, New York and New Jersey, but will first be given its world premiere at the LA Auto Show on November 19th and 20th, 2008.
As for its speed, BMW claims that it will offer acceleration to 62 mph in 8.5 seconds with a top speed that is electronically limited to 95 mph.
BMW Group says that putting 500 cars on the road under real daily traffic conditions will make it possible to gain widely applicable hand-on experience. Evaluating these finding will generate valuable know-how, which will be factored into the engineering of mass-produced vehicles.
Based on the current Mini model, the car will initially be available as a two-seater. (The space in the back seat will initially be taken up by the lithium-ion battery.) The battery can be plugged into all standard power outlets and its charge time is strongly dependent on the voltage and amperage of the electricity flowing through the grid. That’s why, in the USA, buyers will receive a wall-box that will ship with every Mini E. The wall-box will be installed in the customer’s garage, enabling higher amperage. Wall-boxes will fully recharge the batteries after two-and-a-half hours.
The Mini E’s styling is a bit different. A specially designed logo in Yellow, depicting a power plug in the shape of an “E” is set against a silver backdrop. It will be applied to the roof, the front and back, and the charger port lid.
Production of the approximately 500 cars will take place at the company’s Oxford and Munich sites and is scheduled for completion before the end of 2008.
If you’re like me, you’ll be eagerly anticipating seeing these new cars on the road.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Toyota Too
Toyota will provided four electric vehicles
Posted by admin | Toyota Prius hybrid car | Wednesday 24 September 2008 4:58 pm
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. on Wednesday said it will provided four electric vehicles for use in Portland as a shuttle from mass-transit stops.
The automaker, speaking at a Sustainable Mobility Seminar in Portland, said it would put four of its RAV4 electric vehicles into operation in Portland. Portland State University will develop a program to use the vehicles to shuttle people from transit terminals to downtown and suburban locations, Toyota said in a news release.
The news comes as Portland General Electric Co. continues to roll out a series of electric car-charging stations across the metro area where the cars can refuel.
“It’s obvious that the next several years will see a growing number of low-emission and no-emission vehicle options, particularly electric and hybrid vehicles,” George Beard of PSU’s Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, said in the news release. “Our region’s position in renewable energy and its leadership reputation in urban sustainability make this partnership a natural for all involved.”
Toyota also announced a series of other announcements at the event Wednesday, including its plans to display a Camry hybrid powered by compressed natural gas at the Los Angeles Auto Show, and that the company is studying the business case for remanufacturing hybrid vehicle batters in North America as a way of lowering replacement costs.
Toyota is taking a fresh look at compressed natural gas as a power source for U.S. automobiles, and plans to unveil a Camry Hybrid concept car powered by the fuel at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November.
Toyota officials made the announcement Tuesday at a sustainability forum in Portland, where they said the abundance, pricing and clean-burning properties of natural gas could make it an attractive fuel in an era of tightening oil supplies and increased regulation of automotive emissions.
Irv Miller, a Toyota Motor Sales group vice president, said compressed natural gas could become a “prime energy source for the future.”
Back in 1999, Toyota marketed a CNG-powered four-cylinder Camry as a fleet vehicle to some California customers. But the program — at a time of much lower oil prices — did not catch on and was discontinued later.
The United States now has about 1,000 CNG refueling stations, with about half of them open to the public, according to Toyota officials.
The new concept car will mix the Toyota’s electric hybrid technology with the CNG technology, but no details of the range of the vehicle were released Tuesday.
In Portland, Toyota officials discussed other research efforts as well, including work to increase the efficiency of the electric-gasoline hybrids that propel the popular Prius and other models.
Toyota also is planning a limited rollout in 2009 of a plug-in Prius that would operate on a lithium ion battery rather than the nickel-metal hydride batteries used in the current Prius. The plug-in could operate for a limited distance solely on the battery, and then could be plugged in to an outlet to be recharged.
Toyota also is researching all-electric cars, and on Tuesday announced it would place four of these vehicles — a version of the RAV4 — in Portland. Those cars, with a range of about 80 miles between charges, are intended to help the city and Oregon develop an electric-charging infrastructure, and will be used by Portland State University to carry people from mass-transit terminals to downtown and suburban locations.
Posted by admin | Toyota Prius hybrid car | Wednesday 24 September 2008 4:58 pm
Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A. Inc. on Wednesday said it will provided four electric vehicles for use in Portland as a shuttle from mass-transit stops.
The automaker, speaking at a Sustainable Mobility Seminar in Portland, said it would put four of its RAV4 electric vehicles into operation in Portland. Portland State University will develop a program to use the vehicles to shuttle people from transit terminals to downtown and suburban locations, Toyota said in a news release.
The news comes as Portland General Electric Co. continues to roll out a series of electric car-charging stations across the metro area where the cars can refuel.
“It’s obvious that the next several years will see a growing number of low-emission and no-emission vehicle options, particularly electric and hybrid vehicles,” George Beard of PSU’s Mark O. Hatfield School of Government, said in the news release. “Our region’s position in renewable energy and its leadership reputation in urban sustainability make this partnership a natural for all involved.”
Toyota also announced a series of other announcements at the event Wednesday, including its plans to display a Camry hybrid powered by compressed natural gas at the Los Angeles Auto Show, and that the company is studying the business case for remanufacturing hybrid vehicle batters in North America as a way of lowering replacement costs.
Toyota is taking a fresh look at compressed natural gas as a power source for U.S. automobiles, and plans to unveil a Camry Hybrid concept car powered by the fuel at the Los Angeles Auto Show in November.
Toyota officials made the announcement Tuesday at a sustainability forum in Portland, where they said the abundance, pricing and clean-burning properties of natural gas could make it an attractive fuel in an era of tightening oil supplies and increased regulation of automotive emissions.
Irv Miller, a Toyota Motor Sales group vice president, said compressed natural gas could become a “prime energy source for the future.”
Back in 1999, Toyota marketed a CNG-powered four-cylinder Camry as a fleet vehicle to some California customers. But the program — at a time of much lower oil prices — did not catch on and was discontinued later.
The United States now has about 1,000 CNG refueling stations, with about half of them open to the public, according to Toyota officials.
The new concept car will mix the Toyota’s electric hybrid technology with the CNG technology, but no details of the range of the vehicle were released Tuesday.
In Portland, Toyota officials discussed other research efforts as well, including work to increase the efficiency of the electric-gasoline hybrids that propel the popular Prius and other models.
Toyota also is planning a limited rollout in 2009 of a plug-in Prius that would operate on a lithium ion battery rather than the nickel-metal hydride batteries used in the current Prius. The plug-in could operate for a limited distance solely on the battery, and then could be plugged in to an outlet to be recharged.
Toyota also is researching all-electric cars, and on Tuesday announced it would place four of these vehicles — a version of the RAV4 — in Portland. Those cars, with a range of about 80 miles between charges, are intended to help the city and Oregon develop an electric-charging infrastructure, and will be used by Portland State University to carry people from mass-transit terminals to downtown and suburban locations.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Chump Change
DIY Forum
I believe that's what "they" (most in congress) consider a person or corporation who would promote electric vehicles, a chump, whose interest would it serve to promote or even more absurdly mandate such a thing,? Where is the money to be made and who could they collect it from" Certainly not through a gasoline tax. If the electric vehicle industry took off it would in effect cripple if not decimate the existing business/tax platform enjoyed by auto makers and the federal government alike, why would they allow a change? These so called elected representatives of the people by the people, obviously through their inaction have failed miserably to promote and enact legislation that would revolutionalize the transportation industry as we know it. Infrastructures and transportation industry platforms must and will change, these corporate puppets know this they are not stupid people. Their actions and inactions have shown them to have been serving a different master and he or should I say they are not you and I. As for batteries I am waiting for A123 systems to provide a $5,000 battery not $10,000 to replace my current nine 8volt Enegizer golf cart batteries which provide a paltry 15 miles of range. I'll probably be waiting in vain to collect my social security benefits by the time that reality is recognized. I hope I'm wrong.
I believe that's what "they" (most in congress) consider a person or corporation who would promote electric vehicles, a chump, whose interest would it serve to promote or even more absurdly mandate such a thing,? Where is the money to be made and who could they collect it from" Certainly not through a gasoline tax. If the electric vehicle industry took off it would in effect cripple if not decimate the existing business/tax platform enjoyed by auto makers and the federal government alike, why would they allow a change? These so called elected representatives of the people by the people, obviously through their inaction have failed miserably to promote and enact legislation that would revolutionalize the transportation industry as we know it. Infrastructures and transportation industry platforms must and will change, these corporate puppets know this they are not stupid people. Their actions and inactions have shown them to have been serving a different master and he or should I say they are not you and I. As for batteries I am waiting for A123 systems to provide a $5,000 battery not $10,000 to replace my current nine 8volt Enegizer golf cart batteries which provide a paltry 15 miles of range. I'll probably be waiting in vain to collect my social security benefits by the time that reality is recognized. I hope I'm wrong.
The New Ebox
from DIY forum
The eBox is a new electric car from AC Propulsion. We designed it to meet the needs of urban and suburban drivers who want smooth, quiet, powerful, efficient, clean, convenient, and fun-to-drive transportation. The eBox will satisfy those drivers because it is powered by AC Propulsion’s patented drive system technology that delivers an unprecedented combination of both power, at freeway speeds, and efficiency, when the going gets slow. The eBox’s unique lithium ion battery, made from 5,088 small cells, stores more energy with less weight than other EV batteries so the eBox is light, responsive, and well-balanced even though the interior offers space for five comfortable people or for the many other items that people need to move around town. Well-built and fully-equipped, the eBox creates a serenity for its passengers, a serenity borne of the many virtues of electric transportation. At AC Propulsion, we can’t take credit for those virtues, but we can take credit for putting them on the road in the eBox. We are proud of the eBox. Since our founding in 1992, it is the best EV we’ve built.
We build the eBox by converting a Scion xB 5-speed to electric power. We chose the xB after looking at every small car on the market. The gasoline Scion xB costs less than $15,000 well-equipped and weighs less than 2400 pounds. The xB is huge inside so it meets the needs of a lot of people and it appeals to fleets. Scion is a Toyota brand and the Scion xB is built with Toyota quality. Not everyone likes the looks of the xB, but as the basis for a great EV conversion, the xB has the look of a winner.
Planning for what would become the eBox started in 2003 after the AC Propulsion tzero demonstrated the potential of Li Ion batteries by winning the 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum. In 2005, we made the decision to go into limited production. The eBox is built to order, starting with a customer-owned xB, and we are now starting to build the first cars for customers. We are also planning to display and demonstrate the eBox all around California as opportunities arise. Please watch this space for more information about the AC Propulsion eBox.
As a final note, in an unintended irony, the first eBox prototype was driven for the first time on June 24, 2006. That was the opening day for Chris Paine’s must-see documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?
The eBox is a new electric car from AC Propulsion. We designed it to meet the needs of urban and suburban drivers who want smooth, quiet, powerful, efficient, clean, convenient, and fun-to-drive transportation. The eBox will satisfy those drivers because it is powered by AC Propulsion’s patented drive system technology that delivers an unprecedented combination of both power, at freeway speeds, and efficiency, when the going gets slow. The eBox’s unique lithium ion battery, made from 5,088 small cells, stores more energy with less weight than other EV batteries so the eBox is light, responsive, and well-balanced even though the interior offers space for five comfortable people or for the many other items that people need to move around town. Well-built and fully-equipped, the eBox creates a serenity for its passengers, a serenity borne of the many virtues of electric transportation. At AC Propulsion, we can’t take credit for those virtues, but we can take credit for putting them on the road in the eBox. We are proud of the eBox. Since our founding in 1992, it is the best EV we’ve built.
We build the eBox by converting a Scion xB 5-speed to electric power. We chose the xB after looking at every small car on the market. The gasoline Scion xB costs less than $15,000 well-equipped and weighs less than 2400 pounds. The xB is huge inside so it meets the needs of a lot of people and it appeals to fleets. Scion is a Toyota brand and the Scion xB is built with Toyota quality. Not everyone likes the looks of the xB, but as the basis for a great EV conversion, the xB has the look of a winner.
Planning for what would become the eBox started in 2003 after the AC Propulsion tzero demonstrated the potential of Li Ion batteries by winning the 2003 Michelin Challenge Bibendum. In 2005, we made the decision to go into limited production. The eBox is built to order, starting with a customer-owned xB, and we are now starting to build the first cars for customers. We are also planning to display and demonstrate the eBox all around California as opportunities arise. Please watch this space for more information about the AC Propulsion eBox.
As a final note, in an unintended irony, the first eBox prototype was driven for the first time on June 24, 2006. That was the opening day for Chris Paine’s must-see documentary Who Killed the Electric Car?
Money
MONEY.
Auto makers say fuel cell cars are clean an environmentally friendly. But so are EVs, which are even cleaner, considering charging from solar, hydro or wind sources. Auto makers sure are pro environment, but as long as you keep buying fuel and keep servicing overly complex vehicles. Doesn't matter what type of fuel, as long as they are in control of your pocket, they're happy. Are you happy too? Not to mention who exactly gets the money for all that imported oil...
Have you questioned anyone how much energy is needed to produce a hydrogen you're going to pay for? You need electricity to run the equipment reforming hydrogen to the useable for FC form. And then, the hydrogen is going to be used to get back electricity to run a vehicle propulsion motor. What's wrong with this picture? Isn't it simpler, cheaper, more efficient and just plain makes more sense to just store initial electricity directly in a car's battery in the first place?
Hydrogen is an extremely clever scam. When you step back and ask, "Where will the hydrogen come from?" the house of cards falls apart. You will get hydrogen from fossil fuels. The most economic way to get hydrogen is to catalyze natural gas. When you do this, you throw away 50% of the fuel value. If you were to put that hydrogen into a fuel-cell car, it would only go 50% the distance (at best) that a hybrid car would, if fueled from the natural gas directly. The oil company loves it. They get to sell twice as much per mile driven. It is also twice as much CO2 per mile driven. (G.W. = Global Warming)
If you choose to make hydrogen for your fuel cell car from electricity, an EV using that electricity directly will go at least twice as far.
Many of the foaming advocates of hydrogen say, "But we can figure out a way to make hydrogen more efficiently if we hurl big research dollars at the problem." Unfortunately, there are only so many hydrogen atoms in each methane molecule. Also, until we unlock the secret of photosynthesis, there will be no efficient way to make hydrogen. Batteries will always be more efficient at storing electricity than hydrogen gas.
Think of all the money we have spent on fusion power and it will give you just a peek of how much we would have to spend on electrolysis to make it more efficient. There are many many other areas in alternative fuels that will reap greater rewards on a faster timetable for far less money. (Like biodiesel) Of course, the oil companies really wouldn't like that, would they.
Finally, please read this independed report to be better informed about reality.
Can an EV run far? Well, if an EV could run more than 340 miles on a single charge 10 years ago, you'd think that today technology can be only better, especially if part of the money going into FC research would be spent advancing EV batteries. Can it run fast? Is about 300 mph fast enough for you? Can it be quick? How does 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds sound? Can you own an electric car for every day use? Yes! If you're fed up with Big three, motivated enough and have a handy man skills or can get help, you can convert a conventional vehicle to an EV yourself. Or you can buy a conversion made by other EVers. Thousands have done it. You too can make a difference. If you are thinking about doing EV conversion yourself, I'll show you how I did it.
Startup Converting Ford F-150s Into 41 MPG Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Written by Clayton B. Cornell
Published on July 28th, 20085 CommentsPosted in Car hacks / Mods, Hybrid-electric EVs
Auto makers say fuel cell cars are clean an environmentally friendly. But so are EVs, which are even cleaner, considering charging from solar, hydro or wind sources. Auto makers sure are pro environment, but as long as you keep buying fuel and keep servicing overly complex vehicles. Doesn't matter what type of fuel, as long as they are in control of your pocket, they're happy. Are you happy too? Not to mention who exactly gets the money for all that imported oil...
Have you questioned anyone how much energy is needed to produce a hydrogen you're going to pay for? You need electricity to run the equipment reforming hydrogen to the useable for FC form. And then, the hydrogen is going to be used to get back electricity to run a vehicle propulsion motor. What's wrong with this picture? Isn't it simpler, cheaper, more efficient and just plain makes more sense to just store initial electricity directly in a car's battery in the first place?
Hydrogen is an extremely clever scam. When you step back and ask, "Where will the hydrogen come from?" the house of cards falls apart. You will get hydrogen from fossil fuels. The most economic way to get hydrogen is to catalyze natural gas. When you do this, you throw away 50% of the fuel value. If you were to put that hydrogen into a fuel-cell car, it would only go 50% the distance (at best) that a hybrid car would, if fueled from the natural gas directly. The oil company loves it. They get to sell twice as much per mile driven. It is also twice as much CO2 per mile driven. (G.W. = Global Warming)
If you choose to make hydrogen for your fuel cell car from electricity, an EV using that electricity directly will go at least twice as far.
Many of the foaming advocates of hydrogen say, "But we can figure out a way to make hydrogen more efficiently if we hurl big research dollars at the problem." Unfortunately, there are only so many hydrogen atoms in each methane molecule. Also, until we unlock the secret of photosynthesis, there will be no efficient way to make hydrogen. Batteries will always be more efficient at storing electricity than hydrogen gas.
Think of all the money we have spent on fusion power and it will give you just a peek of how much we would have to spend on electrolysis to make it more efficient. There are many many other areas in alternative fuels that will reap greater rewards on a faster timetable for far less money. (Like biodiesel) Of course, the oil companies really wouldn't like that, would they.
Finally, please read this independed report to be better informed about reality.
Can an EV run far? Well, if an EV could run more than 340 miles on a single charge 10 years ago, you'd think that today technology can be only better, especially if part of the money going into FC research would be spent advancing EV batteries. Can it run fast? Is about 300 mph fast enough for you? Can it be quick? How does 0-60 mph in 3.6 seconds sound? Can you own an electric car for every day use? Yes! If you're fed up with Big three, motivated enough and have a handy man skills or can get help, you can convert a conventional vehicle to an EV yourself. Or you can buy a conversion made by other EVers. Thousands have done it. You too can make a difference. If you are thinking about doing EV conversion yourself, I'll show you how I did it.
Startup Converting Ford F-150s Into 41 MPG Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicles
Written by Clayton B. Cornell
Published on July 28th, 20085 CommentsPosted in Car hacks / Mods, Hybrid-electric EVs
Friday, August 29, 2008
Fuel Cell vs Plug in Electric Vehicles
A Cost Comparison of Fuel-Cell and Battery Electric Vehicles
Stephen Eaves*, James Eaves
Eaves Devices, Charlestown, RI, Arizona State University-East, Mesa, AZ
Abstract
This paper compares the manufacturing and refueling costs of a Fuel-Cell Vehicle (FCV)
and a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) using an automobile model reflecting the largest
segment of light-duty vehicles. We use results from widely-cited government studies to
compare the manufacturing and refueling costs of a BEV and a FCV capable of delivering
135 horsepower and driving approximately 300 miles. Our results show that a BEV
performs far more favorably in terms of cost, energy efficiency, weight, and volume. The
differences are particularly dramatic when we assume that energy is derived from
renewable resources.
Keywords: Battery-Electric Vehicle; Fuel-Cell Vehicle; Well-to-Wheel; Energy Pathway
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 401-315-0547; E-mail: stepheneaves@eavesdevices.com
1. Introduction
Both the federal and state governments have enacted legislation designed to promote
the eventual widespread adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. For instance, California
enacted the Zero-Emissions-Vehicle (ZEV) program mandating automakers to claim
ZEV credits for a small percentage of total vehicle sales starting in 2003.
Further, the last version of the 2003 energy bill included over a billion dollars
in incentives for automakers to develop technology related to Fuel-Cell Vehicles.
Currently, the Fuel-Cell Vehicle (FCV) and the Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
are the only potential ZEV replacements of the internal combustion engine,
however, no studies have directly compared the two technologies in terms of performance
and cost when considering the most recent advances in battery and fuel-cell technology.
Below, we compare BEV and FCV technologies based on a vehicle model that is capable
of delivering 100 kW of peak power, and 60 kWh total energy to the wheels.1 This translates
into a vehicle that is capable of delivering 135 horsepower and driving
approximately 300 miles. The vehicle characteristics are comparable to a small
to midsize car, such as a Honda Civic, representing the largest segment of the
light-duty vehicle class [1]. We first compare the relative efficiency of the vehicles
well-to-wheel pathways. This allows us to calculate the amount of energy a power plant
must produce in order to deliver a unit of energy to the wheels of a FCV and a
BEV. Next, we compute the volume, weight, and refueling costs associated
with each vehicle. We make these calculations first assuming that the
hydrogen for the FCVs and the electricity for the BEVs are generated using nonfossil
fuel sources. After, we relax this assumption to consider the case where
hydrogen is reformed from natural gas and the electricity for BEVs is generated
using a mix of fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel sources, such as wind and
hydroelectric, as is the norm today.
2. Analysis and Discussion
2.1. Energy Efficiency Comparison assuming energy is derived from renewable resources
A vehicle?s well-to-wheel pathway is the pathway between the original source
of energy (e.g. a wind farm) and the wheels of the car. The pathway?s
components are the energy conversion, distribution, and storage stages required
to transport and convert the energy that eventually moves the automobile. Thus,
analyzing the efficiency of each vehicle?s well-to-wheel pathway allows us to
determine the total amount of energy required to move each vehicle.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 illustrate the pathways for BEVs and FCVs, respectively. The first
stage of both pathways is the generation of electricity. Since presumably we are
concerned with the long-run development of a sustainable transportation infrastructure,
we first assume that the electricity is generated by a non-fossil fuel resource
like hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, or a combination. All of
these sources are used to generate energy in the form of electricity. The only
established method to convert electricity to hydrogen is through a process known
as electrolysis, which electrically separates water into its components of
hydrogen and oxygen.
For BEVs, the electricity is delivered over power lines to a battery charger.
The battery charger then charges a Lithium-ion battery that stores the energy
on-board the vehicle to power the vehicle?s drivetrain. In addition to one
storage and two distribution stages, the BEV pathway consists of two conversion
stages (the conversion of, say, wind to electricity in stage 1 and the conversion
of electricity to mechanical energy in stage 2). The figure shows that the entire
pathway is 77% efficient; approximately 79 kWh of energy must be generated in
order to deliver the necessary 60 kWh of electricity to the wheels of the car.
The FCV?s well-to-wheel pathway, illustrated in Fig. 2, is believed by experts
to be the most likely scenario, with some exceptions that are addressed below [2].
In this case, the energy from the electric plant is used for the electrolysis process
that separates hydrogen gas from water. The hydrogen gas is then compressed
and distributed to fueling stations where it can be pumped into and stored aboard
individual fuel-cell vehicles. The onboard hydrogen gas is then combined
with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce the electricity that powers the
vehicle?s drivetrain.
In addition to one distribution and one storage stage, the FCV pathway consists
of four conversion stages (the conversion of, say, wind to electricity in stage 1, the
conversion of electricity to hydrogen in stage 2, the conversion of hydrogen back
to electricity in stage 3, and finally, the conversion of electricity to mechanical
energy in stage 4). Due largely to the fact that there are two additional
conversion stages relative to the BEV and the fact that the onboard conversion
stage is only 54% efficient, the FCV pathway is only approximately 30%
efficient.3 The result is that the pathway requires the production of 202 kWh of
electricity at the plant, to deliver the necessary 60 kWh to the vehicle, or 2.6
times the requirements of the BEV pathway [3]. Obviously, this means that
there would need to be 2.6 times as many wind farms or solar panels to power the
FCVs versus the BEVs. Arguably, a more efficient FCV pathway would be based on-board
fossil fuel reforming or liquid hydrogen storage. However, attempts at these
alternative methods have proven uncompetitive compared to a system based on compressed
hydrogen gas. As a consequence, the pathway illustrated in Fig. 2 is considered by the
DOE and industrial experts to be the most feasible
[2]. However, contrary to our present assumption, the DOE?s support for the
distribution pipeline of Fig. 2 is based on the assumption of initially using fossil
fuels as the source of hydrogen. In the case of renewable energy, it would be
more cost effective to transport the electricity over power lines and perform
the electrolysis at local ?gas stations?, thus eliminating the need for the
expensive and less efficient hydrogen pipeline [4]. Elimination of the hydrogen
pipeline stage significantly increases the overall efficiency of the
pathway, however, 188 kWh is still necessary to deliver 60 kWh to the
FCV?s wheels, or 2.4 times the energy required to power a BEV.
The results of the non-fossil fuel analysis are impacted by the fact that we
do not consider the cost of constructing and maintaining a hydrogen
infrastructure. A renewable hydrogen infrastructure would consist of a network
of electrolysis plants, supported by an intra-national pipeline, which, in turn,
would supply a myriad of hydrogen refueling stations. The cost of hydrogen
production from electrolysis is already well characterized from existing
installations, but accurately projecting the downstream costs of a massive
transportation and distribution infrastructure is much more difficult.
The practical implication of only considering the production costs is that
our estimate of the FCV?s refueling cost is lower than it would be if we
considered infrastructure costs. For instance, the cost of building the
hydrogen refueling stations alone is estimated between $100 billion and $600
billion.[5] The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the costs of the
hydrogen trunk pipelines and distribution lines to be $1.4 million and $0.6 million
per mile, respectively[6]. A BEV infrastructure would be largely based on
the current power grid, making its construction vastly less costly.2
The inefficiency of the FCV pathway combined with the high capital and
maintenance costs of the distribution system results in significant differences in
the refueling cost between a FCV and BEV, particularly if the source is
5 renewable. For example, Pedro and Putsche [7] estimate that using wind
energy, hydrogen production costs alone will amount to $20.76 per tank to drive
our FCV 300 miles compared to $4.28 per tank (or per charge) for the BEV.4
2.2. Comparison of Weight, Volume and Cost Maintaining the same performance
assumptions, we next compare the projected relative weight, volume, and
unit costs of each vehicles propulsion system. The results are reported in Table
1 and Table 2. When interpreting the tables it is important to note that the
limiting factor in FCV performance is the amount of power that can be delivered,
which affects vehicle acceleration and hill climbing. For BEVs, the limiting factor
is the amount of energy that can be delivered, which affects total vehicle
range. This means that the scaling factors for weight, volume, and cost for
the FCV are based on how many Watts (of power) that can be delivered per unit
of weight, volume, or cost. For the BEV it is the amount of Watt·hours (of
energy) that can be delivered per unit of weight, volume, or cost.
Table 1
Estimated weight, on-board space, and mass-production cost requirements of the FCV
propulsion system.
Component Weight Volume Cost Reference
Fuel-Cell 617 kg 1182 liters $23,033 ADL(2001)
3.2 kg storage tank 51 kg 215 liters $2,288 Padro and Putsch(1999)
Drivetrain 53 kg 68 liters $3,826 AC Propulsion,
Inc.(2001),
Total 721 kg 1465 liters $29,147 SolectriaCorp (2001)
Table 2
Estimated weight, on-board space, and mass-production cost requirements of a BEV
propulsion systems
Component Weight Volume Cost Reference
Li-ion Battery 451 kg 401 liters $16,125 Gaines and Cuenca(2000)
Drivetrain 53 kg 68 liters $3,826 Cuenca and Gains
Total 504 kg 469 liters $19,951
2.3. Weight Comparison
According to the DOE report on the status of fuel-cells conducted by Arthur
D. Little [8], a modern fuel cell is presently capable of delivering 182 Watts
of power per kg of fuel-cell. Including the required FCV drivetrain components
and their losses [9,10] and the weight of the storage tank5, a fuel-cell propulsion
system capable of meeting our performance constraint must weigh
approximately 721 kg. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) working group report on advanced battery readiness [11], a
Lithium-ion battery is capable of delivering 143 Watts·hours of energy per
kg of battery. Considering an equivalent drivetrain to the one assumed for the
FCV, the battery system must weigh 504 kg to satisfy our performance constraint.6
2.4. Volume Comparison
The Arthur D. Little study reports that the fuel-cell delivers 95 Watts per
liter of fuel-cell, which combined with the volume of the hydrogen storage tank
[12] and the volume of the electric drivetrain components produces a total
volume of 1465 liters.7 A Lithium-ion battery delivers 161 Watt·hours per liter
of battery.8 When combined with the electric drivetrain volume, this results in
a total volume of 469 liters. 2.5. Cost Comparison Finally, The Arthur D. Little
study reports a cost of $205 per kW for a 100kW fuel-cell.9 Adding to this the cost
of the electric motor, control electronics and hydrogen-storage tank implies that
the total cost of $29,147 for the fuel-cell propulsion system(The electric drivetrain
components are $3,826 for the BEV and FCV.) [13]. For the BEV, the cost of a
Lithium-ion battery is estimated to be $250/kWh [14]. Considering the electric
drivetrain, this implies a total cost of $19,951 for the BEV?s propulsion system.
2.6. Energy Efficiency Comparison assuming energy is derived from Fossil Fuels
Most experts are imagining that for many years to come, fossil fuels will be
the main source of the hydrogen or the electricity that powers zero emission
vehicles. In light of this, one should consider the near term case where the
electricity for BEVs is generated using a mix of fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel
sources and the FCV?s hydrogen is reformed from natural gas, as is the norm today.
A 2001 study conducted for the California Air Resources Board found
that when electricity for BEVs is generated using a mix of fossil fuel and
non-fossil fuel and hydrogen is created from natural gas, a BEV pathway is
about 8% more efficient than a FCV pathway. The study also concluded that
the BEV pathway would generate lower greenhouse gas emissions. Although the
efficiency comparison of the two vehicles is much closer than for the non-fossil fuel
case, if the substantial cost of building and maintaining the hydrogen
infrastructure necessary to support the FCV is considered, then the BEV would
clearly be more attractive than the FCV. Further, if renewable energy sources will
eventually replace fossil fuels, then the hydrogen pipeline would at best be
inefficient, and at worst be obsolete. This is because hydrogen producers
would find it more economical to make hydrogen locally by using renewable
electricity to hydrolyze water, rather than purchasing hydrogen transported via
pipeline. Since the nation?s electricity is already generated using an array of fossil
and non-fossil fuel resources, the optimal design of the BEV infrastructure would
not change in the conversion to a nonfossil fuel economy. Lastly, when the non-fossil
fuel assumption is relaxed, the refueling costof a BEV is still far less than that
of the FCV. Pedro and Putsch estimate the retail cost of hydrogen from fossil fuel to
be $2.42 per kg [7]. Given the 3.2 kg of hydrogen necessary to meet our rangeperformance
constraint, this results in a fill-up cost of $7.77 for the FCV.
Accounting for efficiency losses between a BEV?s battery and its wheels,
64.5kWh of energy must be delivered to the BEV battery to assure that 60 kWh is
delivered to its wheels. Considering a 0.89 charger efficiency and a 0.94 battery
efficiency, this implies that 77 kWh of energy must be purchased from the utility
company. Since BEVs will typically be charged at night, an off-peak cost of
$0.06/kWh is applied for the electricity generated from a mix of fossil and nonfossil
fuels. This implies a ?fill-up? cost of $4.63 for the BEV, which is about
40% lower than that of the FCV.
3. Conclusion
We use widely-cited government studies to directly compare the costs
associated with producing and refueling FCVs and BEVs. The analysis is based
on an automobile model (similar to a Honda Civic) that is representative of the
largest segment of the automobile market. A comparison is important since
the government and industry are devoting increasing amounts of resources
to the goal of developing a marketable ZEV and the BEV and the FCV are
currently the only feasible alternatives. We find that government studies
indicate that it would be far cheaper, in terms of production and refueling costs,
to develop a BEV, even if we do not consider the substantial cost of building
and maintaining the hydrogen infrastructure on which the FCV would
depend. Specifically, the results show that in an economy based on renewable
energy, the FCV requires production of between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy
than a comparable BEV. The FCV propulsion system weighs 43% more,
consumes nearly three-times more space onboard the vehicle for the same power
output, and costs approximately 46% more than the BEV system. Further, the
refueling cost of a FCV is nearly threetimes greater. Finally, when we relax the
renewable energy assumption, the BEV is still more efficient, cleaner, and vastly
less expensive in terms of manufacturing, refueling, and infrastructure investment.
REFERENCES
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel
Economy Trends 1975-2001, 2001.
2 Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium (under contract to Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency), Interviews with 44 Global Experts on the Future of Transportation and
Fuel Cell Infrastructure and a Fuel Cell Primer, Agreement No. NAVC1099-PG030044,
2000.
3 General Motors, Argonne National Laboratory, BPAmoco, Exxon Mobile, and Shell,
Well-to-Wheels Energy use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle
Systems, 2001.
4 CA Energy Commission and the Air Resource Board, A Fuel Cycle Energy Conversion
Efficiency Analysis, 2000.
5 CA Energy Commission and the Air Resource Board, A Fuel Cycle Energy Conversion
Efficiency Analysis, 2000.
6 U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Progress Report, 2003.
7 Padro, C., V. Putsche, Survey of Economics of Hydrogen Technologies, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory Study NREL/TP-570-27079, 1999.
8 Arthur D. Little, Inc. report to Department of Energy, Cost Analysis of Fuel Cell System
for Transportation, Ref. No. 49739, SFAA No. DESC02-98EE50526, 2001.
9 AC Propulsion Inc., AC150 GEN-2 EV Power System Specification Document, 2001.
10 Solectria Corp., DMC0645 AC Motor Controller Specification, 2001.
11 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Advanced Battery Readiness Ad Hoc Working
Group Meeting Report 2000.
12 Padro, C., V. Putsche, Survey of Economics of Hydrogen Technologies, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory Study NREL/TP-570-27079, 1999.
13 Cuenca, R., L. Gaines, A. V., Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Production and Operating
Costs, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, 1999.
14 Gaines, L., R. Cuenca, Costs of Lithium Ion Batteries, Center for Transportation
Research, Argonne National Laboratory, 2000.
Copyright 2008. Sam McWilliam. All rights reserved.
Stephen Eaves*, James Eaves
Eaves Devices, Charlestown, RI, Arizona State University-East, Mesa, AZ
Abstract
This paper compares the manufacturing and refueling costs of a Fuel-Cell Vehicle (FCV)
and a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV) using an automobile model reflecting the largest
segment of light-duty vehicles. We use results from widely-cited government studies to
compare the manufacturing and refueling costs of a BEV and a FCV capable of delivering
135 horsepower and driving approximately 300 miles. Our results show that a BEV
performs far more favorably in terms of cost, energy efficiency, weight, and volume. The
differences are particularly dramatic when we assume that energy is derived from
renewable resources.
Keywords: Battery-Electric Vehicle; Fuel-Cell Vehicle; Well-to-Wheel; Energy Pathway
* Corresponding author. Tel.: 401-315-0547; E-mail: stepheneaves@eavesdevices.com
1. Introduction
Both the federal and state governments have enacted legislation designed to promote
the eventual widespread adoption of zero-emissions vehicles. For instance, California
enacted the Zero-Emissions-Vehicle (ZEV) program mandating automakers to claim
ZEV credits for a small percentage of total vehicle sales starting in 2003.
Further, the last version of the 2003 energy bill included over a billion dollars
in incentives for automakers to develop technology related to Fuel-Cell Vehicles.
Currently, the Fuel-Cell Vehicle (FCV) and the Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV)
are the only potential ZEV replacements of the internal combustion engine,
however, no studies have directly compared the two technologies in terms of performance
and cost when considering the most recent advances in battery and fuel-cell technology.
Below, we compare BEV and FCV technologies based on a vehicle model that is capable
of delivering 100 kW of peak power, and 60 kWh total energy to the wheels.1 This translates
into a vehicle that is capable of delivering 135 horsepower and driving
approximately 300 miles. The vehicle characteristics are comparable to a small
to midsize car, such as a Honda Civic, representing the largest segment of the
light-duty vehicle class [1]. We first compare the relative efficiency of the vehicles
well-to-wheel pathways. This allows us to calculate the amount of energy a power plant
must produce in order to deliver a unit of energy to the wheels of a FCV and a
BEV. Next, we compute the volume, weight, and refueling costs associated
with each vehicle. We make these calculations first assuming that the
hydrogen for the FCVs and the electricity for the BEVs are generated using nonfossil
fuel sources. After, we relax this assumption to consider the case where
hydrogen is reformed from natural gas and the electricity for BEVs is generated
using a mix of fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel sources, such as wind and
hydroelectric, as is the norm today.
2. Analysis and Discussion
2.1. Energy Efficiency Comparison assuming energy is derived from renewable resources
A vehicle?s well-to-wheel pathway is the pathway between the original source
of energy (e.g. a wind farm) and the wheels of the car. The pathway?s
components are the energy conversion, distribution, and storage stages required
to transport and convert the energy that eventually moves the automobile. Thus,
analyzing the efficiency of each vehicle?s well-to-wheel pathway allows us to
determine the total amount of energy required to move each vehicle.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 illustrate the pathways for BEVs and FCVs, respectively. The first
stage of both pathways is the generation of electricity. Since presumably we are
concerned with the long-run development of a sustainable transportation infrastructure,
we first assume that the electricity is generated by a non-fossil fuel resource
like hydroelectric, solar, wind, geothermal, or a combination. All of
these sources are used to generate energy in the form of electricity. The only
established method to convert electricity to hydrogen is through a process known
as electrolysis, which electrically separates water into its components of
hydrogen and oxygen.
For BEVs, the electricity is delivered over power lines to a battery charger.
The battery charger then charges a Lithium-ion battery that stores the energy
on-board the vehicle to power the vehicle?s drivetrain. In addition to one
storage and two distribution stages, the BEV pathway consists of two conversion
stages (the conversion of, say, wind to electricity in stage 1 and the conversion
of electricity to mechanical energy in stage 2). The figure shows that the entire
pathway is 77% efficient; approximately 79 kWh of energy must be generated in
order to deliver the necessary 60 kWh of electricity to the wheels of the car.
The FCV?s well-to-wheel pathway, illustrated in Fig. 2, is believed by experts
to be the most likely scenario, with some exceptions that are addressed below [2].
In this case, the energy from the electric plant is used for the electrolysis process
that separates hydrogen gas from water. The hydrogen gas is then compressed
and distributed to fueling stations where it can be pumped into and stored aboard
individual fuel-cell vehicles. The onboard hydrogen gas is then combined
with oxygen from the atmosphere to produce the electricity that powers the
vehicle?s drivetrain.
In addition to one distribution and one storage stage, the FCV pathway consists
of four conversion stages (the conversion of, say, wind to electricity in stage 1, the
conversion of electricity to hydrogen in stage 2, the conversion of hydrogen back
to electricity in stage 3, and finally, the conversion of electricity to mechanical
energy in stage 4). Due largely to the fact that there are two additional
conversion stages relative to the BEV and the fact that the onboard conversion
stage is only 54% efficient, the FCV pathway is only approximately 30%
efficient.3 The result is that the pathway requires the production of 202 kWh of
electricity at the plant, to deliver the necessary 60 kWh to the vehicle, or 2.6
times the requirements of the BEV pathway [3]. Obviously, this means that
there would need to be 2.6 times as many wind farms or solar panels to power the
FCVs versus the BEVs. Arguably, a more efficient FCV pathway would be based on-board
fossil fuel reforming or liquid hydrogen storage. However, attempts at these
alternative methods have proven uncompetitive compared to a system based on compressed
hydrogen gas. As a consequence, the pathway illustrated in Fig. 2 is considered by the
DOE and industrial experts to be the most feasible
[2]. However, contrary to our present assumption, the DOE?s support for the
distribution pipeline of Fig. 2 is based on the assumption of initially using fossil
fuels as the source of hydrogen. In the case of renewable energy, it would be
more cost effective to transport the electricity over power lines and perform
the electrolysis at local ?gas stations?, thus eliminating the need for the
expensive and less efficient hydrogen pipeline [4]. Elimination of the hydrogen
pipeline stage significantly increases the overall efficiency of the
pathway, however, 188 kWh is still necessary to deliver 60 kWh to the
FCV?s wheels, or 2.4 times the energy required to power a BEV.
The results of the non-fossil fuel analysis are impacted by the fact that we
do not consider the cost of constructing and maintaining a hydrogen
infrastructure. A renewable hydrogen infrastructure would consist of a network
of electrolysis plants, supported by an intra-national pipeline, which, in turn,
would supply a myriad of hydrogen refueling stations. The cost of hydrogen
production from electrolysis is already well characterized from existing
installations, but accurately projecting the downstream costs of a massive
transportation and distribution infrastructure is much more difficult.
The practical implication of only considering the production costs is that
our estimate of the FCV?s refueling cost is lower than it would be if we
considered infrastructure costs. For instance, the cost of building the
hydrogen refueling stations alone is estimated between $100 billion and $600
billion.[5] The U.S. Department of Energy estimates the costs of the
hydrogen trunk pipelines and distribution lines to be $1.4 million and $0.6 million
per mile, respectively[6]. A BEV infrastructure would be largely based on
the current power grid, making its construction vastly less costly.2
The inefficiency of the FCV pathway combined with the high capital and
maintenance costs of the distribution system results in significant differences in
the refueling cost between a FCV and BEV, particularly if the source is
5 renewable. For example, Pedro and Putsche [7] estimate that using wind
energy, hydrogen production costs alone will amount to $20.76 per tank to drive
our FCV 300 miles compared to $4.28 per tank (or per charge) for the BEV.4
2.2. Comparison of Weight, Volume and Cost Maintaining the same performance
assumptions, we next compare the projected relative weight, volume, and
unit costs of each vehicles propulsion system. The results are reported in Table
1 and Table 2. When interpreting the tables it is important to note that the
limiting factor in FCV performance is the amount of power that can be delivered,
which affects vehicle acceleration and hill climbing. For BEVs, the limiting factor
is the amount of energy that can be delivered, which affects total vehicle
range. This means that the scaling factors for weight, volume, and cost for
the FCV are based on how many Watts (of power) that can be delivered per unit
of weight, volume, or cost. For the BEV it is the amount of Watt·hours (of
energy) that can be delivered per unit of weight, volume, or cost.
Table 1
Estimated weight, on-board space, and mass-production cost requirements of the FCV
propulsion system.
Component Weight Volume Cost Reference
Fuel-Cell 617 kg 1182 liters $23,033 ADL(2001)
3.2 kg storage tank 51 kg 215 liters $2,288 Padro and Putsch(1999)
Drivetrain 53 kg 68 liters $3,826 AC Propulsion,
Inc.(2001),
Total 721 kg 1465 liters $29,147 SolectriaCorp (2001)
Table 2
Estimated weight, on-board space, and mass-production cost requirements of a BEV
propulsion systems
Component Weight Volume Cost Reference
Li-ion Battery 451 kg 401 liters $16,125 Gaines and Cuenca(2000)
Drivetrain 53 kg 68 liters $3,826 Cuenca and Gains
Total 504 kg 469 liters $19,951
2.3. Weight Comparison
According to the DOE report on the status of fuel-cells conducted by Arthur
D. Little [8], a modern fuel cell is presently capable of delivering 182 Watts
of power per kg of fuel-cell. Including the required FCV drivetrain components
and their losses [9,10] and the weight of the storage tank5, a fuel-cell propulsion
system capable of meeting our performance constraint must weigh
approximately 721 kg. According to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
(NREL) working group report on advanced battery readiness [11], a
Lithium-ion battery is capable of delivering 143 Watts·hours of energy per
kg of battery. Considering an equivalent drivetrain to the one assumed for the
FCV, the battery system must weigh 504 kg to satisfy our performance constraint.6
2.4. Volume Comparison
The Arthur D. Little study reports that the fuel-cell delivers 95 Watts per
liter of fuel-cell, which combined with the volume of the hydrogen storage tank
[12] and the volume of the electric drivetrain components produces a total
volume of 1465 liters.7 A Lithium-ion battery delivers 161 Watt·hours per liter
of battery.8 When combined with the electric drivetrain volume, this results in
a total volume of 469 liters. 2.5. Cost Comparison Finally, The Arthur D. Little
study reports a cost of $205 per kW for a 100kW fuel-cell.9 Adding to this the cost
of the electric motor, control electronics and hydrogen-storage tank implies that
the total cost of $29,147 for the fuel-cell propulsion system(The electric drivetrain
components are $3,826 for the BEV and FCV.) [13]. For the BEV, the cost of a
Lithium-ion battery is estimated to be $250/kWh [14]. Considering the electric
drivetrain, this implies a total cost of $19,951 for the BEV?s propulsion system.
2.6. Energy Efficiency Comparison assuming energy is derived from Fossil Fuels
Most experts are imagining that for many years to come, fossil fuels will be
the main source of the hydrogen or the electricity that powers zero emission
vehicles. In light of this, one should consider the near term case where the
electricity for BEVs is generated using a mix of fossil fuel and non-fossil fuel
sources and the FCV?s hydrogen is reformed from natural gas, as is the norm today.
A 2001 study conducted for the California Air Resources Board found
that when electricity for BEVs is generated using a mix of fossil fuel and
non-fossil fuel and hydrogen is created from natural gas, a BEV pathway is
about 8% more efficient than a FCV pathway. The study also concluded that
the BEV pathway would generate lower greenhouse gas emissions. Although the
efficiency comparison of the two vehicles is much closer than for the non-fossil fuel
case, if the substantial cost of building and maintaining the hydrogen
infrastructure necessary to support the FCV is considered, then the BEV would
clearly be more attractive than the FCV. Further, if renewable energy sources will
eventually replace fossil fuels, then the hydrogen pipeline would at best be
inefficient, and at worst be obsolete. This is because hydrogen producers
would find it more economical to make hydrogen locally by using renewable
electricity to hydrolyze water, rather than purchasing hydrogen transported via
pipeline. Since the nation?s electricity is already generated using an array of fossil
and non-fossil fuel resources, the optimal design of the BEV infrastructure would
not change in the conversion to a nonfossil fuel economy. Lastly, when the non-fossil
fuel assumption is relaxed, the refueling costof a BEV is still far less than that
of the FCV. Pedro and Putsch estimate the retail cost of hydrogen from fossil fuel to
be $2.42 per kg [7]. Given the 3.2 kg of hydrogen necessary to meet our rangeperformance
constraint, this results in a fill-up cost of $7.77 for the FCV.
Accounting for efficiency losses between a BEV?s battery and its wheels,
64.5kWh of energy must be delivered to the BEV battery to assure that 60 kWh is
delivered to its wheels. Considering a 0.89 charger efficiency and a 0.94 battery
efficiency, this implies that 77 kWh of energy must be purchased from the utility
company. Since BEVs will typically be charged at night, an off-peak cost of
$0.06/kWh is applied for the electricity generated from a mix of fossil and nonfossil
fuels. This implies a ?fill-up? cost of $4.63 for the BEV, which is about
40% lower than that of the FCV.
3. Conclusion
We use widely-cited government studies to directly compare the costs
associated with producing and refueling FCVs and BEVs. The analysis is based
on an automobile model (similar to a Honda Civic) that is representative of the
largest segment of the automobile market. A comparison is important since
the government and industry are devoting increasing amounts of resources
to the goal of developing a marketable ZEV and the BEV and the FCV are
currently the only feasible alternatives. We find that government studies
indicate that it would be far cheaper, in terms of production and refueling costs,
to develop a BEV, even if we do not consider the substantial cost of building
and maintaining the hydrogen infrastructure on which the FCV would
depend. Specifically, the results show that in an economy based on renewable
energy, the FCV requires production of between 2.4 and 2.6 times more energy
than a comparable BEV. The FCV propulsion system weighs 43% more,
consumes nearly three-times more space onboard the vehicle for the same power
output, and costs approximately 46% more than the BEV system. Further, the
refueling cost of a FCV is nearly threetimes greater. Finally, when we relax the
renewable energy assumption, the BEV is still more efficient, cleaner, and vastly
less expensive in terms of manufacturing, refueling, and infrastructure investment.
REFERENCES
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel
Economy Trends 1975-2001, 2001.
2 Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium (under contract to Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency), Interviews with 44 Global Experts on the Future of Transportation and
Fuel Cell Infrastructure and a Fuel Cell Primer, Agreement No. NAVC1099-PG030044,
2000.
3 General Motors, Argonne National Laboratory, BPAmoco, Exxon Mobile, and Shell,
Well-to-Wheels Energy use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Advanced Fuel/Vehicle
Systems, 2001.
4 CA Energy Commission and the Air Resource Board, A Fuel Cycle Energy Conversion
Efficiency Analysis, 2000.
5 CA Energy Commission and the Air Resource Board, A Fuel Cycle Energy Conversion
Efficiency Analysis, 2000.
6 U.S. Department of Energy, Annual Progress Report, 2003.
7 Padro, C., V. Putsche, Survey of Economics of Hydrogen Technologies, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory Study NREL/TP-570-27079, 1999.
8 Arthur D. Little, Inc. report to Department of Energy, Cost Analysis of Fuel Cell System
for Transportation, Ref. No. 49739, SFAA No. DESC02-98EE50526, 2001.
9 AC Propulsion Inc., AC150 GEN-2 EV Power System Specification Document, 2001.
10 Solectria Corp., DMC0645 AC Motor Controller Specification, 2001.
11 National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Advanced Battery Readiness Ad Hoc Working
Group Meeting Report 2000.
12 Padro, C., V. Putsche, Survey of Economics of Hydrogen Technologies, National
Renewable Energy Laboratory Study NREL/TP-570-27079, 1999.
13 Cuenca, R., L. Gaines, A. V., Evaluation of Electric Vehicle Production and Operating
Costs, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National Laboratory, 1999.
14 Gaines, L., R. Cuenca, Costs of Lithium Ion Batteries, Center for Transportation
Research, Argonne National Laboratory, 2000.
Copyright 2008. Sam McWilliam. All rights reserved.
Time For Evs
*The Problem
Something must be done. I'll bet you have said these very words about the HIGH price of gasoline?
Well, it seems that there are a lot of people doing something. Those are the people converting their cars to plug in electric. The big auto manufacturers are talking up hybrids. They are a step in the right direction but not the ultimate answer. Electric vehicles are the answer. If Joe Blow can do it in his garage, why can't GM? Fuel cells require a whole new infrastructure. Electric is there now! Oil companies shudder when electric is mentioned.No need for their product. Too bad
our Government is so beholden to these leaches. Parasites flock together( just like birds). Do you realize that every time the price of gas rises they get more of our money to squander on themselves! The "war" also puts lots of money in the pockets of the military and the oil companies. Why isn't the rebuilding of Iraq paid for with their oil? They had a 50 billion dollar surplus while we Had a 400 billion deficit!
*What can be done
Get the word out that elctric vehicles can be as user friendly , need less repairs ,and cost less to run than internal combustion vehicles. Continue to retrofit our own cars with plug in electric.
*Why hasn't this been done
1 Not in big oil's interest (obvious)
2 politicians want their bribes from big oil and taxes on fuel. It keeps them in office and pays the high salary
and perks.
3 big auto companies make more money on the ICE engine and all the repairs necessary. Not to mention the price
to you and I (think Suv's and Hummers).
* What is being done
People like you and I all over the world are taking it into their own hands and not waiting for the big auto
companies to make electric cars. They are doing it themselves.
Something must be done. I'll bet you have said these very words about the HIGH price of gasoline?
Well, it seems that there are a lot of people doing something. Those are the people converting their cars to plug in electric. The big auto manufacturers are talking up hybrids. They are a step in the right direction but not the ultimate answer. Electric vehicles are the answer. If Joe Blow can do it in his garage, why can't GM? Fuel cells require a whole new infrastructure. Electric is there now! Oil companies shudder when electric is mentioned.No need for their product. Too bad
our Government is so beholden to these leaches. Parasites flock together( just like birds). Do you realize that every time the price of gas rises they get more of our money to squander on themselves! The "war" also puts lots of money in the pockets of the military and the oil companies. Why isn't the rebuilding of Iraq paid for with their oil? They had a 50 billion dollar surplus while we Had a 400 billion deficit!
*What can be done
Get the word out that elctric vehicles can be as user friendly , need less repairs ,and cost less to run than internal combustion vehicles. Continue to retrofit our own cars with plug in electric.
*Why hasn't this been done
1 Not in big oil's interest (obvious)
2 politicians want their bribes from big oil and taxes on fuel. It keeps them in office and pays the high salary
and perks.
3 big auto companies make more money on the ICE engine and all the repairs necessary. Not to mention the price
to you and I (think Suv's and Hummers).
* What is being done
People like you and I all over the world are taking it into their own hands and not waiting for the big auto
companies to make electric cars. They are doing it themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)