« Solazyme Unveils Algal Renewable Diesel That Meets ASTM D-975 Specifications | Main | Caterpillar Exiting On-Road Engine Business; Entering Strategic Alliance with Navistar »
DOE Announces $30 Million for PHEV Projects
12 June 2008
The US Department of Energy (DOE) will provide up to $30 million in funding over three years for three cost-shared Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle (PHEV) demonstration and development projects led separately by General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and General Electric.
The selected projects are designed to accelerate the development of PHEVs capable of traveling up to 40 miles without recharging, which includes most daily roundtrip commutes and satisfies 70% of the average daily travel in the US. The projects are also intended to address critical barriers to achieving DOE’s goal of making PHEVs cost-competitive by 2014 and ready for commercialization by 2016.
The projects selected will be developed between Fiscal Years 2008-11 and demonstrated in geographically diverse regions to identify performance, operation, and fuel economy in a real-world environment. DOE’s funding for these projects, which is subject to Congressional appropriations, will be combined with an industry cost share of 50%.
Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Andy Karsner announced the funding at the “Plug-In Electric Vehicles 2008: What Role for Washington?” conference, sponsored by the Brookings Institution and Google.org.
The funding represents the first round of selections under DOE’s PHEV Technology Acceleration and Deployment Activity funding opportunity announcement. A second round of applications is due July 18, 2008. The following three projects were selected:
General Motors has been selected for negotiation of an award for a project aimed at enhancement of Lithium-Ion battery packs, charging systems, powertrain development, vehicle integration, and vehicle validation. Following development, the PHEVs will be deployed over a three year period into a demonstration fleet in three regions of the US.
Other team members include Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, and the Michigan Economic Development Corporation.
Ford Motor Company has been selected for negotiation of an award for a project to identify a pathway that accelerates commercial mass-production of PHEVs. The project will focus on development of battery systems and deployment of prototype PHEVs. The project will test and demonstrate the propulsion system design, controls, and communications necessary to develop a viable PHEV production program.
Team members include Southern California Edison, Electric Power Research Institute, and Johnson Controls-Saft, Inc.
General Electric has been selected for negotiation of an award for a demonstration of PHEVs that relies upon an innovative dual-battery energy storage system capable of 40 miles accumulated electric driving range. The project will focus on developing the dual-battery energy storage system in parallel with vehicle integration.
GE is partnering with Chrysler for this project.
June 12, 2008 in Plug-ins, Policy, Research | Permalink | Comments (36) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/30106564
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference DOE Announces $30 Million for PHEV Projects:
Comments
“…to achieving DOE’s goal of making PHEVs cost-competitive by 2014 and ready for commercialization by 2016”. Maybe the DOE has consulted with Dr. Anderman to set such an ambitious goal with such a breathtaking speed of development.
BYD has said they will do it by the end of 2008.
Anyway this is penny money well spend. It compares to the cost of less than 90 minutes of patrolling by US forces in Iraq which is money less well spend in my humble opinion. ($200 billion a year / 365 days *24 hours) = $22.8 million per hour.
Posted by: Henrik | Jun 12, 2008 11:36:44 AM
Isn't this what CalCar and others have been doing in recent years? Apparently their research and development is not in keeping with Washington's high standards. If GM and Ford's words can be believed, then this (40 miles) should be a forgone conclusion by 2010.
Posted by: shigley | Jun 12, 2008 11:50:28 AM
I'd rather see our federal government support a PHEV R&D program that lowers the 40-mile battery operation range to 20-miles. There are crucial advantages with this lower driving range stipulation. The smaller battery pack, (roughly half-size), may utilize NiMh technology, will reduce costs, will have broader application, will encourage shorter driving distances, thus will make many trips possible without having to drive, thus encourage walking, bicycling and the use of mass transit, thus encourage local economic development.
Why must American motorists plan for an average of 40 miles of daily driving? Me thinks 40 miles is too much.
Posted by: Wells | Jun 12, 2008 12:06:23 PM
700 billion dollars a year going to overseas for petrol and Bush can only com up with 30 million for research and some stupid rebate checks. It is amazing this country is in one piece.
Posted by: Joe Rocker | Jun 12, 2008 12:17:19 PM
A truism that applies her.
Howard Lyman is a walkin', talkin' Marlboro Man.His The Golden Rule: "Them that's got the 'gold' make all the rules!
Posted by: Axil | Jun 12, 2008 12:41:05 PM
Wells: "Why must American motorists plan for an average of 40 miles of daily driving? Me thinks 40 miles is too much."
Because this is about how far most cars are driven in a single day.
Posted by: mdf | Jun 12, 2008 12:45:52 PM
Like déjà vu all over again.
Funny it seems like yesterday, but it was 1993 that Detriot got $2 Billion tax payers money to come up with a 80mpg car by 2004.
Posted by: DS | Jun 12, 2008 4:07:24 PM
Didn't GM already say the volt was going to be ready for commercialization by 2010? what the hell? Where has the DOE been, I think they should be funding the production of PHEV's, not giving the domestics money for PHEV "projects".
Posted by: Brad Godfrey | Jun 12, 2008 4:35:18 PM
Wells: Why must American motorists plan for an average of 40 miles of daily driving? Me thinks 40 miles is too much.
No problem my friend. Just tell me how to afford a home closer then 20 miles from my job and I will gladly cut my commute. I travel 46.6 miles to and from work each day. I live on the south side of Baltimore and travel to the north side of DC. The communities I travel through have average home prices 3 to 7 times me annual salary. There is little that is closer I could afford. And I'm lucky. To obtain housing that is affordable for my coworkers requires many of them to travel from Harford County on the north side of Baltimore with commutes of as much as fifty miles. One coworker travels two hours from southern Pennsylvania as he wanted a home in a really rural community (but hes clearly an extreme example so never mind). of the folks that live closer, either they purchased their homes years before I bought mine (and I bought in '84) or their spouses make considerably more then mine does and they have no children to pay for. (I have two wonderful daughters who I love dearly, but for whom the cost of education and braces, and all the other niceties of life have meant evaporation of most of my disposable income for the last 20 years).
And thats only the cost of getting to and from work. Then theres driving to doctors visits, and dropping children at their jobs, and trips to stores and etc, etc, etc, Getting the picture?
To me 40 miles is an understatement of daily travel needs.
And I ain't alone.
Larry
Posted by: Larry | Jun 12, 2008 5:38:14 PM
Larry,
I am sure you are not alone, but there are thousands (maybe millions) of people like me. I live 5 miles from my primary office and 9 miles from another office to which I have to travel twice a week. My wife is retired and travels within a 5 mile (maybe 10 mile max) radius, except on rare occasions.
While a 20 mile electric range would cut our gas costs by 80-90%, it would only save you maybe 40%. Still there is a market, particularly if it makes $5-6k difference in the price of the car.
My point is that you represent one market segment, but there is no reason to ignore another market segment waiting to satisfy your needs. Some people commute 80 miles each way, and I sure as hell don't want to wait for a PHEV with 160 mile electric range, nor do I wish to pay for one.
Posted by: JMartin | Jun 12, 2008 6:11:56 PM
$30 million in funding over three years for General Motors, Ford Motor Company, and General Electric.
Ok, so where is the 10 million for Tesla that already did the work and has the car all ready for testing. I think the money would be well spent getting their white star car crash tested and put through the other testing processes needed to bring it to public production.
So ,,, how is it that an innovative company is overlooked, while wasteful dinosaurs are slathered in taxpayers money?
Posted by: | Jun 12, 2008 6:26:58 PM
Why is this boondoggle limited to only three "major" vehicle manufacturers?
Posted by: RPritchett | Jun 12, 2008 6:33:52 PM
Larry,
I would like to offer another commuter coping strategy that you may want to consider. That is, consider relocation to the DC city proper.
It still may not be too late. Many high power professionals have invested in the rehabilitation of run down urban housing in the city proper. There was and may still be an incentive program put in place to facilitate this relocation strategy by the DC city Government.
In my opinion, life in the city of Washington DC is one of excitement and stimulation; I lived and worked there for a number of years. A tip, leave for work before 7 am to miss the commuter crush. Also buy a house that can support battery recharge.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 12, 2008 6:48:17 PM
Larry
Another strategy comes to mind. Exit I 95 at the Metro park and ride. If your place of employment is not near the metro station, take a foldable bike if local traffic permits.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 12, 2008 7:01:02 PM
This is peanut money. It is much too little too late.
The Big-3 need at least $10 to $20 Billion to retool and mass produce various size PHEVs by 2011/2012.
Future EV advanced batteries + (control systems & motors), mass production factories need at least $5 to $10 billion to get rolling by 2011/12.
That much money may look like a lot to many but it does not even represent one month of the current futile wars cost.
Even $30 Billion would be a small price to pay to accellerate the mass production of affordable PHEVs and BEVs. It could even put an end to the current oil price speculations. A few million PHEVs on US roads would send a clear message. Oil price would be heading down quickly enough.
However, $30 million would definately not do it.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 12, 2008 7:07:41 PM
If a person only wants to drive 20 miles on electricity why cant they just put less batteries in their car for that day. Put more in when you can afford it or if you have to drive farther. We could probably have millions of phevs on the road now testing the technology and speeding us along closer to affordable 40 and 60 mile batteries if they had some 10 and 20 mile batteries in todays cars.
we
Posted by: Cage | Jun 12, 2008 8:28:45 PM
Cage
You have to trust the manufacture to stay in business, continue the product line, etc. Most people want the whole product up front, and they still worry about it performing right.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 12, 2008 10:21:58 PM
What gives?
Again we get DOE funding research to make PHEVs cost-competitive years from now (2014) and commercialized by 2016.
But Toyota, GM, and no doubt lesser companies seem committed to selling PHEVs in 2010.
I will concede that announcements saying 2010 may slip and model choices will be few. Even so that is a lot earlier than 2016, a date so far away as to mean nothing in governmentspeak.
Developing and selling vehicles with 20m electric only ranges seems sensible to me. Arguing about 20M OR 40m range when you can buy neither seems odd. Ignore those imaginary barriers.
Why not market 20M when you can? Probably NiMh in something like an improved Prius or Civic. Those who see it as meeting their needs will buy.
And when it becomes possible also offer more; 40m for those needing that and willing to pay for it.
Posted by: K | Jun 12, 2008 10:26:29 PM
What gives?
Again we get DOE funding research to make PHEVs cost-competitive years from now (2014) and commercialized by 2016
Answer as follows:
Reference:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/eia-forecasts-s.html
Excerpt:
• The EIA forecasts as its base case real world crude oil prices (defined as the price of light, low-sulfur crude oil delivered in Cushing, Oklahoma, in 2006 dollars) decline gradually from current levels to $57 per barrel in 2016 ($68 per barrel in nominal dollars), as expanded investment in exploration and development brings new supplies to the world market. After 2016, real prices begin to rise, as demand continues to grow and higher cost supplies are brought to market. In 2030, the average real price of crude oil is $70 per barrel in 2006 dollars, or about $113 per barrel in nominal dollars.
Sound crazy doesn’t it?
$68/barrel in 2016
$113/barrel in 2030
But all government agencies use these numbers for planning and funding research: Such as CAFFA fuel standards and planning for electric car development. This is how the administration slows down all progress everywhere. A neat trick isn’t it?
Posted by: Axil | Jun 12, 2008 11:48:25 PM
Larry and others who absolutely have to live 40 miles from work might be buying too much house. I wanted to live close to work, so I live in an older, smaller house that doesn't look like much. I have NEVER regretted not buying a house that was larger, newer, and even a little cheaper, but was 20 miles away. I hope GM wises up and offers a "half battery" Volt that costs thousands less for guys like me, because I almost never need 40 miles on a charge.
Posted by: George | Jun 12, 2008 11:58:17 PM
Axil writes: Also buy a house that can support battery recharge.
Axil, you might be surprised how many houses can support battery recharge already. They can be spotted by the existence of telltale signs such as having refrigerators, washers and dryers, toasters, and televisions.
Posted by: George | Jun 13, 2008 12:03:26 AM
Honda sees no future for plug-in hybrid vehicles. They aren't going to make improvements in them, invest in them or market them.
Instead they will be making a better product, battery electric vehicles.
Now that the competition has noticed the PHEV idea obsolete, we find the USA willing to begin investing in it, and trying to sent USA automakers down a dead end street.
Is Bush Insane?
Posted by: John Taylor | Jun 13, 2008 4:34:47 AM
@ george "They can be spotted by the existence of telltale signs such as having refrigerators, washers and dryers, toasters, and televisions."
LOL, but then who's been driving around neighborhoods with binoculars ? I really think you should get another hobby george ;=)
Regarding Tesla funding, I believe that there may be rules with govt funding to privately held companies. That may be the reason Cerberus/Chrysler is absent as well.
re PHEVS - I am of the school of thought that also thinks that putting a large battery in a car to be charged by an MG set is poor idea. This series hybrid advocate feels that energy is best left in the fuel tank and not in expensive electrochemical containers.
We need smaller engines that can come to temperature quickly for the more frequent short trips that most of us make. The experimentation of powerful parallel twins in hybrids rather than three cylinder donkey engines should be funded in my opinion. We need to start moving on 2020 technology today.
T2
Posted by: T2 | Jun 13, 2008 5:43:57 AM
PHEV/BEV range: 20, 40 or more electric miles?
It would make sense to sell PHEVs/BEVs with modular/upgradeable battery packs, with a base pack for 20 miles. Battery compartment would have the same size for say 20, 40 and 60 miles of battery packs. For air-cooled battery packs, it should be a relatively simple task to add one or more standardized packs, in say "20 mile" eq sizes. Perhaps add more cooling fans for more packs.
Car dealers should be able to add battery packs at the time of vehicle purchase, and later.
As those battery packs can be heavy, it would be desirable that whatever number of packs, they're always positioned in the compartment, so that their centre of gravity remains the same, not to affect vehicle balance. In a boxy compartment, a simple task.
Such batteries (that require just air-cooling) are already available.
An issue could be mixing older and newer battery packs, but intelligent control systems already need to handle that issue in multi battery packs, even 'identical' new batteries often age differently or fail at different times.
Considering that currently (and in a next couple of years) battery packs are probably the most expensive component of BEVs, this approach could significantly speed up adoption of BEVs/PHEVs, as many people need just 20 mile electric range.
So people would be able to buy reasonably priced 20 mile BEVs/PHEVs say in 2010/2011.
Later when battery price drops, they could upgrade if they wish.
The problem with this approach is that modular, standardized battery packs would become thieves' target if easily accessible.
Posted by: MG | Jun 13, 2008 5:46:21 AM
MG:
Your modular plug-in battery approach makes too much sense.
Standardized (small) 3 to 4 Kwh and mid size 6 to 8 Kwh packs would be ideal as long as cars were designed to accept up to 3 packs at a latter date. Secondly, 2 to 4 years down the road, those packs would be much cheaper and offer much better performance.
I strongly believe that buyers will (eventually) have the choice to pick various size batteries to extend electric range to suit their requiremens.
Somebody will offer that option sooner or latter.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jun 13, 2008 9:00:10 AM
@George
Axil, you might be surprised how many houses can support battery recharge already. They can be spotted by the existence of telltale signs such as having refrigerators, washers and dryers, toasters, and televisions.
Response:
In many older cities Like DC, Baltimore, and Phila,… There only exists on-street parking. On small side streets, only single side parking is permitted. If your house is on the non parking side of the street, then you would have to run your charging cord over the street to the parking side of the street. This is not good for the cord.
If you can’t envision row housing, take a trip to your closest large city and visit their neighborhoods.
In summary, electric cars will not work in high density city living conditions because of the lack of parking close to the house. A parking space is filled first come first serve; like in the mall lot. That is why fast charging stations are required.
Posted by: Axil | Jun 13, 2008 9:18:42 AM
An example of government "helping us". Extract tax money, use about three times the money handed out in "administrative expenses", and give money for "demonstrations" that have no practical result or any needed output.
Ideally the politicians or either party, would like to hand out 30 million, one dollar demonstration projects. It would be about as technically productive too. That would be superior, and maximize the vote buying, the real genuine objective.
The amount handed out is too small for much more than glorified paper studies; therefore accomplishing basically nothing. The results won't be available until three to five years after the manufacturer's (eg GM w Volt), place a real PHEV product in the marketplace.
GM like its competitors, will likely spend an amount of money commensurate with the problem. Something on the order of $1-3 Billion dollars to do so, is the usual cost to develop and build a new vehicle model. $20-30 million is an irrelevant pittance.
Isn't it grand to have a government energy policy? What would we possible do without it? Lets EXPAND the oh so helpful government, even more.
Posted by: | Jun 13, 2008 10:07:33 AM
MG, a 20 mile pack needs twice the power density of a 40 mile pack. 20 mile packs will also tend to be recharged twice per day (at home and at work), so you need twice the cycle life. PHEV duty cycle is already tough enough, doubling the power and cycle life specs puts you beyond the reach of today's battery technology.
What about PHEV-10s or PHEV-7s, like the 2010 Saturn Vue PHEV or rumored Prius 'double-pack' NIMH PHEV? These cars run in blended mode, under acceleration or at high-speed the ICE kicks in so the small battery pack only needs to provide a portion of vehicle power. This slashes your battery power spec -- instead of 100-150 kW peak battery power a blended design can get away with 25-40 kW.
Blended mode is not only easy on the battery pack, it can also save a lot of money on motors and power electronics. The two main downsides are emissions and marketing. Firing up a cold ICE every time you accelerate is an emissions nightmare. The ICE would need to continue running a few minutes the first time it starts to achieve operating temperature, which wastes a lot of fuel if you're only going 3-5 miles. This feeds into the marketing problem -- blended mode PHEVs don't offer any true EV range. The salesman who can say "our car burns zero gas during your commute, theirs starts burning gas as soon as you pull out of your neighborhood" has a big advantage.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 13, 2008 10:11:36 AM
doggydogworld,
your assumption that "a 20 mile pack needs twice the power density of a 40 mile pack" would be valid if you'd be doing downsizing of an initial 40 mile battery pack to the 20 mile one.
My assumption was that the base 20 mile pack (or another size) could provide sufficient power (ie current) to run the motor at max power, but with limited range (or running time).
If you add one or two,three more battery packs you'd theoretically have an ability to improve car performance if the base batt pack cannot provide enough power to the motor, but it was not my idea.
Anyway most people would probably prefer to have limited range and be able to run motor at full power with the base pack, than to have reduced power.
With control electronic you can do it either way (they in Tesla raodster manage battery pack of almost 7,000 individual batteries and provide fault-tolerant operation).
In short the idea was that the base pack can provide enough power for the max performance of the installed motor.
Another possibility is that a more powerfull version of the same car (with bigger motor) would use the same battery packs and compartment (but a higher spec inverter), and it would be shipped with at least 2 battery packs or with stronger ones.
Actually this modular concept would be most suitable for BEVs, or for serial hybrids that are mostly used in pure electric mode (which will be usually the case, I guess).
See what Carlos Ghosn (Nissan and Renault CEO) does - starts with BEVs, after selling some HEV Sentras based on licenced Toyota design. He assigns resources to BEVs.
He's able to predict trends in auto industry, better than most other auto executives.
Re.
charging base pack twice a day:
If somebody needs more than 20 miles, then they have an option to install another battery pack, or charge twice a day and then add another pack (or replace it) after 4 years (instead after 8 yrs with once-a day charging), again opportunity to save money as batteries get cheaper down the road.
Re. "blended mode" - many options are possible, you mentioned some.
I guess they are all based on parallel hybrid design that use complex and expensive mechanical device where they "blend outputs" of the ICE and an el motor.
Even if batteries are as cheap as bricks, such designs will always carry a significant cost premium.
IMHO those paralel hybrids are mostly suitable for start-stop vehicles like garbage trucks and public transport buses.
Posted by: MG | Jun 13, 2008 5:51:19 PM
This technology already exists from the Raser company. Why not award the money directly to Raser rather than wasting it to the big 3 or other bully companies?
We know that the money will just disappear after strong showing from their lobby group. This just same old politics as usual. They give lip service about their supposedly "good" intentions and project some ambitious mileage goals. Then suddenly everything is forgotten and the money disappears. This has happened many times, why trust them?
Posted by: Mark | Jun 14, 2008 8:25:40 AM
In short the idea was that the base pack can provide enough power for the max performance
It's a nice idea. Now all you have to do is invent the battery that can do it.
If somebody needs more than 20 miles, then they have an option to install another battery pack, or charge twice a day and then add another pack (or replace it) after 4 years
Sounds logical, but marketplace reality is hybrid batteries are warranted for 10 year/150k miles. IMHO it's impossible to market a mainstream car with a battery you have to replace in four years.
Re. "blended mode" - ....
I guess they are all based on parallel hybrid design that use complex and expensive mechanical device
The "complex and expensive mechanical device" which provides blended mode in Toyota, Ford and Nissan hybrids is a planetary gearset you can hold in your hand. It's possibly the single most robust drivetrain component on the road today. I don't know its price but I doubt it costs Toyota more than $40. Toyota can use such a simple and cheap mechanical device because they spend extra on motors (less than pure serial designs like E-Flex, though!).
The GM/BMW/Daimler/Chrysler two-mode system is more complex, with two planetary gearsets plus some auto-tranny-style clutches. It offers better highway efficiency than HSD and much better than serial.
The simplest blended mode system PHEV system uses a simple spline fitting, basically an auto tranny's lockup device, to connect or disconnect the ICE to the wheels. When the device disengages the car runs as an EV or pure serial hybrid. When it engages the car is a pure parallel hybrid. The device only engages at speed, e.g. above 30 mph. Very simple, robust, efficient and cheap. Battery, power electronic and motor cost savings could easily be a few thousand dollars. The only downside is emissions -- as in any blended system the engine, once started, should run until warmed up. I believe BYD uses this system, though details are sketchy.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 14, 2008 10:57:00 AM
doggydogworld,
batteriess based on lithium titanate (EnerDel, Altairnano) have very high charge and discharge rate.
Re: claim "the base pack can provide enough power for the max performance":
I'll show you that EnerDel battery pack for 20 mile range can provide enough power for decent performance of (at least) a small car.
(All data applicable to EnerDel batts, from several sources)
They claim "very high discharge efficiency for rates up to 50C", and cell sizes are 1.8Ah and 5Ah capacity with nominal voltage of 2.5 V.
And 3,000 charges at 55 degC 5C charge/discharge, without loss of capacity.
For calculations I'll use 5 Ah, 2.5V cell.
From Think car data w/ EnerDel batts:
Approx 10 km range with every 15 kg of battery (almost the same ratio as for Tesla w/ diff type of battery).
So for 20 mile (32 km) range, a 50 kg (rounding up 48) heavy battery is needed. They have Energy Density >80 Wh/kg.
For a pack of 50 kg it's 4.0 kWh energy.
Number of cells is: 4,000 Wh / (2.5V * 5Ah) = 320 cells.
Assuming 10 C discharge rate (ie 50 A/cell) x 320 cells x 2.5 V = 40 kW (54.4 HP) - available electric power.
(Whatever way you connect cells in blocks, the above calculation for 10C should be valid).
So with a conservative assumption of 10C discharge (50 A) we get 40 kW (54.4 HP) electric power.
And on their presentation they draw charts with 2C to 50C discharge, with 1C to 10C discharges not reducing the available capacity.
(BTW Smart For Two car with 700 cc engine has 45 kw (it's peak power), and 95 Nm Max torque)
Possibly that 20C (or higher) short discharge (for 108 HP) may reduce slightly the capacity (and range) (the same thing happens with range of gasoline powered cars if you accelerate too much, and too often!).
I think this is proof of concept that a 4.0 KWh EnerDel battery EnerDel pack can provide range of 20+ miles, and provide decent acceleration, better than very popular (in Europe) Smart for Two.
These EnerDel batteries should be available in volume in 2009. Price is not known.
Re: "...but marketplace reality is hybrid batteries are warranted for 10 year/150k miles" .
For BEV the warranty for batteries will probably contain a clause "under normal driving conditions"
with a fine print stating something like Max 3,000 recharges, or 10 years, whichever comes first.
Otherwise some couriers may charge cars twice a day regularly.
So how can an automaker know how many times the battery pack was recharged?
Simply save the nr. of charges in a flash memory, like the odometer reading in newer cars.
Implement some sophisticated algorithm to count how much energy was charged, for given interval (every 24 hrs, or 7 days).
To prevent swapping batteries from a vehicle under warranty into the same model with expired battery warranty (and then back when the pack wears out, and claim defective battery ) they can add a flash memory to each battery pack where would be stored say ID of last 5 cars on which the battery pack was used.
Batteries are connected via CAN network, all that is feasible.
The Mitsu MiEV to be released soon, will use GS Yuasa batteries.
According to available info in English they're in almost every aspect inferior to EnerDel batteries, especially in cold weather. Plus they support up to 2,000 charges.
They may warrant batteries for up to 2,000 charges, who doesn't like, doesn't have to buy it.
Re paralel hybrid systems - I'll asume you're right.
Posted by: MG | Jun 15, 2008 3:20:39 PM
@Larry: "I live on the south side of Baltimore and travel to the north side of DC."
Larry, I used to live in Baltimore myself. You live alongside the best inter-city rail corridor in the United States. Is it impossible for you to use it? I certainly did when I lived there.
Posted by: John L. | Jun 15, 2008 7:51:17 PM
@George: "I hope GM wises up and offers a "half battery" Volt that costs thousands less for guys like me, because I almost never need 40 miles on a charge."
I agree. I would even buy Toyota's Prius PHEV prototype which was described here a few months ago. It can only drive seven miles in all-electric mode.
BUT they achieved this PHEV-7 by simply doubling up the NiMH battery back in the standard Prius. I estimate that would add just $3,000 to the purchase price. And they may be managing the battery charge a bit more aggressively than in the standard Prius, so battery replacement might come a bit sooner too.
Most of my family's trips are SHORT! And that was planned. Like you, my wife and I decided to live in a smaller home, closer to work, rather than move out to an ex-urban McMansion.
My wife's commute is our longest and fastest typical trip. That's 24 miles, and in her hands the car gets about 46 MPG (less than me, I can top 50). With seven miles of electric charge, her mileage, for her long commute, should increase to 65 MPG. Our slower, shorter trips should be better still. I can see us getting an aggregate 80 MPG, for just $3,000 more.
Posted by: John L. | Jun 15, 2008 8:03:08 PM
MG, EnerDel's lithium titanate cells claim to have high power density and long cycle life, but they're not in the Think! City. That car has their "hard carbon" anode with energy density but lower power density than LTO.
Think! says the 27 kWh pack delivers 170/180 km range (Euro/US mixed drive cycles). You'd need a 5 kWh pack for 20 miles in a mini-car like Think! and 7-8 kWh for a real car like Chevy Volt or Toyota Prius.
Could a 5-8 kWh LTO pack handle the power and cycle life specs? Don't know. EnerDel and Altairnano talk a good game but neither seems able to produce cells. Why didn't GM pick EnerDel LTO for the Chevy Volt? Why is Think! adding A123 just prior to production after years of working with EnerDel? Why did Altair do an exclusive with flaky company Phoenix, then have to recall the batteries? It sounds like LTO simply isn't ready for prime time.
A123 may be a stronger candidate for a PHEV-20, since they seem to have power density to spare, but GM execs indicate A123 is losing out to LG Chem in the Volt competition. Since the PHEV-40 duty cycle is less taxing than PHEV-20, it seems A123 isn't there yet either.
I was exaggerating when I said "now you just have to invent the batteries". The batteries which can handle PHEV-20 duty cycle aren't here yet but they don't need to be invented, just perfected. Give it 5 years. In fact, a GM exec mused the other day that they may ship a PHEV-20 as a lower cost option in the 2013 time frame.
Posted by: doggydogworld | Jun 17, 2008 4:53:46 PM
The real technical challenge for building "usable" PHEV is to design the plug-in charging system that doesn’t required humans to physically plug the car into an electrical outlet. Who is working this issue?
Posted by: Mike | Sep 8, 2008 5:13:03 PM
