« State of the Union Preview: Twenty in Ten | Main | ZAP Licenses Li-Ion Battery Management System for XEBRA »
Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesel Jetta Makes its US Debut; Available in 2008
23 January 2007
Volkswagen of America unveiled its cleanest diesel yet for the US, the Jetta TDI, at the Washington, D.C. Auto Show. (Earlier post.) The new clean diesel, which meets the 50-state EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 / CA LEV II emissions standard, will be available to the US market in the spring of 2008.
The 2.0-liter diesel develops 103 kW (140 hp) of power. The Jetta TDI—one of VW’s first BLUETEC products—uses a lean NOx trap to reduce NOx emissions by up to 90% percent instead of using urea Selective Catalytic Reduction.
The engine management system in the Jetta changes operating modes periodically to treat the NOx that has been stored in the catalytic converter. A particulate filter in the exhaust system further reduces emissions.
The goal of the BLUETEC initiative of Audi, Mercedes-Benz, and Volkswagen is to establish the concept of BLUETEC as a uniform label for clean and highly fuel efficient diesel-powered cars and SUVs with 50-state compliant engines. Technologies individually developed by each manufacturer serve to reduce NOx in particular.
For car models of the Passat class and smaller, Volkswagen is proposing its new lean NOx trap catalytic converter. At λ of greater than 1, NOx is captured and stored; at λ less than 1, NOx is released and reduced. Ultra low-sulfur fuel is a necessity, and fuel consumption will increase as a result of catalytic converter regeneration.
Larger and heavier models feature urea Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) catalytic converter (continuous) with the use of an aqueous solution such as AdBlue, transported in an additional tank made from stainless steel or plastic.
Another VW BLUETEC clean diesel—the Tiguan compact SUV—will also be available in the US in 2008.
January 23, 2007 in Diesel | Permalink | Comments (41) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/7603794
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesel Jetta Makes its US Debut; Available in 2008:
Comments
I can only hope that the Passat will be offered with a diesel and DSG in about the same time frame..
Posted by: John | Jan 23, 2007 2:17:34 PM
When will MPG figures stated? estimated pricing?
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Jan 23, 2007 2:24:00 PM
I have the Passat 2.0TDI stationwagon with DSG. Mileage figures have been around 5 liters/100 kms in hwy, around 6,5 in city driving (which I do really little because parking is a pain in the ... here, I rather walk or take the bus or metro). So, about 47 MPG in hwy, 36 in city. The numbers are according to the on-board computer. My Passat is the non-Bluetec version.
Posted by: er | Jan 23, 2007 2:34:22 PM
I just read a report that said the true cost of gasoline (after you factor in all the subsidies) is $15.14 per gallon.
Just charge that. We'll hit the 20% goal (and then some) literally overnight. And probably also fix the budget deficit.
Posted by: DHofmann | Jan 23, 2007 3:06:21 PM
Oops, sorry, wrong thread.
Posted by: DHofmann | Jan 23, 2007 3:09:01 PM
Yessir, here come the diesels. All you anti-diesel wingnut losers can SUCK IT DOWN! This goes out to all of you, Andrey, Willemsen, George, all of you: MUWAHAHAHAHAHA! :D
Posted by: anon | Jan 23, 2007 4:00:36 PM
My next car will be either running biodiesel, or a next-gen hybrid. I'd like to know what the MPG figures on this will be. That it doesn't use AdBlue is a plus.
Posted by: Cervus | Jan 23, 2007 4:09:51 PM
I think the EU version of this Diesel is 170 hp. Thats quite a hit for the small NO2 gains.
Posted by: Doug | Jan 23, 2007 4:40:56 PM
Isn't it funny all that mess with the Blue-Tec Diesels?
Not only that this type of diesel fuel required is not yet available (US) nationwide (<10 ppm Sulphur as maximum content; current US diesel has up to 500 ppm). Also these "super-clean" diesels don't meet the Californian standards (ie can not be sold in the stated which adopted these standards), and will - as stated - consume more fuel due to higher backpressure and catalyst regeneration.
From a CO2 perspective, I doubt that such an engine will have a smaller footprint than an ordenary gasoline engine. Of course, shifting consumption to diesel might be a good thing from an economic point of view, as the US would then no longer need to buy refined gasoline on EU markets, and the EU buying diesel on US markets (and then de-sulphurizing it).
Of course, the US will import the carciogenc soot issue with these diesels, as the finer particles will penetrate deeper into the lung, with higher chances of causing cancer...
In the end, diesel might end up with an even higher net cost here in the EU - hopefully at such an extent, that not even the heavy subsidies (tax breaks) on diesel fuel will hide the fact, that it's already more costly than gasoline.
Of course, running a diesel engine with Veggie oil (*not* biodiesel) would be a benefit, but then again, there just ain't enough oil crops for sustained mobility by such means... (And, of course, diesel engines right now - especially the ever more highly sophisticated ones - can not run un-modified veggie oil; old-style, pre-chamber, non-turbo diesels can run on almost anything; but then, you also don't really care what's being exhausted from those engines...
Posted by: Richard | Jan 23, 2007 4:48:09 PM
I have a concern with diesel. With greater use of diesel for the light vehicle sector (in large part frivolous usage) does that not put pressure on diesel prices for our transportation and farming sectors (vital). The last thing I want in an oil crunch is some rich jerk in a diesel SUV driving up the cost of diesel for our farmers.
Having said that it seems easier to produce biodiesel than biobutanol.
Posted by: Neil | Jan 23, 2007 5:03:36 PM
"Also these "super-clean" diesels don't meet the Californian standards"
"The new clean diesel, which meets the 50-state EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 / CA LEV II emissions standard, will be available to the US market in the spring of 2008."
what are your data sources?
if you don't like diesels, what do you like?
Posted by: Alex Pine | Jan 23, 2007 5:05:36 PM
Richard, the whole point of the T2B5 compliance is that this vehicle will meet the requirements for ALL 50 STATES. It is the current model (an example of which I own) that does not meet the requirements of the CARB states.
By the time this vehicle is on sale, substantially all of US on-road diesel fuel will be ULSD. It is already all ULSD here in Canada, but the US dragged its feet. No doubt the initial sketchy availability of ULSD has something to do with this engine not being available until 2008.
Carcinogenic soot? The Bluetec system includes a particulate trap. I have heard reports that the exhaust coming out the tailpipe has less particulate in it than the air going in the engine air intake. Mercedes did a demonstration of holding a white napkin at the tailpipe of their E320CDI Bluetec. It remains white. This will be simply a non-issue. By the way, gasoline engines emit extremely small particulate, too ...
And how is the CO2 footprint of an engine that uses ~40% less fuel going to be equal to that of a gasoline engine? YES the diesel fuel contains ~10% more carbon, but it doesn't offset the fuel consumption improvement. My 2006 Jetta TDI PD (without Bluetec - No de-nox catalyst and no particulate filter) uses around 5.2 - 5.5 L/100 km during normal driving. The gasoline version uses 9 ~ 10 L/100 km.
Why the statement "vegetable oil and *not* biodiesel"? I do not understand it. The main ingredient in the biodiesel "recipe" is vegetable oil. The second ingredient is (usually) methanol, which is currently made from natural gas, but still it is ~75% biofuel. And, you can use biodiesel in the newer diesel engines without trouble. I do. I have B20 (20% biodiesel) in the tank right now. I run B100 in the summer, but can't do that in winter ...
Posted by: Brian | Jan 23, 2007 5:18:23 PM
Neil
Us refineries produce an excess of diesel that is currently shipped to Europe. If we start using more at home we can just stop exporting the excess, plus refineries can be tuned to produce more diesel if needed.
Posted by: dsl987 | Jan 23, 2007 5:40:30 PM
VW, if you are listening, please offer diesels in all of your models. Jetta Diesel: nice to have you back old friend!
Posted by: Schmeltz | Jan 23, 2007 6:11:18 PM
Voltswagen, please get off the Oil Company bandwagon and produce an efficient Diesel Engine for high frequency generators for series hybrids like the Volt, in the 13-50 kw region needed. A standard small commuter car series hybrid only needs a 13 kw generator, and efficiencies of over 100 mpg are quite possible with wheel motors. The engine only needs to supply the average power needs of the vehicle (typically energy required at 60 mph) and does not have acceleration or torque requirements and pollution controls are more simple due to the constant rpm.
Posted by: W.Heath | Jan 23, 2007 9:15:36 PM
ULSD ( 15 ppm max, 10ppm avg ) started phasing in the USA in July of 2006 and was at 50% of diesel pumps by October 2006. To say that it isn't here is an absolute lie.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | Jan 23, 2007 10:32:06 PM
Bow to CARB and EPA. They once again managed to force auto manufacturers to bring new substantially cleaner vehicles to US and eventually to global market.
Anon: clean diesel is welcomed by anyone, even me, believe you or not.
Things really are getting heated-up. Who will win on US market: diesel with NOx adsorber or lean GDI with NOx adsorber? In which segment? How hybrid drivetrain or (even more interesting)coming two-mode hybrids will affect this competition?
We live in exciting times.
Posted by: Andrey | Jan 23, 2007 11:41:07 PM
"Voltswagen, please get off the blah blah blah wagon and blah blah blah Diesel Engine for blah blah blah i'm a whiny bitch 13-50 kw region needed. A standard blah blah car series hybrid i have no life blah blah. The engine only needs to blah blah average power needs of the vehicle (now im just jacking off in public) and does blah blah acceleration or torque blah blah pollution i need to get a life blah blah."
Wow man. That was deep. Next time you feel you have the moral high ground to tell VW how it run its business, do us all a favor and keep it to yourself.
Yours truly
Green Car Congress
Posted by: Green Car Congress | Jan 24, 2007 1:55:09 AM
Nope, W.Heath is exactly right. Series genset is where the IC engine is meant to go next.
Posted by: clett | Jan 24, 2007 2:46:57 AM
The Prez actually mentioned biodiesel before ethanol last night. This is a first!
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe | Jan 24, 2007 6:32:32 AM
Thanks for the series hybrid perspective Heath. Others occasionally write "blah blah" and contribute nothing to this forum.
Posted by: fyi CO2 | Jan 24, 2007 6:37:13 AM
Doug -
I suspect the reduced power rating is not so much a function of the additional emissions equipment as of the relatively low cetane number of US diesel fuel. In layman's terms, his is a measure of how easily the fuel will ignite in hot, pressurized air. For reference, EPA requires a CN of 39.5 for #2 diesel, California insists on 45. In Europe, the current standard is 51. Biodiesel is a little higher that, xTL liquids much higher still. Blends of petrodiesel and these alternatives lie in-between.
Longer ignition delay translates to inferior control of the injection process, higher engine-out NOx and PM levels and more combustion noise. To counter that, you have to reduce the amount of fuel you inject, i.e. sacrifice some horsepower. Switching fuels will not automatically give you more power, you would need to reprogram the injection system for that.
Richard -
(a) NOx store catalysts do indeed require very low sulphur levels in the fuel. ULSD, which was introduced in the fall and is now the only grade being sold for on-road use in the US, contains 15ppm. EPA mandated the transition precisely to enable lean-burn NOx aftertreatment. Even in Europe, where emissions standards for diesels are not yet as strict as in the US, on-road diesel fuel may contain no more than 50ppm today and 10ppm by 2010. Countries with a high proportion of diesel vehicles are already meeting the future standard today.
(b) Tier 2 Bin 5 is equivalent to California LEV II, meaning any vehicles that passes this hurdle can be sold in all 50 states. This is critical to sales volume and profits for LDV diesels in the US.
(c) Diesels do emit about 20% less CO2 than the same vehicle fitted with a similarly rated gasoline engine when put through the same standardized drive cycle. This is just basic thermodynamics: a higher compression ratio and no throttling losses.
(d) T2B5 diesels will all feature wall-flow DPFs, which render harmless 98%+ of all engine-out particulates. Also not that there are many other sources of particulates, including those small enough to penetrate the alveolae in the lungs.
(e) Diesel fuel is denser than gasoline and therefore contains about 12% more energy per gallon. On a per-BTU basis, US on-road diesel and regular gasoline actually cost about the same. The relative financial benefit to the driver will indeed be lower than in Europe, where diesel is taxed a little less heavily (hardly a subsidy) than gasoline. However, the superior thermodynamics of diesel combustion still mean each BTU gets you ~10% further.
(f) Using SVO on a modern diesel engine may overrev the turbo and cause cavitation in the injector nozzles. You could end up with major damage after just a few thousand miles. Btw, SVO/WVO produces extremely high PM levels except in specially adapted engines. It should not be used from an emissions point of view alone, even if it is possible and legal to do so with old indirect injection engines.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jan 24, 2007 6:49:58 AM
An engine could easily be adapted to work on SVO with low emissions etc.
The problem is that in order to make the design easily, a universal standard of SVO formulation must be agreed upon, which isn't going to happen given the different oils, crops and other feedstocks available worldwide.
An engine tolerant of a wide variety of SVO types would be possible but a challenge to design.
Posted by: clett | Jan 24, 2007 8:27:10 AM
Just to clarify Rafel's point "e", it's a little disingenuous to say diesel fuel has 12% more energy per gallon without pointing out it makes 12% more CO2 per gallon too. It's no surprise diesel weighs about 12% more per gallon.
This is why there's no point in talking about miles per gallon, the discussion should either be miles per pound or miles per dollar depending on which discussion you're having. This also makes it easier to compare to non-liquid fuels as well.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | Jan 24, 2007 9:12:18 AM
Sid:
Please refer to Point C regarding those CO2 emissions. The greater amount of CO2 per gallon is only part of the equation. Diesel engines are still more thermodynamically efficient and thus emit 20% less CO2.
Posted by: Cervus | Jan 24, 2007 9:22:52 AM
Didnt U of Idaho do conclusive testing saying SVO is asking for trouble? No way is it ever going to be better for emissions.
Posted by: fred@dzlsabe | Jan 24, 2007 12:35:58 PM
What a bunch of losers
Posted by: Green Car Congress | Jan 24, 2007 4:03:31 PM
Sid -
for fuels consisting of medium-to-long hydrocarbon chains, the CO2 emitted per unit of fuel mass consumed is about the same. The difference is all in how much mass is consumed for equal output, i.e. how thermodynamically efficient the process is.
Wrt to the metric used to compare fuels, there are cases when you want a purely technical standard and others where you want an economic one. The latter is obviously subject to rapid change whenever the oil price fluctuates, so greater care must be taken to ensure the numbers are actually comparable.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jan 24, 2007 4:07:17 PM
Green,
Reading between the blah blah's, I can see your point clearly. VW knows exactly what they are doing! Diesel engine is quite efficient at part load, and even more so for turbodiesel, therefore, there will be little to be gained by going the serial-electric hybrid route!
In fact, serial-hybrid suffers from efficiency losses in the generator-motor route that would even out any efficiency gained from engine downsizing. Plus, serial-hybrid relies on a fairly hefty battery pack of ~8-10kwh, and the cost of a large generator-motor set, which would be a lot lot more expensive than the cost of making a mechanical transmission. I would advise even GM against going entirely the serial-hybrid route. Even for PHEV, serial-parallel architecture would be a lot more efficient and cost-effective.
Now, Green, feel better? I can anticipate a 20-point drop in your blood pressure after you reading my posting! Peace!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 24, 2007 8:44:10 PM
i just want to mention something in passing – i was in europe a few weeks back. the air there sucks.
kudos to both the EPA and CARB for making sure that we have really clean vehicles in this country. i'd rather run out of petroleum than air, sorry guys.
Posted by: lensovet | Jan 24, 2007 10:59:02 PM
Rafael,
Do you have any more info on IDI PM when run on W/VO? Or for that matter, when run in the same situation, except with an excessive lean condition and water injection?
Posted by: yesplease | Jan 24, 2007 11:39:01 PM
yesplease -
my sources regarding the health risks associated with SVO/WVO as a motor fuel are all in German, shoot me a private email if you can read that and want the URLs.
Note that I referred only to engines that were not specially modified to combust triglycerides. The primary adaptation relates to heating the fuel to around 70degC, which means you always have to drive the first few miles after a cold engine start on petro- or biodiesel. The reduced viscosity prevents damage to the injection system. It also sharply reduces coking of the nozzles and the amount of fuel that ends up in the engine oil, which can lead to polymerization above a certain concentration, quickly leading to catastrophic engine failure. This buildup of gunk can also happen in the turbocharger bearings, where oil temperatures are highest.
Triglycerides tend to produce more and especially, larger PM than petro- or biodiesel, which consist of simpler molecules that the oxygen in the combustion chamber can more easily attack. Large diameter PM cannot penetrate as deep into the lungs, let alone enter the bloodstream via the alveolae like the much-discussed ultra-fine PM2.5 can.
However, in addition to presenting visible smoke, large PM fouls the exterior surfaces of buildings etc. and more importantly, stresses the mucus lining of the lungs of persons with weak or impaired respiratory systems. While much of the debate regarding PM centers on the supposed risk of cancer, the impact on basic respiratory population health is actually just as important.
Lensovet's point is therefore quite valid. The vast majority of diesel vehicles on Europe's streets today do not yet feature particulate filters and many visitors from the US do complain about the air quality, especially in city centers. This will improve greatly in the next few years as wall-flow DPFs become more widespread.
Of course, you could fit a wall-flow DPF to an engine adapted to running on SVO/WVO as well, but you need to adapt the engine control software to initiate (fairly frequent) filter regeneration phases. Not a single major auto manufacturer is developing such systems and, the average enthusiast has not access to the software (probably a good thing). There is, however, an ongoing research project to make SVO/WVO a viable option for agricultural machinery here at the TU Vienna.
Your point about very lean operation and water injection is interesting. The latter is sometimes employed in marine diesels, especially if fresh water is available. Perhaps some locomotives use it as well. For on-road applications, stable micro-emulsions have been developed. In addition to improved fuel economy, the main point of these measures is to reduce the peak process temperature and hence, the production of thermal NO via the Zeldovich mechanism. It also reduces the initial formation of PM through local pyrolysis.
However, there is still plenty of initial PM and the lower temps mean it cannot be combusted as completely in the cylinder, especially in engines revving at several 1000 RPM. Remmeber, in a well-designed and tuned diesel engine, some 99% of initial PM is fully combusted before the exhaust valve opens, so we're talking about a small difference between two large numbers here. Measures to aggressively curb thermal NO tend to increase engine-out PM. In addition, they can reduce combustion stability, resulting in unacceptable engine noise and vibration.
Btw: modern diesel engine designs rely on cooled external EGR rather than water injection to achieve reduced engine-out NO. The main reason is that the rate of water consumption would be quite high, severely reducing the tank volume available for fuel.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Jan 25, 2007 6:01:28 AM
"The primary adaptation relates to heating the fuel to around 70degC, which means you always have to drive the first few miles after a cold engine start on petro- or biodiesel...."
...Or electric power. A key benefit of the PHEV in this regard is the ability to heat up the lines and tank in a minute or two electrically.
Posted by: clett | Jan 25, 2007 6:39:51 AM
Hi Rafael,
Since you're such an authority on Diesel engine, I would appreciate your opinion on a Diesel engine using compressed H2 as fuel, instead of SVO, or biodiesel. SVO or biodiesel can't be produced in nearly as much quantity as H2 gasification from waste cellulosic biomass in the future, when petroleum will run scarce.
The H2-diesel engine would be a lot simpler, without needing a high-pressure fuel pump, and without PM filter. NOx production can be a lot less, if controlled injection to reduce high peak temperature, so less rigorous lean NOx trap or urea scrub requirement. Cost reduction in fuel system and post-combustion emission treatment can compensate partially for the increase in cost of H2 carbon fiber tank.
Adding an electric hybrid drive to reduce H2 tank size would increase some cost over conventional transmission, but this cost can be recouped in time due to the potential lower H2 fuel cost in comparison to synthetic diesel or biodiesel.
H2 can be produced and dispensed in the same location, thus avoiding H2 transportation cost. One very large H2 station every 100 square miles can still be practical, since on average, only a 4-5 mile one way trip to the station will be needed.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 25, 2007 9:28:36 AM
Brother Pham, you are incorrect, the series hybrid is the most efficient way to build a vehicle. And you seem to be forgetting that your Fuel Cell Vehicle is a Series Hybrid. Unlike a BEV, the inherent 15% charging loss is greatly reduced because much of the time the generator is directly supplying the PEM DC bus without charging the battery and if ultracapacitors are used on the DC Bus, the charging loss can be almost eliminated, all that is needed is a 1 kwh capacitor for all normal driving and about a 5 kwh battery bank connected through a DC-DC converter to the DC bus, which would supply energy only for sustained extreme speed travel or climbing mountains at speed or towing a trailer. Conversion efficiencies of generator, motor & PEM of > 90% have been achieved.
The series hybrid is much simpler in design & maintenance than the parallel hybrid. It does not need a clutch or transmission, no oil changes, spark plugs, fuel/oil filters except on the separate generator which can be removed or replaced easily. It does not need the complex control / interface between the gas engine & electric motor.
The series hybrid has better acceleration due to the superiority of the much larger electric motor to the gas motor in this respect.
A series hybrid recovers almost all the energy from braking, the parallel only a much smaller portion of the energy. The electric motor in a series hybrid supplies acceleration energy & recovers braking energy efficiently at all operating speeds. An Electric Motor delivers to the battery / ultracapacitor about the same current braking 60-0 in 8 secs, as it takes accelerating 0-60 in 8 secs, therefore a robust fully powered electric vehicle is necessary to recover the energy lost in deceleration, that is a fully electric drive. The partial electric drive in a parallel hybrid just won't do it.
The larger battery pack on a series hybrid is needed to store the potential energy lost by going downhill, so it can be used to power the uphill climb. The small battery pack on the parallel hybrid cannot do this, for example, the .3 kwh (utilized) battery on the Prius, is only capable of storing the energy for a small 1% grade hill for 1.5 km, anything more is thrown away, vs the series hybrid with a 4 kwh utilized battery pack, which could store the energy from a steep 12% grade for 2 km. Also the larger battery pack means lower charging currents / per cell, which leads to higher charging efficiency for braking energy recovery.
The generator engine on the series hybrid can be much smaller (typically 1/3 the size of a parallel hybrid’s), simpler and more efficient than on the parallel hybrid. It only needs to run at optimal charging speeds, does not need good torque or acceleration performance. It only needs to be large enough to supply average energy that the vehicle uses or even less if the vehicle is parked part of the time.
The generator module on the series hybrid can be easily be standardized for all electric vehicles, and mass produced as an interchangeable auto component. It could easily be replaced, exchanged or upgraded depending on requirements or the available technology. For instance, it could be a high efficiency diesel, a FlexFuel Turbine with up to 50% efficiency, a Fuel Cell or StarRotor’s Brayton cycle external combustion turbine (they are claiming 45% to 60% efficiency). The constant speed smaller engine on the series hybrid is much easier & cheaper to put pollution controls on.
The series hybrid can readily be made a true all wheel drive vehicle, without the complexity of multiple drive shafts / differentials, by using wheel hub electric motors. Added benefit of zero turning radius by running wheels on one side backwards to wheels on the other side. Also the wheel motors run >90% efficient, with NO DRIVETRAIN LOSSES, which can amount to 30% of the I.C. Engine shaft horsepower output in a parallel hybrid or standard ICE powered vehicle. This cannot be done on the parallel hybrid.
The series hybrid avoids the problem of a patented custom built drivetrain, like the patented Synergy Drive Toyota uses.
The series hybrid can be mass produced with all drive components within the chassis of the vehicle, even the replaceable generator module can fit in chassis with some of the newer engine types (like the turbine or Reg Tech RadMax or Free Piston Power unit) This “Skateboard” Chassis has long been a goal of GM. With all the weight of the major components in or below the chassis, the series hybrid is inherently more stable than the typical ICE powered vehicle or parallel hybrid. With no heavyweight engine components in front of the driver, the vehicle can be made much more safe in a collision. Various bodies can be attached to the same frame. As such, the series hybrid would be less expensive to make.
The series hybrid can easily be made as one of three models, an all electric with no generator but expanded battery pack, the PHEV with about a double sized battery pack of typically 10 kwh or as the series HEV with about a 5 kwh battery pack. The generator would run typically 15 to 40 hp for a normal vehicle, and weigh around 200 lbs, as would the expanded battery pack. The unused space in the front of the vehicle, normally under the hood, could be made to contain either the battery pack expansion or the generator module. It would be a matter of unplugging two connectors (control cable & power cable) and swapping them according to the owner’s preference. Perhaps, battery pack for maximum all EV range in the city commuting, or the generator module for weekends extended range. A hydraulic lift on wheels, like they sell in hardware stores for $200 would easily allow swapping the modules.
The series hybrid can easily used as an emergency portable power generation system or to supply energy back to the grid for distributed power generation, a great advantage for utilities to supply emergency peak power after transmission line and/or power generating plant failure and/or major natural disaster or terrorist attack and/or extreme heat wave. This is called vehicle to grid or V2G.
The series hybrid has an inherently modular construction. Which enables it to be assembled from standard interchangeable mass produced components. These would include the battery pack, expansion battery pack, various interchangeable generator modules, operator interface (likely all electronic), PEM and Electric Drive Motors.
You can calculate the fuel economy of a Series Hybrid by using the Tesla Electric Car data, modified to assume an onboard fuel generator instead of a utility powered charger, which would replace 85% of the Tesla’s 44 kwh battery pack. At 7.85 km per kwh of utility energy, this would yield 68 miles per gal with a 35% mechanical efficiency diesel generator. This would be higher in actual fact because the generator would be substantially lighter than the replaced battery pack. Accounting for the generator energy directly supplying the DC bus, this would push the fuel economy up to about 73 mpg, using ultracapacitors this would increase to 78 mpg. The Tesla was designed for high speed (130mph), and so the 2 speed transmission. Using wheel motors to replace the transmission & rear differential should push the fuel economy up to at least 90 mpg. Replacing the Diesel Engine with a Fuel Cell, high efficiency turbine, Free Piston Power type engine/generator or the StarRotor type engine would push the fuel economy up to 115 to 155 mpg. Not bad for a 0-60 mph in 3.9 sec sports car.
Posted by: W.Heath | Jan 25, 2007 11:48:31 AM
W. Heath,
I appreciate your devotion to the cause of PHEV, and I share similar enthusiasm. If you would kindly read my previous postings in which I discussed in details my proposal for a serial-paralled PHEV arrangement for the GM Volt, you will see that a serial-paralled hybrid design can retain the simplicity and portability and removability of the range-extender unit, while reducing weight, cost and increasing efficiency. Look for my postings in:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/01/the_volt_may_be.html#comments
A VW turbodiesel, however, is already very efficient as it is. Turbocharging already allows engine downsizing, and diesel engine has a lot of torque at low speed, meaning that it can turn at lower rpm than a gas engine, thus less friction loss, and no pumping loss as in a gas engine that uses a throttle plate. Of course, hybridizing a diesel car (diesel-HEV) allows for braking energy recuperation, but the added expense of an electric drive train and battery is usually not worth the lower gain in efficiency in comparison to the gain of a gasoline-HEV, except in the case of a delivery truck having hydraulic hybrid for use in frequent stop-and-go routine.
A simple system like BMW's alternator-braking recuperation and engine stop would be sufficient, instead of a much more expensive serial hybrid set up that depends on a large battery pack, large motor and power inverter, all with large $$$ attached. Copper is getting scarce and more and more expensive, you know. Lithium is not too abundant, either!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 25, 2007 8:34:37 PM
After looking at these posts they all have great ideas/ideals in them.
But it's just nice to have the TDI's back
as for Hybrids, H2 (the gas not the SUV), Blahs etc.. those might be of more use someplace that they can do good in the world.
"what is the sound of one tree falling, if no one can hear it?"
Posted by: Alex Pine | Jan 27, 2007 9:56:40 PM
The Toyota Prius is already highly successful, and the 2009 model seems to be moving even closer in the direction of a series hybrid, with larger battery pack and plugin capability. It doubt that a true series hybrid version of the Prius would be anymore expensive. Much smaller engine and much simpler control system and drivetrain in return for a larger ( about $1200 more) battery and larger motor & PEM. In return you have a vehicle that can trivially easily be converted from a series HEV, to a BEV, to a PHEV, or even a FCV. Each has a devoted market niche. And the simple modular construction, opens up great mass production cost advantages. Why did GM suddenly pull the series hybrid vehicle out of the hat, after Toyota kicked their ass badly, when they've had that design fully developed from before 1998?
Posted by: W.Heath | Jan 28, 2007 8:52:19 PM
"Why did GM suddenly pull the series hybrid vehicle out of the hat, after Toyota kicked their ass badly, when they've had that design fully developed from before 1998?"
The answer to that is A123 nanotech Lithium with thousands of charging cycles vs. hundreds of cycles like previous battery technologies, and with power rating of 10C or above for the nanotech lithium vs. barely 3-5C for older Lithium technology. That's perhaps what allows the new 2008 Prius to get above 90mpg, but only by using Serial-Parallel configuration in Toyota's prove HSD. Serial hybrid architecture throws 19% or more of energy out into the air, due to resistance in the windings and eddy currents in the core that produces heat in the motor and generator and power electronics that must be cooled by air.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jan 28, 2007 10:39:35 PM
I'm a mechanical engineer in the automotive lighting industry and I have a favor to ask. As geeky as I am, I don't know all the acronyms you're using e.g HEV, to a BEV, to a PHEV, or even a FCV. I can take the time to figure them out but it's wasteful. Please when using an acronym for the first times in the thread please enumerate the actual phrase along with the acronym to help me, and others less up to date, get through the text quicker. Thanks
-FM
BSME, MEMS
Posted by: Fred Muzzin | May 9, 2007 10:36:21 AM
Note: HEV is easy. But the rest are a bit more obscure. Like SVO. ......da da da something Vegetable Oil :-)
Posted by: Fred Muzzin | May 9, 2007 10:38:44 AM
