« Renault 3.0L V6 dCi Concept Diesel to be the Basis for Nissan 2010 Tier 2 Bin 5 Maxima Diesel in US | Main | Cilion Closes $105M Debt Financing for Ethanol Facilities »
GM Unveils Opel Flextreme: Plug-in Diesel Hybrid Variant of E-Flex
10 September 2007
 |
| The Opel Flextreme. |
GM has unveiled the third variant of its E-Flex electric vehicle architecture in Frankfurt. (Earlier post.) The Opel Flextreme is a plug-in diesel series hybrid that offers up to 55 km (34 miles) of all-electric range. A 1.3-liter turbodiesel powers an onboard generator to replenish the 16 kWh li-ion battery pack and extend the vehicle’s driving range to a total of 715 km (444 miles).
Based on the current European test procedure ECE R101 for range extender vehicles, GM expects the Flextreme to emit less than 40 g CO2/km in combustion mode.
|
| X-ray view of the Flextreme powertrain. Click to enlarge. |
The electric traction system delivers 120 kW maximum electrical and mechanical power, with continuous mechanical power of 40 kW. The four-cylinder 1.3-liter CDTI engine produces 53 kW peak power output. The car accelerates from 0-100km/h in around 9.5 seconds and has a top speed of around 160 km/h (99 mph).
High-speed piezo sensors integrated in the glow plugs measure the pressure in the cylinder, so the injections can be matched to the actual combustion in real time. The 1.3-liter four-cylinder engine is the second unit from GM to feature this system, after the 2.9-liter V6 engine displayed at the Geneva Motor Show. (Earlier post.)
The lithium-ion (nanophosphate) battery pack has peak power of 136 kW and voltage of 320 to 350V. The Flextreme can be charged in around three hours via a standard 220 V electrical socket.
Opel packaged two Segway electric personal transporters packaged below the cargo floor of the Flextreme. The Segways can be used in areas that cars cannot enter, thereby adding an extra mobility option. The electric two-wheelers provide up to 38 km (23 miles) of range.
General Motors introduced two other E-Flex variants earlier this year:
At the Detroit Motor Show in January 2007, the Chevrolet Volt debuted with a 1.0-liter three-cylinder turbo gasoline engine designed to operate on gasoline or E85, a mixture of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline. (Earlier post.)
At the Shanghai Motor Show in April 2007, GM presented the Chevrolet Volt with enhanced hydrogen fuel cell propulsion. With four kilograms of hydrogen on board,the fuel-cell powered Volt has a range of up to 480 kilometers. (Earlier post.)
September 10, 2007 in Diesel, Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (86) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/21487733
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GM Unveils Opel Flextreme: Plug-in Diesel Hybrid Variant of E-Flex:
Comments
It's good to see GM stirring about. In the distant past they achieved a measure of greatness as a result of imagination and innovation.
This offering is certainly a step in the right direction.
All it needs is 4-wheel in-wheel drive.
Posted by: Lucas | Sep 10, 2007 11:54:53 AM
An E85 hybrid would be an amazing combo.
I have to say though that I'm sick of all the "show cars". One production hybrid would do more for GM than 2000 show concepts.
Posted by: BMW_4_ever | Sep 10, 2007 11:58:03 AM
Dec-2007 : 2 Hybrid SUV's are coming from GM. I dont know how the Hybrid-SUV's will be received.
Yes, GM have to bring a Hybrid small car which gives around 40-45 MPG.
As for the Plugins, even a car with 10 mile range coming to market should be good.
Posted by: Max Reid | Sep 10, 2007 12:07:59 PM
Adding to my comment below, sorry I left off my name, this is the right direction. A nice diesel hybrid.
Posted by: Lad | Sep 10, 2007 12:25:26 PM
The other day I slammed the Mitsu i-Miev for being ugly.
The Flextreme is a perfect example of how attractive a small car can be. Well done, designers.
Posted by: Lou Grinzo | Sep 10, 2007 12:26:03 PM
Very nice. Minor question: What does one call this...a car, a crossover, a hatchback, a minivan? I was leaning towards "car", but not really sure.
Does anyone know why the range is slightly less than the Volt's? Is it because it's heavier?--just wondering.
Posted by: Schmeltz | Sep 10, 2007 12:41:07 PM
I strongly advise you take any MPG / CO2 claims for any PHEV with a large grain of salt. There's lies, damn lies and then there's marketing. So ask, ask and ask again *exactly* how vendors obtained the fuel economy/CO2 emissions numbers for their PHEV concepts. Unlike those in California, official EU fuel economy procedures are still hopelessly ill-equipped to deal correctly with hybrids, never mind PHEVs. There is ample scope for sleight of hand.
First, the manufacturer may be counting only the on-board fuel consumed to compute the CO2 emissions your driving will cause, based on some arbitrary total trip length. As you know, grid electricity is produced by elves and fairies. Coal, natural gas and nuclear have nothing to do with it.
Second, the portion driven on grid electricity may have been maximized for marketing purposes by starting with a fully charged battery and deep discharging it. Such abuse will severely shorten its life expectancy. Unless you want to buy a shiny new battery pack every other year, real-world range on grid electricity will almost certainly have to be less than what is claimed.
A credible marketing story would indicate range on grid electricity alone assuming e.g. 10 year/150.000 mile life expectancy (whichever comes first). Also, it would detail miles per kWh for the official duty cycle when driven as much as possible on grid electricity alone and separately, when driven on the ICE alone. The official duty cycles cover defined distances, so with a little math you can use this data to compute miles per kWh as a function of total trip length, assuming the official drive cycle just repeats.
Of course, marketing types want to persuade you that their shiny and no doubt very expensive PHEV is "better" in some way than a conventional car and, worth the premium. So, they thow out some suitably eye-popping MPG number, hoping that you'll be too stunned to ask any questions. As they say in Germany: know your Pappenheimers.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 10, 2007 12:42:04 PM
@ Lucus:
Electric drive in wheel technology has a down side, especially when used on cars on the steering wheels. Many race cars design the tires, wheels, brakes and suspensions to be as light as possible to dampen and suppress the rebound of the tires on bumps and in turns. The idea is to keep the tire in contact with the road surface at all times by reducing the unsprung weight. The Tesla roaster only drives the rear wheels and then from the center of the rear axles. Additionally, Locating the electric motor at the wheels subjects them a lot of abuse from water, mud, sand rock, etc. and begs the idea of encapsulation.
Posted by: Lad | Sep 10, 2007 12:46:03 PM
Rafael nails it.
But can you explain the "know your Pappenheimers" thing?
Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 12:46:04 PM
Possibly the best design showing more green ingenuity with the capable Segway traveling along for more enjoyment and less energy expelled once you reach your destination. Now all they need to include is the ability to charge the Segway's from the vehicle while you travel to your destination.
Posted by: C L | Sep 10, 2007 12:47:01 PM
its fantastic !
what a wonderful car
Posted by: itsme | Sep 10, 2007 12:47:12 PM
I agree the car is attractive. It is sleek and futuristic looking. It looks sporty and oozes techno. It looks like it could be a variation of the Toyota Hybrid X concept car. The similarities are unmistakable with the shape, the sleekness, the open design, the extensive use of glass, right down to the rear passenger suicide doors.
What I find curious is that people describe this as attractive but rag on the Hybrid X as ugly. I get the impression that if the company logos were swapped so would the opinions.
Posted by: Curioso | Sep 10, 2007 1:17:25 PM
Funny, no release dates are ever included in the GM autoshow fairy tales.
Posted by: Richard C | Sep 10, 2007 1:25:03 PM
@ jack :
When Germans say "Ich kenne meine Pappenheimer" it means they know very well the way some people behave (Pappenheim is a city, a "Pappenheimer" is an inhabitant of this city). Rafael was of course referring to the marketing guys. According to Wikipedia here is the origin of this colloquialism (see "Legacy") :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Heinrich_Graf_zu_Pappenheim
Posted by: François | Sep 10, 2007 1:27:02 PM
Time for GM to put the 2-Mode Hybrid in car soon.
Benz showcased Hybrid S-300 with V4 Diesel engine.
Today Oil prices have set a record closing price of $77.49 (earlier high was $77.03 a month ago).
Time for market to move into Hybrids, otherwise everyone will be losing the market share.
Posted by: Max Reid | Sep 10, 2007 1:28:10 PM
@ Jack -
"I know my Pappenheimers" is based on a quote from Schiller's "Death of Wallenstein", set in the Thirty Years War. In it, a loyal cavalry detachment from the city of Pappenheim arrives to ask Wallenstein if rumors of negotiation with Sweden are true.
Today, this popular German ideom has a very different meaning, roughly "I know a bull#### artist when I see one."
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 10, 2007 1:40:21 PM
The problem is we have no standard way of assessing PHEvs.
There are many good ideas here - small displacement diesel engine used as a generator for instance.
Personally I would leave the segways behind - what were they smoking when they came up with that ?
So we need a PHEV test - perhaps some of the good people of this blog could suggest one - but it is very tricky due to the mix of short and long runs, and the frequency of charging.
For the carbon content of the electric power, you could just use the European or US average and leave it at that.
Then just measure (say) a set of journeys as follows:
3x 10 miles, 3 x 20 miles, 3 x 40 miles, 3 x 80 miles, 3 x 160 miles.
[ or equivalent in KM ]
And average it, or provide the average of the 10+20s and the 80+ 160s as well as the global average.
A good test could sort out a lot of arm waving.
Then you have cost - of the vehicle and battery replacement.
Again, you might be better with a stop/start system which is cheap enough that people can actually buy it - and people can sell it at a profit.
We are basically waiting for the right batteries, or as Beckett put it - waiting for Litho.
Posted by: mahonj | Sep 10, 2007 2:09:28 PM
BMW_4_ever, good point about concept cars. What in the hell is the point of showing a car that will never see the light of day?
GM, MAKE THIS HAPPEN. I'D BUY THE OPEL IN THE U.S. OVER THE VOLT BUT AT THIS POINT WILL BUY THE FIRST TO MARKET.
Posted by: Big Fan | Sep 10, 2007 2:10:50 PM
@Rafael:
I use to buy computer equipment for a company and I wore a tie that had a very nice design down the middle. When I would listen to a sale presentation and I didn't believe all I hear I would turn the tie sideways so the salesman could read that the design read "Bulls..t." I didn't show it to anyone else but the salesman but I observed that over time the word was out and very few of them made statements they couldn't back up.
Posted by: Lad | Sep 10, 2007 2:11:47 PM
Seem like this car is more Baron Munchausen than Gottfried zu Pappenheim.
Posted by: DS | Sep 10, 2007 2:29:52 PM
PHEV fuel economy could be listed as follows:
50km + 5.7l/100km or
30miles + 40mpg
Where the first figure is the all-electric range down to 30% of battery capacity (a distance that doesn't put undue wear and tear on the battery). The second number would be the standard mileage of the car based on HEV operations.
Posted by: Neil | Sep 10, 2007 2:39:50 PM
@ Rafael:
"the portion driven on grid electricity may have been maximized for marketing purposes by starting with a fully charged battery and deep discharging it. Such abuse will severely shorten its life expectancy. Unless you want to buy a shiny new battery pack every other year, real-world range on grid electricity will almost certainly have to be less than what is claimed."
I know I'm coming across as a total GM/PHEV fanboy in my posts, but the stuff that has been leaked so far indicates that GM's system only discharges the 16kWh pack to 50%DOD. So if 8kWh is sufficient for 34-40 miles, let's do the math:
40/8= 5 miles per kWh for the Volt concept
34/8= 4.25 miles per kWh for the Flexstreme
If you look at Volvo's projected 62 mile range for the ReCharge 12kWh pack:
62/12=5.16 miles per kWh
Now let's compare that with some real world data from pure EVs:
The gen2 NiMH EV1 got 150 miles max with a 26.4kWh pack:
150/26.4=5.68 miles per kWh
The Tesla roadster gets 200 miles with a *really* heavy 990 pound 53kWh pack:
200/53=3.77 miles per kWh
The manufacturers all seem to be using roughly the same efficiency formulas, so the 34-40 mile range at 50% DOD really doesn't seem too far fetched. Using only partial discharges will help extend battery life, but then there's also the cost and weight issue. However, if the pack lives up to A123's claim that it will do 7000 cycles under *optimum* conditions, that's still a distance of...7000*34= 238,000 miles.
Posted by: | Sep 10, 2007 3:01:08 PM
Sorry, last comment was mine. Forgot to sign it.
Posted by: AES | Sep 10, 2007 3:05:12 PM
How often do concepts live up to their initial claims? How often do a combination of claims come to fruition?
Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 3:06:21 PM
Not bad. Build it.
Lose the segways and get that 0 to 60 time up.
Posted by: Elliot | Sep 10, 2007 3:41:34 PM
"The Segways can be used in areas where cars cannot enter, thereby adding an extra mobility option"
Or you could walk, just as a novel mobility option.
Posted by: critta | Sep 10, 2007 3:48:09 PM
Or you could walk, just as a novel mobility option.
Good one.
Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 4:12:37 PM
I'm falling behind, I'm still waiting for a Wankel!!!
Posted by: Mark | Sep 10, 2007 4:54:42 PM
Biking is also good. But for those that live to far away from their point B of necessity why can't they drive a PHEV?
Posted by: Ben | Sep 10, 2007 4:58:48 PM
Biking is also good. But for those that live to far away from their point B of necessity why can't they drive a PHEV?
The reference was to a Segway, Benji. Please don't speak if you're not paying attention.
Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 5:03:56 PM
Beyond the whole miles/kWh issue, here's my two cents on this E-Flex variant:
The 136kW battery pack is equivalent to about 182 horsepower. I don't know if the motor will be designed to handle this, but the Volt's motor was about 160hp. So is the electrical system different at all in the Opel?
Regardless, the range, acceleration and top speed are all lower.
In my estimation, this is probably because the diesel engine is heavier, and the efficiency of diesel has been mitigated by advanced emission controls mandated by Euro 5. So fat lot of good the advanced diesel technology has done for the overall equation.
That plus the dead weight of those...f'in segways (barely contained wrath).
Posted by: AES | Sep 10, 2007 5:13:32 PM
That plus the dead weight of those...f'in segways (barely contained wrath).
Reminds me a bit of the "Swiss Army Knife" design philosophy of the Aztek.
Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 5:18:21 PM
A very aesthetically pleasing design, much more so than the GM Volt. Congratulation, GM!
However, please take the following quote with "a grain of salt", (as Rafael has eloquently stated so).
Quote from the article: "Based on the current European test procedure ECE R101 for range extender vehicles, GM expects the Flextreme to emit less than 40 g CO2/km in combustion mode."
80g CO2 /km is pushing it, which is equivalent to >60 mpg. 40gm CO2/km (>120 mpg) is pure hype!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 10, 2007 5:20:50 PM
The only gCO2/km number that would have any meaning would be for the vehicle operating in HEV mode once the batter is run down. Prior to that CO2 and other pollutants strictly depend on the power source. If you're in France it would be almost zero CO2. (but you'd have to calculate the rads/km)
Posted by: Neil | Sep 10, 2007 5:47:28 PM
Or you could walk, just as a novel mobility option.
Of course you could walk, but with Segway, thank God, you don't have to.
Posted by: Hal | Sep 10, 2007 5:50:35 PM
@ Neil:
"The only gCO2/km number that would have any meaning would be for the vehicle operating in HEV mode once the battery is run down."
And from the article:
"less than 40 g CO2/km in combustion mode."
Hence, combustion mode seems mean the same as HEV mode.
I don't know the details of the ECE R101 protocol (anyone have a link to it?), so for the moment I don't have any objections to Roger and Rafael's incredulity over 40gm/km. But I will agree with them and Neil that "miles per gallon" is starting to become a rather murky concept.
Posted by: AES | Sep 10, 2007 5:56:58 PM
Of course you could walk, but with Segway, thank God, you don't have to.
I know. And one day, thank God, computers will be so smart we won't have to bother using our own brains, either.
Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 5:57:25 PM
But I will agree with them and Neil that "miles per gallon" is starting to become a rather murky concept.
That's why I prefer BTU per passenger-km as well as the best lifcycle emissions per unit of work (in this case, per passenger-km). Using metrics such as "mpg" to describe what's really going on with vehicles like PHEVs is only useful if your only concern is petroleum dependence -- and even then it's not that useful.
Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 6:00:07 PM
@ AES -
I have no *proof* that either GM or Volvo are cooking the numbers, so I'm not making a hard accusation. I'm just warning people to double-check their respective claims.
You proposed one method, let me suggest another. I'll use the Volvo ReCharge as an example because I have its numbers in my head.
Fuel economy in NEDC once ICE is active: 2.8L/50km = 5.6L/100km
1L gasoline = ~8.75kWh
Tank-to-wheels efficiency estimate: ~0.24
kWh/100km at the tread: ~12
Now, when the vehicle is running on grid power alone, it will need to deliver the same kWh/100km at the tread. It'll just take them from a different source.
Battery-to-wheels efficiency: ~0.95*0.93*0.85 = 0.75
Battery capacity: 12kWh
Est. range on grid electricity:
100% delta SOC, damages battery: ~12*0.75/12 * 100 = ~75km
95% down to 30% SOC: ~50km
Note that I've adjusted the battery charge/discharge efficiency upward to 0.95 after our exchange yesterday. Even so, Volvo's claim of 100km in the NEDC on grid electricity alone appears to be rather optimistic. However, there's really no need for them to shoot for the moon: even the lower number of 50km (30mi) off grid electricity alone would be very useful for daily commuting.
Finally, consider this: maybe - just maybe - the EV1 program was cancelled precisely because someone figured out late in the game that the NiMH batteries used would not in fact last very long at all, given that the high range per charge event advertised to customers implied fairly aggressive deep cycling.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 10, 2007 6:00:48 PM
GM is folding some of the Opel design work into their Saturn sport car line - SKY. This design looks like the greener extension of that. VOLT is scheduled for a 2010 introduction (road testing has begun) - I suspect this will be a year later to the sales floor. All in all another good move by the company we love to hate.
Posted by: gr | Sep 10, 2007 6:11:50 PM
Wait, the GM actually closed down the EV1 because of engineering problems? But the conspiracy theories sound so good!
Posted by: Ben | Sep 10, 2007 6:33:59 PM
And remember, walking is for the unemployed.
Posted by: Craig Bartle | Sep 10, 2007 7:03:36 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the PHEV concept makes for a kinda complicated, high initial cost, high maintenance cost vehicle? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a small BEV commuter vehicle and use a separate, high-mileage (say clean diesel micro-hybrid) vehicle for road trips? Here in the USA, families own multiple vehicles by default, almost. Why drag that genset around all the time? A BEV commuter could be much lighter and almost maintenance free.
Posted by: Nick | Sep 10, 2007 7:18:21 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the PHEV concept makes for a kinda complicated, high initial cost, high maintenance cost vehicle? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a small BEV commuter vehicle and use a separate, high-mileage (say clean diesel micro-hybrid) vehicle for road trips? Here in the USA, families own multiple vehicles by default, almost. Why drag that genset around all the time? A BEV commuter could be much lighter and almost maintenance free.
Careful, Nick -- don't start suggesting ideas which don't just involve building a better mousetrap. Next thing you know people might think of how to lure the mouse out of the house. Remember - one vehicle must deal with all potential situations, just like the Pontiac Aztek. ;)
Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 7:51:08 PM
I wish they would forget about diesel & gasoline unless
it's biodiesel. I want us weaned from M.E. oil as soon
as possible. I prefer ethanol. After all, if it's a
plug-in, you don't have to worry as much about how much
less mpg you get per gallon. If you're a commuter, it's all electric. Most of my mileage is to work and back, a
total of 21m. I can spend a little extra for the long trips. We need to focus on setting up the infrastructure
for dispensing ethanol now.
Posted by: swen | Sep 10, 2007 8:08:48 PM
I could care less. GM is grand at displaying a lot of "vapor cars". Either ship one or more of those vapor cars or pack it in. All of you should be ashamed of yourselves for gushing at this obvious visual snake oil that GM keeps selling. What good is innovation if it doesn't make the car lot?
Posted by: Gerald Shields | Sep 10, 2007 8:31:33 PM
Remember when GM came out with the "skateboard" car design concept.
Posted by: Ben | Sep 10, 2007 9:15:41 PM
@ Raf-
My calculations were intended to show that the range provided by 50-70% DOD of these concept battery packs fits within reasonable efficiency ranges exemplified by other technologies that are reasonably well-documented. Thus, the misconception that was evident in the beginning should be cleared up:
"the portion driven on grid electricity may have been maximized for marketing purposes by starting with a fully charged battery and deep discharging it"
Thus implying that volt/flextreme systems require the full 16kWh to travel 40 miles - even with my cruder math that's 2.5 miles/kWh. Which is rather horrible, yet obviously not the case.
Adjusting your final data for the ReCharge with my simpler method yields:
70% DOD of 12kWh pack from 95% SOC is about 7.8kWh. The range achieved by this power, taking into Raf's calculations for transmission losses, is about 30 miles. So 30/7.8= ~3.84 miles per kWh. Still fairly reasonable compared to established real world data.
Even with that pessimistic efficiency as an assumption for all PHEV's, that would give a deep discharge range of 60 miles for the eflex. Which would be a bad idea obviously...
Posted by: AES | Sep 10, 2007 9:52:21 PM
will the engine not run like a generator and so run at a very high efficiency?
i think we are more likely in the range of 4l/100km then around 5.5l/100km
Posted by: itsme | Sep 11, 2007 12:33:26 AM
Remember the Daihatsu UFE-III concept, which looked a fair bit like the Flextreme, managed a cool 34 g/km CO2 (170 mpg US) in "combustion mode" only, and that was with a gasoline engine.
http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/tokyo05/ufe3/index.html
Perhaps they really do have a car capable of 40 g/km "in combustion mode"?
Posted by: clett | Sep 11, 2007 1:59:59 AM
@ Nick
I agree completely. There must be thousands like my wife and I, in broad terms: She has a 5 mile commute (she now goes by bicycle or bus, but when we get kids it might be nice with a car) and mine is 55 miles. We could do wonderfully with a short range BEV plus an efficient all-diesel car for my commute, which takes place at 60-80 mph all the time. This all-diesel would then also serve as "family-car" for long trips to family, etc.
I see now that I have written almost exactly the same as you... I gues that just goes to show that we agree.
Posted by: Thomas | Sep 11, 2007 2:23:17 AM
Unless this thread has played its course (which I doubt), someone is bound to mention the battery weight issue without actually citing some numbers, so here are some for us to play around with and get the discussion rolling:
The expected specific energy for "safe" lithium ion tech is somewhere around (or above) 110 Wh/kg. That's what the consumer li-ion cells in my cordless drill are rated at. Assuming no improvements are made above 110, and they are built into a 16kWh pack:
16,000 watt-hours / 110 Wh/kg = 145kg, or 320 pounds.
The associated systems (liquid cooling, impact protection, power management) will add some weight, of course.
If you scale the specific energy up to the theoretical maximum of LiFePO4 chemistry, which is about 140Wh/kg, you get 114 kg, or 251 pounds. So about the weight of an extra passenger (in America).
Posted by: AES | Sep 11, 2007 2:27:19 AM
GM, Renault, Toyota, Volvo, Ford, Honda, etc., enjoy showing us how they could mas produce a vehicle to cut CO2, air pollution and fuel consumption by 75% and more.
Why don't they do it?
So far, only Toyota has managed to mass produce a vehicle (Prius II and Prius III next year) to reduce GHG and consumption by almost 50%.
All others are vapourcars.
Posted by: Harvey D | Sep 11, 2007 6:54:47 AM
So far, only Toyota has managed to mass produce a vehicle (Prius II and Prius III next year) to reduce GHG and consumption by almost 50%. All others are vapourcars.
Civic Hybrid, Insight, Camry Hybrid, Escape Hybrid, etc.
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 7:17:41 AM
I could just use biodeisel and electricity.
GM nice car! Produce that sucker!
I disagree with Rafael. He has some good calculations that miss the point.
1. There are many studies showing that CO2 is lowered for PHEVs and EVs using grid power, even when coal is the source. It's easier to reduce carbon output from a fixed source. Wind, solar, waves, tidal, geothermal, and nuclear will be supplying more of our electric power in the future, so the lowered CO2 argument for PHEVs will get stronger. Build PHEVs and EVs for the future not more efficient ICEs for the past.
(Besides oil is getting expensive and electricity will be getting cheaper in the future.)
2. In addition to what AES has written, average daily driving in the USA is between 20 and 30 miles, typically to a destination and back. Many drivers will drive only half the available range and some of others could recharge at their destination. Average driving distance in Europe is about half what it is in the USA.
Deep cycle testing for some newer batteries:
Altainano 15,000 cycles @85% 41 years, daily charge
A123 3,700+ cycles @ 87% 10 years, daily charge
Lithium Tech 3,000 cycles @ 80%, 9 years, daily chg
ABT 4,000 cycles @ ?% 10 years, daily charge
MHI 3,500 cycles @ ?% 10 years, daily charge
Most of other Li Ion products and all of NiMH and Pb Acid products are not as good.
Nilar NiMH 2,000 cycles @ ?% 5 years, daily charge
FireFly Pb Acid 2,000 cycles? @ ?% 5 years, daily chg
Axion Pb Acid 1,600 cycles @ ?% 3 years, daily charge
Nick,
Maybe GM should produce gen set as an option. That way you can get what you want and I can still get a full range capable car without owning two.
Posted by: mds | Sep 11, 2007 7:25:20 AM
Characterization of PHEV mileage performance is easy:
1. All-electric range.
2. MPG after all-electric range
(a) city
(b) hwy
Second part is similar to current HEV ratings. If second part is even close to current HEVs, then a PHEV will easily way outperform any HEV for most peoples driving. Obviously a PHEV will tend to approach the second (HEV type) rating for very long distances without recharging.
Posted by: mds | Sep 11, 2007 7:36:39 AM
Build PHEVs and EVs for the future not more efficient ICEs for the past.
EVs are 19th Century technology.
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 7:40:21 AM
Maybe, but internal combustion is sooo last century....
Posted by: clett | Sep 11, 2007 8:02:07 AM
When all these companies (or heck, one of these companies) and people stop talking and start shipping, then maybe we can start having more than "my theory is prettier than your theory" exchanges.
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 8:11:16 AM
mds: re performance ratings: Check earlier posts. Nice of you to agree :)
Posted by: Neil | Sep 11, 2007 8:40:55 AM
Nick & Thomas,
I think you are both on to something. It should be possible to make a modestly-priced BEV with the same battery technology being touted in the powerful high-end HEV concepts being shown in Frankfurt. The BMWs and Mercedes two-mode hybrids will probably start well above $50k. The GM E-Flex won't be cheap either. If there's a market for a simple short-range BEV (I think there is) it seems the established auto companies aren't interested.
Disruptive technologies present opportunities for new companies to enter a market. The Chinese car companies would love to get into North American and Europe. A simple BEV may be their entry point. I hope GM and others don't surrender that market the way they surrendered the small car market.
Posted by: JamesEE | Sep 11, 2007 8:43:52 AM
jack,
EVs are 19th century concept, but current PHEV and EV designs are using 21st century battery and electric motor technology.
Gasoline was a waste product from refining kerosene back then. Now electricity is cheaper power than gasoline by roughly a factor of three.
"that was then, this is now"
Posted by: mds | Sep 11, 2007 9:19:31 AM
Until China builds clean power plants and subscribes to global human rights issues - they deserve no markets in NA or EU.
Posted by: sulleny | Sep 11, 2007 9:20:48 AM
Until the United States builds clean power plants and abides by human rights law - they deserve no markets anywhere.
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 10:11:17 AM
sulleny,
Be careful. USA is by far the worse polluting nation. Have you stopped buying American goods?
Posted by: Harvey D | Sep 11, 2007 10:12:03 AM
Rafael,
I'm detecting a distinct ICE bias in your posts of late ;-) I'm going to have to read your posts more carefully as I have usually relied upon them for factual accuracy...
Michael
Posted by: Michael | Sep 11, 2007 10:14:03 AM
EVs are 19th century concept, but current PHEV and EV designs are using 21st century battery and electric motor technology.
One could say the same thing about ICEs and HEVs.
Now electricity is cheaper power than gasoline by roughly a factor of three.
About 2 1/4, ignoring the cost of the batteries. Electricity costs in the United States are growing by double digits the past two years.
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 11:36:24 AM
Harvey D: "USA is by far the worst polluting nation."
Umm, Not so fast.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/06/20/international/i133226D65.DTL&hw=china&sn=002&sc=881
Posted by: Joseph | Sep 11, 2007 11:51:36 AM
Umm, Not so fast.
US - 300 million people
China - 1,300 million people
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 12:03:52 PM
Finally, consider this: maybe - just maybe - the EV1 program was cancelled precisely because someone figured out late in the game that the NiMH batteries used would not in fact last very long at all, given that the high range per charge event advertised to customers implied fairly aggressive deep cycling.
RAV4-EV NiMH batteries last 100k+ miles even at high DoD. It was the original lead-acid EV1 that had short battery life. That's why GM did 2 year leases. They expected next-gen batteries to solve their problems. NiMH did solve the biggest problems, but at prohibitive cost. The NiMH pack alone cost more to make than an entire gasoline car of similar size and performance. That's what really killed the EV1 (and RAV4-EV).
I agree the 40 g/km number "in combustion mode" is wacko. Nothing in this car's design (or EV-only range, for that matter) is consistent with 150+ MPG. It's gotta be a blended number that someone incorrectly attributed to combustion mode.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Sep 11, 2007 12:21:04 PM
@AES: ECE R101 seems to be just a fancy name (the standards document, where the cycle is nowadays documented in detail) for the NEDC (which we all know to be not realistic in any way). Also, there is no "NEDC for range extender vehicles" as there are not even proper test procedures for Hybrids or PHEVs defined as of Sept'2007.
The only interesting data I can contribute in this context I found in a DCX presentation I attended last week, and they were quoting the current proposal for the upcoming ZEV mandate from CARB, which is currently in review:
Quote (comments in []):
"ZEV legislation demands of a Plug-In Hybrid:
* Possibility to charge the battery by an external source (grid)
* Minimum electrical range of >10 miles [16 km] zero emission Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in US City Cycle (UDDS) [much better reflecting real-world driving patterns than NEDC]
* Warranty for all emission-relevant components: 15 years or 150 000 miles [240 000 km] (except ZEV energy storage)
* Battery warranty of 10 years [no limit on miles!]
* PHEV have to keep the SULEV-limitations (Zero-Evaporability) for 150 000 miles
* Control of all emission related components and systems in the vehicle. Mal-functions [sic] have to be stored and signalized via a warning light to the driver (On-Board Diagnostic; OBD) for 150 000 miles
To receive silver ZEV-credits the minimum all-electric range has to be at least 10 miles"
So, if that mandate get's passed, we as consumers don't have to worry about battery replacements during the entire life of the vehicle (10 years) at all...
Also, the european commission will soon look at the NEDC and probably with EURO6, a new testing cycle will be proposed better reflecting european real live driving style (ie. more aggressive acceleration, braking and higher speed highway driving).
Posted by: realarms | Sep 11, 2007 1:58:57 PM
"One could say the same thing about ICEs and HEVs."
Yes, so? So now we're way off point.
OK, I'll conceded to 2 1/4. My point still holds. Electric transportation has started to replace the fuel transportation. This will accelerate because the price advantage will increase. Rise in electrical prices will reverse in the future. Why? There are multiple sources, already mentioned, and many of these will continue to drop in price. This is particularly true for solar. There's a lot of energy out there. We're just at a transitional point right now.
Posted by: mds | Sep 11, 2007 2:06:25 PM
Yes, so? So now we're way off point.
I'm way off point now that I've shown that your distinction wasn't real? EVs go back to the 19th Century, as do ICEs. Both now use 21st Century innovations which make them far better than they originally were. No difference.
OK, I'll conceded to 2 1/4. My point still holds. Electric transportation has started to replace the fuel transportation.
It has? Where? How many non-NEV EVs were sold and placed into use in the past 12 months? How many ICEs?
This will accelerate because the price advantage will increase. Rise in electrical prices will reverse in the future. Why? There are multiple sources, already mentioned, and many of these will continue to drop in price. This is particularly true for solar. There's a lot of energy out there. We're just at a transitional point right now.
If someone were brilliant enough to predict prices accurately out 10 or 20 years, they'd be very wealthy. Economics is one of those areas where it's simply too complex and we simply understand too little to be able to make accurate projections like the one you're making. What we can do is look at near-term trends and clearly EV economics are still a long, long way from being competitive with conventional vehicles. By the time battery technology and/or hydrogen/fuel cell technology has become solid, some whole other thing could pop up and change the discussion.
Happens all the time.
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 2:32:17 PM
realarms: "[no limit on miles!]" ... are they nuts! Short of the very expensive Altair battery you aren't likely to see a battery that can stand up to 10 years unlimited use anytime soon. With a daily deep cycle the A123s and their like would only last about 10 years. That's like too close for a guarantee. All they'll manage to do is discourage EVs with that kind or requirement.
Posted by: Neil | Sep 11, 2007 5:31:10 PM
jack,
Distinction is real because balance of economic value is changing. Your reference to 19th century is just a distraction.
"...in the past 12 months?"
I'm talking about future trends, not past. There are quite a few pre-sales for the Tesla Roadster, but this is just one start. Look at price/performance compared to EV1 only 10 or 15 years ago. Consider that most of battery tech I listed above has not come to the market yet.
Your right again that I can't predict out 10 or 20 years with certainty. I'm not trying to make a prediction. I'm talking about visible trends. Wind, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal, and maybe nuclear are all dropping in price. For solar this will be a radical drop. Can't miss. Too many competing approaches. My view is near term economics for PHEVs are just about here. Large scale production of new battery technologies listed above, reduced cost electricity, and continued high fossil fuel prices will all contribute to improve PHEV economics. I don't know how long after this full EVs will make economic sense, but I'd wadger not long. It is true something else could come along to change this, but what is on the table now strongly suggests a clear path to electric transportation to me.
Posted by: mds | Sep 11, 2007 6:04:43 PM
Neil,
I had the same reaction. 10 years warranty is extreme right now for guarantee, except for Altairnano. Bureaucratic attempt to torpedo by requiring too much? Gee, what is past history of CARB? Somebody on Altairnano board? No matter. Technology is here and will continue to gain ground.
Posted by: mds | Sep 11, 2007 6:19:04 PM
Your reference to 19th century is just a distraction.
To remind you, you were the one who breached that notion:
"Build PHEVs and EVs for the future not more efficient ICEs for the past."
If it's a distraction, you're the distractor. Let's keep that straight.
I'm talking about future trends, not past. There are quite a few pre-sales for the Tesla Roadster, but this is just one start. Look at price/performance compared to EV1 only 10 or 15 years ago. Consider that most of battery tech I listed above has not come to the market yet.
All of which is speculative until it gets used in the real world. Take a look at HEVs, for example. Produced by major auto producers, starting 10 years ago. In most of the developed world, fuel prices have been quite high, even when oil went for $10/bbl. Most people would consider the growth in sales of HEVs to be remarkable, yet what degree of market share do they have in terms of global sales? 1%? Less?
Compare that to EVs which, realistically, aren't really for sale and usable at this point (though this will change soon). Add to that the price premium for such vehicles is extreme compared to an HEV premium. Run that through and then it becomes fairly clear that even under optimistic projecting, BEVs and PHEVs are going to have a long road ahead. Meanwhile, all sorts of things can change which would influence that trajectory -- some which we can anticipate or consider possible (like lower oil prices), some that we can't (like breakthrough technologies).
Wind, solar, wave, tidal, geothermal, and maybe nuclear are all dropping in price. For solar this will be a radical drop. Can't miss.
Of course it can miss. We've seen inflation, not deflation, with PV prices the past two years because of high demand and raw material scarcity. Regulatory roadblocks have put some stall to wind in the US, and the other three renewables really aren't anywhere near primetime, either in capability or cost. Nuclear prices aren't going down. Plus with solar, most of the cost improvement curve has been traveled already. Non-subsidy PV systems (panels only) for average US conditions are maybe 12 cents per kWh at this point. Double the efficiency of the average panel to 25% at constant cost, and now that goes to maybe 8 or 9 cents (because of financing costs). It'll be a long time, if ever, before it reaches utility-grade cost levels of hydro and coal, which can be from 2-3 cents per kWh. That's not a strike against solar, but I would never bet on residential electricity prices to actually start dropping to any substantial degree, and I expect the exact opposite for quite some time because of the high reliance on natural gas in this country for peak and/or distributed power.
My view is near term economics for PHEVs are just about here.
Not even close. Optimistic payback periods are still in the 300-400K mile range.
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 6:41:28 PM
man, you guys are lame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
when it's ready it will happen.
Posted by: mark | Sep 11, 2007 7:15:26 PM
man, you guys are lame!!!!!!!!!!!!!!when it's ready it will happen.
On a site devoted to covering a great deal of research in progress. Irony delights.
Posted by: jack | Sep 11, 2007 7:52:11 PM
Sad that we live in a day and age where cowardice would lead us to "alternatives" rather than proven oil energy sources that our forefathers would have gladly fought a bunch of islamics to get.
Posted by: LatteLiberal | Sep 12, 2007 2:44:49 AM
It's sad that we live in a day where some would rather murder hundreds of thousands of humans and pollute our environment rather than take some initiative and create a better world.
Also, it's too bad "LatteLiberal" is too big a coward to use his actual name on his comment.
Posted by: Domenick | Sep 12, 2007 5:28:37 AM
Just in case anyone else is still looking for the figures on g CO2 per km...
Total Range (715 km) less given Electric Range (55 km) makes 660 diesel based km from a tank of 26 Litre.
epa gives 10186 g CO2 per US Gallon
given 3.7854 Litres/US gallon :-
After battery discharge
grams CO2 per km is :-
10186 (g/gallon) * 6.8685 (gallonspertank) / 660 (km) = 106 g/km CO2
(equivalent to 4l/100km)
Link to Tank size:
http://www.netherlandscorporatenews.com/archive/en/2007/09/10/l009.htm
Link to epa on CO2 gramms per US gallon:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/420f05001.htm#calculating
This topic has generated a lot of interest, but the 40g/km media-bite will lead to dissappointment.
IMO 40g/km is going to need a breakthrough/new direction in overall vehicle weight (such a fundamental topic) combined with everything else.
Thanks to Rafael - good contributions as ever !
Posted by: Rob Weir | Sep 12, 2007 5:33:52 AM
..almost 15 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-TLYJyc5qM
Posted by: michel | Sep 12, 2007 9:46:07 AM
Thanks Michel,
That's really ahead of it's time. The cheap oil during the 90's killed all those ideas.
Posted by: MH | Sep 12, 2007 2:21:20 PM
jack,
Sorry, busy with real work.
'Build PHEVs and EVs for the future, not more efficient ICEs for the past' was a reference to our recent past not the turn of the last century. You brought that up. This really a lame nit-pick issue to me.
Yes, I'm speculating on the future of PHEVs and EVs, where you are being very conservative. You will believe it is happening after it is obvious to anyone. HEVs and EVs have not been adopted by the third world because of cost as you say, but this is changing. China and India are adopting electric transportation in the form of electric bikes and scooters. Both are starting to produce small EVs (NEVs). As production of new battery technology begins to hit the market and the cost advantage improves, this will accelerate.
Look at the Prius for example. I purchased mine at the end of 2005. It did not make economic sense at that time and still does not. The third generation Prius due at the beginning of 2009 is likely to change this. Toyota will reduce the cost and increase the mpg. Your gas savings will be for the marginal increase in price.
This will happen to PHEVs next. Large scale production of new technology batteries will reduce their price until it makes more economic sense to drive electric.
You're saying we're not there yet. I'm saying that's about to change. We're right on the cusp.
When you start to see a noticeable economic advantage we'll see geometric growth for 3rd world electric transportation, for better HEVs, and then for PHEVs. It will happen fast. No breakthroughs are required, just production scale up of existing technology. (Although batteries are likely to continue improving given the combination of anode/cathode chemistry work going on and the potential profits involved.)
There's a reason every car company out there is working on a PHEV design.
I'm not sure on nuclear, but wind will continue to grow and become more cost effective. It may not grow quite as fast.
"...the other three renewables really aren't anywhere near primetime, either in capability or cost"
You might say this about tidal, but you're way off on wave and geothermal. Wave power is more cost effective than wind in some areas and there are several very robust and mature designs. (West coast of USA is one of those areas.) Geothermal plants keep going in on a regular basis. Why is the Bank of Iceland (think that's the right name) putting $1 billion over 5 years into USA geothermal? Think those bankers want to lose money?
The only reason solar has been increasing in price is that demand has exceeded supply. The silicon shortage won't last. It's just produced from sand. 'You just have to build more production plants.' You can only purchase purified silicon at 2 or 3 times the 2004 production cost right now, if you have a long term contract with a supplier. (That's 100% to 200% profit for the supplier.) If you don't have a long term contract the price is higher. With these profit margins billions are being invested in new production capacity AND there are at least three new approaches of producing purified silicon at a lower cost. When supply catches up with demand, the cost will drop well below 2004 prices. Purified silicon will be cheaper than ever before.
The cost of silicon PV modules should be going up more, but a lot of silicon PV cell production is now being done using less raw silicon than ever before.
Combine lower raw silicon cost with less needed for PV cell production and prices are going to drop.
"Plus with solar, most of the cost improvement curve has been traveled already."
To steal your phrase: Not even close. All three forms of solar: CST, CPV, and PV can be produced and installed profitably at prices below peak power rates. All three are still dropping in price. They are dropping much faster than a thirty year price curve would lead you to believe. You can't see this right now because demand is too high.
In the near term you are probably right, electricity prices will go up. This is just because scaling up to the required level of production takes time. ...BUT there are several viable technologies ready now, there is a lot of exploitable power out there, production will catch-up with demand eventually, and the finally price will come down ..below what it is now.
Admittedly, I'm a "techno-optimist". I think you're way more cautious. You are well argued. It's nice to debate this with you. Take the last word dude.
Posted by: mds | Sep 12, 2007 7:37:57 PM
Believe we need to accept that no one individual source of energy will solve all issues for all places. I live where hydro-electric still is the primary source of electricity (and the largest producer of bio-diesel in the US is located), so a PHEV-diesel option has prime. Others may better require ethonol or other solutions. Others live where solar is an avialable resource. Certainly Nuclear is another source.
Figuring out a workable platform for a PHEV with interchangeable alternative sources (for the "generator") seems where the succesful companies will be able to build a car type to solve most people's needs. Similarly are the battery choices as indicated by others. Where most don't talk about the benefit of a PHEV over today's gasoline engine is the maintenance costs (absent batteries) which are virtually non-existent for the electric vehicles.
I'm glad to see so many EV upstart companies as I'm too much of a synic when it comes to our friends in the White House and our friends running the oil companies having far too much control over what the GMs, Fords(Volvo), etc. of the world do. I certainly don't believe they are simply providing us "smoke and mirrors" at the car shows in hopes we may stay a tad longer and fall in love with the present Impala they have to offer us...
In the meantime, I read about Peugeot's vehicle for 2010, the Mistubishi iMiEV and others and believe we ought not be caring so much about form, but rather function. No vehicle will be perfect for all, more solutions require sacrafices (including ugly solar panels on our roofs to charge our PHEVs) and we can learn to live with things in a better way, but just different.
Posted by: Steve | Sep 17, 2007 2:20:46 PM
