Series hybrids are the way of the future. Combine a microturbine with one, two, or four electric motors, either one electric motor for the front axle, each axle, or one for each wheel. The microturbine can run at its most efficient power output, while the electric motors don't require any transmission. This allows for a more more stable vehicle (lower center of gravity, electric control of two/four wheels); better aerodynamics; lower weight; brakes may be unneeded; microturbines and electric motors have fewer moving parts, require less maintenance, and have longer service lives; and you can easily increase the horsepower of the vehicle at the same time.

The thing that's always puzzled me is that trains use diesel/electric series locomotives instead of turbine/electric. Why? In the near future, I expect all tractor/trailer rigs to change to series hybrids. The cars/trucks will follow.

It might be good to compare the efficiency of a diesel to a turbine. Turbines have great power to weight, but you might find diesels can be more efficient.

This is OLD news!

GM displayed a 60-100 mpg series-hybrid (using a 40 kW turbine as APU) at the Detroit Auto Show back in 1998! Now, eight years later it's "new" again!

As for series vs parallel vs series-parallel, I'd go for series hybrid. Yes, you lose some percentages from not powering wheels directly BUT you can potentially gain far more of that back by using a hopelessly undriveable (but ultraefficient) engine type that wouldn't work in any other context. Eg a 3,000 rpm 30:1 expansion ratio Miller/Atkinsonised diesel with a 10-second forced induction lag. It would never work attached to a gearbox, but would work great as a generator and give maybe 50% efficiency.

A lot of people talk about how there are vast reserves of oil, coal, and natural gas that preclude the possibility of an energy crisis. The problem is, those vast reserves are really hard to extract and refine. The energy and cost put into delivering these fuels in a usable form makes their sustainability (and cost effectiveness) questionable.

True sustainable energy comes from forms like solar and wind power. These types of energy are literally falling from the sky and blowing through our cities, all we have to do is catch them.

To say that "the company’s work on fuel-cell vehicles may first be realized as a series hybrid" does not imply that such a vehicle will be coming any time soon, nor does it preclude GM from introducing vehicles based on other hybrid implementations earlier. Regardless, it seems unlikely that GM will get any traction in the hybrid marketplace any time soon. Can anyone doubt that Toyota's HSD will dominate the hybrid market for the next several years, with Honda's IMA keeping them alive until their "full" hybrids hit the streets in 2009/2010? And doesn't Toyota's flex-fuel Tundra seem the likely route for all carmakers with respect to heavier vehicles in the next 5 years or more, hopefully with some diesel engines sprinkled in by Daimler, et al?

Peter - While "all we have to do is catch them" oversimplifies some of the technical, financial and political issues, I am with you in that I think renewable electicity generation is the "real" future for transportation, not biofuels, efficiency increases, etc. This is why I plug-ins excite me more than cars burning biodiesel or vegetable oil. I'd like to let the wind power my car and save the corn and soybeans for food.

Soybeans and corn are some of the worst food stocks (for humans). Just don't plant it at all if you aren't planning to use those plants for non-food uses. Keep the fertile soil for growing better food.

i like to be put in your e-mail alerts.about new hybride
techologies.

Patrick - without corn, how would we sweeten all of our over-processed food? Seriously, though, I don't know much about agriculture. What's wrong with soybeans (as food)? What are better things to grow?

Soybeans-

You MUST heavily overprocess them to break down the proteins to be digestible. Even slow cooking over the course of a day won't breakdown it down well enough.

Additionally, the proteins in Soy have a nasty tendency to make it difficult for the human digestive tract to absorb some minerals and some amino acids.

Even in the form of Tofu (and Miso, and similar forms) the Soy proteins are not fully broken down and shouldn't be consumed more than a few times a week. The bulk of a person's protein should never come from soy.

It should also be noted that some phyto-chemicals in soy mimic estrogen. This is great if you want to store excess bodyfat and decrease your lean muscle mass. Women with ovarian cysts and other reproductive issues will usually be told by doctors to avoid soy products due to these "estrogen-like" chemicals which exacerbate these problems.

How did GM become estrogen and cysts?
_
SJC,
That what is going from profits to losses will do to you. Priorities change, things get shelved, you do things to keep your company afloat.
_Diesels can be more efficient, and cheaper. Only in applications where weight is at a premium do gas turbines come in. Either that, or in combined cycle systems for mega/gigawatt power plants, and perhaps ships.
_
A large chunk of of our wheat, soy, and most of our non-export corn go towards meats, primarily beef.

As batteries get cheaper over time, Toyota can gradually reduce the size of the gas engine and increase the size of batteries and electric motors (and add a plug-in feature).
They would still have a series-parallel hybrid, but could, for instance, use one of those 3 cylinder, 1L engines from small cars.
That would be a very efficient and inexpensive solution.
Sorry GM, there's no need for a series hybrid with exotic engines....

I am talking about press releases from GM years ago when they were very profitable. Fuel cells will be here real soon..we will be the first car company to sell 1 million..but then you did not hear anything. It had nothing to do with them going in the tank in 2005, they just got trigger happy with the announcements.

I'm more skeptical. I think they are just reading the political tea leaves and reacting to the expected increase in govt programs related to green cars. They want to appear to be in the front, so they break out some old 1998 technology and blow the dust off.

I am looking for the GM Saturn division to quietly introduce a PHEV flex fuel. While that's in the works Mr. Waggoner has made a smart choice. The genset/FC modules need fuel so GM doesn't completely alienate Big Oil - at the same time he gets his company back into EVs in time to catch the electric wavefront.

The electric solutions are pretty much off the shelf now. The politics of shifting energy infrastructure is a far greater challenge than the technology.

Serial hybrid is not as efficient as combined serial/parallel hybrid, because the generator-motor route of transmission is only 80% efficient, whereas direct mechanical connection from engine to driving wheels can be nearly 100% efficient.

In a serial/parallel HEV, the serial hybrid component acts like a transmission during acceleration and slow speed. At cruise speed, the IC-engine can be very efficiently directly clutched to the drive train to turn at rpm of maximum thermal efficiency, without incurring generator-motor losses. When acceleration is needed, the electric motor and battery will provide the boost, simulating a down-shift, while the engine is still coupled to the drive train mechanically. The battery will be recharged in coasting or going down the slope or with regen braking.

If so, why does Toyota uses the HSD (Hybrid Synergy Drve) instead of the simpler serial/paralled arrangement? Because too many battery boosting cycles will wear out the battery too fast, and thus the battery won't make it thru warranty period of 8 years or 100,000 miles. Hopefully, more durable batteries like A123 or Altair-Nano with 15,000 cycles will simplify HEV quite a bit, and will make it practical and cost-effective for ALL VEHICLES on the road.

This is NOT old news!

It is new to use nanotech enhanced lithium batteries as the central powersource for a series hybrid. Such batteries have only been in commmercial production for about 24 months for power tools and they are still in the test phase for vehicle applications (see SystemA123 and Altairnano). Indeed, these batteries are disruptive technology breakthroughs because they solve all of the remaining technical obstacles that hitero has prevented the EV from becomming a usefull alternative to vehicles with IC engines. These batteries store about 3-4 times the energy per kg compared to lead-acid batteries. Furthermore, unlike non-nanotech lithium batteries they are able to charge and discharge about 100 times faster, they are at least 10 times more durable, and they don't explode when abused. The only real remaining problem is price and this problem can be minimized by the series hybrid approch. It is a bit early to estimate the price of nanotech lithium batteries for vehicle use. A small EV would need about 20 kWh to have a driving range of about 50 miles in an all electric mode at 60mph. Using prices for systemA123 given at http://hybrids-plus.com a 20kWh battery would cost about $28000 (I know lithium batteries normally cost $700 kWh but they are not the needed nanotech type and they are not packed for vehicle use). $28000 is very pricy given the fact that a nice small EV can be produced for about $14000 without the needed battery.

I'd say a commercial EV / series hybrid would cost about $28000 and come with a 10kWh nanotech battery. It will only have a 25 miles all electric driving range at 60mph and about 50 miles at 30mph. The driving range can be twice of that if the generator is switched on in an eficient fuel burning mode and you will get a 400 miles driving range if the generator is switched on in a less efficient max power mode. This kind of series hybrid is realistic and the vehicle will dramatically cut (probably by 70%) the annual consumption of gasoline for the average driver. It will be cool to own because it can do the same as a normal car and in adition be almost soundless, have electric plugs for utilities (notebooks, hairdryers or whatever people would like to bring with them on the road). And it would be good for the environment and energy independence if one care or believe in such issues.

GM, now that you have finally waken up, let me help you solve your low sales problem:
- Approach Tesla Motors and make them an offer they can't refuse. You can buy them for hundreds of millions or you can license their technology for tens of millions. Pick one (quickly before Toyota beats you to the punch, again)
- Approach Altair Nano, A123 Systems and Toshiba and pick the best of these batteries. At present time A123 Systems already have a comercial battery you can buy (you can also see these batteries on the new 36 V DeWalt cordless power tools). Altair Nano have batteries that have been used in PHEVs but I don't think they are selling their batteries on the market yet, and Toshiba had the most impressive specs (although they never delivered the goods in 2006 as they promised). If you want to survive in this new PHEV era, you must become a major player in the battery business. Each 10 KW*hr (about 1400 batteries) can give you 36 miles for a mid size cars and 50 for a small two seater such as the Tesla roadster. For each 1 million PHEVs you build, you need 1.4 billion batteries - just buy one of these three companies if you can.

Henrik,
More optimistically, I would estimate a battery of about 5kwh of capacity is all that's needed for a power output of about 50kw of short burst (10C power factor). This, plus about 40kw of IC engine power (~60hp) would give 90 kw total power output, more than adequate, since the Prius only has 110 hp max which is about ~80kw. A 5kwh Lithium battery cost about ~$3000 at mass-production price, about the same ball park as an automatic transmission. Quite affordable for a massive gain in fuel efficiency, which could be DOUBLED.

Great news. Go for it, GM!!! The "Heart beat of America" (Chevrolet) finally pulses up!

The series hybrid is a nice idea. It can be plug for around town trips and have the range for longer ones. Running the engine to produce electricity at optimal efficiency appeals to me. If they can bring the cost down, they might have a winner.

I'm not sure how much success GM would have approaching Tesla to license "their" tech!

Tesla license the tech to make large EV sized batteries from thousands of cheap small LiIon batteries from AC-propulsion, so GM would have to approach them.

AC-propulsion are great because they have some engineers from the canned GM EV1 project. I'm not sure how they'd react to an offer from GM!

As for A123, they are certainly aiming for the EV and PHEV market. The EV packs could be differently priced to the RC-plane packs. Toshiba went suspiciously quiet, they may have already signed an agreement with a Japanese manufacturer - who knows????

The Tesla is an impractical vehicle for Hollywood millionaires to show that they are "environmentally
pristine." It's batteries are obsoletet even before
it's been delivered. Love to see those arrogant Hollywood types get screwed, without them even realizing it. Perhaps they can produce another pack of lies like "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The EV1 had no business ever being put on the market. This country needs a lot of things, but what it didn't need was a $45,000 grocery getter that went thru $4500 worth of batteries every year. Amazing how Hollywood can con the American public.
The public is gullible and, quite frankly, stupid as hell.

True the EV1 may have been a ringer designed to fail and set back EV another 10-20 gas guzzling years. But now we have much better battery tech and its nice to see GM getting on board.

BTW, the smart set knows it was Fidel behind the death of the electric car.

Love to see those arrogant Hollywood types get screwed

Envy.