« World Economic Forum: Global Risks Are Outpacing Ability to Mitigate Them | Main | 2007 NAIAS Recap »
The Volt May be First, But E-Flex is the Key
15 January 2007
|
| Although the first E-Flex concept—the Volt—is using a combustion engine genset, GM is also at work on a fuel-cell variant that will use the upcoming 5th generation stack. Click to enlarge. |
While it was the introduction of the Chevrolet Volt—a plug-in series hybrid electric drive vehicle (earlier post)—that generated the most excitement at the North American International Auto Show, it is the accompanying announcement of the E-Flex system that is the key, according to Nick Zielinski, chief engineer for the Volt.
The Volt represents the first application of the E-Flex System, a developing vehicle architecture that will encompass a range of compact to intermediate vehicles with all-electric drive systems (the “E”) powered by electricity from a variety of sources (the “Flex”).
Broadly defined, the E-Flex architecture consists of an electric drive motor, on-board storage for electricity (battery or fuel cell), on-board mechanisms for producing electricity, grid charging (plug-in) capability, and the associated power electronics and control systems.
E-Flex vehicles can include the genset-powered plug-in series hybrid (such as the announced Volt), a fuel-cell hybrid, or a pure battery electric vehicle. GM envisions a range of genset options for the E-Flex vehicles, including engines optimized to run on E85 or E100 and biodiesel.
There is much overlap between E-Flex needs and work being done in other parts of GM—specifically fuel cell vehicle development and the mechanical hybrid systems. (In its evolving taxonomy of offerings, GM refers to its existing portfolio of hybrids as “mechanical hybrids”—i.e., the engine provides mechanical drive power in addition to the electric drive power.)
The drive motor in the Volt, for example, is the same system being used in the Equinox Fuel Cell Vehicle. The upcoming 5th generation fuel cell stack that will be applied in a GM fuel cell vehicle will also find its way onto an E-Flex platform.
And although it is not yet determined, it is possible that the battery pack work being done for the development of the Saturn VUE Green Line plug-in two-mode hybrid (earlier post) will also apply to E-Flex vehicles.
Of all the elements, the electric drive—the motor and the controller system—is the farthest along. The technology in the motor is already on the road in the Equinox fuel cell program. We’ve been working the details of those systems—the controls, the inverter—for the last three or four years. We’ve made major advances in motor efficiency, and also in the size of the controls and the inverter, which are substantially smaller than a few years ago. And we have plans in place [in the fuel cell program] for much more compact inverter packages.
The generator itself is technology very similar to the [drive] motor. We feel we can share a lot of the technology between the two—the electronics controls are very similar.
Least mature is the large energy store battery. The new work is more in the battery pack. The challenge is the systems integration of all those cells. One of the key elements of integrating the batter pack system is cooling, and understanding temperature deltas across the pack as your charge it.
—Nick Zielinski
In working through battery pack management and control, GM combines simulation-based analysis, hardware cycling tests and then into vehicles for road testing.
We depend very heavily on the computer simulation work, and also depend heavily on component-level testing.
—Nick Zielinski
Presumably, the work being done on integration and control—and the development of optimal operating strategies—for the battery packs in the VUE plug-in hybrid will support the more rapid deployment of E-Flex vehicles (and vice versa).
There are organizational intersections where work is done, that can merge together where it makes sense on the E-Flex. We need to come up with the most efficient and highest level of component sharing with E-Flex—and we are setting up the organization to make that happen.
—Nick Zielinski
January 15, 2007 in Electric (Battery), Hybrids, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (64) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7504530
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Volt May be First, But E-Flex is the Key:
Comments
The one architecture that I don't see in the options above is a plug in fuel cell vehicle. Unless batter costs come down tremendously I probably wouldn't be buying a car with more than about 40 miles off of batteries. My problem with ICE gensets is the problem of gas going sour in the tank for lack of use and mechanical parts seizing for lack of use. While I imagine that any left over H2 in the tank would evaporate at least it wouldn't go sour. Does anyone know if fuel cells spoil with lack of use? In a plug-in fuel cell car the stack wouldn't have to be all that large.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 15, 2007 10:36:13 AM
I had the idea of the battery dominant series hybrid June 2003. My idea was to use a turbine for the genset, but basically it was similar. People have been thinking about series hybrids for more than 100 years, nothing new, except the battery advances and high power semiconductors.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 15, 2007 10:39:34 AM
A plugin fuel cell car is probably one of the last options they would go for due to cost. Big battery pack is expensive, fuel cell & hydrogen tank are expensive. Put both together and the cost would be far beyond what the average chevy customer could afford.
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 15, 2007 10:48:38 AM
Patrick: I was thinking in terms of a medium sized battery pack (20-40 mile battery) with a medium sized stack for range extension. A smaller H2 tank would be cheaper than a big one. (you might have to tell the car how far you are planning to go so it can start the fuel cell early enough).
My personal favourite architecture would be a cheaper limited range (40 mile) BEV with the option to rent a range extender (in trunk or tailer) for that once a year long trip.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 15, 2007 10:56:57 AM
Excellent article as always, Mike.
As for the overall E-Flex architecture, I think this is a very smart approach, as it gives GM the maximum, well, flexibility in the face of multiple uncertainties over the next five to ten years.
The really big source of uncertainty is, as others have noted many times, the future cost of battery packs. My hunch is that this system component will come down a lot in price, if only because the stakes are so enormous and we've done so little (relatively speaking) on this front to date.
I'm still not convinced that hydrogen fuel cells will ever be a major player in passenger cars (unless we make one heck of a biohydrogen breakthrough), but GM's approach leaves them with other paths to pursue. Even the most basic version--flex-fuel ICE, 40 mile battery--would let most people get an insanely high number of miles per gallon of non-renewable oil, and would be light years better than what we're doing now.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Jan 15, 2007 11:03:32 AM
If GM would allow the user to specify the battery pack size/cost as well as the ICE size/cost, I'd be all over this. For those of us who don't especially want the "performance" aspect, have a model with 60-80 mile all electric range and a 25kw genset for the same cost.
Posted by: yesplease | Jan 15, 2007 11:10:40 AM
Great article, I really enjoyed reading the comments by Nick Zielinski.
As an owner of an 06 Prius, I can tell you the best thing aboutt the car is when it is running in full electric mode. Like most Prius owners, I just hate to hear that gasoline motor start up.
A 40 mile range would be enough for me to run in full electric mode 90 % of the time. My office is only 8 miles away, so it would have enough for work and back and some errands on the way home, perfect.
This car will motivate Toyota to improve the hybrid line even faster than they are already are. That is a good thing for all of us who breath air. :)
The thing that I like the most about this E-Flex is the flexiblity, to plug-in or use biodiesel or use ethanol. The biggest problem with todays transportation system is that 98% percent Oil based.
A plug-in hybrid ( 40 mile range ) and a some solar panels on the roof of the garage would be the ultimate solution to multiple problems.
Posted by: KJD | Jan 15, 2007 11:14:04 AM
I have had a similar concept in my head for a while now. Have an affordable vehicle, with a powerplant capable of totally being replaced as a unit. My idea was a cobra inspired commuter vehicle. When a newer powerplant becomes viable, swap in the new powerplant. Turn in old powerplant for a newer one. Could start as a ICE with a genset, evolve to a rechargeable battery pack, or evolve to a fuel cell stack, all in a convenient package.
Perhaps the more mechanical of us owners could have each powerplant in his garage, and easily swap powerplants as the upcoming immediate vehicle use changes. Fully battery only for weekly commutes, and the ICE/genset for longer trips or weekend use. Easily swapable, like changing batteries in a TV remote. I know its probably pie in the sky stuff.
Posted by: Mark A | Jan 15, 2007 11:22:12 AM
Neil,
One thing to consider: Many people on a long trip want to stuff their trunk with luggage, presents, food or whatever they bring with them on their long trips. I would find it terrifying to have large numbers of people on the roads towing trailers. Watch how they drive without trailers, watch how they park and backup without trailers...
I would bet that the cost of the fuel cell hybrid depicted above is equal or greater than the full EV version. Replacing a $500-$1000 ICE genset with a moderately scaled down fuel cell and H2 tank would not be possible without tens of thousands of dollars (probably close to the same price difference in the BEV battery pack and the fuel cell HEV battery pack).
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 15, 2007 11:24:57 AM
Neil -
I don't know if fuel cells spoil with lack of use, but having one and not using it would be a very expensive hobby indeed. Moreover, the auto industry is receiving plenty of R&D money from the powers that be to develop fuel cells that use lots of hydrogen. A hybridized fuel cell would make more sense in engineering terms but advocating one in the US could cause you to miss out on the R&D funding gravy train.
In Japan, Honda's FCX was designed as an ultracap hybrid from the outset.
SJC -
you might want to look up Rosen Motors on Google. They advocated a series hybrid based on a single-stage microturbine-genset plus a gimball-mounted super-flywheel plus four in-wheel electric motors and power electronics to make it all play nice together. This was back in the mid-90s. The whole thing went nowhere, partly because potential investors got wind of crash safety concerns regarding the flywheel but mostly because the company insisted on retaining exclusive production rights for certain key components. The microturbine bit of the business still exists under the brand name Capstone.
Gas turbines operate at much lower pressures but much higher average temperatures than reciprocating engines do. Small turbines cannot be cooled internally, so their max. operating temp. is limited by the available materials to 1000-1100 degC. The net result is that thermodynamic efficiency is relatively poor, especially in part load. This is essentially why earlier attempts at turbine-driven cars by Chrysler in the US and Rover in the UK failed.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jan 15, 2007 11:30:48 AM
Concern about fuel souring or engines failing through lack of use seem easy to overcome. An on-board computer can automatically run the engine for a few minutes every few weeks (while the car is on the road, naturally, and not garaged), if the engine was not engaged by necessity during that time. That energy can be routed to the battery so it is not wasted.
Coupled with a reasonably small gas tank, this can help run down the fuel so it doesn't sit around for too long. Alternatively -- or in addition -- fuel testing, draining and recycling can be part of regularly scheduled service. After all, responsible motorists are presently conditioned to bring their cars in every three months for oil changes. (I know I do.)
Posted by: NBK-Boston | Jan 15, 2007 11:35:59 AM
You could always run it "dry" and use all the gasoline and never fill it up until you plan to go on a long trip. I wouldn't do that during the winter (just in case you get stuck somewhere). You would also need a fuel pump not designed to use the fuel as a coolant (like most in tank fuel pumps are).
NBK-Boston: Most modern vehicles don't need their oil changed every 3 months unless you do some severe driving (towing, dusty conditions, etc.)
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 15, 2007 12:12:45 PM
Great article as always...
Personaly I do not like "hibrid" solution because more parts always mean more maintenance. For know I see BEV with fast recharge option as the most promising solution.
Posted by: Skrivo | Jan 15, 2007 12:17:43 PM
Neil, good call. GM is very smart to satisfy its customers with such flexible options. Hopefully we'll have all 3 options--when this thing--if this thing hits the market. It's also sort of built like your computer. One component goes bad, you switch it out for a new one. Or say you need an upgrade, based on your living situation that has changed--just buy one.
Posted by: dave | Jan 15, 2007 12:36:56 PM
The capacity and safety of newest Li-Ion battery has exceeded the spec of a typical E-Flex like Volt.
The NanoSafe(TM) Battery (which will be used in the Phoenix Motorcars SUT released next month) has the following characteristics:
o Replace anode electrode material. Use nano-Titanate to replace graphite eliminates most safety hazards.
o Power density = 4,000 W/Kg (typical: 1,000 W/Kg)
o 85% charge retention @ 20,000 cycles (typical: 1,000 cycles, full DOD)
o Operates from -50C to +75C (typical: 0C - 40C)
o Safe - will not explode and no thermal runaway (typical: may explode)
(http://www.altairnano.com/documents/AltairnanoEDTAPresentation.pdf)
In addition, the Nano-Li titanate spinel material provides:
o Low reactivity with electrolyte - no resistive layer forms.
o Zero strain, 3D crystal lattice - stability and better kinetics.
o High surface area - fast charge kinetics
o No SEI layer - excellent thermal stability
More importantly , it is safer than previous Li-Ion. In its safety test:
o Short Circuit Test Pass, no smoke or flame
o Forced Discharge Test Pass, no smoke or flame
o Over Charge Test Pass, no smoke or flame
o Over Discharge Test Pass, no smoke or flame
o Nail Puncture Test Pass, no smoke or flame
o Crush Test Pass, no smoke or flame
o Over Temperature Test Pass, no smoke or flame
o Drop Test Pass, no smoke or flame
o Inherently Safe Battery Performance
Of course, all these claims are to be verified next month when Phoenix Motorcars releases its SUT.
GM will most likely use the lower cost battery from A123Systems through BAK in China (See
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/china_bak_batte.html ), and it does have some characteristics of the NanoSafe(TM), but it will be a mistake not to keep an eye on the NanoSafe(TM) from Altair Nano.
From this point on, it's mostly about production management and cost control, and find a balance between cost (advantage to A123Systems) and features (advantage to Altair Nano).
Posted by: Rick Leeland | Jan 15, 2007 12:43:34 PM
While this is a series hybrid, what is to stop them using the ICE to power the e-motor in parallel with the battery.
Then you just need a larger motor which should be no big deal.
The lack of a plug in option is a shame, but presumably one that would be easy to rectify.
I would be in favour of even smaller (15 - 30 mile) range plug in's if they had an ICE generator.
But in general, it sounds like a good solution or set of solutions - as long as they build it.
Posted by: mahonj | Jan 15, 2007 1:43:54 PM
mahonj, to my understanding what you've described is exactly what it is. It has a plug in option, and the small 1L supercharged engine is just for a generator. I read a lot about this vehicle on the popular mechanics website. here are links to a couple of articles they have on the volt.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/automotive_news/4211171.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4209783.html
Posted by: Brad | Jan 15, 2007 1:53:57 PM
Oh sorry, i misunderstood the first part, however i agree what they did with just having the motor there to charge the battery, and nothing else. However i still believe that it is a plug-in.
Posted by: Brad | Jan 15, 2007 2:25:54 PM
Have any economist/engineers read GCC tinkered with a marginal utility function of high capacity battery packs for use in vehicles such as the GM Volt? For example, what is an expected OEM cost to produce at various outputs, e.g., 1 million batteries (battery pack), 5 million batteries, 10 million batteries, etc? Annual US auto and light truck sales were 17 million in 2005 (http://www.kiplingerforecasts.com/economic_outlook/tables/autos/autos_annual.htm
Thus, thinking of world wide demand increases chances of real scale economies. Perhaps current makers of small electronics battery sets (e.g., laptop, mobile phone) can be induced to contribute expertise. To reiterate the well known, most GCC contributors believe battery pack cost is the most significant barrier to wide spread adoption of PHEV, EV, and other battery assisted vehicles.
Posted by: john galt | Jan 15, 2007 3:17:18 PM
re: sour gas and seized up genset:
Thanks for your replies all! If they do make the Volt then I would hope that either the genset is optional (I'll rent for a long trip) or the genset is accessible enough that I can decommission the engine and drain the tank between uses. (I did like the idea of halving the engine kick in every so often to keep it from clogging up)
Posted by: Neil | Jan 15, 2007 3:51:00 PM
I was not thinking of a gas turbine genset but rather a Tesla vapor turbine. Higher efficiecy than a gas turbine.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 15, 2007 4:02:30 PM
It is in economical to develop a common basic electrical drive platform that can serve different models or fuel types. However, the E-Flex platform does not have to exclude the use of the more energy efficient and lower-cost Serial-Parallel PHEV (SPP)architecture. This SPP architecture will have a 8-10kwh battery and a 80kw motor instead of GM's planned 120kw motor and 16 kwh battery. The 53kw engine in the removable genset will supply on average about 30kw of direct torque power during acceleration to the 80kw motor to make up for the smaller size of the motor. At high speed, the SPP layout will have 138 kw total power at the wheel for autobahn passing power or police evasion maneuvering.
I envision an 80kw motor on the right side of the engine bay connected to the differential in typical fashion. Then, on the left side and adjacent to the 80kw motor is the "range-extending device" that can be either an ICE-genset, FC-genset, or more battery-power-inverter drop-in package.
For use with an ICE-genset, just drop the genset into a rail or groove on the left side of the car's engine bay, with the 80kw motor sits opposite to the genset, and the axis of the motor to line up with the rotational axis of the engine of the genset. A hydraulic or mechanical mechanism is used to move a clutch plate (splined to the engine shaft) a short distance from the engine to the clutch plate of the motor for reversible torque coupling of the engine to the motor. At rest, the engine is not coupled to the motor,so the entire genset can be removed. No gear whatsoever is needed to connect the engine to the motor, just direct drive via clutch plates.
If a removable fuelcell genset is used, it would be of 30kw max power rating and has a 30kw motor built in to the genset to supplement the power of the 80kw motor, for a total of 110kw maximum power. When this genset is dropped into the grove in the engine bay and secured, then the torque of the 30kw motor will be locked via a manual mechanism to the 80kw motor of the engine to give a total of 110 kw power output.
A turbine engine genset is not recommended due to the poor efficiency of the microturbine.
If a pure BEV layout is used, then the drop-in range-extender on the left consists merely of more battery, plus an optional 30kw motor for sporty performance, and more power inverter to control additional motor power. Same coupling mechanism can be used to couple the 30kw motor to the 80kw motor as when the FC genset is used. Perhaps another 8kwh battery will fit within the drop-in space on the left of the engine bay, for total of 16-18 kwh capacity and a range of 40-50 miles, for those desiring to use this vehicle strictly for fixed-distance predictable daily commute. If charged twice daily, a commute range of 80 miles is possible with enough reserve power to deal with cold weather when battery capacity will drop. Then, before a long-distance trip, the vehicle can stop by a dealer and have the battery range-extender package swapped for a ICE genset. This ICE genset installation also comes with a 5-gallon gasoline or diesel tank located on the right side of the car's engine bay, above the 80kw electric drive motor. 5 gallons at 60-70 mpg is good for 300-350 miles before the next fill-up. This tank may be made of flexible but rupture-proof material similar to those used in race cars, or strong carbon fiber re-enforcement that will not rupture in a survivable frontal collison.
Beautiful vision of the future, ain't it? Can't wait until this thing will come out!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 15, 2007 4:13:39 PM
I believe you can lower the cost of this vehicle and extend battery life, by using NiCd batteries.
I would guess your choice of LiIon is, at least partially due to the NiCd's notorious memory effect.
If you could switch from ordinary DC charging current to a pulse charging process, the memory effect would be non-existent, and the battery bank would last 3 to 5 times longer.
A pulse charging process such as that developed by Electronic Power Technology in the mid-90's proved both benefits are valid, and available today.
Posted by: Norm Conwill | Jan 15, 2007 5:46:39 PM
Hi All,
Eflex is obvious and elegant. I am glad it finally made it through the corporate engineering committees! Its not ideal for traditional vehicle engine technology, which is oversized to deal with the poor low rpm performance of these engines. A series-parallel system like the Prius is better for that. But that assumes we will always be using engines that owe their heritage to being shaft coupled to the car wheels. With an Eflex, other engine options are available.
I think one reason it has not come out sooner is that NiMH Batteries patents are reportedly now controlled by a company unfriendly to fuel savings. Lithium batteries have made it out of the lab, but not through the vehicle manufacturer testing. Also, the Plug-in imperative makes the inefficiency of the energy conversions in a series Hybrid less of an impact, since it runs 80 % of the time on Plug-in energy.
Think about an EV1, with a stretched body, with a prime-mover bay. At sale time you take your pick of prime-movers to plug into the bay . Tubogenerator (4 inch ID) that runs continously (and on ANYTHING THAT IS FLUID AND BURNS), small turbo diesel, fuel cell, Miller cycle gas engine for the really cold climates or urban polution reduction zones (those will come, especially in China!), large charging power supply, or even a lithium air energy module (non rechargable but massive energy density).
The adaptability of this concept is its great strength. With a turbo generator, one might even pull the thing, and save the momentum during the summer driving season, and plug it back in when the temps get down below freezing, or for that long range trip. Or another idea, since these are expensive, would be just rent one when you need it, and run on battery the rest of the time.
Posted by: donee | Jan 15, 2007 5:59:58 PM
Mr. Galt,
You use "believe" in a rather odd sense. Summing up the costs of various parts of a good EV, the battery is by far the one with the biggest price tag and shortest life. EV advocates have been complaining about the inadequacy of batteries since the end of the nineteenth century.
We don't need belief, we know.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 15, 2007 6:59:09 PM
Gosh I wish I could get by on the 40 miles per day most of you assume will work perfectly fine for the average commuter. It’s the number I see constantly when an electric is mentioned. Frankly I think it will never sell around the Baltimore/DC area. Take my own commute as an example; from house to work is 46.6 miles for me each day, then I have the addition of getting the kids to/from school which is an additional 34.8 miles for 81.4 miles minimum, then there’s a trip to the local mall for my two hour walk each day (I have bad knees and need a solid level surface without potential trip hazards to walk on so walking in the neighborhood won’t work, and treadmills bore me to tears), that’s around 30 miles (I haven't found the shortest route means for it yet so I maybe able to shorten that) so make it 111.4 miles if I want to get exercise, then throw in the occasional trip to the grocery stores so that some days I might be pushing 140 miles a day. Got an all up electric for me? Oh and since my daughters school and my work are in exactly opposite directions if I move closer to one I move further from the other, so moving (even could I afford it) isn't an option.
And if you think that's bad you should see the mileage I was piling on when I worked field service for a computer company servicing the Baltimore/DC Area. I pulled calls from Springfield VA to the MD/DE line.
Housing prices in the DC Area are so bad that many lower level employees are forced to move as much as two hours away (at highway speeds) from their work. The commuter rail lines are at capacity and every station is overflowing already so for the vast bulk it’s drive or starve.
Those here who slam hybrids and keep singing the all electric car’s praises might just want to consider that there are some of us that just might need something other then an oversized electric scooter. I drive a ten year old Ford Escort which is all I can afford right now so perhaps I’m out of the race either way, but a hybrid (when I can someday afford one) is still my first choice.
Larry
Posted by: Larry | Jan 15, 2007 7:02:03 PM
Larry, I am Balto/Wash area and have a 27 or so mile commute. I could plug in at both sides. I do similar distences SOMETIMES with site calls and therefore I would just end up using gas. I have no problem with that. Unless the price of the Volt is crazy I would want one.
About gas going stale.... Its possible but not with a well designed fuel system unless you really make it sit for half a year. We have gas last a year in our wood splitter and it works fine. I imagine taking long trips every few months as I do now would use the gas up.
Posted by: hampden wireless | Jan 15, 2007 7:46:45 PM
Neil,
Keep a few (1-3) gallons at most in the tank, if fuel quality is a concern. That way, you'll use it up by the end of the month. Gasoline also keeps for ~60 days in a gas tank, and 1-2 years with stabilizers.
Posted by: allen_XL_Z | Jan 15, 2007 8:01:25 PM
Roger Pham writes: for autobahn passing power or police evasion maneuvering.
Now we're talking! Police evasion is something that I definately look for in a car.
Posted by: TroubleMaker | Jan 15, 2007 8:51:21 PM
Larry wrote: Gosh I wish I could get by on the 40 miles per day most of you assume will work perfectly fine for the average commuter. It’s the number I see constantly when an electric is mentioned.
Larry, 40 mi in electric mode is for a PHEV. No one is proposing a BEV with 40 mi range, except maybe golf cart makers. A guy like you will just burn a little more gas in the PHEV, that's all. If gasoline ever becomes unavailable due to the next neocon geopolitical adventure, All the folks living two hours away from their job better invest in air mattresses.
Posted by: George | Jan 15, 2007 9:02:37 PM
Larry,
The problem is not the vehicle setup, it is your choice of extreme commuting. Average commute (taking the extreme ones such as yours and the ultra short ones such as my 3 mile round trip) is under 40 miles a day so yes, it would suffice for the majority of the US as not everybody is willing to put up with 4 hours of commuting everyday.
Posted by: Patrick | Jan 15, 2007 9:12:55 PM
Rafael,
AFAIK in addition to cooling problems the main problem reducing efficiency of smaller gas turbines is boundary layer friction; the smaller the turbine the larger surface area compared to internal volume.
IIRC turbines in the 100 kW range are only about 20 % efficient, while larger turbines with are about 40 %.
Posted by: jb | Jan 15, 2007 10:51:19 PM
Someone commented in the last article about GM's "Vote for the Volt" survey on their website. I would encourage anyone who thinks they have a good thing going here, and Vote for the Volt. Here's our chance to let GM know they are on the right track with this idea.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 16, 2007 6:17:48 AM
I belive in batterie driven car. all car companies should agree as to the placement of the batterie and use batteries of the same size easiley accessibles.The adeas is that when you run out of batterie on the road you can drive to the service station and get an other fully charged one faster than it takes to get a full tank of gas.
Posted by: Guy | Jan 16, 2007 6:24:05 AM
VOTE FOR VOLT
Here is the site, in case anyone missed it.
http://www.gm.com/company/gm_exp_live/events/naias_2007/index_flash.html
It may not seem like a big deal, but it just might be.
Posted by: SJC | Jan 16, 2007 7:07:10 AM
Actauly the genset battery car is VERY old. Back in the old days my great gresat or great duno qich granddad drove a battery truck around delivering stuff. In the back he kept a small moonshine powered generator in case the batteries ent flat on him during the winter months. With that little cuker running even if the batteries had completely died he could and did more then once limp home at 5 mph. It was also the ONLY way to start up a battery car back then in the winter.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 16, 2007 8:27:16 AM
Great comments but haven't seen anyone mention; ultracaps which store enough energy for acceleration without killing the battery and can be recharged when up to speed where only 10 Hp is needed at the wheels; all diagrams show power to the wheels but seem to ignore the fact that a motor is a generator in the braking mode; a pelter pile (which is nothing more than thermocouples in series) could convert unwanted heat from the ICE, motors, batteries and vehicle interior (in summer) etc. to recharge the batteries. Also by reversing the polarity they could cool the same components.
Posted by: Maurice | Jan 16, 2007 8:56:20 AM
The reson they dropped ultra caps is because the newer batteries whil no more potent capcity wie then older lith ion can now handle alot morepower. The result is assuming they are careul the battery can take it.
Part o the work right now is ensuring the batteries actauly can take it over the long haul and dont also need an ukltra cap bank to level the spikes. Because if they do thats ghona take up more room and money.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 16, 2007 12:37:29 PM
How about a lightweight array of solar cells on the vehicle's horizontal surfaces, so that the car is charging, off the grid, while the driver is at work or during the weekends? I would like to see a vehicle in the Chev Aveo size bracket, eqipped with a 500cc V-twin engines and hybrid electric-battery-solar drive. Even a 20% range extension via solar would be a real boon, while a 500cc engine with battery assist should provide enough power for hwy speeds and hills.
Posted by: Duncan Munro | Jan 16, 2007 12:56:51 PM
The solar power is definitely being considered. I read somewhere (can't find the article at this point) that one of Volt, Tesla, or Motorcars SUT is considering mounting solar panel on the car.
But the space on car is really small compared with home roof. Thus more emphasis is on placing solar panel on the driver's home roof:
"Tesla plans to offer home roof mounted solar-photovoltaic systems through Solar City that will offset power used by the home charger, allowing 50 miles (80 kilometers) of travel without burdening the power grid, and thus making the package "energy positive" for a driver whose average daily mileage is less than that."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors
For those who decide to do so, the genset will be mainly safty/backup.
Posted by: Rick Leeland | Jan 16, 2007 2:11:24 PM
What if the interstae highway system had a series of coils imbedded into the surface to power cars in a certain lane? A toll could be levied to use the lane and charge the batteries and power the vehicle. The frequency of the induced current could be regulated to limit and even control the speed of the vehicle, much like the synchonous speed of all induction motors.
Posted by: Maurice Turgeon | Jan 16, 2007 5:23:01 PM
Hello all:
I thought some of you would find this interesting in regards to some information regarding the Volt I found on another green Blog website that interviewed Chris Paine, the Director of "Who Killed the Electric Car". He was at the Detroit Auto Show and had the following comments about the Volt:
Sebastian - We came to Detroit for the unveiling and the Volt looks great. It's a beautiful design and the result of what looks like earnest and incredible hustle at GM over the last 12 months. I was impressed. The proof, of course, will be when the car is sitting in your or my driveway, but in the meantime you can be sure that all of our pressure as consumers and citizens has made a difference.
GM has listened and made some good decisions to return to the EV table in earnest. I do not agree with their press faulting the EV1 nor do I believe that everything must wait for the perfect lithium battery; but by the same token I don't feel that this is just a PR play at GM. We talked to senior executives and many employees who looked us in the eye and spoke from their hearts. One executive said "the public won't forgive GM twice" which is a revealing and accurate comment.
From what I can see, GM is doing the right thing and I'm supporting them as long as they keep making good decisions and moving plug-in cars into production reality. It's a week we can all be proud of.
CHRIS
So as you can see, even Chris Paine liked what he saw in the Volt concept.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 16, 2007 5:23:04 PM
Trouble Maker,
Thanks for appreciating the wry humor in "police-evasion maneuvers." For millions who grew up watching "Duke of Hazzard", this is argueably of somewhat importance in choosing a car.
However, creating a highly-efficient yet highly-profitable vehicle with decent performance is not a joking matter but is a life-or-death matter for GM.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 16, 2007 7:08:21 PM
jb: Capstone claims 26% efficiency at a 30 kW size, but even that's not so great.
Larry: The Tesla roadster would be perfect for you. Failing that, the Chevy Volt would let you eliminate a large fraction of your gas consumption. If you plugged in at home, it looks like you could get to work just as the engine kicked on; if you could charge at work, you could get home ditto, and if you could plug in at the mall (requires public charging infrastructure) you might be able to run the whole week without an ounce of gas burned. You'd need a light foot, though.
Maurice, if you think pavement is expensive, wait'll you see the pricetag for that idea.
wintermane, you need to knock off the sauce.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 16, 2007 7:15:10 PM
If your talking about the general horrid typing that isnt drink its .. something else and bad bad typing . If its my general.. oddness.. im eccentric not drunk... VERY eccentric...extremely amazingly eccentric.
Anyway with luck they will make a battery design to replace lith ion before too long. I know they are trying various methods even super ultra caps to do so.
If not with luck he fuel cell will comntinue to improve as fast as it is now for some time and that will make it betterthen lith ion before too long.
Fram what I can glean from things I think its possible that by 2030-2040 we may see small 50 kw fuel cells and tanks to store h2 going for less then the cost of an engine and transmission.. and that h2 might actauly hit the goal 3.5bucks a kg or gallon equive or however they messured it. Cheap enough by far.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 17, 2007 7:12:53 AM
At last count, as of Wed. morning, 12/17/07, There were well over 17,000 Votes for the Volt on the GM website. That's encouraging to see. SJC has the address posted for anyone interested (see above).
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 17, 2007 10:56:03 AM
And neingo a new contender for energy storage just popped up a new ultra cap thats a fair bit better and alot cheaper then lith ion is comming soon. Now we dont know how well ultra caps hold a charge I dont think they do forlong.. but for something like the vp;t its perfect.
Posted by: wintermane | Jan 17, 2007 7:51:23 PM
GM is definitely on the right track here. I am a little disappointed that they chose a turbo charged 3 cilinder engine. Instead, they should go after the HCCI engine. As some of you know, these engines are extremely difficult to control (when sudden power changes are required). However, in a series configuration, these engines can work in steady state which allow electronic controllers to slowly react to any changes in power demand. These engines have a very high thermal efficiency and they also allow different kinds of fuels to be used.
Posted by: Freddy | Jan 23, 2007 7:04:02 AM
What if I was to come up with a unit that could be placed in the trunk of an electric car. That would run on it's own(magnetically) and also produce power to keep the batteries charged in an electric car.
I think I have this unit.
Thank you: Jack W Hildenbrand
Posted by: Jack W Hildenbrand | Jan 24, 2007 9:40:10 AM
Sounds like Jack drank the Steorn kool-aid.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 24, 2007 10:01:24 AM
The Steorn unit is totally different than my unit. My motor uses only about 300 watts of input power and produces better than 3 HP.
I have been working on this unit for about 27 years. Now I have one sitting in my shop. This unit uses the power of permanent magnets to creat the power output, the current it uses is there only to control the magnets. In other words this current will totally turn a permanent magnet ON/OFF.
Later,,,,Jack W Hildenbrand Hilden-Brand Energy LLC
Posted by: Jack W Hildenbrand | Jan 24, 2007 6:49:08 PM
I'll bet you $100,000 that you cannot demonstrate your device powering itself and producing your claimed net output (3 HP is about 2230 watts, so the net would be ~1930 watts) under controlled conditions of my specification. Of course, if you really had something you'd just go for the Nobel prize; proving any violation of Maxwell's equations would earn that hands down.
(Hint: When we turn a permanent magnet "OFF", it's called degaussing. Any energy removed from the magnet with the loss of field must be put back in to restore it, and changing the magnet's state involves hysteresis losses.)
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 25, 2007 6:49:22 AM
I'll take you up on your offer of the $100,000. Remember you made that offer on the enternet.
You are not correct, the device I created does not get rid of the gauss of the magnet, it just simply turns it ON/OFF. This can be done in a mater of micro seconds and can be continued for ever.
Some people still thinks the world is square, I think we found one.
Later,,,,Jack W Hildenbrand
Posted by: Jack W Hildenbrand | Jan 25, 2007 10:53:12 AM
Lovely! Next round of the challenge will be posted at The Ergosphere. We'll see if you have a substantial response.
Of course, given your own claim of poverty, it's doubtful that you can raise the money to meet your side of the bet. But I'll be happy to separate fools from theirs in an honest contest.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 25, 2007 8:24:58 PM
I think you are copping out. There was no mention of me needing the $100,000. your bet was that I could not come up with a self running unit that would produce 3 hp. As I read the quote below from you.
"I'll bet you $100,000 that you cannot demonstrate your device powering itself and producing your claimed net output (3 HP is about 2230 watts, so the net would be ~1930 watts) under controlled conditions of my specification. "
And NO, You will need to sign an agreement that you will never talk about what you have seen. Thats how I get the bets. Never advertize. You and you alone will only see it work and then you keep your mouth shut.
I have no use for the Nobel prize, or the fame, the money is ok with me.
Later,,,,,Jack W Hildenbrand
Posted by: Jack W Hildenbrand | Jan 26, 2007 8:13:20 PM
My terms include controlled conditions and monitoring equipment not under your influence and not disclosed to you in advance, and the option of a retest at my expense. Sites are to be specified by me and unknown to you until required for installation of the device for testing. If you have a real device, it can perform regardless. You may specify your own monitoring equipment (e.g. webcams) to rule out tampering, but I won't accept cheats or chiselers.
Neither will the public. You say your device will work in the trunk of a car, so it better work in the trunk of a car, in a closet or in a renovated treehouse. And it damn well shouldn't require you looking over its shoulder to keep "working".
Take it or leave it. (You've already taken several pages out of Steorn's book. Maybe I should save everyone some time and just report you to your state attorney general; attorneys general seem to have gotten a clue that magnet scams are really scams.)
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 26, 2007 11:00:04 PM
Boy that was a copout if I ever seen one Ha Haa Haaa
Posted by: Jack W Hildenbrand | Jan 27, 2007 6:03:41 PM
Lighten up, It was all just a joke. I have no magnet motor. Just wanted to see how you reacted.
Later,,,,,Jack W Hildenbrand
Posted by: Jack W Hildenbrand | Jan 27, 2007 8:17:13 PM
Maybe you'd like to tell Peswiki that it's "all just a joke".
You might also mention this to anyone who responded to your request for funding your invention.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Jan 27, 2007 9:31:24 PM
I have not excepted any money from anybody to help fund this invention. Alot of people responded but no money was taken. I only take money from people that has seen my invention and then they can make up there own mind. To this date no money has been taken. Thats my story and I'm sticken to it.
Later,,Jack W Hildenbrand
Posted by: Jack W Hildenbrand | Jan 28, 2007 6:29:00 PM
I am happy to see that North America is finally coming up with its own version of the French Cleanova.
Now, if eFlex offered the Japanese Subaru R1e combination of ultracaps and decent battery, I could live without a range extender. Just give me 80 miles of autonomy and highway speeds.
Now I would agree with the concept of having a generator that could also be used for emergencies (having spent some time in Florida).
I would also like to be able to re-use the battery in my electric snowmobile. If we can start thinking about reusing the components according to the seasons and needs, then I won't mind paying for that battery/batteries and generator.
Posted by: ZEV | Feb 5, 2007 2:58:28 PM
they dont tell how long the batteries last and i bet you its not long. and it takes mor energy to make then you will prolly save on them.
Posted by: Alan | May 4, 2007 7:16:43 AM
they dont tell how long the batteries last and i bet you its not long. and it takes mor energy to make then you will prolly save on them.
Posted by: Alan | May 4, 2007 7:16:44 AM
I wanted to say it is really cool you have a page about Jack Hildenbrand's technology here. You would have to be mighty stupid to ignore an innovation like that. Or shall we say "deep into the oil"? :-)
Posted by: gaby de wilde | May 6, 2007 3:51:44 PM
