Green Car Congress: V2Green Technology to Monitor Performance of 13 PHEVs in Seattle Project

« ECOtality’s eTec Provides Hydrogen ICE Pickup to South Carolina Research Center | Main | Angeleno Group Leads $15M Investment in Miles Electric Vehicles »

V2Green Technology to Monitor Performance of 13 PHEVs in Seattle Project

22 February 2008

V2Green’s vehicle-to-grid management technology (earlier post) will be used to monitor the performance of 13 plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV) in a Seattle demonstration project and control their charging.

Under a contract with the US Department of Energy’s Idaho National Laboratory, V2Green will provide a logging system to collect real-time vehicle performance data provided by the V2Green Connectivity Module (VCM) installed in each PHEV. A cellular modem will upload the data to the V2Green server where it is archived and made available for the Idaho National Laboratory’s analysis.

The lab will monitor fuel efficiency, electricity usage and other vehicle performance measures on each of the 13 converted Toyota Prius PHEVs.

Seattle City Light will operate three of the vehicles in the test. The City of Seattle will have one. The Port of Seattle will get two and the Puget Sound Clear Air Agency will get three vehicles. King County will test four plug-ins.

In addition to monitoring vehicle performance, V2Green’s technology also provides the capability of smart charging. By providing intelligent, two-way communication between plug-in vehicles and the electric grid via the VCM, Seattle City Light can control the timing, pace and extent of vehicle charging within driver-specified requirements. The utility can control its load requirements, ensuring that charging takes place during light load hours, protecting the distribution system and avoiding the need to buy power.

We believe this project will show how plug-in hybrid technology can reduce our dependence on oil and cut greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.

—Seattle City Light Superintendent Jorge Carrasco

Seattle City Light is the city’s municipal electric utility.

V2Green technology also is being used to test two plug-in hybrids in Austin, Texas, and six from the fleet of Xcel Energy, using similar smart charging and data collection capabilities.

February 22, 2008 in Plug-ins, V2G | Permalink | Comments (68) | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/26403186

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference V2Green Technology to Monitor Performance of 13 PHEVs in Seattle Project:

Comments

FYI: Altairnano is poised to become the dominant force in the Ev/Sorage & Grid technology by 2010.
Electric Vehicle to Grid = Ev2G
Ev2g.com

Posted by: EV 2 G | Feb 22, 2008 9:27:44 AM

V2G is one of the reasons that I like SOFCs. The cells can run continuously at a low level putting electricity back on the grid. I know SOFCs have not been made for cars just APUs, but the fact that they can take NG directly is a big plus. With ANG becoming more possible it could be a good combination.

Posted by: sjc | Feb 22, 2008 9:38:17 AM

This sounds like a great project. I do notice that all of the testers seem to be commercial type users which don't have the same duty cycle as a regular commuter. I hope that doesn't skew any analytical results.
The very high cycle capabilities and power density of the Altair batteries would make them ideal for V2G. Now they just have to bring their price down below $500/kwh.

Posted by: Neil | Feb 22, 2008 9:42:18 AM

Yes, V2G with government vehicles.

Unless I have a battery with a 15+ yr shelf life and 3000+ cycle life to 80% capacity I don't really care for the idea of the utility wear out my battery fast. In the Seattle area electricity is the same price night and day so you do NOT make any money buying electricity at night and selling it during the day.

In fact, you are likely to drive UP your utility costs since everything over 600kWh in a month is charged at a higher rate (Seattle area). In the summer I am using < 250kWh...with my short commute to work I could get most of my driving done without going too much over 600kWh but if I am selling electricity back during the day and buying more at night I will definitely be going much over the 600kWh boundary. They would have to pay at the > 600kWh rate to begin with.

Now on the other hand, if the utilities owned the batteries and I just paid them a small monthly battery usage fee they could do all the V2G they want any time of day...I would religiously hook up my V2G in this case.

Posted by: Patrick | Feb 22, 2008 9:54:19 AM

y'all are missing most of the point of this. it is more about the total system impact than just the transport energy.

the killer app of the PHEV isn't a direct reduction of greenhouse gases via the displacement of fossil fuel consumption for transportation.

the killer app of V2G PHEVs is that they allow us to improve the reliability, stability, and capacity factor of the electric power system, which allows us to integrate a larger amount wind energy before we run into the need for system upgrades. this way, we not only displace some of the fossil fuel consumption for transportation, but we can displace a much larger amount of fossil fuel consumption in the energy industry.

i'm not 100% sure of this yet, but some utilities will probably get to a point where they significantly subsidize V2G PHEVs because of their positive impact on the system.

Posted by: vboring | Feb 22, 2008 1:44:43 PM

Would have helped a lot if I had any idea what the heck you were talking about. Have found that most sites for electric vehicles use language us dumb ol' folk do not understand at all. None of any of this makes any sense to me. What is a V2G or a PHEV. Want us to buy electric but can't make the words us normal folk understand. Yes, I am so normal :-)I would like to buy an electric car but have to find just one site that makes any sense.

Posted by: Kintara | Feb 22, 2008 2:26:39 PM

sorry Kintara, we use acronyms for the same reason that everybody else does: to confuse outsiders.

really, though, it is just a good way to talk faster.

a PHEV is a Plug in Hybrid Electric Vehicle: like a normal Prius but with a larger battery pack and/or a more powerful motor which allows the vehicle to be charged from the electric grid. this enables the vehicle to have a more significant pure electric mode, which can greatly decrease the consumer's reliance on gasoline. currently, no major manufacturer sells a PHEV.

V2G means Vehicle to Grid. it is the idea that a PHEV can have a two-way relationship with the electric power system, taking power from the system most of the time, but sometimes giving power back to the system in case of unusual circumstances. i intend to write a pretty long post on my blog on the subject tonight, so you may want to check it out. as far as i know, this idea is completely theoretical today.

"killer app" is short for killer application, which is the application of a technology that takes it from being attractive to 2% of an audience to 95% of the same audience. for example, the internet was the killer app for computers.

it is my belief that applying the V2G concept to PHEVs within a context of large amounts of wind power will be the killer app for PHEVs. electric power companies and wind generation developers stand to win the most from the situation, so i think they will be the strongest proponents.

Posted by: vboring | Feb 22, 2008 2:53:25 PM

@Patrick:

If this goes into any meaningful scale they will set up a separate rate schedule to take care of that fact. The utilities are hopping up and down at chances to have some control over the timing of demand on the grid, and they will bend over backwards to make it work.

Generally many areas have a large variety of rate schedules available for residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Even in the absence of an organized program at the utility that encourages these "smart grid" type projects you can often get a digital electric meter that knows what time of day it is and charges a different rate based on the hour.

The only reason the rate goes up as your consumption goes up is that in a regulated utility it's viewed as "luxury" consumption (more than the bare essentials to run a fridge and a couple of lights). If the rate were determined by strict economic terms (no tweaks for social goals) it would taper down as you consumed more.

Posted by: Wes | Feb 22, 2008 2:59:13 PM

Wes,

actually, in a purely market-based system, the prices for a current residential load would probably still increase with higher consumption, since higher consumption leads to a greater chance that the infrastructure will have to be upgraded and infrastructure is very expensive to upgrade.

Posted by: vboring | Feb 22, 2008 3:15:25 PM

So far Electric car Batteries are twice the price that can be supported. Selling power to the grid sounds like a fine idea till you realize that the battery life cycle is limited and there is no possible payback. It leaves your car discharged so you cannot go out evenings, or cannot come home from work on battery power. In short, the idea is a bust.

A far better idea is a home battery pack for home power savings. Here battery weight is not a problem, and much cheaper batteries can be used. This approach would encourage home generating using small ( 5 kW ) wind and solar systems in each home with excess power sold to the grid at peak times.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 22, 2008 4:12:54 PM

As usual, there is a lot of misunderstanding when it comes to V2G. Its not about emptying out your vehicle battery so that you're stuck at the end of the day! Its about high frequency, shallow discharges and charges to EVEN out the grid. Battery deterioration is completely compensated for by the PROFIT YOU MAKE by enabling the utility to use your battery for this purpose.
See http://www.udel.edu/V2G/

Posted by: marcus | Feb 22, 2008 4:39:47 PM

An Electric Car battery needs to be about 20 kWh so it can carry enough power to run a car a reasonable distance.

Lets suppose we buy the really cheap Chinese batteries from Thunder Sky for our Electric car TS-LFP400AHA 3.2V 400AH 800A 1000 duty cycles, 452x288x71 13kg $960 1.28 kWh (still at twice the price we can afford to pay and have a reasonably priced BEV )

Now we begin using it for V2G duty.

At near $1000 per kWh and at 1000 deep cycles gives a cost of $1.00 per kWh transferred from night to day by these batteries.

At 10¢ per kilowatt hour home rates it is unreasonable to expect it to be re-bought at $1.10 per kWh.
Check my math and see if there is a possible profit here.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 22, 2008 7:10:34 PM

again missing the point.

the idea isn't to transfer power from night to day. the point is to have a large number of small sources of reserve capacity on the load side so that i can cover fluctuations in the power supplied by wind.

say i have a system stable at 1 GW produced and consumed, 200 MW of the production is wind, 100 MW of the load is PHEVs and EVs. everything is stable and happy while the wind is blowing. all of a sudden, the wind output drops to zero faster than my other generation can pick up the difference (a common problem with wind). one way of picking up part of the difference is to stop charging all PHEVs and EVs. that drops 100 MW off my load. to cover the rest of the difference for the next few minutes while my other generation comes up to speed, maybe i'll also ask my PHEVs and EVs to pick up the remaining 100 MW.

see the difference? in this case, PHEVs are occasionally asked to carry load for a few minutes at a time to enhance the stability of the system and reduce the spinning reserve requirements, making wind power more economical

Posted by: vboring | Feb 22, 2008 7:40:54 PM

John:

You'll have to redo your math. Reasonable V2G schemes do not deep cycle the battery. They only take shallow dips that have virtually no impact on the life of the battery. Battery wear and tear in geometrically related to depth of discharge (deep cycles represent the worst possible use of the battery), shallow discharges have virtually no impact on the lifespan.

Posted by: Neil | Feb 22, 2008 8:10:55 PM

John Taylor trolls:

Selling power to the grid sounds like a fine idea till you realize that the battery life cycle is limited and there is no possible payback.

If the battery life is limited by aging more than cycling, there may be no battery cost at all (page 28)

It leaves your car discharged so you cannot go out evenings, or cannot come home from work on battery power.

It needn't do anything of the sort; AC Propulsions test found that the pack capacity was increased 13% over the test (page 30).

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 22, 2008 8:20:15 PM

V2G will also be powered by parked Electric Vehicles and Plug-in Hybrids equipped with SOLAR ROOF PANELS and trunk lid panels. Solar panels on trailer roofs for long haul plug-in hybrid trucks, while parked, will also feed the grid. While in motion, solar panels on vehicle roofs will charge batteries and capacitors. When solar paint is perfected and mass produced, the entire vehicle body will generate solar power from any direction. Window tinting will instead be transparent solar films. Look for V2G to be a major player. Look beyond tapping the batteries for V2G. Adapt solar panels to electrics and plug-in hybrids.

Posted by: Jeff Baker | Feb 22, 2008 11:52:36 PM

Whoever cheered for Altairnano, keep it up.

thanx. A. StockHolder.

Seriously. V2G seems like a loser to me. But I tend to address these problems conceptually rather than in detail, and maybe V2G will work out.

First, history hints that multipurpose technology usually doesn't prevail. We don't have a lot of combination boat/cars or car/plane or locomotive/ships operating. Or lawnmowers that also prune roses and water the yard.

So I'm guessing that devices that supply electricity and those that consume it will remain separate.

I also expect batteries in hybrids and EVs will remain more costly than those at large stationary facilities. The latter do not have to endure any vibration, face fewer temperature changes, and can be more readily optimized for ventilation, etc.

When V2G is putting power into the grid you are using the most expensive component, the car batteries, to assist the most efficient component, the centralized generating plant.

When the grid charges the vehicle it is quite another matter, plugins make a great deal of sense.

Solar panels on cars are not going to power cars. They can help somewhat by charging batteries. But Sol just isn't pumping enough energy even if the panels are 100% efficient and can endure dings and chips.

Trucks have a bigger cross section and a panel atop the trailer might prove worthwhile. I'm dubious.

And again, how is a dollar best spent for panels? Will it be for large arrays sending power to the grid or generating it on the roof? Or will it be for material wrapped around the flowing lines of a car?

Good night.

Posted by: K | Feb 23, 2008 1:25:46 AM

Ok K.
I'm glad somebody sees the problem here. If using batteries for grid stability was even remotely cost effective, then power companies would be doing it.

To understand the cost of fuel in an electric car, we must take the battery capacity, cost and number of duty cycles into account, and add this to the initial grid cost of electricity. Once done, we see the batteries are far more costly than can be supported as a car fuel source. However, the price is dropping, and they (hopefully soon) will become price competitive with other fuels.

Now we have the great idea of reselling this very high cost battery capacity to power companies and pretending it is "free" and won't place any load whatsoever on the batteries, and that such use will even increase battery life. Lets plan on flying pigs and fairy dust for our additional transportation needs too.

Meanwhile, back in reality, a stationary battery pack can be cheap and heavy, and useful to collect solar and wind power, and to let you produce and store some electric power with home heating systems, and as an emergency power source, and as a source of grid stability.

As for grid load shedding, tying into commercial building management systems already existing load shedding systems for an integrated system makes far more sense. More, it is easily done and even already done. Simply monitoring grid power voltage and shutting off sensitive equipment (such as large Air conditioning and refrigeration compressors) during extreme brown outs, (times of low voltage), can significantly reduce equipment failure as well as assist grid stability. Making a "home version" of the commercial building management system would be a useful idea, especially if it also controlled home power generating systems.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 23, 2008 3:39:24 AM

John: You obviously aren't stupid, but you really need to spend some time studying battery chemistry and V2G. I'll repeat, shallow discharges have virtually no effect on battery life. Yes the batteries are currently expensive, but you're going to have them sitting around most of the time doing nothing while their calendar life ticks down. V2G offers the ability to use capacity that would otherwise go to waste.

Posted by: Neil | Feb 23, 2008 5:01:38 AM

Neil, I have spent some time educating myself.
However, someone has been feeding you fairytales and disinformation on battery life. Goldilocks thought the bears provided free porridge but there is no really free lunch.

I suggest that you try to get even a single battery manufacturer to agree that their battery cycle life in driving a car will be unaffected by also using it in a V2G constant cycling situation. Adding an additional 365 cycles a year , even shallow cycles, will cause a shorter battery life.

While shallow discharges do give more cycles than deep discharges, they do cause battery cycle wear. Still, the pattern fits well with BEV usage because cars mostly have short trips, with only a few long extended trips to the maximum range.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 23, 2008 6:15:06 AM

Quoth John Taylor:

I have spent some time educating myself.

Yet you failed to read a report on a trial of this exact scheme in which battery performance improved. How do we know you didn't read it? You completely contradict the test results, without citing any evidence of your own. That's not education, that's dogmatism.

If using today's batteries only for grid stability was even remotely cost effective, then power companies would be doing it.

Fixed that for ya.

As you may have noticed, electric vehicles will need batteries regardless of what the utility does with them. As shown by the test report you failed to educate yourself about, utility control of the chargers can generate value for the utility while maintaining or even improving the condition of the battery pack. If utilities are willing to own the pack and lease it at a discount because of the added value (and they would appear to be willing), it's proof that you're wrong.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 23, 2008 7:54:10 AM

I'm in the NW & only marginally better than Kintara. Find the talk interesting, but easily confusing. You techies must talk to us consumers, as well as each other.

As far as shallow cycle GRID taps from the battery, would it be even better if the drawdown was very slow? I know my rudimentary Pb Acid batteries for my electric bike(EB) have more 'capacity' & cycle extension if I could draw the power from them at a slow rate(ride very very slow & get a bigger Amp-hour battery pack). Would the same idea work for higher tech batteries being drawn down by the grid?

Also, because of bigger capacity battery packs on full electric vehicles(EVs), would full EVs be more appropriate than PHEVs for V2G?

The NW is best for EVs since its near complete reliance on hydro & recent additional wind power allow energy generation at only 4% of the pollution (& carbon dioxide(?)) levels of internal combustion engines(ICE). Its so sweet to move thru my town on the EB generating only 1/700th(?) the pollution of an ICE & nearly none of that pollution near people.

Posted by: litesong | Feb 23, 2008 8:26:28 AM

Engineer-Poet, first you call me a Troll, now you pretend I did not read a report. How DARE you!
I suggest that you first prove you actually know your subject.

re Quote
If using {today's} batteries only for grid stability was even remotely cost effective, then power companies would be doing it.
Fixed that for ya.
If you think tomorrows batteries will be different from today's and not wear out, you have amazing faith, but must chalk up two demerit points for lack of reasoning skills and failure to be convinced by evidence.

If utilities are willing to own the pack and lease it at a discount, please let me know so I can begin producing low cost BEV's.

Now lets go through that report you think I never read for a review of some important points often overlooked.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of ARB contract number 01-313 by AC Propulsion
under the sponsorship of the California Air Resources Board.
~> (It is great publicity, but will never get implemented).

5.1.2 Battery Pack Capacity
Figure 23 shows the progression of measured capacity of the pack over the course of the testing. The pack finished the testing with 13% more capacity than at the
start. No conclusions can be drawn from this other than there was no apparent immediate harm done to the pack as a result of the testing.

~> In other words, it did “conditioning” on the two year old battery pack, but they fail to concern themselves with the overall life of the pack. I seriously doubt that Panasonic will consider this usage of a battery pack being equal to non-usage for cycle load calculations. Now granted, the low draw cycling will produce less wear than deep cycling, but it is still cycling, and batteries are rated in number of duty cycles, not age, even if age is a standard part of a warranty due to being more easily determined.

6.2.7 Metering and Settlements
~> This explains that metering would need to significantly change to accommodate the V2G scheme. Normally power companies like to sell power to consumers, not buy it back at higher rates. Also topping up the car battery at home then selling some power to the grid while at work adds a bit of billing complexity.

6.2.10 Automaker Support
~> Where it says essentially that there is none, except for AC propulsion.

Bottom line ...
Will it work? Yes.
Is it a cost effective good idea? No.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 23, 2008 9:24:45 AM

Further on the report there are some unrealistic assumptions:

1)Panasonic lead acid battery pack (EV1 type 2) yields data applicable to BEV Lithium battery packs.

2) Test vehicle assumed connected to grid 23 hours/day @ 80 amp circuit 110-220v. Data link provided by cellular wireless.

First this is a study conducted by an aftermarket EV conversion outfit, AC Propulsion (converted a VW Beetle for test). Cycling test data was simulated (computer model trap) as real ISO data was unavailable.

Second, in even a somewhat real world, what vehicle is connected to a 220 80 amp circuit 23 hours? CA avg. commute claim 1 hour - huh? Ever been on the 405?? And who would pay for all this added hardware, software, maintenance?

A much simpler solution is to build some intelligence into the vehicle's charge electronics. If, as SOC approaches 80%+, the consumer agrees, and net metering is in place, sell a portion of the charge to the grid. It's applied as a credit to the monthly bill. Forget the ISO regulation and leveling as far too complex with many better solutions.

Bottom line is this "study" is a fantasy scenario for a business that wants contracts for aftermarket equipment sales.

Posted by: gr | Feb 23, 2008 11:27:14 AM

"If using {today's} batteries only for grid stability was even remotely cost effective, then power companies would be doing it."

As too many people are saying John Taylor, you are still missing the point. Yes, if the utility had to buy these batteries it wouldn't be economical for them. As you say, they ARE expensive. The point is that if they DON'T have to buy them (ie no CAPITAL cost), because YOU already bought them for your transportation needs, then it makes economic sense for them to pay you more than enough to compensate battery wear and tare to use them to level the grid. If you want to miss out on a profit, that's your call but once the money starts to roll I suspect you will realize you were wrong.

Posted by: marcus | Feb 23, 2008 2:32:24 PM

Spoken like a true capitalist.

This has more to do with the life span of transformers and transmission gear than it does wind power. Transformers have to be replaced on a regular basis, depending on their load profile and running temperature. This becomes very expensive.

Posted by: sjc | Feb 23, 2008 3:03:48 PM

sic,

I happen to work in the substation division of a utility in the PNW and can tell you for a fact that the vast majority of our substation transformers are more than 30 years old. A few of them are over 50 years old. We have plans to improve equipment monitoring, but we have no plans to replace them that I know of.

As for transmission gear wearing out and being replaced, I'd guess that it is the same situation.

Utilities would like nothing more than to increase the capacity factor on their existing equipment by spreading the load more evenly through the day, because it would save our customers money.

We are required by our state gov't to acquire wind power even though we have no use for it and it will increase rates that customers have to pay.

I just wrote a long post on my blog on the subject V2G, smart grid, PHEVs and wind power, if you're interested:

http://vboring.blogspot.com/2008/02/wind-power-mandates-phevs-and-smart.html

Posted by: vboring | Feb 23, 2008 3:39:02 PM

Ok Marcus,

You seem to think batteries will not wear out if we subject them to extra duty cycles while we are not driving.
Lets also invent a scheme to let the utility companies use our snow treads in the summer while we aren't needing them. We can pretend there is no real wear and pocket the pittance we get.

Seems logical? No.

vboring
Incorporating wind power into the grid can only be done with tandem power storage, or if there are a great many wind generators in a variety of places. So far, this is not yet cost effective for anyone to do.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 23, 2008 8:33:44 PM

John,

whether or not wind is cost effective is irrelevant. states have mandates. large amounts of wind power will be integrated or heads will roll. the wind generation impact on the grid will be dealt with. it is just a question of how to best do it.

storage is absolutely not necessary and is frequently not the most cost-effective approach. the most cost-effective approach available today is to increase the scheduled spinning reserves. at some % wind generation, that may no longer be the most cost-effective approach anymore. it may become worthwhile to increase our transmission capacity or buy pumped storage. if things work out the way i think they should, market-based PHEV charge scheduling will play an important role.

Posted by: vboring | Feb 23, 2008 10:04:27 PM

John: I once attended a lecture on PHEVs and V2G given by Dr. Andy Frank (U.Cal,Davis). When I asked him why I would want to use precious cycles from my BEV for V2G, he told me that they would only ask for discharges of 1 or 2 percent of the batteries capacity at any time. Nobody is left with a drained battery, negligible wear on the battery.

A quote from Motorola:
"The relationship between DOD and cycle life is logarithmic. In other words, the number of cycles yielded by a battery goes up exponentially the lower the DOD." Not fairytale .. fact.

Another one of the beauties of having V2G capability is the security that it gives during power failures.

Posted by: | Feb 23, 2008 10:48:30 PM

A lot of the V2G advocates seemed to have solid answers to battery durability problems.

And last month I was told that the electronics would be smaller and less expensive than I thought.

So I explored a bit today, reviewed battery chemistry and reliability experience, and read some ideas about how to handle the demand signals and how to estimate the value to the utility.

Conclusions (could even be correct):

1) There will be very little, perhaps no deterioration of batteries when discharge is shallow, no more than 3%. And this is likely to apply to various lithium designs also (lithium facts are hard to come by).

Of course some news bites both ways. The discharge limit means each vehicle can help the grid very little. And it will take a hell of a lot of V2G rolling stock to make a difference.

2) The electronics needed for feeding into the grid put very little weight penalty on the vehicle. And the cost will be low.

3) Bad news. Hard wires from vehicle to grid will be needed. You can charge inductively - the EV-1 did - but feedback into the grid is different.

Not a big deal, but a bit more of a hassle. Even moreso in company parking lots. Vehicles could be wired not to move until the plug was removed. Parking lot spagetti?

4) Figuring out how many $$$ this is worth to the utility will be, shall we say both 'creative' and 'political'. Regulatory laws and rate setting will have to change. But honesty is not required and we aren't short of lawyers.

5) The demand signals must be wireless. No way will it work if the utility is dialing twenty thousand land line phones at 2:10 pm. The cell phone network isn't up to it either but some variety of public wi-fi could. Er, well it could if it existed. Wireless isn't my field.

Summary: Critical mass will be a problem. Perhaps the biggest. You need a lot of vehicles. When you begin you will have few and the grid won't actually be helped.

It will be a political football because subsidies will be needed and rates must be set. The words 'social justice' will be heard.

Posted by: K | Feb 24, 2008 12:46:59 AM

Ok for proponents ... please remember that my complaint is
Bottom line ...
Will it work? Yes.
Is it a cost effective good idea? No.

There are a great many IF's here ... I shall consider a few of the more obvious ...

IF ... IF we had huge numbers of Li Battery Electric vehicles (BEV) driving around then the idea might be viable. At this point, at least grid load shedding due to home charge timing scheduling would make sense. Here we will have a rather large window where grid load adjustment using charging interruption can easily be done even if we don't make it a 2 way power transfer situation.

IF ... IF we want grid loading to be equalized to the power supply, there are many other loads now in existence that can quite easily be temporally shut down for short periods without any effect on user comfort. Loads such as air conditioning compressors are an existing example. We don't have to wait for the next generation of batteries, and a whole new fleet of cars.

IF ... IF we want to do load management technology, then it does not take a huge mess of fancy two way communications with the utility and a billing nightmare, just a voltmeter to check grid voltage and an interconnect to keep the load from coming on during periods of low voltage. Obviously a slightly more complex energy management system would keep track of the voltage and also not bring on multiple loads at the same time, as well as scheduling such things as laundry dryers or dishwashers. Energy management systems are a useful, proven technology that is common in commercial industrial power usage, and could be made available in homes.

IF ... IF we want to sell power to the grid, then we should be building home power generating capacity. Three sources come to mind, ~> Home source #1 is solar panels. Home source #2 is wind generation. Home source #3 is co-generation from home heating fuel. All work better in home situations with a battery pack. Here the batteries can be cheap heavy led acid ones, not lite expensive Li batteries.

So we see that V2G ( vehicle to grid ) power management technology is a fairy tale. Reality will be quite different. Still, religions* have demonstrated that people will 'buy-into' a fairy tale long before they will accept reality. It seems many green car enthusiasts are just as easily misled as those religious nutters. *(not your religion, the other guys, you know, the totally stupid ones worshiping a god that does not exist).
It is a good idea to be somewhat careful in placing hopes in technology that does not exist, even when we see there is at least a possibility that it could some day become reality.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 24, 2008 5:30:55 AM

oops ... forgot to sign my last post. (two up)

K: what you say rings true.

AFAIK the biggest benefit of intelligent grid connections will be intelligent charging options.

Posted by: Neil | Feb 24, 2008 5:37:08 AM

Quoth John Taylor:

If you think tomorrows batteries will be different from today's and not wear out, you have amazing faith

Strawman. I know that a number of today's technologies have far greater lifespan than the lead-acid cells of 2002, when that report was written. However, the conclusion was reached for spiral-wound lead-acid cells; even if that's all we have, it still holds.

If we have something like the AltairNano cells which were tested over 15,000 cycles to 100% discharge and back 5 times per hour, we can forget battery wear as a cost.

If utilities are willing to own the pack and lease it at a discount, please let me know

Start writing your business plan, then. You'll have to arrange for the pack to be available to them (plugged in), so you may want to talk to legislators about tax breaks for charging outlets at work, shopping malls, etc.

This report was submitted in fulfillment of ARB contract number 01-313 by AC Propulsion

Yup. Way back in 2002. Do you think that the case for electric vehicles has become weaker since then?

You do realize that AC Propulsion is a creation of EPRI, and its conclusions can be taken as the general position of the electric utilities? Among those conclusions is this:

Furthermore, since the asset cost of the propulsion system is primarily allocated for transportation, only the incremental cost of battery wear-out and system deterioration need be covered by the vehicle-to-grid functions. Analysis suggests that in many cases,
these incremental costs are well below the market value of vehicle-to-grid services resulting in a new value stream that will attract investment in vehicle-to-grid infrastructure and commerce systems [1].

Later in the document (emphasis added):

The wear-out of the battery generates revenue sufficient to cover the cost of necessary battery replacements for the life of the vehicle. The cost of using the battery for transportation is covered by the revenue generated, creating a real and substantial economic benefit for the vehicle owner.

EVs can increase the market for electricity by more than 40%. It represents one of the major avenues for expansion of the industry.

(It is great publicity, but will never get implemented).

You can bet the industry is just waiting for public sentiment to turn.

Bottom line ... Is it a cost effective good idea? No.

Directly contradicted by the conclusions above.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 24, 2008 10:25:24 AM

Quoth gr:

1)Panasonic lead acid battery pack (EV1 type 2) yields data applicable to BEV Lithium battery packs.

Do you think that cost figures derived from a short-lived pack could not be used as a ceiling for those of a long-lived pack?

Test vehicle assumed connected to grid 23 hours/day @ 80 amp circuit 110-220v.

There are no technical barriers to this, and the cost is paid for out of savings elsewhere. Here's AC Propulsion's press release of last October on that subject.

First this is a study conducted by an aftermarket EV conversion outfit, AC Propulsion

AC Propulsion is a creation of EPRI. They have muscle.

Cycling test data was simulated (computer model trap) as real ISO data was unavailable.

From the V2G report: " sample dispatch profiles were developed from historical ISO data by allocating vehicles a pro-rata share of the total regulation demand." Real data was used, just not in real time.

what vehicle is connected to a 220 80 amp circuit 23 hours?

One that's used for the typical commute and plugged in when it's parked. California is an outlier, and I doubt that the conclusions would change much if the vehicle was only on-grid 21 hours/day.

Forget the ISO regulation ... as far too complex with many better solutions.

See opposite conclusion above. Regulation and reactive power are two things that vehicles can do better than generators, because they are closer to the point of use and the transmission lines can be loaded more evenly and productively.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 24, 2008 10:28:34 AM

Re: demand signals

the PNNL developed a mechanism called smart grid, which sets and publishes a market price for electricity on 5 minute intervals. in response to this information, consumers can choose to set up their devices to respond to market signals.

influencing the battery charger becomes simple. the charger will charge the batteries while the price is below X, do nothing while the price is between X and Y, and sell power to the grid when the price is above Y and the state of charge of the batteries is above Z%. X, Y, and Z will be set by the consumer. this way, the consumer gets the most economical charge and the system gets to rely on the batteries on rare occasions.

Posted by: vboring | Feb 24, 2008 3:19:29 PM

Or just sell regulation and spinning reserve for a duration of ~5 minutes.

Spinning reserve could be a biggie. The local grid needs to have enough extra generation on-line to carry the load if the biggest generator trips off. Historically, this has been done with actual generators, consuming fuel but producing little or no power so they can be brought up at need.

What if it was all from vehicles? Suppose you've got 100k cars plugged into 220 V 50 A circuits; that's 1100 megawatts of power capacity. If they were charging at an average rate of 2 kW but could switch over to delivering 11 kW each within 100 msec, that's 1320 megawatts of spinning reserve without a single thing in motion bigger than a cooling fan. The near-instantaneous available power would give the utility time to bring up other generation, such as gas turbines. Within minutes the utility would be paying back the power debt.

The elimination of actual generators for spinning reserve would increase system efficiency and cut fuel use. This is going to be essential going forward.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 24, 2008 6:25:48 PM

Yes, Smart Grid is tested. Whenever technology is in flux there will be many good solutions that do not become the surviving one. Something like SG will be used at fixed sites. It may falter for V2G needs.

As I understand it SG has a controller at each device - in V2G the vehicle w/b the device - that can receive price signals and choose whether to draw power. The price changes are sent from the utility on the internet which obviously could mean landline or wireless.

Well and good, but SG was not putting power into the grid, it is managing the house to reduce the power bill. In aggregate that helps a hard-pressed utility too.

When you venture into selling power back the matter changes. How is the utility to set price? Are they forced to buy all power offered or only part? From all of their service area or only some localities? Can they spot sell any excess to neighboring utilities at a profit?

I don't contend those questions can't be answered. But some may prove very tough for a regulated industry. It is really a little worse, we have a half regulated, half free, industry. Depending upon location there can be multiple levels of regulators with conflicting agendas.

When each V2G vehicle has a base - the owners garage - then an intelligent meter can record what was sent back to the grid and handle the accounts.

However it would be much better (for cutting the V2G critical mass) if vehicles also plug in at work.

Then who does the utility pay for the power? Probably the employer who provides plugs in the parking areas.

All dandy and fine for the employer, but the real owner of the batteries is getting nothing for putting power into the grid while at work.

So why donate power? Just set your vehicle to always charge at the employers expense.

Can an employer just settle with the employee? No! Which vehicles provided power? Which took it? No feedback to identify the individual car exists.

Simplistic analysis? You bet! I wouldn't pretend otherwise. But my quick review Saturday concluded that each vehicle in V2G should be able to tell the utility where it is plugged in at the moment and what power it is putting into the grid or taking from it. And it would have to be auditable. Wireless seemed the answer.

Ideas?

Posted by: K | Feb 24, 2008 7:03:42 PM

Oh. Above was intended for vboring.

Posted by: K | Feb 24, 2008 7:07:55 PM

As K so clearly points out, before this V2G idea becomes useful, we first need a very very large pool of Electric cars (BEV's), and a "smart-grid" ... neither of which exist yet.

Then we can begin talking about political will to make suitable regulations, corporate will to make the idea into a viable reality, and personal will to let individual cars be used as power sources. Again, so far, none of these exist.

We also need technology improvements particularly to batteries and two way battery charging / power inverters, and a "smart" interface for real time and millisecond responding to loads. Again, so far, none of these exist, but some of the technology perhaps is in development.

I predict that long before V2G is possible, we will first see much more "point load shedding" using energy management systems *(EMS) guided by voltage drop. As loads go up the grid voltage goes down, and many loads *(particularly electric motors) can be adversely effected by this. An energy management system that senses grid voltage can shut down loads in time to even out the overall grid loading if a large number of facilities have them. So far, this type of technology is becoming quite popular in commercial industrial settings for reasons that have little to do with altruistically helping the utility.

Reasons energy management systems *(EMS)will be used, and V2G won't.

1 ) There is a useful benefit to the consumer that makes the EMS economically viable, especially when "peak load" metering is introduced.

2 ) The EMS technology is in place and in use and proven to work, and becoming cheaper to install and use.

3 ) The EMS is totally automatic and requires no constant vigilance. By contrast, V2G requires consumers to park in a plug in location, take time to plug in a heavy cord and then disconnect and stow the cord when ready to travel. Sometimes people are in a hurry, and sometimes the weather is bad. A lot of people don't like to fool with high voltage in the rain when they don't have to.

4 ) If you get a Battery Electric Vehicle (BEV), having an on board charging capacity is a fine idea, as is a small inverter to run a small load. However, the penalty price and weight of a large inverter to resupply high capacity high voltage to the grid is quite another bit of unnecessary equipment. I for one would be quite reluctant to get one installed in my BEV.

5 ) A "smart" interface for real time and millisecond responding to loads together with an interconnected billing/rebate system will cost money to build and run, and benefits the utility, not the individual except when financially compensated. The alternative point load shedding using EMS technology is of direct benefit to the consumer for a variety of reasons, and lower net cost to operate is just one of these reasons.

(Incidentally Engineer-Poet, instead of just making various bald faced claims of others being wrong, please address the legitimate objections raised in a way that demonstrates a knowledge of engineering.)

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 25, 2008 2:20:22 AM

There is potential for massive amounts of load leveling with the use of commercial scale freezers (a Dutch idea I believe).

If you're curious:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/night_wind_proj.php

No doubt this kind of load leveling will happen first, but I see V2G as almost inevitable over the long (possibly very) term.

Here's my scenario:
1) No matter when it happens, sooner or later oil becomes way to expensive for use in transportation.

2) The most likely alternatives are PHEVs, BEVs, and FCVs (including the use of ANG in SOFCs). (If the world goes to ANG ICE, we've missed some huge opportunities.)

3) As the number of EVs grows, so does the likelihood of the utilities implementing smart charging built right into the vehicle. (John: I carry the charger for my motorcycle with me, It's not very big. I also carry a standard extension cord with me everywhere, if you charge at 110 it's not heavy at all)

4) As the number of EVs grow, so to does the demand for "plug-out" capacity. The first demand will be for simple mobile electricity capability for things like camping. Next, people will realize that they can gain a measure of security by having a battery at hand large enough to run much of their house during a power outage. The battery on my bike is big enough to run the sump for extended periods of time to keep my basement dry in a power outage.

5) As smart charging becomes more common the communications become more sophisticated. (It doesn't even have to be wireless because the vehicle will be plugged into a socket anyway, you can run the communications through the same wires)

6) Over time you will have a large number of vehicles with both plug-out and communications capabilities. V2G naturally falls out of that situation even if other methods of load leveling are already in use.

I'm not saying that this is the only way the future will unfold, but it's certainly the path of least resistance and greatest opportunity.

Posted by: Neil | Feb 25, 2008 5:46:06 AM

SOLARVOLTAIC PANEL on the ROOF of the VEHICLE, for supplemental charging in motion and for feeding the grid while parked. Your future vehicle is a micro power plant. Look beyond batteries for V2G.

Posted by: Jeff Baker | Feb 25, 2008 8:18:40 AM

@K,

As I understand it, Smart Grid is just a mechanism for publishing electric rates on a real-time basis from the utility's side. This give customers the opportunity to respond to pricing signals in any way they want.

As simple as this sounds, it is already so complicated (from a regulatory and political standpoint) that many utilities probably won't offer it until they are forced to.

Compared to that, making sure the right person gets billed or compensated for energy flowing in various directions is very simple. The meters could be told whose car is charging, (wirelessly, through the same cable that provides power, through typing a log-in on a keypad on the charger, by scanning a debit card, whatever) then keep track of how much power they use and at what rate, then bill them (either as part of the same power bill as their house or a different one or just charge the debit card. the owner of the meter you interface with wouldn't even have to be the local electric utility).

Posted by: vboring | Feb 25, 2008 8:33:18 AM

Neil .. I also have an e-bike. Great machine.
vboring .. I think we are seeing that it could be done, but probably won't done any time soon.

Jeff .. A SOLARVOLTAIC PANEL on the ROOF of the VEHICLE, will at most produce one horsepower using today's solar cells. Don't expect them to become a power fix any time soon. Stationary solar panels, or sun tracking solar collectors are far better at power production.

I expect to have a home energy management system, a home electrical generating system, and a cute fembot android in my home long before hooking up my BEV to the grid for V2G power spike reduction.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 25, 2008 10:08:27 AM

@ EP:

Always entertaining. As usual, you defer the cost of a system to some unspecified pool of "savings elsewhere." Your link fails to address WHO PAYS for even a minimum of this new hardware: inverter, comms, CPU, logic, etc.

In fact something all PHEV owners will have to confront is $500.00 cost of running a new 220V 50-100Amp circuit to their garage/parking space (3.5 hours labor @ $100/hr, $150 materials, code certification avg.) Unless they stick with 110V trickle charging.

This applies to the whimsical V2G "employer" who will be expected to pony up this cost for hundreds of parking spaces and then pick up the added charging costs.

The EMS idea seems more logical initially. A Smart Grid publishing real time rates accessed by aftermarket comms hardware also seems reasonable. There is in fact a whole business in educating consumers on how to use their newly acquired 35kW non-interruptible power supplies, aka PHEV. Power and knowledge go hand in hand.

Posted by: gr | Feb 25, 2008 2:38:14 PM

To John:

OK, on my solar equipped plug-in hybrid, that is 1 HP for 10 hrs a day times 300 sunny days in Arizona. 3,000 hrs of 1 HP year after year. Every $250 worth of electricity I generate for free will also displace $750 worth of liquid fuel, as I produce no air pollution or green house gases in the process. Most likely, I’ll get more power than that, because solar cells are becoming more efficient at half the price. Global Warming Solutions has a revolutionary double surfaced solarvoltaic panel on a reflector base with almost twice the power per sq ft. There are other solar panels to be announced that are also twice as efficient as they are today. Now, on the roof of my long haul plug-in hybrid truck trailer, I have room for an 8 ft x 48 ft solar panel. And that will supplement my truck batteries as well. When I pull over to rest or park, I will not be idling. I will be running my ac or heater on battery power. I will shut the engine off, save money on diesel fuel, and reduce pollution and green house gases.

Posted by: Jeff Baker | Feb 25, 2008 8:41:31 PM

@Jeff and anyone who hasn't heard the "don't bother putting solar panels on the roof of your car argument"

except for putting a very small solar panel on your car for novelty purposes (like preheating it or to run a small fan to keep it cool or to operate a few small lights), solar panels on the roof of your car are almost pointless.

the area of the roof is too small, the orientation of the panels to the sun is rarely going to be optimal, you are too likely to find some shade to put it in (even a very small amount of shade kills PV efficiency), road grime kills efficiency, rattled and shaken solar panels will probably wear faster, you are unlikely to match voltages with your battery pack, so you'll need to add at least one more inverter or booster to your car's payload.

if you live somewhere with a lot of sun and absolutely have to get your own solar panels to charge your EV, you are much better off mounting them on your garage roof, angled towards the south (or wherever the sun spends most of its time in your part of the world).

if you aren't married to PV panels, but still want to capture solar energy, get some solar hot water panels. they may even pay for themselves without the help of government subsidies, unlike any solar panel yet built.

Posted by: vboring | Feb 25, 2008 9:59:43 PM

@Jeff and anyone who hasn't heard the "don't bother putting solar panels on the roof of your car argument"

Posted by: vboring | Feb 25, 2008 10:06:38 PM

Trolleth gr:

As usual, you defer the cost of a system to some unspecified pool of "savings elsewhere."

You only think it's unspecified because you won't RTFP. Savings include fuel for spinning reserve no longer required, fuel in plants used at more efficient power settings, and transformer and power line losses reduced by reduction in reactive power.

Your link fails to address WHO PAYS for even a minimum of this new hardware: inverter, comms, CPU, logic, etc.

It's made abundantly clear in a href="http://www.acpropulsion.com/reports/ACP_V2G_EVS18.pdf">TFP that:

the CPU and logic are part of the car

the inverter is part of the motor drive electronics and is re-used for the reductive charging system

the comms are the only new element required (which experience should tell you is cheap and getting cheaper).

In fact something all PHEV owners will have to confront is $500.00 cost of running a new 220V 50-100Amp circuit to their garage/parking space

Not required for PHEV; adding 70% SOC to a 16 kWh battery (Chevy Volt) can be done using a 14-gauge extension cord (110 V @ 15 A, 1650 W) in 6.8 hours. If you count the fuel savings at the Volt's consumption of 1/50 gal/mi and 40 miles AER, this saves 0.8 gallons/day or 160 gallons/year at 200 days/year (much more compared to the car the Volt would likely replace). One year's savings at $3.30/gallon is about $500, which pays for installing the high-power circuit for the next car.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 26, 2008 12:16:22 AM

Quoth Jeff Baker:

OK, on my solar equipped plug-in hybrid, that is 1 HP for 10 hrs a day times 300 sunny days in Arizona.

You're not going to get 1 HP out of panels on your car. Not even close. If you have 2 m² of active area at 15% efficiency and full sun, you'll get about 300 watts peak or ~2 kWh/day. That's less than 3 hp-hrs before battery losses.

It's all well and good to be green, but making overblown claims just destroys your credibility.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 26, 2008 12:21:11 AM

Hi Poet –
The above 1 HP return was suggested by John Taylor above, not me. I simply ran his numbers to illustrate that a solar panel on a vehicle was feasible, using his numbers. Now lets take a look at your numbers. You say that 300 watts can be generated from 2 square meters or about 20 sq ft at 15% efficiency. OK. I have 32 sq ft on my vehicle roof, so that’s 300 watts x 1.6 = 480 watts. We already have reports of 20% efficiency solar panels at half the cost. With several advanced panel designs in development now being reported, that efficiency will increase to 25%, within 3 years. So I’m going to project efficiency ahead 3 years to 25%. So now I have 1.6666 x 480 watts = 800 watts. That is a significant onboard power source for an advanced onboard battery charger. The key to using solar roof panels on electric hybrid vehicles is developing a pulse distributor battery charger that charges 10 to 40 batteries simultaneously with split-second pulses rotating from one battery to the next. This has already been accomplished. Search: Tom Bearden on the John Bedini battery recharging phenomenon. Now I take these solar panel figures, and I apply them to the roof of a Plug-in Hybrid Long Haul Truck – the roof of the sleeper cab is 4x8 = 32 SF + the roof of the trailer is 8x48 = 384 SF, for a total of 416 SF. Three years from now, in 2011, 32 sq ft = 800 watts. So 416 SF = 10,400 watts. I think that would supplement a long haul truck just fine, and also eliminate diesel idling by providing battery power for air conditioning and heating, while drivers are parked or resting. 10,400 watts onboard will displace a large amount of diesel fuel, air pollution, and green house gases. And at times, during prolonged parking and week-ends, there should be surplus power available to feed the grid via V2G.

Posted by: Jeff Baker | Feb 26, 2008 12:48:24 PM

EP Blusters:

"adding 70% SOC to a 16 kWh battery (Chevy Volt) can be done using a 14-gauge extension cord (110 V @ 15 A, 1650 W) in 6.8 hours."

Using partial data to make one's claim is not in support of the scientific method. While 70% SOC may be achieved in 7 hours the FULL charge of a 16 kWh battery (@ 110V 15A) requires a finger-drumming 14 (fourteen) hours! Recently confirmed by the test fleet of iMIEVs in Tokyo. Thus, time sensitive consumers WILL absorb the added cost of the 220V circuit to reduce full charge time to reasonable 7 hours or three phase 80% SOC in 30 minutes.

If the ISO and utilities are certain of the load leveling advantages of V2G, they should be willing to finance the vehicle add-ons required to enable it. I for one would be willing to let my utility upgrade my BEV (provided warranty remains intact) at no cost and deep discount my electric rate for the privilege.

FYI Poet: "Troll," from the Swedish is a noun referring to a witch of large or minute size. Its indiscriminate use as a label for those you disagree with utters forth from the most overstuffed of straw men... and rhymeth not.

Posted by: gr | Feb 26, 2008 1:20:33 PM

@ Jeff ~> I have no idea where EP gets his numbers from, but the 1 hp benchmark comes from the solar challenge cars that can generate about 1 hp with a full covering of solar cells, in the full sun of the outback, and must reduce drag to achieve success.

While some solar could be incorporated into electric cars, vboring clearly explains why it won't be done as a regular thing, and your own math shows why it won't provide all the capacity a normally driven car needs. I don't expect solar power to be cost effective on cars for quite some time to come.

@ EP ... Now again you are calling someone a troll, but without a shred of credible reasoning.
You pretend that gr failed to read the same report you accused me of failing to read, yet ignored my demonstration that I'd not only read it , but also understood it.

Lets have another look at your wild baseless claims

the CPU and logic are part of the car ~> This operating system has nothing whatsoever to do with interfacing with the utility, which will require a completely different program, and some different hardware.

the inverter is part of the motor drive electronics and is re-used for the reductive charging system ~> Only if AC 3ph grid voltage motors are used. So far, most PEV cars are not designed this way, and we have very good reasons to think they will not be.

the comms are the only new element required ~> What you are hoping for is a 2 way cell phone / Internet type communications network dedicated to power load leveling, and for near free. I like to order extra cloud topping and rainbow sprinkles on my pie in the sky.

If you count the fuel savings at the Volt's consumption ~> Neat idea! Lets all hand over all our fuel savings money to the utility when we finally get PEV's! ...... Not!

So, EP, you have yet to demonstrate even a rudimentary knowledge of engineering, perhaps you will do better if you show us some poetry. Can you come up with a rhyme for troll?

@ gr ~> Kudos to you for showing that there will be a cost to PEV infrastructure. It is incredibly cheap as infrastructures go, but still involves a significant initial cost.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 26, 2008 2:24:40 PM

I'll hazard the guess that E-P and gr are speaking of different things when arguing about battery charging.

E-P used the term 'adding' SOC. gr used the term 'achieving' SOC.

If SOC means State Of Charge then obviously you cannot add 70% unless the battery has fallen below 30%.

Battery charging is logrithmic - at least I sure hope so, my last EE course was 50 years ago - so you can charge 70% of what is uncharged.

gr seems to be speaking of starting from a totally discharged battery and going to 70%. His numbers maybe electrically correct but the discharged condition is not reality. None of these batteries are going to be totally discharged. EV and HEV vehicles have cutoffs that prevent the damaging low or total discharge of batteries.

I would think that the 110V would be sufficient as an overnight charging circuit in most cases. 220V would be better but the batteries are going to be at, say 60% before they even start an overnight charge. They will be topping off, not charging from zero.

I'll leave E-P and gr to sort out exactly what they meant as they wish.

SOC does pertain heavily to V2G plugout. As discussed days ago, there is probably no damage to a fully charged battery which sends a small percent of its power to the grid. But when you arrive at work and hook up your car won't be at full charge (if it is, the perfect EV has arrived).

The V2G instructions for the vehicle should therefore be to charge aggressively, even at a somewhat high price, before noon so there will be power to return to the grid in the hot afternoon.

Life gets complex, maybe it is best if the car can consider the weather forecast too.

A note about 'fully charged'. There is probably some definition, maybe 95%+, where the battery is considered fully available. Anyone care to comment on what level that is?

Posted by: K | Feb 26, 2008 3:09:29 PM

You can like solar too much.

There are at least two solar car competitions. The one in Australia is the best known. Conditions are ideal for maximum sunlight.

Australia is closer to the equator than the US. In the outback there might be as much as 300 w/m2 of sunlight at peak.

The cars designs vary tremendously but fall into the catagories of ultralight streamliners and sungrabbers.

The first have fewer solar cells but need less power at the wheels. Sungrabbers maximimize power by using large panels and aligning them with the sun; their penalty is extra weight and drag.

A Sungrabber with 8 m2 of cells could therefore intercept 2400 watts max. Just a little over 3 hp. From that, the solar cells might deliver perhaps 1 horsepower (these cars are using the best cells available.)

The basics just don't add up for solar powered vehicles. And they aren't going to. As battery chargers or auxillary power they can help. But solar cells have a weight and cost. The diesel engine is going to be pulling them around the country. There is no free lunch.

Posted by: K | Feb 26, 2008 3:46:56 PM

To John, K, and Poet – Thanks for the info. I live in Arizona where we get tons of sunshine. That’s why I see the possibilities. On the other hand if you live in Pacific NW where it rains a lot, why bother adapting solar to PHEVs. My only goal is to provide partial, supplementary power. As mainstream vehicles come down in weight, like the Toyota 1x 960 pound concept, even supplemental power may have a significant impact. I estimate that lightweight, thin films will become efficient enough and cheap enough in 3-5 years to integrate into the roofs of Plug-ins, EVs, and Hybrid Tractor Trailers. See you then.

Posted by: Jeff Baker | Feb 26, 2008 4:55:25 PM

Claimeth gr:

the FULL charge of a 16 kWh battery (@ 110V 15A) requires a finger-drumming 14 (fourteen) hours! Recently confirmed by the test fleet of iMIEVs in Tokyo.

Wrong; only 11 hours for the 16 kWh pack, and that's

Starting from 80% discharge, and
Using a lower supply voltage than US standard.

Maybe you have a source which quoted different figures, but so far I'm not impressed.

Thus, time sensitive consumers WILL absorb the added cost of the 220V circuit to reduce full charge time to reasonable 7 hours or three phase 80% SOC in 30 minutes.

The 7 hour figure assumed 200 volts 15 amps; 220 V 30 A would reduce this to about 3 hours.

There once was a troll named gr
Whose flaming style once got him far
But his stuff got the axe
When it lost to the facts
And the readers said "Hardy har har."

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 26, 2008 10:43:29 PM

Claimeth (flameth?) the Taylor:

the CPU and logic are part of the car ~> This operating system has nothing whatsoever to do with interfacing with the utility, which will require a completely different program, and some different hardware.

The car's induction motor drive requires variable frequency, variable power factor operation in sync with changing motor speed. It requires generation of reactive power but absorption of real power for regenerative braking. Compared to this, interfacing to utility power is a piece of cake.

the inverter is part of the motor drive electronics and is re-used for the reductive charging system
Only if AC 3ph grid voltage motors are used. So far, most PEV cars are not designed this way, and we have very good reasons to think they will not be.

Claim without support, and probably irrelevant. Even motors with PM armatures require inverter drives under software control, and the capability to both produce and absorb power. Exactly what capability is going to be missing?

What you are hoping for is a 2 way cell phone / Internet type communications network dedicated to power load leveling, and for near free.

Dedicated? No more dedicated than the Blackberry network needs one (it piggybacks on the cell phone system). There's plenty of available broadcast bandwidth in other services, such as FM subcarriers.

Neat idea! Lets all hand over all our fuel savings money to the utility when we finally get PEV's!

Way to mis-read what I wrote. Since you

Deride the conclusions of the report you say you've read, without giving any evidence which would support your position, and
Similarly mis-read what I wrote,

I think this is adequate proof that you did not read and correctly understand either one.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 26, 2008 10:45:12 PM

Harumphs EP:

"Maybe you have a source which quoted different figures, but so far I'm not impressed."

Nor do we seek such an impression. But well, yeah, I tend to question data from old press announcements prior to field testing. Your data is from 2006. And, had you read your own F*PR entirely you would note that field tests on the iMIEV were scheduled for 2007. Your V2G study is also dated - December 10, 2002. Get current poet!

http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1352

At least you have come round to accepting the fact that first gen PHEVs,eg MiEV, full charge will take 13-14 hours on household circuit or about 7 hours at 220V (requiring the $500 electrician visit.) However, it's clear you still have trouble understanding the economics of your V2G scheme.

Let's look at the comms package required: GPS $2500 full dealer option, or maybe a $300 chip, dedicated cell (fm subcarriers require directional radiators and antennae); wireless link receiving load regulation data transmitted in 5 sec increments x 23 hours connect time.) Even at landline rates .03/minute, 1.80 x 23 = $41.40 per V2G day. Maybe it's the accountants at the telcos we hear laughing...

there once was an engineer poet
when faced with a fact did not know it
so data he carefully selected
and truth he completely neglected!

But it ain't personal and all's good!

Posted by: gr | Feb 27, 2008 12:59:36 AM

@ E-P ~> Mitsubishi gives figures to recharge to 80% where gr gave figures for a FULL charge. It is nice to see that when one actually reads the mfg specs, that the numbers are comparable.
Now while we should note that a full charge is seldom needed, highway recharge capability must be able to offer it and in a somewhat reasonable time frame.
The point being made is that a power source of 3 ph 100 amp 220v power *(or near this value) sounds necessary, and installing outdoor “pay-plugs” will have a cost, as will having a new circuit installed for your garage.

A secondary point being made is that offering insults along with your advice is silly.
Claimeth (flameth?) the Taylor:
Your attempts at poetry are no improvement on your attempts at understanding engineering.

> Compared to this, interfacing to utility power is a piece of cake. > Cake it may be, but it is pie in the sky to think it is the same thing.

> Exactly what capability is going to be missing? > matching voltage. Why would you think that 3 ph 220 grid voltage is going to be idea for running a car motor?

> Dedicated? No more dedicated than the Blackberry network needs one (it piggybacks on the cell phone system). > Since when, and where, do you get Blackberry network service for FREE? Last I heard there was still a charge involved. Having bandwidth available does not also indicate it's usage will be free. E-P may envision a totally free 2 way communications system, but I think it's more sky pie, and expect it to run on star twinkles.

>> Neat idea! Lets all hand over all our fuel savings money to the utility > Way to mis-read what I wrote. > I didn't mis read you. Your suggestion was that the initial fuel savings would pay for an infrastructure, and that could be installed in such a way as to benefit the utility. That is, quite equal to you suggesting we finance a utility benefit with BEV fuel savings. I simply projected this into an ongoing situation to show how little support such an idea would get. What you really were after was the “payback” time to recover costs. Two way metering is a different cost, and a different installation job than is placing a 220v plug into your garage. Also, I'm going to want my garage power GFI* protected, and don't think that mates well with a two way power transfer. *( Ground Fault Interruption )

EP Blusters is turning into a bigger job than I have time for.

Posted by: John Taylor | Feb 27, 2008 2:17:46 AM

Communications is a minor issue. It doesn't have to be wireless since anything using V2G must be plugged into the grid (there's your wires), just piggyback your comms through the grid. The technology for doing this has been around since the 80s.

Posted by: Neil | Feb 27, 2008 5:16:36 AM

Hey Jeff,

Don't let them get ya down. Solar cars, painted, windows, thin film are all on the way and will be utilized. They'll increase in efficiency and drop in cost. As solar becomes more economical, it will be utilized as you say. Once cost comes down, more practical concepts will be generated as more creative mind get involved. As the technology spreads, so do ideas in how to use it more efficiently and creatively.

I don't think the V2G is such a bright idea yet, but can see how in a long term future all things will be interconnected in ways we today cannot forsee.

Posted by: Michael | Feb 27, 2008 8:38:03 AM

Some rough math on solar car ports says that if a car port is 10 feet x 20 feet, that would be 200 square feet. If you can get 10 watts per square foot, that would be 2000 watts. If you can generate that 2000 watts for 5 hours per day, that would be 10 kwh. If you can get 4 miles per kwh, that would get you 40 miles of range. Not bad, except for the cost.

Posted by: sjc | Feb 27, 2008 1:25:02 PM

Michael: Your words are like a breath of fresh air – Thank you for the encouragement!

Posted by: Jeff Baker | Feb 27, 2008 4:10:18 PM

And keep in mind that in some countries excess power sold back to the grid is paid at up to 8 times the peak rate (Germany). This helps finance solar and speeds its widespread adoption. This V2G concept seems far fetched.

Posted by: spinel | Feb 27, 2008 8:11:10 PM

Flameth gr:

Your V2G study is also dated - December 10, 2002.

Yes, so? The two-slit experiment is much older, yet the results entirely current. If you want to impugn the results, tell me what change in the grid has invalidated them and you'll enlighten us all.

At least you have come round to accepting the fact that first gen PHEVs,eg MiEV,

IMIEV is an EV, not a PHEV.

full charge will take 13-14 hours on household circuit

We've been over this before, and you Still Don't Get It.

The Japanese figures are for a lower-power connection than the US standard.
A PHEV will probably have a higher minimum state of charge than the IMIEV.

or about 7 hours at 220V (requiring the $500 electrician visit.)

Again, the Japanese figures quoted are for a 200 volt, 15 amp circuit. A US circuit would be 220-240 V, 30-50 amps. 20 kWh at 6.6 kW is 3 hours; 20 kWh at 11 kW is under 2 hours. For PHEV operation with a 30% lower SOC limit and a 16 kWh battery, multiply times by 0.56.

The IMIEV article claims 25 minutes to charge the 20 kWh battery using a high-power charger, so the battery is not the limiting factor in the charge rate at lower power.

I'm going to reformat the following as a numbered list so readers can track the claims against the refutations.

Let's look at the comms package required:
GPS $2500 full dealer option, or maybe a $300 chip
dedicated cell (fm subcarriers require directional radiators and antennae)
wireless link receiving load regulation data transmitted in 5 sec increments x 23 hours connect time.)
Even at landline rates .03/minute, 1.80 x 23 = $41.40 per V2G day.

And in response:

GPS is built into current cell phones. TracFone sells for under $40 with a case, keyboard, display and battery over and above what a car installation would need.
FM subcarriers are broadcast services like any other.
Wireless link receives data continuously; 10k BPS is plenty. Current DSM systems use radio, so this capability is already there.
Figure is simply ludicrous and irrelevant to the actual application.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 29, 2008 10:10:40 PM

And quoth the Taylor:

Cake it may be, but it is pie in the sky to think it is the same thing.

Why don't you ask the people who do it? Oh, that's right; they consider it a fait accompli, as do all the makers of grid-tie inverters for solar and wind installations.

Exactly what capability is going to be missing?
matching voltage. Why would you think that 3 ph 220 grid voltage is going to be idea for running a car motor?

The voltage required by a PM motor is proportional to the rotational speed, more or less. The voltage required by an induction motor is a more complex function of speed, slip speed and torque, but it also varies over a wide range. The variable-voltage capabilities are already part of the motor drive. If that overlaps with the 110/220 V outlet voltage you're all set, and that's exactly what AC Propulsion did.

Since when, and where, do you get Blackberry network service for FREE?

You're going to get a hernia if you don't stop moving the goalposts. First you said V2G would need a dedicated system, which the Blackberry refutes. Now you're complaining that Blackberries aren't free. Well, gee, I bet using cell data services to set up V2G wouldn't be free either. What do you think it might cost to set up a connection when the car is plugged in, given the bulk buying power of the utility? You're talking less data traffic than it takes to keep track of which cell your phone is in, because the car doesn't move when plugged in; you only need to do it a few times a day. The car needs to communicate its position, connection power and state of charge. I could squeeze that and an account number into 256 bits with room to spare. That's a lot smaller than an SMS message.

I didn't mis read you. Your suggestion was that the initial fuel savings would pay for an infrastructure...

Specifically, the savings from a PHEV with a 110-volt connection would quickly pay for a much more powerful connection, which in turn would increase the potential savings.

... and that could be installed in such a way as to benefit the utility.

It would also benefit the owner, both by increasing the fuel savings and by increasing the value of V2G services and the amount the owner could get paid for them. Some people already have the wiring (electric dryer connections in attached garages); are you saying that the utility should pay everyone else, or that it shouldn't be done?

Folks like me would just install their own; 220 V wiring isn't difficult. Even subpanels are straightforward jobs.

EP Blusters is turning into a bigger job than I have time for.

Ooh, irony.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 29, 2008 10:13:19 PM

Quoth sjc:

Some rough math on solar car ports says that if a car port is 10 feet x 20 feet, that would be 200 square feet.

That's definitely the way to go. The carport has more useful area, doesn't impose any weight or drag penalties on the car, doesn't have the mechanical stresses of something on a car, and keeps heat off the car instead of absorbing it.

Posted by: Engineer-Poet | Feb 29, 2008 10:18:58 PM