Green Car Congress: Volvo To Show Flex-Fuel Plug-In Hybrid Concept at Frankfurt

« Virent Lands $21M in Financing | Main | Top US Exec for Toyota Heads to Chrysler »

Volvo To Show Flex-Fuel Plug-In Hybrid Concept at Frankfurt

6 September 2007

The Volvo ReCharge Concept plug-in hybrid.

Volvo Cars will introduce the Volvo ReCharge Concept, a plug-in series hybrid with a grid-rechargeable 12 kWh lithium-polymer battery pack and individual electric wheel motors, at the Frankfurt Motor Show.

Based on the Volvo C30, the ReCharge supports a 100 km (62 mile) battery-powered range before the four-cylinder 1.6-liter flex-fuel engine kicks in to power the car and recharge the battery. When driving beyond the 100 km battery range, fuel consumption may vary from 0 to 5.5 liters per 100 km (43 mpg US at full liquid fuel consumption) depending on the distance driven using the engine.

The layout of the ReCharge. Click to enlarge.

For a 150 km (93 mile) drive starting with a full charge, the car will require less than 2.8 liters of fuel, giving the car an effective fuel economy of 1.9 l/100km (124 mpg US for that range).

The combustion engine starts up automatically when the battery pack reaches a 30% state of charge. The driver also has the option of controlling the four-cylinder Flexifuel engine manually via a button in the instrument panel. This allows the driver to start the engine earlier in order to maximize battery charge, for instance when out on the highway in order to save battery capacity for driving through the next town.

A certain proportion of electrical vehicles will be necessary to meet the CO2 emission demands of the future. Since the Volvo ReCharge Concept combines an excellent battery range with a backup combustion engine, it is a very interesting concept.

This plug-in hybrid car, when used as intended, should have about 66 percent lower emissions of carbon dioxide compared with the best hybrid cars available on the market today. Emissions may be even lower if most of the electricity in intended markets comes from CO2-friendly sources such as biogas, hydropower and nuclear power.

—Magnus Jonsson, Senior Vice President Research and Development at Volvo Cars

The central electrical components in the Volvo ReCharge Concept demonstrator—the engine-powered generator and the wheel motors—were developed together with British electromagnetic specialists PML Flightlink. (Earlier post.)

With an individual electric motor at each wheel, weight distribution as well as mechanical efficiency and traction are maximized. The friction in mechanical gears is eliminated. Since the car does not have the transmission found in ordinary cars, there is no need for a gear lever. Power to each wheel is controlled individually. The ReCharge accelerates from 0-100 km/h in 9 seconds with a top speed of 160 km/h.

To help maximize the environmental benefits, the Volvo ReCharge Concept has high-efficiency tires developed by Michelin that are specially designed to accommodate the wheelmotors.

The energy that is generated during braking is transmitted to the battery pack. When the system is ultimately developed, traditional wheel brakes will be completely replaced by electrical brakes with minimal energy wasted through friction.

To ensure reliable operation of the drivetrain and braking system, driver inputs are fed into a quadruple-redundant electronic control system.

A full recharge of the battery pack takes 3 hours. A one-hour quick charge should provide enough charge for a 50 km drive (31 miles), according to Volvo.

The ReCharge Concept was developed at the Volvo Monitoring and Concept Center (VMCC), the Volvo Car Corporation’s think-tank in Camarillo, California.

September 6, 2007 in Plug-ins | Permalink | Comments (113) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/21387051

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Volvo To Show Flex-Fuel Plug-In Hybrid Concept at Frankfurt:

Comments

YES!!!!!!!!!
In-wheel motors are the way to go. I really hope they can bring this to market. I would much rather buy a car from Volvo than GM.
Congrats to PML Flightlink for getting a great new customer.

Posted by: Domenick | Sep 6, 2007 6:40:08 AM

The 62 mile battery only range is impressive. This car combined with the solar panels already on my roof would solve so many problems. EV's are so much fun.

As of today I have over 1400 miles on my electric motorcycle. www.zevutah.com

I would like to have a car like this for when the roads are full of snow and ice. The 4 wheel hub motors would make this a great winter car.

Posted by: KJD | Sep 6, 2007 6:49:58 AM

As being swedish I feel a bit proud and sense a hope for the future.
However I have a few questions:
-Can this car be driven or is it just a model?
-Which battery supplier, specs?
-Do they think they have a market for this vehicle in 2015? I mean that is 8 years from now...
That is too late, if Chevy can have production for customers in 2010 they gotta speed it up. By 2015 every carmaker will have specs like this.

Posted by: TheSwede | Sep 6, 2007 7:19:55 AM

"-Which battery supplier, specs?"

As Volvo chose the PML flightlink setup, it is likely they also used PML's battery pack from their mini, which was based on a stack of Kokam 70 Ah lithium-polymer cells.

That means they're using cobalt oxide based electrodes, which gives a nice 170 Wh/kg but also some danger of fire! The range wouldn't be a whole lot lower if they used safer 120 Wh/kg A123 cells.

Posted by: clett | Sep 6, 2007 7:36:09 AM

Emissions may be even lower if most of the electricity in intended markets comes from CO2-friendly sources such as biogas, hydropower and nuclear power.

Uh, solar? Wind?

Posted by: jack | Sep 6, 2007 7:52:28 AM

Go Volvo ! - Nice to see that more and more car-makers are seeing the plug-in hybrid light. I have a 60 mile commute so the 60 mi a charge will be perfect for me.
The question is can Volvo sell this car for less than 30K and can they get it to market in 2010?
If Chevy Volt beats them to market.. my money goes to Chevy.

Posted by: TheIcelander | Sep 6, 2007 7:53:11 AM

I really like the news that are coming out at the moment. First the plug-in Fisker car and now plug-in Volvo.

Clett this battery issue was my first thought as well. You are probably right and if you are that would mean it would be a while before we see a plug-in Volvo at the auto dealer. You simply can’t roll out 100 of thousands of cars with an instable battery. Tesla can use the cobalt lithium battery because they will only sell a few thousands cars so the likelihood of accidents is smaller. Fisker uses E-one moli LiMn2O4 and that has been used successfully in power tools for a year longer than A123 batteries. The rough environment of power tools is a good indication that they may also stand the tough environment for car use. To my knowledge no one has used cobalt batteries for power tools.

Posted by: Henrik | Sep 6, 2007 8:06:08 AM

The upcoming Chevrolet Volt sounds like a real competitor, but yesterday someone from GM began talking about the idea that they might have to LEASE the Volt's battery packs to buyers because folding the cost of the battery into the price of the car would make it too expensive for most people to afford. This doesn't sound like GM has solved one of the main obstacles to adoption of serial hybrids: the cost of a battery capable of supplying enough power to go, say, 50+ miles on a charge. I wonder what Volvo will have to price this ReCharge at. It probably won't be cheap.

Posted by: Dennis Webb | Sep 6, 2007 8:22:40 AM

What surprises me is the high fuel consumption for a series hybrid driving on fuel alone, especially with wheel motors. 5.5 liters/100 km (43 mpg) is too high. Il should be less than 3 liters/100 km (over 75 mpg). The Peugeot 308 Hybrid HDi is not a plug-in, neither a series hybrid and its consumption is 3.4 liters/100 km (68 mpg)!?

Posted by: PAL | Sep 6, 2007 8:29:18 AM

Too much range for current battery prices. I think Toyota's 8 mile range makes more sence. With Toyota's 8 miles you might get all your miles below 30 MPH from the grid a great step.

Posted by: JimO | Sep 6, 2007 8:29:26 AM

Viva la plug in hybrid. Great work. Now get it to market in half the estimated time. Please.

Posted by: chillpill | Sep 6, 2007 8:57:16 AM

Volvo C30 as it stands now (227hp 5 cylinder turbo with under 30mpg highway) would never be under consideration for me as a new car purchase.

Volvo C30 with this configuration would now be a car I consider, even if the price were raised by $7000 to $30,000.

Posted by: Patrick | Sep 6, 2007 9:21:49 AM

So, that 150km is really 100km on grid electricity plus 50km on 2.8L of gasoline. So how does that stack up against a regular drivetrain?

1. First off, it is IMHO *completely* misleading of Volvo to claim fuel economy of 1.9L/100km. Grid electricity needs to be generated, which in the *real* world produces CO2 emissions and/or radioactive waste. It also costs money.

True, the end-user price per km driven is much lower on gird electricity than it is on gasoline or diesel. For reference:

One liter of gasoline contains approx. 8.75 kWh of chemical energy, of which perhaps ~20% (1.75 kWh) actually makes it to the wheels. Note that this is an average over the whole duty cycle, because LDV engines are rarely operated anywhere near their lowest SFC. In e.g. Germany, gasoline costs ~EUR 1.25/liter, so that works out to ~0.70 EUR/kWh where the rubber meets the road.

For diesel, the numbers are: ~9.9 kWh/liter, of which ~25% (2.48 kWh) makes it to the wheels thanks to the inherently better thermodynamics. Fuel cost is ~EUR 1.10/liter, ergo ~0.44 EUR/kWh at the tread.

By contrast, 4000kWh of conventionally generated electricity will cost ~EUR 750 in e.g. Berlin. For each kWh, only ~60% would make it to the wheels of an EV, so that works out to ~0.31 EUR/kWh at the tread.

The numbers will no doubt vary substantially, depending on how you actually drive, where you live and, how your contract with your utility is stuctured. In particular, operating PHEV will mean you purchase a lot more electricity and most of it at night. This should give you some leverage to bring down the unit price. Still, Germany has some of the highest prices for both fuel and electricity in the world, so you should redo the calculation using data relevant to your personal situation.

Of course, if people were to switch to PHEVs/EVs in droves to take advantage of the differential, Europe's finance ministers would surely cook up a new tax to plug the resulting revenue hole in their budgets.

2. Second, that 100km range on a single grid charge is suspiciously high, even if based on the notoriously optimistic NEDC. Either the battery pack is gargantuan and therefore unaffordable or, the claim is based on a full battery pack that is deep discharged. Needless to say, that would compromise battery life expectancy. If you actually operated your battery pack that way on a regular basis, you could face a very expensive repair bill after just a few years on the road. This will overcompensate for any additional savings you've made because of the high range on grid electrcity per recharge event.

Ergo, if you want to minimize total cost of ownership, i.e. maximize total distance driven on grid electricity on the *original* battery pack, you have to mollycoddle it by maintaining its SOC between say, 30% and 80% of nominal capacity at all times. In other words, you may be down to just 50km on grid electricity alone before you have to hook the vehicle back up.

Now, if you could really drive the first 50km each day on grid electricity alone in a car you could actually afford, that would still be enough to do the school run, commute to work and run some errands in many metropolitan areas. Gasoline becomes a luxury for the weekend and vacation trips.

Note, however, that a regular European household circuit is rated at 220V and 16amps and can deliver ~3.5kWh per hour. When running on gasoline, this Volvo uses 2.8L for 50km. Based on the above assumptions, that translates to ~5kWh at the tread. Using grid electricity, you would need to ingest ~8.3kWh at the outlet for the same driving performance. Therefore, a charge time of ~2.5h will be required. I reckon Volvo's claim of a 1h recharge for 50km on grid electricity would require an industrial three-phase drop rated at 400V @ ~22 amps.

Unlike Toyota, Volvo sensibly put the socket in the front bumper so car parks could position their outlets at the end of each stall. In northern Scandinavia, regular 220V outlets are sometimes provided by car park operators to power on-board block heaters in winter. These keep engines and interiors warm and diesel fuel liquid enough to start the vehicle back up again. It is possible that these facilities already provide a dedicated circuit per outlet, not becuase of the power draw but to prevent a malfunction in any given vehicle from affecting any other.

Posted by: Rafael Seidl | Sep 6, 2007 9:51:34 AM

I might buy this, good work! Looks good at least, we'll see how it performs. I call for optional in-wheel motor colors!

Posted by: Elliot | Sep 6, 2007 10:09:31 AM

Rafael,

How do you get 60% electrical efficiency? Li-ion charges at >99% efficiency. Discharges at about 93%. The motor on average should be in the low 90s. So that's about 85% efficiency.

Posted by: David | Sep 6, 2007 10:45:39 AM

Rafael said
"The numbers will no doubt vary substantially, depending on how you
actually drive, where you live and, how your contract with your utility is stuctured. "

"so you should redo the calculation using data relevant to your personal situation."

OK that sounds like a good idea.
Here in SLC windpower costs 10 cents a kwh and gasoline costs 2.80 per gallon.

My electric motorcycle ( www.zevutah.com )uses 125 to 175 watts per mile depending on how fast I drive.
It seems reasonable that an electric car might use 350 to 400 watts per mile.
Homemade conversions on Austin EV often quote 300 to 400 watts per mile.
At 400 watts per mile that is 4 cents per mile. ( worst case and the Volvo should be much better )

My gas powered Subaru gets 22 miles per gallon and gas cost 2.80 per gallon.
That calcs out to about 12 or 13 cents per mile.

As they say Your Mileage may vary.

Posted by: KJD | Sep 6, 2007 10:56:34 AM

Maybe I should have used 43 mpg for the Volvo. That would be 2.80 / 43 mpg = 6.5 cents per mile.

So do you want to buy oil and pollute the air or do you want to by wind power and keep the air clean and save money?

Posted by: KJD | Sep 6, 2007 11:02:33 AM

The design is great but I always wonder why they can not put the electric motors on the back wheels and leave the ICE for the front, it would make for less craped space and a 4WD mode.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 6, 2007 11:08:52 AM

Electtrica is now available in UK for between 9000-12000 pounds.

http://www.futurevehicles.co.uk/elintro.aspx

Posted by: Dave Lazur | Sep 6, 2007 11:14:08 AM

oh wait never mind it does work like that (only reverse ICE power back wheels EM front), I love it!

Posted by: Ben | Sep 6, 2007 11:21:36 AM

Oh wait never mind its series hybrid, for the picture it looked like there was a transmission for the ICE.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 6, 2007 11:25:04 AM

Rafael: Yes the electric outlets in public carparks here in northern Sweden have dedicated outlets. Most of them have flip fuses in case the previous user has overcharged the fuse. Typical is 6 amp fuses @ 220 volts.

Posted by: TheSwede | Sep 6, 2007 11:27:47 AM

Looks like the Plug-in vehicle market is starting to get more interesting...Cool!

Posted by: Schmeltz | Sep 6, 2007 11:31:26 AM

I'd have the electric motors on the front wheels not the back. More weight transfer to the front when you stop and thus less regenerative braking can take place on the rear wheels. Not important with a HEV using a small motor and battery pack but it would be important for a PHEV or EV with a much larger motor and battery pack capable of actually absorbing all of the energy for braking.

Posted by: Patrick | Sep 6, 2007 12:29:08 PM

Interesting link Dave. However, their web site looks like a scam. They give no contact information other than an e-mail and it is impossible to read anything about the firm. If it is not a scam they should do something ASAP about these issues.

Posted by: Henrik | Sep 6, 2007 12:29:35 PM

wheel motors are a no-brainer really , think of all that cost saving
over a standard ICE powered car , all the dirty ,grubby stuff you can
throw away .
Bring it on, the sooner the better !

Posted by: andrichrose | Sep 6, 2007 12:33:18 PM

Wheel motors are such a hot topic lately, but I'm still uncertain about their unsprung weight. It seems like, even with the removal of the friction brakes, it could add quite a bit of unsprung weight and make handling problematic. Does anybody know anything concrete about wheel motors in this regard?

For those unfamiliar with the problem, the more weight embodied in the tire/wheel/suspension assembly that tracks directly with the road and is not carried by the springs of the suspension, the more trouble you have keeping the tire planted on the road over rough pavement. Many people are familiar with how big American pickup trucks (especially older designs) tended to hop sideways when making turns on pavement with bumps and ripples- excessive unsprung weight is the culprit there.

Posted by: Wes | Sep 6, 2007 12:49:48 PM

I hope this car is never introduced in the U.S., Australia or in Asia. That would be a true disaster. All these countries and regions are hooked on coal.

Posted by: Django | Sep 6, 2007 1:25:38 PM

I think 43 mpg is entirely appropriate for a series hybrid in a mid size sedan running in gas only mode. My Metro gets 44 mpg with a conventional drive train in a smaller vehicle. A series setup should make do with a smaller engine than a conventional vehicle of the same size (say 1.6 liter vs 2.0 liter), and have no transmission (thus saving weight). By using wheel motors then you also lose the losses inherent in a differential too.

Good effort Volvo.

Posted by: KS | Sep 6, 2007 1:36:56 PM

Django,

Even using coal to make electricity the efficiency of an electric car over that of a gasoline car means less CO2 emissions.

Wes,

In-wheel motors for cars still need a friction brake, even when decelerating to resistors the motor can’t decelerate as fast as brakes can, that and there will always be the safety precaution of manual emergency brakes.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 6, 2007 1:42:07 PM

The enthusiasm for in-wheel motors may fade when people are confronted with the fact that they cost more and are less durable than standard “in-house” electric motors. Most people don’t really care where the motor is put and would rather not like to know either as long as it functions. We don’t even know if in-wheel motors are durable enough to make it for real world car use. That is they need to last at least 10 years of normal use. Mitsubishi dropped the in-wheel motors for their electric car that go on sale in 2010. Reason: cost and uncertain technology that needed further development. Source: http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/10/mitsubishi_acce.html

Posted by: Henrik | Sep 6, 2007 1:53:33 PM

Even using coal to make electricity the efficiency of an electric car over that of a gasoline car means less CO2 emissions.

Prius PHEV charged by 100% utility coal puts out 0.69 lbs CO2/mile, compared with a gasoline-fueled Prius HEV putting out 0.41 lbs/mile.

Posted by: jack | Sep 6, 2007 2:03:38 PM

I always fuel my EV with Solar or Wind power. I would never use Coal generated electricity in an EV. For those that do still suffer the Coal addiction.

http://www.pluginamerica.com/images/EmissionsSummary.pdf

http://www.pluginamerica.com/faq.shtml

Posted by: KJD | Sep 6, 2007 2:31:18 PM

According to jalopnik.com Volvo is planning this car to market in 2015. What a letdown. 8 long years. If GM thinks it can get the Volt to market in 3 years, why can't the Volvo ReCharge be here sooner?

Posted by: TheIcelander | Sep 6, 2007 3:04:28 PM

Coal plants run at night above needed capacity anyways. Might as well plug in your car and capture that energy thats being wasted.

Posted by: Dave s | Sep 6, 2007 3:19:06 PM

My electricity comes from Hydro, no coal here. Bring on the electric cars.

Posted by: Joseph | Sep 6, 2007 3:49:36 PM

Why don't they put magnets in the road? If you put a cathode on your car then, you could produce electricity while driving down the road.

Posted by: Joe Rocker | Sep 6, 2007 4:03:50 PM

Here is some more info on the Volvo: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW-MlpA6GL4&feature=dir

Posted by: Jim J | Sep 6, 2007 4:41:09 PM

Coal plants run at night above needed capacity anyways. Might as well plug in your car and capture that energy thats being wasted.

Sounds like we need to close some coal plants. Do you have specific numbers for how much is being "wasted" right now?

Posted by: jack | Sep 6, 2007 4:49:18 PM

One person here said:
"Even using coal to make electricity the efficiency of an electric car over that of a gasoline car means less CO2 emissions."

Another person, sounding more credible, says:
"Prius PHEV charged by 100% utility coal puts out 0.69 lbs CO2/mile, compared with a gasoline-fueled Prius HEV putting out 0.41 lbs/mile."

A third person, me, asks: show me some credible evidence that the lifecycle emissions of a gasoline powered car are lower than those of the proposed plug-in hybrid powered by coal-generated electricity.

As long as there's no clear reference here, I assume that this car is a disaster.

Electricity from biomass, wind and solar are marginal, everywhere. Coal, oil and gas are huge, and keep growing far more rapidly than renewables.

So let's not create new myths about plug-in hybrids being powered by electricity from renewables. That just doesn't happen.

I'm waiting for the comparison of lifecycle emissions.

Posted by: Django | Sep 6, 2007 4:59:09 PM

Another competing product is a fine thing. I want to hear about just how "real" this car is, though. By that I mean. . . Does it actually function, can you drive it? (The Volt was little more than a styling mockup.) Do they intended to put it into production? If the answers are yes and yes, then it would appear more appealing to me than the Volt.

Regarding wheel motors. . . I have to echo the question that Martin Eberhard asked. What are wheel motors supposed to do for us? Where's the compelling benefit?

If you go with wheel motors then you have some problems to solve. You have to keep the unsprung weight under control. You have to seal them against rain and mud. You have to run a fixed gear ratio, which could be pretty limiting. If you get rid of friction brakes, as PML advocates, then you have to prove to regulators that motor-braking is safe when driving, and you also have to figure out how to hold the car still when it's parked (without draining down your batteries, I should hope).

If you go with an inboard motor and conventional transmission and differential, and conventional brakes, then what problems do you have to solve? None. No problems. This technology has all been refined over many decades and is ready to plug-and-play.

Posted by: Tony Belding | Sep 6, 2007 5:14:25 PM

Django raises some interesting questions. My exposure to the whole "long tailpipe" argument is mostly from the white papers Tesla posted on their website. They concluded that 100% coal-fired electricity would produce slightly less CO2 than a gasoline-powered car -- and few areas are powered by 100% coal, so in the real world the numbers would be even more favorable for electricity.

If you are looking at things from a "Peak Oil" perspective, or dependence on the Middle East, then even coal-fired electricity is a big win. The USA, China and Australia have huge coal reserves, and one might argue (especially if one is skeptical about the whole Global Warming Crisis) that running our cars on coal is better than returning to the 19th Century.

As for whether the electrical grid will get cleaner or dirtier over time. . . I would say it has to be cleaned up, sooner or later. If you believe in global warming then it needs to happen sooner. Ultimately the technologies which can scale up to solve this problem are solar, geothermal and some form of nuclear power (hopefully aneutronic fusion).

Posted by: Tony Belding | Sep 6, 2007 5:32:39 PM

Volvo To Show Flex-Fuel Plug-In Hybrid Concept at Frankfurt:

Relevant topic: What if the algorithm for charging the car can't take into acct. the value of peak energy, or it is not designed to do so? The entire "charge your car off-peak theory" is out the window and more coal plants will need to be put in place sooner to meet the demands of thousands of cars being plugged in taking 1.1-1.5 kW peak power from the air conditioners!! START YELLING AT THE ECONOMISTS, FISCAL PLANNERS AND ENGINEERS at these companies to design for peak or we will be in a big mess.

Posted by: ALECKK | Sep 6, 2007 6:46:32 PM

was said
"So let's not create new myths about plug-in hybrids being powered by electricity from renewables. That just doesn't happen."

Excuse me, but I take issue with that one. The links I posted in my last post are saying yes coal is bad, but gasoline engines are a LOT worse. Go back and read the links.

Solar can happen if you want it to happen. I installed a small system on the roof of my garage and it powers my electric vehicle every day. Nothing fancy, it is just stuff off the shelf.

Anyone can have and EV.
Anyone one can have a solar system.

All you have to do is put your money where your mouth is.

My electric vehicle cost me just over 4k. The solar system cost less than 6k. The guy who works across the hall from me just spent over 40k on a new SUV. Go figure.

Good day.

Posted by: zevutah | Sep 6, 2007 8:15:04 PM

The links I posted in my last post are saying yes coal is bad, but gasoline engines are a LOT worse.

You can link all you want, but when you run the numbers, a 100% coal PHEV have 68% higher CO2 emissions than a comparable HEV. That's not even beginning to account for other pollutants, as well as the much dirtier process to get coal to the plant.

Anyone can have and EV.

Yet no one buys them.

Anyone one can have a solar system.

Really? If I have no capital and crappy credit, I can just plop down several tens of thousands of dollars? If I rent, I can have a solar system?

You're confusing what people can do (in the latter case only, as EVs are a financial joke) with what they will do.

All you have to do is put your money where your mouth is. My electric vehicle cost me just over 4k. The solar system cost less than 6k.

And you have the personal skills, time, and dedication to pull it off, as well as high risk tolerance for things like motorcycles.

Posted by: jack | Sep 6, 2007 11:19:07 PM

"when you run the numbers, a 100% coal PHEV have 68% higher CO2 emissions than a comparable HEV"

I don't think so. To produce a single kWh of electricity from coal releases about 800 g of CO2 into the atmosphere.

But a typical PHEV can go 5 miles per kWh, equivalent to 160 g CO2 per mile.

A gasoline only Prius emits 166 g CO2 per mile on a gentle driving cycle.

So even when the electricity comes from the worst possible source, coal, PHEVs can emit less CO2. However the key point is that most grids do not rely 100% on coal, and overall CO2 released per kWh is much less and has the potential to be much, much lower in future with greater use of renewables (unlike gasoline).

Posted by: clett | Sep 7, 2007 2:53:19 AM

"that 100km range on a single grid charge is suspiciously high"

If they are using the Kokam battery at around 170 Wh/kg and using 70% SOC cycling, they could do it with only 12 kWh or just over 100 kg of battery.

Posted by: clett | Sep 7, 2007 3:01:00 AM

Jack: You can get a solar system (not the sun with planets kind) for a lot less than you think. Under $20,000 should do just fine for most people. If your house is decently efficient you can do it for under $10,000.

p.s. Sorry to hear about your credit problems.

Posted by: Domenick | Sep 7, 2007 5:16:25 AM

I was just thinking...Ford might want to hold on to Volvo a little while longer now.

Posted by: Schmeltz | Sep 7, 2007 5:22:23 AM

I don't think so. To produce a single kWh of electricity from coal releases about 800 g of CO2 into the atmosphere.

No, it's 1,074 g.

prius, gas-fueled: 47.6 mpg
prius, electric mode: 250 Wh/mile
gasoline - 19.56 lbs CO2 per gallon
coal - 215.20 lbs CO2 per million BTU
3,412 BTU/kWh
charging energy conversion efficiency - 86%
us grid electricity conversion efficiency - 31%

Keep in mind that only 26.7% of the energy content from the power plant reaches the battery (0.31*0.86=0.267). Even if the Prius got 200 Wh/mile at the outlet, per your assumption (which is lower than the 206 Wh/mile of the Tesla Roadster and is 172 Wh/mile at the wheel), the low conversion efficiency of grid electricity and high CO2 intensity of coal still overwhelms any efficiency from plug to wheel, and the HEV would be emitting 186 g/mile and the PHEV 215 g/mile. At 250 Wh/mile at the wheel, it's emitting 312 g/mile. By contrast, powering from average electricity would have the PHEV emit 181 g/mile (again, in all-electric mode, not in total).

===

I know. I've told Ben that many times, though under $10K for a system is probably pushing it, even for me.

p.s. Sorry to hear about your credit problems.

I don't have any credit problems. But I'm aware that plenty of people do, hence my comment.

Posted by: jack | Sep 7, 2007 6:00:19 AM

or maybe Ford will want to get rid of Volvo as quick as possible ,taking
into account their history in the electric sector !

Posted by: andrichrose | Sep 7, 2007 6:03:22 AM

"charging energy conversion efficiency - 86%
us grid electricity conversion efficiency - 31%"

I assume your "charging energy conversion efficiency" breaks down as:
92% grid delivery efficiency X 95% battery charging efficiency.

"grid electricity conversion" of 31% for coal must include some pretty old plants that should be shut down.

Implementation of CCS would lower the efficiency but would stand the carbon comparison on it's head. (I know "clean coal" is a hard phrase to get past, but its better that what's being done currently)

As for access to renewable energy, If for any reason you can't install your own system, many states and provinces have utility companies that sell wind and solar power. e.g. Bullfrog Power in Ontario and Alberta.

Posted by: Neil | Sep 7, 2007 7:07:17 AM

I assume your "charging energy conversion efficiency" breaks down as:
92% grid delivery efficiency X 95% battery charging efficiency.

Just using Tesla's numbers. It favors the PHEV, since I assume Tesla's pretty efficient at charging their batteries.

"grid electricity conversion" of 31% for coal must include some pretty old plants that should be shut down.

It's the numbers for the national grid.

Energy Consumed To Generate Electricity - 41.27 quads
End Use - 13.03 quads
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec8_3.pdf

That's actually 31.6%, so that would drop the 312 g/mile to 307 g/mile -- still 64% more than the HEV. The grid average g/mile for the PHEV (181) won't change.

Implementation of CCS would lower the efficiency but would stand the carbon comparison on it's head. (I know "clean coal" is a hard phrase to get past, but its better that what's being done currently)

I'm not describing what could be, just providing numbers for what is based upon scenarios someone else described.

I know.

Posted by: jack | Sep 7, 2007 7:18:17 AM

Just for comparison: my e-bike does about 5 Wh/km when pedaling lightly. My 13 kilometer commute costs me around 0.7 eurocents on wind power and I wouldn't be faster with a car. It would be still nice to have a good electric vehicle for trips to the countryside, but I guess I have to wait a bit before battery costs get reasonable.

My battery pack for the bike cost 600 euros (300 Wh of Li-Ion) and I can do 50-60 kilometers when pedaling lightly. Li-Ion battery costs in bulk are currently probably half of what I paid and lead-acid is way cheaper.

Posted by: jk | Sep 7, 2007 7:39:14 AM

People interested in looking at LCA comparisons of PHEVs vs conventional need only look to the GREET model or, for Canadian-specific data, the GHGenius model, available at www.ghgenius.ca

Posted by: Marlowe Johnson | Sep 7, 2007 7:40:47 AM

Just for comparison: my e-bike does about 5 Wh/km when pedaling lightly.

How much at 100 kph? Oh right - it's a bicycle. ;)

Posted by: jack | Sep 7, 2007 7:42:32 AM

Henrik,

Ever replaced a CV joint or a transsion, won't have those break points in a in-wheel motor.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 7, 2007 7:59:55 AM

PAL :
"What surprises me is the high fuel consumption for a series hybrid driving on fuel alone, especially with wheel motors. 5.5 liters/100 km (43 mpg) is too high. Il should be less than 3 liters/100 km (over 75 mpg). The Peugeot 308 Hybrid HDi is not a plug-in, neither a series hybrid and its consumption is 3.4 liters/100 km (68 mpg)!?"

Don't forget that liters (or gallons) are VOLUME units, not energy units. Since this car is supposed to run on E85, you need approx. 40% more volume than with gasoline for the same energy (and even more compared to diesel). It's still more than an equivalent of 3 liters gasoline per 100 km, though.

Posted by: François | Sep 7, 2007 9:00:54 AM

Why not put magnets in the road?

Because then you could have an Al or Cu plate under the car and be propelled and levitated by linear motor propulsion - the real way to do Maglev trains. Prof. Laithwaite's technology. Maglev cars floating down the motorway, no road friction or noise. Far too "kool" for mere humans.

Posted by: E,phyrio | Sep 7, 2007 10:09:07 AM

I'm curious about the gas hev vs. coal argument, if you include the amount of pollution from refining the fuel, transport etc.. Then of course it would depend on where the fuel comes from. Gasoline from the tarsands is probably going to be worse than a phev running off coal generated electricity. The production and distribution of gasoline is just so inefficient.

Posted by: cyrus | Sep 7, 2007 10:38:34 AM

PAL: Also remember that series hybrids are more efficient for low speed, stop and go use. Parallel hybrids are more suited to highway use because they can deliver power directly (mechanically) to the wheels. A series hybrid at a steady highway speed is penalized by the conversion losses of the generator and motor- in that sort of case it's more efficient to skip all the conversions and just transfer the torque directly. But the series hybrid can may be better suited to PHEV use (better in all-electric mode with, presumably, a larger electric motor) and can be easier to package (no need to mechanically connect the genset to the wheels).

It's probably a sound choice for this concept to be series type, but as always there are compromises to be made.

Posted by: Wes | Sep 7, 2007 10:45:08 AM

Extracting coal isn't exactly a walk through ecowonderland.

Posted by: jack | Sep 7, 2007 10:49:46 AM

cyrus: If you are interested in the whole "well to wheels" thing check out the charts on this page:

http://www.veva.bc.ca/wtw/index.htm

Just keep in mind that they use the average US grid rather than 100% coal. Also note that HEVs are in their own category rather than lumped in with regular ICE.

Posted by: Neil | Sep 7, 2007 12:43:46 PM

Ben

At second thought I guess in-wheel electric motors do have several merits. 1) they eliminate transmission, 2) save space, 3) get a better road grip when the power of each wheel can be adjusted individually. Plus they have been able to make ICE very durable which is amazing when you recognize they are subject to countless of explosions with associated vibrations so maybe it should not be that difficult to make in-wheel motors that are sufficiently durable.

Posted by: Henrik | Sep 7, 2007 1:59:39 PM

Could the in wheel motor design be altered to make a "live-axle" design? Say instead of these big, pancake looking motors, you had a long rolling pin design followed by a CV or something like it? Then the weight is sprung and the motors don't move around as much, increasing durability. Yet they're still right there by the wheels. Guess the first question is: Can they work well in such a smaller space?

Posted by: Elliot | Sep 8, 2007 12:53:16 AM

Yeah but the CV will wear out and the motor will take up more space.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 8, 2007 7:43:25 AM

Can we please drop this anti-EV propaganda relating to coal generated electricity?

In most countries you can now buy through the grid 100% clean electricity.

Anyone who is emissions conscious enough to buy a PHEV will either do that or instal their own concentrated solar system on their roof.

Posted by: chris | Sep 8, 2007 4:29:27 PM

Can we please drop this anti-EV propaganda relating to coal generated electricity?

Propaganda? The only propaganda I see is people believing that if they drive little battery cars there isn't an impact on the environment.

In most countries you can now buy through the grid 100% clean electricity.

Everyone? No.

Anyone who is emissions conscious enough to buy a PHEV will either do that or instal their own concentrated solar system on their roof.

Since there's probably well less than 100 of them on the road, that's a fairly speculative statement. Any idea on how existing ones are being powered (as if that even matters)?

Posted by: jack | Sep 8, 2007 8:08:37 PM

Jack,

So if everyone can't buy clean power, then they should do what? continue using oil powered cars? And yes usually the people that can afford EV and PHEV upgrades also tend to be more likely to have solar and/or wind power setups at their homes.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 9, 2007 7:49:00 AM

I'm done babysitting you, Benji.

Posted by: jack | Sep 9, 2007 10:19:26 AM

If you don't want to make a valid comment you don't need to responded.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 9, 2007 11:57:23 AM

If you don't want to make a valid comment you don't need to responded (sic).

If you can't form an intelligent question, you're free to shut up.

Posted by: jack | Sep 9, 2007 12:23:21 PM

I don't see what was wrong with the question, if you could deconstruct it at least you would be making a more productive comment.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 9, 2007 12:33:21 PM

I think it's interesting that the ReCharge and Volt both get around 5 miles/kWh.

The coal-fired plant issue doesn't bother me particularly because I get my local electricity from a nuclear power plant.

Posted by: AES | Sep 9, 2007 3:48:42 PM

The coal-fired plant issue doesn't bother me particularly because I get my local electricity from a nuclear power plant.

Right, if we just ignore the damage of our consumption it's not really there.

Posted by: jack | Sep 9, 2007 5:32:51 PM

and that damage would be?

Posted by: Ben | Sep 9, 2007 7:03:10 PM

Jack: In order to get from here to a lower GHG and pollution future, numerous elements need to fall into place, and they are in the process of doing so. PHEVs and EVs are a part, conservation, cheap efficient solar panels, personal windmills, large wind farms, geothermal plants, tidal energy, algae bioreactors, waste biomass, superefficient grid, etc. all will contribute. To imagine that discussion of one part of a larger whole advancing forward is useless is defeatist and blindered in the extreme. Part of this selfsame movement is to shut down coal-powered plants extant and scrub and capture CO2 from the rest. All of these things have to advance together, and they are -- in spite of the US's failed leadership.

Posted by: Pandemonium | Sep 9, 2007 7:22:15 PM

People who confuse their preferred path with being the only path can't see very well.

Posted by: jack | Sep 9, 2007 7:26:36 PM

I don't prefer nuclear, but if you know of a cleaner energy source for those situation that need a continuous power source please do tell.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 9, 2007 8:04:36 PM

if you know of a cleaner energy source for those situation that need a continuous power source please do tell

Not sure if it's clean or not, but your ceaseless, useless jabbering certainly seems to be a consistent source of energy.

Posted by: jack | Sep 9, 2007 9:58:51 PM

Jack - please tone it down a bit :) We're all adults here.

Clean energy is a war on many fronts, and reducing vehicle emissions is an important step because you can't regulate how much people choose to drive the same way you can regulate a power plant.

My comment about getting my electricity from nuclear was intended to point out that clean energy sources are a clear and present danger to the coal industry, and that it's a lot more of a downhill battle than many people want to believe.

Posted by: AES | Sep 9, 2007 10:18:49 PM

Ben posted: "So if everyone can't buy clean power, then they should do what? continue using oil powered cars? And yes usually the people that can afford EV and PHEV upgrades also tend to be more likely to have solar and/or wind power setups at their homes."

Ben, beside pushing for BEV and PHEV, push for CNG cars, or bi-fueled CNG-gasoline car that can be fueled at home, and then push for bio-methane in the near future, and then push for synthetic methane from wind and solar energy, and then, who knows, hydrogen ultimately.
There are already millions of CNG-powered cars and buses in the world already. We can't just put all eggs (resources) in one basket while waiting for battery technology to mature. Develop more efficient methods of converting wind and solar energy into fuels such as methane, hydrogen and various hydrogen carriers, ethanol, methanol, DME, NH3, etc...
May be a long shot, but society cannot function without a source of fuel. Electricity is expensive and bulky to store in the form of batteries, while chemical fuels can be stored far easier and cheaper.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 10, 2007 12:59:08 AM

"if you know of a cleaner energy source for those situation that need a continuous power source please do tell"

geothermal

Posted by: Domenick | Sep 10, 2007 4:14:55 AM

Roger Pham,

I agree with the use of chemical fuels but only in places were a electric alternative can't be used, we simple do not have enough renewable biomass to supply our existing fossil fuel infrastructure, Biomass will be limited to industrial oil uses and jet fuel. NG from oil fields is not a renewable or long term energy source, it's expected that NG will peak within years after oil peaks. As for fuel cell fuels I am rather partial to metal-air fuel cells: did you know lithium paste would have a energy volumetric and mass density nearly has high as gasoline?, but that not including that a lithium air fuel cell would have a efficiency of ~60% verse ICE of ~25%.

Domenick,

You can get geothermal on a large ship? Or for that matter you can get geothermal anywhere you want on land?

Posted by: Ben | Sep 10, 2007 5:55:41 AM

Jack - please tone it down a bit :) We're all adults here.

Most of us are adults here. Unfortunately, there's a few people here who think mindless repetition of disproven talking points is "discussion," ergo my exasperation.

Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 6:38:40 AM

Cost will drive consumer decisions, not back of the envelope efficiency calculations.

If any company can deliver a PHEV/series hybrid with a 30-40 mile battery-only range for $30-$40,000, then it will fly off the lot.

Electricity is the low-cost option. And as with other alternative fuels, no road taxes.

The big question that will take 3-5 years to answer is can anyone make a battery pack with the capacity needed, at the right price point?

Posted by: Bill | Sep 10, 2007 7:53:20 AM

You never disproved those points jack, you simply ignored them.

Bill, based on Tesla's plans 50-70K will be the price range in the comming years for a BEV sudan with 150-300km range. So it not hard to imagine a PHEV with only 65km or less EV range in the 30-40K range.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 10, 2007 8:17:39 AM

Marlowe, I was not able to find any LCA for PHEV using GREET. Could you provide a more specific link?

Posted by: Kit P | Sep 10, 2007 8:29:57 AM

You never disproved those points jack, you simply ignored them.

Now you're just flat-out lying. Benji, once a specific discussion has occurred between two people, there is no point in revisiting it. The "intermittency" red herring has been addressed more than once. Revisiting it and pretending that it's been "ignored" only shows that you have no dedication to being honest.

Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 9:21:36 AM

Household vehicles in the US - 219,000,000
Energy for 200 mile range of Tesla Roadster - 41.2 kWh
Storage capacity of 219 million Teslas - 9.0 billion kWh
Daily net generation, US, 2005 - 5.5 billion kWh

It's called "vehicle-to-grid." Odd that a PHEV fanatic would overlook that when pursuing the intermittency argument with respect to renewables. But that's assuming such a fanatic would think sufficiently to notice his internal contradictions.

Posted by: jack | Sep 10, 2007 9:42:59 AM

jack, when did you decribe how renewable can replace baseline power needs?

Posted by: Ben | Sep 10, 2007 1:00:40 PM

Domenick said: "I was just thinking...Ford might want to hold on to Volvo a little while longer now."

Spot on Domenick! What most people seem unaware of is that Ford's hybrid technology center is at Volvo Cars. And that Volvo is responsible for Ford's development of electrical systems and safety technology. That Volvo is sharing platforms with Ford (and Mazda to some extent) for all but one model (-soon to be replaced). Why does this matter? Well, the most important side of the story is that when Volvo presents a plug-in hybrid, it is actually Ford who does. It also explains why separating Ford and Volvo really wouldn't make any sense from an industrial point-of-view. Ford might have to do it anyway, but enormous values would be destroyed in the process.

Remains to be seen if Ford with this concept car seriously entered the plug-in hybrid race, lead by Toyota and GM.

Posted by: Rolf | Sep 10, 2007 1:22:05 PM

Beside V2G (vehicle-to-grid) form of electricity storage, high-temp electrolysis of water can produce H2 efficiently to store solar or wind electricity during sunny or windy periods, and then use the H2 produced to generate electricity when neither solar nor wind electricity would be available. Produce a surplus of H2 and you can run your car on it also.

Those who have PHEV's or BEV's can also charge their vehicle during peak solar or wind electricity period, but it would be inconvenient to have to plug your vehicle to the grid all the times, since you just can't always tell when it's would be a good time to charge your BEV. Also, V2G will wear out your battery, and can double or triple the real cost of grid electricity due to the amortization cost of the battery.

Nuclear electricity will increase the proliferation risk of nuclear weapons or radioactive materials (dirty bombs).
I'd say put the genie back into the bottle and throw the bottle back into the sea!

Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 10, 2007 11:41:56 PM

Efficiency is questionable. If the same >850C heat is used to make electricity 45% or greater conversion can be achieve and then solar electrics has the efficiency advantage over high temp solar thermal electrolysis.
HT Solar Thermal to Electric (45%) -> Grid (93%) -> Grid Storage Battery (86%) -> Grid (93%) : Total = 33%
HT Soltar Thermal to Hydrogen (55%) -> Hydrogen storage (97%) -> PEM fuel cell (50%) -> Grid (93%): Total = 25%
Now lets look at powering a HyEV or a BEV:
27% -> Electric motor (90%): Total = 24%
33% -> Li-Ion charging (95%) -> Li-Ion discharging (95%)-> Electric motor (90%): Total = 27%

True this is a inconvenience to charging batteries, but it is a cheaper, has more existing infrastructure and is a more developed technology then hydrogen fuel cells. Personally I would go for a metal-air fuel cell running on zinc or aluminum paste as these fuels are easier to store and aren't combustible.

It is possible to build nucks and dirty bombs without nuclear reactors, how do you think they made the first A-bomb? And the existing nuclear waste can either be shoved somewhere or transmuted by ADSRs and made into power.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 11, 2007 5:48:36 AM

Ben,

Your estimate of H2 to electricity via PEM FC at 50% does not reflect the use of H2 in heating applications and distributed heat and power co-generation, in which efficiency of H2 utilization will be 80-90%.
Furthermore, solar energy's potential is so vast that such a difference in efficiency matters little. A vast amount of parking spaces and rooftops can be covered with PV panels to supply all the current electricity needs without requiring to clear a single acre of extra land. And then, we still have a lot of waste biomass and wind electricity to add to the portfolio.

"Grid Storage Battery" Aye, there's the rub...how much does sodium sulfur battery cost to store 1kwh, and for how long? How much bulk will be required? Sodium sulfur battery has got to be kept real hot, so can't expect seasonal energy storage. And then there is a little problem, trillions-of-dollars problem in getting hundreds of millions of cars to sport tens of kwh battery storage! Untold amounts of copper and permanent magnets...and vast quantity of power semiconductors...And the logistic of recycling hundreds of millions of hundreds of kg of car batteries...a stupendous logistic issue.

Synthetic-fuel energy storage in the form of H2, CH4, NH3, CH3OH, DME, C2H5OH, etc. can store vast amount of energy over a long period of time. You can use it to heat your house and cook, and transportation and manufacturing industries can use these same fuels.
A car simply pulls over a fuel-filling station, fills up in minutes and drive off for a few hundred miles until next fillup. Continual refinement of current ICE technology coupled with HEV drivetrain, hydraulic hybrid drive train, micro-hybrid, etc. and car downsizing will be just as efficient as electrical transportation, but using known and proven technologies that can be mass-produced in vast quantities.

Posted by: Roger Pham | Sep 12, 2007 12:07:43 AM

Thanks to PML FlightLink, car companies can do a major upgrade. 'From Joysticks of flight simulators to the most advanced car engine' ... what a wonderful English company this is.

Volvo has to speed up the market introduction of its advanced "hybrid" based on the Hi-Pa drive, otherwise ZAP and others will be first.

When in doubt about 'unsprung weight' examine www.pmlflightlink.com. I guess also PML's Hi-Pa drive can be repaired/maintained like an ICE, and it is 10 times more reliable than the ICE. Its live time should be much longer than the average ICE.

Electric cars are just a little bit more green than ICE cars? Only electric cars can be easily integrated in a silicon based economy. Please realise that a silicon (solar energy) based economy is MORE economical and cost-effective (after high-grade silicon & solar-panel production have been scaled up, and recycling of materials is taken into consideration) than the outdated coal/oil/gas economy. If you do not know this by now, then you know nothing. Don't be dumbed down by the paper news, who compares KWH prices of fossile-fuel based energy with energy from SMALL-SCALE produced outdated unrecycled solar-cells.

The future of high energy-density/power-density batteries/capacitors looks very bright. During the last 5 years there has been real growth in research & development of these products. Running engines on hydrogen (with little energy/gallon) or bio-fuels, is a bad idea, since you cannot improve the energy/power densities of these fuels, and the overall performance of these fuels (considering all energy conversions and recycling of involved chemicals) is even worse in comparison of the current situation. But the sky is the limit in increasing energy/power density of electric energy storage. Energy storage in the form of chemicals for transportation has no future.

and the future is now or never

Posted by: Koen | Sep 12, 2007 12:52:40 AM

Ben:
Yes, you can get geothermal just about anywhere on land. On a ship? Let me think really hard for a moment..........
...................................................ok. No. You can't install a geothermal plant on a ship.

Posted by: Domenick | Sep 12, 2007 5:38:20 AM

Domenick,

Unless you mean geothermal heating and cooling, I don't think it would be practical to drill anywhere: as you would have to drill two or more dozen km deep wide bore holes and somehow fracture the rock between them and pump water in and get steam out. This is why geothermal power is used in places were hot rocks are closer to the surface.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 12, 2007 7:41:29 AM

Ben:
Just for you. Read all of it. Thank you.

http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf

Posted by: Domenick | Sep 12, 2007 8:04:56 AM

Thank you but I have seen that reprot before (its cited on wikipedia), it does not change what I said.

Posted by: Ben | Sep 12, 2007 9:36:17 AM

...did they start by scratch? Or did Volvo-Ford use the old drawings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-TLYJyc5qM

Posted by: michel | Sep 12, 2007 9:47:36 AM

People who live in the Southern California area and have SoCal Edison as their provider, their electric is not generated from coal.

Posted by: Jay | Sep 12, 2007 11:01:38 AM

People who live in the Southern California area and have SoCal Edison as their provider, their electric is not generated from coal.

Posted by: Jay | Sep 12, 2007 11:18:36 AM

"People who live in the Southern California area and have SoCal Edison as their provider, their electric is not generated from coal."

http://tinyurl.com/yu79zt

Posted by: jack | Sep 12, 2007 1:18:31 PM

Dear all,

A link wise effort to resolve some issues:

- source of electricity
-- CCS and nuclear are expensive dead ends, with cost for our children. Ask future generations what they would like to see invested in now
-- base load: CSP
--- http://jcwinnie.biz/wordpress/?p=2120
--- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_plants_in_the_Mojave_Desert
--- http://www.trecers.net/
--- http://www.daylife.com/story/0fKI5jw6Pxeg0/news/all/1/redundant
--- http://www.spg-gmbh.com/news.asp?news_id=7
-- local conditions: wind, PV, biomass, geothermal, etc

- life cycle assessments
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_collapse

- In wheel motors
-- 160 hp because then reversing polarity provides sufficient braking power
-- parking brake: see baby stroller or some sort like contraption. No rocket science
-- inherently simpler and therefore when allowed its learning curve and large numbers manufacturing, in important ways better and cheaper as IC based propulsion
-- since vehicle systems are all in electric / electronic domain, innovation is evoked. Allowed high added value, allowing high wage countries to keep a competitive edge
-- unsprung weight is 2 kg’s over original configuration (with the Mini platform)

- peak load capacity
-- when we can do http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html, we can arrange not all parties drawing power at the same time

- pricing
-- the IC has had a 100 year learning curve; the EV (PHEV, BEV) should be allowed some time to see the playing field –more-level
-- when considering the generally taken for granted externalisation of cost for the IC (ecology, economy, socially), the case for EV becomes increasingly, if not rushingly, self evident

- missing links
-- http://www.bigpicture.tv/videos/watch/f2217062e
-- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7987612343225687713
-- http://multiplex.integralinstitute.org/Public/cs/files/43/sustainability/default.aspx
-- http://www.google.org/recharge/rfp/index.html becoming a reference model

- bonus: win the hearts and minds of presumed others [aliens, enemies, cast outs, drop outs, no future kids, axis of evil states and sortlike convenient labels]

Emil Möller, Maastricht, Netherlands

Posted by: Emil Möller | Sep 13, 2007 2:27:30 AM

2 more points:

-time to market can be under 3 years

-- look for reasons for longer claimed period in
--- mediocricty in leadership
--- vested interests in the corporate realm and public office
--- self indulgence amongst consumers

- how business can be a part of the solution
-- http://www.wie.org/j28/business.asp

- how consumers/voters can be a part of the solution
-- http://www.wie.org/j18/wilber.asp

Posted by: Emil Möller | Sep 13, 2007 2:59:23 AM

www.pmlflightlink.com copied original wheel motor of US patent and manufactured in China for so many years ago, if you check their Hi-Pa drive within ep.espacenet.com has no patent. Right now, they copied once again at SAE 2004 expo is against US patents.
We contacted with Volvo and Ford since their board of directors meeting on May 12, 2004 they played double-hand strategy, try to pull us down to chapter 7, 7&11, and 13, then they can buy out on liquidation.
Pray for God's righteousness, fairness and justice to help G1 Technology Inc fighting with old foxes and blood suckers.

Posted by: usjustice | Sep 20, 2007 8:52:36 AM

What we may see in addition to technological innovation is a new economic model for car ownership.

Our current grid is highly inefficient, with large spinning reserve capacity.
DOE has indicated that we can charge a fleet of 180 million vehicles right now
using off peak power with no increase in capacity. Substituting spinning reserve for petroleum sounds like a good deal - which attacks the two biggest sectors of greenhouse emissions, transportation and electrical generation.

V2G capable BEV or PHEV may potentially be so valuable to utilities that owners may be able to get payments up to $2-4 thousand per year for load management and peak shaving services. These valuable services also help stabilize the grid and solve the storage problem for renewables, allowing much higher percentage of wind/solar generation to be brought online than was previously thought possible.

Southern Cal Edison and DTE Energy are two major utilities already in the process of upgrading customers to "smart" metering service which will make this possible
about the time the Volt and others come to market.

Additionally, PG&E is doing research on creating an aftermarket for used Li-On
batteries, which will still have 80 percent capacity even when they are no longer optimal for auto use. That creates another significant financial opportunity for changing the economics of EV ownership.
Electric Power Research Institute is currently mapping out the tech specs for a system like this, with PG&E, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, and Austin Electric among the utilities doing some spadework for early adopters.

Posted by: Peter | Sep 22, 2007 9:38:59 PM

Hurry! I can't wait to go car green! And I do like Volvo...

Posted by: ccsoleil | Oct 15, 2007 11:36:37 AM

blaaaa

Posted by: | Mar 10, 2008 10:12:01 AM

The PML flightlink website says that the wheel assemblies weigh the same as the pancake motors replacing them. so unsprung weight should not be an issue.

Posted by: dave | May 26, 2008 9:55:06 AM

yer all idiots volvo is smarter than u

Posted by: | May 29, 2008 2:50:59 PM

The exorbitant price of fuel has driven up the price of everything from the increased production and shipping costs. I have yet to hear more than a sugar coated one liner from either candidates as to their plans to bring Americans relief. Does either candidate even have a plan other than to support new off shore drilling. It is easy to say we need to decrease our dependence of foreign oil and seek out alternative fuel sources, but where's the beef...where's the plan?

a site to share if you should be interested...

www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com

www.howmuchenergydoesmycaruse.com

Posted by: SJ | Aug 27, 2008 9:52:55 AM