« US Oil Demand Drops in First Half of 2008 | Main | Researchers Identify Potential Replacement for ZDDP in Engine Oils »
Andy Grove Calls for Concerted US Effort to Convert Pickups, SUVs and Vans to 40+ Mile PHEVs
22 July 2008
In a lunchtime address at the Plug-in 2008 conference and exposition in San Jose, California, Andy Grove, former Chairman & CEO, Intel Corporation, called for an urgent inter-industry effort in the US to convert pickups, SUVs and Vans (PSVs) to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) with at least a 40-mile electric range.
Characterizing the current energy situation as a “clear and present danger” to the United States, Grove said that an inter-industry task force comprising electric utilities, automakers, high technology companies and academia should develop a plan to have 10 million plug-in hybrid—which he calls dual-fuel vehicles—PSVs on US roads in 4 years, and then present the plan to the new President on 21 January 2009.
Grove said that societies and countries as well as companies can face inflection points, and that the US was facing such an inflection point now with respect to energy. Fungibility of energy sources requires the use of electricity in transportation, he said, noting that if the US converted 100 million of its largest and least efficient light-duty vehicles to PHEVs through a combination of conversion and new product, the US would reduce its imported oil need by 50%.
Key issues, he said, were infrasftructure, battery cost, carbon emissions and ramping production, but that he had been told that the program was “borderline do-able”.
Other recommendations he proposed in conjunction with his plan were:
A tax credit of 50% for retrofitting PSVs, with the cost offset by progressive licensing fees for all vehicles, boats and planes.
Free electricity use for plug-in PSVs for a period of time such as 2 years.
A new Federal court district to handle issues related to Intellectual Property in this field.
Automakers should adopt open source principles re: specifications and commit to not withholding warranties on the conversions.
An aggressive push by the venture capital community.
Support from the Small Business Administration to help conversion businesses grow.
A unified, and consistent approach to the US government from the task Force—i.e., no stovepipe lobbying.
Rebuilding our commons, he said, will require a co-operative, problem-solving attitude that incorporates the best of the Internet model. It will also require a level of urgency last seen in the national response to World War II.
July 22, 2008 in Conversions, Plug-ins, Policy | Permalink | Comments (49) | TrackBack (0)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22062/31524076
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Andy Grove Calls for Concerted US Effort to Convert Pickups, SUVs and Vans to 40+ Mile PHEVs:
Comments
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Andy Grove, and respect him even more for his battle with Parkinson's Disease. However, I think his plan for conversion/retrofitting idea is well intentioned, but not realistic. You are not going to convince construction workers, ranchers, contractors, and anyone else that needs "PSV" performance to switch to something that delivers anything less than that same level of overall performance. While some people buy PSV's for the sheer size & to compensate for small *a-hem* johnsons, I think most need the horsepower/size for towing, hauling supplies & people, etc.
Ultimately, everyone knows we are waiting on the energy storage (EEStor?); make the vehicles more economical with EEStor batteries, with the same kind of performance & size of current vehicles, and market forces will work to transform the transportation world as we know it.
Posted by: ejj | Jul 22, 2008 6:00:20 PM
Plug hybrids could have similar performance to the same stock vehicle. You are adding a motor, controller and batteries. The motor should give you good torque to go with the engine horsepower.
Posted by: sjc | Jul 22, 2008 6:06:35 PM
The retro-fit to the EV should be first directed toward the largest fleets of vehicles: taxi cabs, corporate vans, police cars in large cities, government fleet cars … you get the idea.
Vehicles that are always in use and are in greater numbers that can be converted in assemble line fashion.
Posted by: Axil | Jul 22, 2008 7:01:39 PM
This is a tough one. There's a lot of city cars that will benefit, maybe some of the SUV's out there, but "performance" vehicles like work trucks probably will not qualify or even be good candidates based on the demands put upon them.
Resale value may also be affected, though whether it's positive or negative would depend on gas prices and kit quality.
Posted by: Elliot | Jul 22, 2008 7:19:51 PM
Axil is on target. If the government is going to get involved, then retrofit school buses, city buses, and all Post Office vehicles 1st. All are worthy of Federal monies (less political flak) and can have quick impact.
Posted by: JMartin | Jul 22, 2008 8:11:58 PM
This fellow obviously does some thinking. These vehicles are the lowest mileage on the road and have room for batteries. The right kind of conversion would actually leave you with better performance.
Posted by: OldNeil | Jul 22, 2008 8:17:38 PM
It would be an interesting effort. History indicates retrofitting isn't as cost effective as scraping the old and building new.
Like all general statements there are exceptions.
His 10 million conversions in 4 years would be followed in the next 4 years with 50 million breakdowns, 80 million days in the shop, and lost work by the owners. (all figures confirmed by astrologers and subject to change w/o notice).
Grove is worth listening to. I have a bias against retrofits but another bias toward what might work. He is right about:
"Grove said ... that the US was facing...an inflection point now with respect to energy. Fungibility of energy sources requires the use of electricity in transportation..."
Posted by: K | Jul 22, 2008 8:45:47 PM
I like the T. Boone Pickens idea of CNG as a substitute for diesel and gasoline for trucks, at least as an interim measure while the battery technology and production catches up and the renewable and solar power plants are developed. Mr. Pickens is trying his best to move our politicians into an emergency mode on moving off foreign oil by suggesting federal involvement as soon as possible. I believe with oil at the level it is and with our outstanding debt to other countries, the American government could cease to function and protect our way of life. We are not far from an economic crash and we better do something about it ...NOW!
Posted by: Lad | Jul 22, 2008 8:51:16 PM
Interesting that guys like Grove and Pickens are calling for serious action now. I'll add Gore to that list in order to bait the wingers... Pickens is more self interested than the rest, but his message is still good. I think Grove is a bit idealistic with this plan, but when all the smart guys are telling us we really need to do something, there might be something to it. Also note that despite the oil industry's hydrogen wet dream, everyone is figuring out what we've been saying all along. PHEVs. The infrastructure is already in place. I sure hope EEStor pulls our collective bacon out of the fire. Those guys will deserve the trillions they should make if it works. Oh, and Lad, the government really doesn't give a fig about our way of life. If Bear, Goldman, JP Morgan et al.'s way of life is threatened, then you'll see action.
Posted by: George | Jul 22, 2008 10:00:31 PM
Lad - try to get real. "Economic crash, our way of life..." BS. Now that global warming is proving to be BS, these new cries of catastrophe indicate one thing: those crying loudest are vested in making you believe it.
Grove sets out a more realistic goal than Al Gore. Grove's intent to convert 100M vehicles to PHEV by trade up and aftermarket conversions is aggressive. Even 50M is well beyond manufacturing capability at present - and we have not seen aftermarket conversion kits that would work for PSVs - given the wide variety of drive train and body designs.
But at 50% tax credit for such conversions may stimulate invention. And if in-wheel motors can be built to replace existing wheels, and Li-Io packs in the 4-10kWh range can be mass produced - there may be a way.
As for the Pickens Plan - Beware. T is a ol' oil tycoon. His wind farm expansion is terrific. His conversion to CNG as a bridge is unrealistic. CNG averages $3.00 gallon in US (it avgs $.65 cents gallon in Canada - tell you something?)and legal conversions run around $13k for a small car.
There is a "clear and present danger" and it is called panic. There is no need for panic. PHEVs have been announced by EVERY major manufacturer of motor vehicles. If we really want to upgrade half the U.S. fleet - then legislate new PSV sales to be PHEV; and subsidize trade-ins, and conversions; and legislate E-85 and charge points in gas stations.
And if a Manhattan Project approach is taken - it should be to deliver breakthrough technology on the order of atomic fission 60 years ago. That would be zero point "over-unity" engines, low temp fusion, light pump solar (80-90% efficient)etc. We could do this - Manhattan was no less distant in 1941. But is there the political, economic and technological will? If Andy is right, there is.
Should be interesting.
Posted by: Sulleny | Jul 22, 2008 10:05:13 PM
Sulleny
While I agree with you that panic is a bad adviser, could you tell me where are your source to assert that "Now that global warming is proven to be BS" where are the proof you are refering to ? I have no problem puting into question global warming as long it is not confirmed by facts, but I don't thing there is any serious evidence that it is wrong either.
Posted by: Treehugger | Jul 22, 2008 10:42:21 PM
@Sulleny:
It may be BS to you; but I take a different reading; I think your approach is what is exactly wrong with what's happening in our county...in effect you are thinking too small and over too long a period of time. When $700,000,000 a year is leaving the U.S. and is being returned in the form of dead American soldiers and countries attempting to arm themselves with A-bombs...you have an immediate problem to solve...not a problem that can be delayed by taking a cavalier approach. There are lots of people trying to give you a message...try your best to hear what they say and not be so quick to call it BS!
Posted by: | Jul 22, 2008 10:55:38 PM
I think the guy has lost it.
It is a crazy idea - adding a second engine to 10M vehicles. It is one thing "hotting" up an ICE car - you are tweeking a single engine, but adding a second one is a much bigger deal.
All manner of electrification is good (or will be good) as time moves on but expecting 10M people to add a second engine to their cars is bonkers.
Better to encourage the sale of 10M city EVs to be used as second cars - the 2 car PHEV solution.
Posted by: mahonj | Jul 23, 2008 2:41:18 AM
I think Sulleny has lost it.
Posted by: danm | Jul 23, 2008 4:54:37 AM
The low hanging fruit of the EV world is to add a couple of in-wheel motors to the front wheels of a Ford F150 or Expedition.. easy conversion and massive amaounts of fuel saved.. these vehicles have plenty of room for the batteries. 40 miles electric range seems a bit too much at current prices.
Posted by: Herm | Jul 23, 2008 5:23:52 AM
Kits for many popular ICE cars should be available to turn them into electric vehicles. The current crop of kits have insufficient range due to their use of lead acid batteries.
Posted by: Rich | Jul 23, 2008 5:28:07 AM
I think Sulleny has lost it.Were you waiting for "over-unity" to clinch the diagnosis?
Posted by: Reality Czech | Jul 23, 2008 7:07:19 AM
If its only 40 miles, keep a petrol engine, add a small CNG tank and a home CNG filling device, sorted, not much cost, no hassle....
regards
John
Posted by: John Baldwin | Jul 23, 2008 7:24:23 AM
@ Treehugger:
Clever word play does not pass muster here. Your misquote of my comment points to your desire to distort fact to achieve fiction. My words: "proving to be BS" - your word: "proven." The ability to read accurately accompanies prudent thinking.
For our "lost" friends - try to comment on the proposals and not your emotional response to sections thereof. Anyone else see Boone's backdoor fossil play?
And to the Manhattan doubters consider this:
"In the course of the last four months it has been made probable - through the work of Joliot in France as well as Fermi and Szilard in America - that it may become possible to set up a nuclear chain reaction in a large mass of uranium, by which vast amounts of power and large quantities of new radium-like elements would be generated."
Letter to F. D. Roosevelt, 1939, from Albert Einstein
Posted by: Sulleny | Jul 23, 2008 7:33:02 AM
The Poulsen Hybrid concept could do the trick right now, give front wheel drive trucks instant four wheel drive, and give them 60 hp of additional low-end torque. Red necks would love it! Mr. Grove should put his considerable money where his mouth is. www.poulsenhybrid.com/
Posted by: creativforce | Jul 23, 2008 7:51:19 AM
@Sulleny,
You can't talk reality to a converted religious fanactic full of AGW zeal.
Science may routinely replace old erroneous theory with new theory, but religious fanatics cannot have dogma challenged. It is stable and ever enduring; a foundation for their world view.
While Global Warming may have had a kernal of Truth until the world started Global Cooling, and Reality intruded. The anthrpogenic original sin eyewashof GHGs, is now discredited, and can't stand the light of day.
Algore and his minions wil fade into oblivion as time goes by, hopefully not into a Jonebore episode, but I detect that tendency in him.
But the zeal can still manifest itself as for such quixotic tilting at windmills as retro-fit conversions for tens of millions of ill-suited ICE vehicles.
Simply smile, chuckle, and laugh at the madding of crowds.
Posted by: stas peterson | Jul 23, 2008 7:56:52 AM
It's great that Andy Grove is on-board with PHEVs.
But what's really needed for all this to move forward is a gas tax. Set the floor for a gallon of gas at $4 or whatever, and then the automakers can do their magic; be it PHEVs or otherwise.
I think PHEVs will work, but this effort will fall on its face if gas slips back to $1.50 per gallon.
Posted by: Jim | Jul 23, 2008 7:58:45 AM
The Manhattan Project is the wrong analogy. This should be compared to the WWII mobilization. Pickens, Grove, and even Gore (in spite of his association to Global Warming)are all making the case for an economic security crisis. The first two may not care about the environment, but that is not the point.
We have the technology, but not the political will (yet) to save our economic bacon. That requires getting off imported oil. Doing so will require the use of renewables. This cannot be done quickly with research dollars, and we really don't have 5 years to start moving. The benefit for the the "right" is security and jobs at home, while the benefit for the "left" is rapid movement to green energy sources.
We will get there whether the Government figures it out or not, but they sure could help. And if the next president wants to earn a second term, he better get on top of this.
Everybody wins (except maybe the military industrial complex as we have known it for 75 years).
Posted by: JMartin | Jul 23, 2008 8:21:30 AM
The idea may look good but is not as good as converting a few million recent (fully justified) dinosaurs to NG.
I see no reasons why I should pay my daft neighbour to convert his unjustified, oversized, overweight monster to a PHEV-40. Let him pay for his mistake and lack of judgement.
However, buyers of new acceptable size PHEV-40 could be financially helped at the rate of $5k to $10K. Financial resourses required could come from a new $0.25/gal fuel tax.
Posted by: HarveyD | Jul 23, 2008 8:34:55 AM
It is amazing these big names are coming out of the woodwork talking about the economic damage the price of Oil is doing and will do (which it true), there's obviously something to all this (both Grove and Pickens are at the end of the life span game, so presumably there's more than just money motivating them).
Hard to make heads or tails of Grove's plan here as it seems huge and destined to have alot of problems - unless world Oil production starts declining - then this plan becomes needed. I wonder what he knows?
Otherwise, I would think encouraging new production (serious rebates for PHEV, EV's etc.) should be the first priority (get the industry switched over) and possibly loan development/production setup money for the industry to push it along faster (& allow companies like Chrysler to do it at all). Production vehicles would be alot less problematic and reliable. In the mean time push vehicles that get great gas mileage (temporary rebates possibly till PHEV/EV arrive on scene in sufficient numbers) to get our usage down.
It all depends on when world Oil production turns down - hopefully we have 4 or 5 years before then, otherwise we'll need to call Andy Grove.
Posted by: Sasparilla | Jul 23, 2008 10:04:31 AM
If the coming WAR on Global WARming won't work for Stan and Sulleny, may be the Second Declaration of Independence, or the Second American Independence WAR will work for them, if they are sufficiently Patriotic! We will need to unite in this matter, if we are going to be able to avoid looming disaster.
T Boone Pickens and John Baldwin have the right idea: Using CNG to displace petrol for now. (H2 later, of course)
The car's old fuel tank can be ripped out, to be replaced with a new tank capable of storing BOTH CNG and Gasoline. You can fill up with CNG at home using the Phil system perhaps once a week for high pressure system. If lower CNG pressure is chosen to reduce retrofit cost for the car, perhaps plugging in to Phil every nite may be necessary. Or if Pickens has his way with US Congress, we will see CNG filling-capable gas stations in most places. Traveling to where CNG is not available, you can still fill up the tank with gasoline.
This CNG-GAsoline FFV concept can be adapted RIGHT NOW, and to TENS OF MILLIONS OF VEHICLES, instead of waiting for battery factories to be built and for tens of millions of battery packs to be manufactured, which may take years...(may be not quick enough to help America's looming crisis.)
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 23, 2008 10:13:04 AM
Roger: "(H2 later, of course)" ... LMAO, you're incorrigible.
Posted by: OldNeil | Jul 23, 2008 10:39:50 AM
Keep in mind that the incremental cost of producing a basic pick-up or SUV new starts at around $10k. There is no way a conversion is going to be cost effective, when you consider all the labor, integrating the electronics, etc. An incentive fee to scrap them, and tool up new PHEV is the way to go. Andy Grove is smart, but he's overstepped this time. Silicon Valley types don't necessarilt understand the cost economics of Detroit (see Tesla's problems).
Posted by: | Jul 23, 2008 10:42:32 AM
Conversion to CNG/gasoline FFV is much more cost-effective, and can pay for itself after a few years from savings in fuel cost.
Here's how: just add a single CNG injector at the throttle body, and replace the car's old computer chip with a new one that is capable of running the engine with different fuel, and change out the old fuel tank and put in a new CNG/Gasoline fuel tank. Swithching between CNG and Gasoline is automatic, and is dependent on the CNG pressure on the tank. Cost estimate: $2000-3000 USD. A PHEV conversion would cost 5-10 times that amount!
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 23, 2008 11:30:20 AM
Double post here, for all the CNG proponents...step back folks look at things...natural gas production in the US and Canada has peaked and is in decline - current demand, without transportation use, is driving the price through the roof for natural gas. CNG prices normally go down in the summer, but this summer have climbed appreciably from their already very high marks of last winter - typically we would expect them to rise again this winter over the current (higher than last winter) price. This is bad, as its how we prevent a large percentage of the US population from freezing to death, there's no capacity in the system for transportation use. Additional demand for CNG will occur throughout the Northeast as people abandon heating oil (because of its expense), further driving up the CNG price since demand already outstrips supply on the world market (and domestic production is in decline).
Because CNG is such an easy replacement for petroleum you can expect its price to continue to climb as the world markets start to replace petroleum with CNG where they can and drive CNG prices closer (per energy output) to Oil prices.
CNG might be a good idea if we had a surplus domestic market (that was isolated from the world market and prices) - but we don't. Its a precious resource that will climb (cost to consumer) in value as oil continues to climb (overall, over time). Its not a good mid or long term investment strategy for transportation.
Posted by: Sasparilla | Jul 23, 2008 11:48:11 AM
Sasparilla,
Listen to what good ol' Pickens, an investment tycoon and ex-oilman has to say, please.
He plans to use wind electricity to displace NG consumption so that transportation sector can use it. More solar and wind electricity, less NG consumption for electrical generation, hence no net increase in NG consumption. Furthermore, bio-methane from agricultural waste and trash can supplement NG supply.
Even solar and wind H2 can be converted to methane via Sabatier process, but I'd say, if you have H2, use it directly in ICE vehicle by mixing it with the CNG for improvement in fuel efficiency.
Posted by: Roger Pham | Jul 23, 2008 11:58:32 AM
Once again Stan is pushing global cooling as if global warming is not true. To set the record straight; the on-set of global cooling *could* occur if the effects of a natural, predicted period of reduced solar activity overcomes the effects of man-made greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere.
The problem is this reduced solar activity is part of a CYCLE the sun goes through so when the cycle turns back global warming returns. We MAY see a cooling over the next 20 years but if we have not reduced our CO2 emissions in 50 years we could face a warming like nobody's ever seen because the effect of AGW will be on top of the effect of increasing solar activity.
Posted by: ai_vin | Jul 23, 2008 12:10:44 PM
@Sasparilla
If people change over to heating their homes with NG instead of oil when they could just as easily switch over to solar thermal or electric heatpumps then they are short sighted fools.
Posted by: ai_vin | Jul 23, 2008 12:17:40 PM
There is already a product on the market called an electrocharger. It is just a bit short of being an idle-stop system which could save 17% of the fuel now burned in vehicles that are going zero mph. That is probably more fuel than we now import from the Arabs. The number of batteries needed would be a fraction of those needed for a PHEV. An aggressive retrofit policy is the only way to quickly change the average fuel consumption of our vehicle fleet.
Posted by: tom deplume | Jul 23, 2008 3:11:16 PM
I will not go for natural gas. It too difficult to handle - it have to be pressurized.
This is one of th reason why the conversion to natural gas is so expensive.
If you have to choose gas I will choose proven method used in Europe. In most countries they use propane -butane or LNG.
The most installed conversion system you can find in Italy and Poland. In Poland it is around 2 million cars (10% of total number of cars in there). Annual the number rise by 140 thousand.
The reason for the convention is that LNG is almost two time chipper then gasoline (in Poland the gasoline is almost $9/gallon).
The
Posted by: mki | Jul 23, 2008 5:11:21 PM
I see that most people toking about grand plan in scale similar to Manhattan project. I am all for that. If we not do that we are facing shock that we never felt before.
So fare I did not hear from any one how that plan can be finance?
Pickens, Gore, and Grove ideas do not include realistic financing. You have to remember that government coffers are empty. Increasing the taxes to finance grant plan might have adverse effect for long time on the economy.
Pickens saying that we spend 700 billions a year to by oil.
Well it will be good idea to use that money to finance the renewal energy source. Yes, but we need to buy the oil. That a classic chicken and egg problem.
The question is - do we need to buy the oil? And for how long?
If I am correct in US oil national reserved are so big that in case of war we could supply the whole country for 3 years (at current usage level).
What we need to do is:
1.Set the cap for minimum gas price to at list $5 (may be higher).
2.Relies the oil reserve (the oil revers are already pay by tax payers – no extra cost to government). The resew oil should be sell to refinery with with minimum cap – at list $130 per barrel. That money will be use by government
3.Recalls all troops to US (military use very significant amount of fuel, and pose significant cost to the country budget).
4.Impose mandatory installation of solar heating panels to heat the watter and possible the homes.
(heating houses is the most energy intensive process and impose the highest cost to the owner specially in the northmen states)
5.Change building cod and impose minimal isolation standard for old and new houses.
(that one time cost for the owner that will reduce energy usage for heating and cooling).
6.Adopt European Emission Standard (that will introduce in large scale diesel engine in to American made cars).
7.Impose high tax for car with engine bigger then 2.5L
The resew of oil should be sell to refinery with with minimum cap – at list $130 per barrel. The refinery will have to buy first from government before they could buy from other country. That money will be reinvest by government . The 3 year supply should give around $2.1 trillion.
The firs 3 years should give significant financial jump start.
The extra tax from minimum cap on gas price and money from oil reserve should be used for:
- grants for R&D to improve efficiency (for universities, research labs and business).
- grants R&D in renewal energy sources (for universities, research labs and business).
- investment grants to improve efficiency of existing infrastructure.
Big projects that will involve a lot of small and big businesses.
- investment grants in renewal energy (wind, solar, wave, alga..- avoid any renewal that can deplete soil and interfere with food production)
As above, big projects that will involve a lot of small and big businesses.
The reduce demand for oil on in the rest of th world will reduce the world oil price significantly. That should lover the prices for other commodity that energy for production. That will be only temporary. It should however give time for the financial resource to be use mot efficiently. You will be able to transport more goods that will be used for new development.
The overall demand for oil should slowly decrease in firs 3 years, so the cup for the gasoline will have to be rise to keep the financing.
Posted by: mki | Jul 23, 2008 5:12:06 PM
Some of the comments here are good...some; Typical pecking in the Hen House. :-)
This conversion concept is THE way to go. Battery tech is there right now for this type of solution...and contrary to what some of you have said here; this is the ideal solution for medium and heavy trucks that operate in a short/medium range capacity. Ask any general contractor if he wouldn't like to chop his fuel bill almost in half AND get a tax brake and lower maintenance costs to boot...with an ROI of 3-4 years?
And Good for Pickens, if he can make few bucks($BBucks) and help to substantially displace the Middle East from our energy equation, then So Be It! Energy Independence will not take the form of Petroleum Products... Byproducts of the hunt, like NG are, at the very least, a step in the right direction.
Clearly low/non-enriched nuke plants, solar, hydro/wave, and wind are the ways to go.
Think about it: if the people of Nevada were to actually welcome Yucca Mountain, on the condition that they get first dibs on the waste product....Nevada could export power to the entire west coast...by building a slew of low-grade breeders out there in the deserts near Yucca. they consume 90% of highly enriched waste material, and the about half the remaining about is medical grade (and tritium for gun sights:). Only about 5% of the remaining product would need to go into Yucca's long term storage. But, Harry Reid won't get with it, because Yucca is the 3rd rail of Nevada politics and he doesn't want to become the Puff Daschelle of NV.
Posted by: Clay | Jul 23, 2008 6:03:49 PM
In Nevada you can build solar power plants that could supply energy for whole US. That sound much cleaner.
Posted by: mki | Jul 23, 2008 6:21:14 PM
Older readers will recall that the personal computer (pc) was brought to to market by enthusiasts before IBM was persuaded to follow.
Likewise, plug-in hybrid conversions have been developed by enthusiasts. If anyone knows how to bring new product to the mass market, it is the pc execs.
I have had good use out of one of the earliest zap electric bike pedal-assist conversion kits which simply bolts on and enables the rider to engage an electric motor by pressing a rubber roller onto the tyre.
Many green car congress readers have asked for a PHEV kit which bolts onto the propshaft of a RWD vehicle.
There are many ways of achieving this. One company is suggesting replacing the differential with one which includes an electric motor. Bosch has developed an automatic gearbox which includes an electric motor.
One Honda Insight owner has developed his own drop-down electric fifth wheel:
http://www.99mpg.com/ProjectCars/mikesinsight/
My reservation about Andy Grove's approach is that converting a behemoth to PHEV40 would be very expensive.
It currently costs $10k plus to convert a lightweight Prius HEV to PHEV with limited range, using the existing electric motor and controller.
To convert a heavy SUV or truck to a PHEV with a 40 mile range would require an expensive powerful electric motor, high power motor controller and a fortune in batteries.
Personally, I expect the route to a retrofit mass market will be via kits for commuter cars with modest electric range just enough to cover the non-freeway part of your commute to work (say just 10 miles). Such a kit would appeal to those who can recharge both at work and at home (in garage or on street).
A vast number of ordinary commuters drive 20 miles or less in low speed traffic. Reducing 5000 miles per year from your gas bill will save a lot, but it will still take a long time to recover the cost of the battery.
HEVs from the vehicle manufacturers are likely to enter from the top down as with Mercedes roll-out: Bus, SUV, S-class, E-class.
The missing url link for the speech is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zOxi1AGwqg
Andy Grove also penned a recent article in The American:
http://www.american.com/archive/2008/july-august-magazine-contents/our-electric-future
Extract from that article:
To start with, the U.S. government should lead the way by requiring that a growing percentage of new cars be built with dual-fuel capability. These dual-fuel cars would have both an electric engine and an auxiliary gasoline engine to augment it. The car would run on electricity, and after the batteries were depleted, it would switch to running on the gasoline engine.
Such dual capabilities are often built into machines to help with technology transitions. When DVD players first came to market, they were often combined with a VCR tape player so the consumer could choose if he wanted to watch a movie in VCR or DVD form. Eventually the DVD player became the default standard, but only after a period of time that allowed consumers and the broader market time to adapt.
Laptop computers today come with both wireless and wired Internet connections. If you are in a hotel, you can choose to use wireless service or plug in to the hotel’s wired connection. I expect wireless connectivity eventually will be sufficiently powerful and accessible to obviate the wired alternative.
The same would happen to cars. The forces of disruptive technology would eventually bring about improvements in battery technology, ultimately allowing the production of an all-electric car with satisfactory driving range.
This process, however, won’t happen quickly enough on its own. No matter how fast the production of dual-fuel cars is ramped, replacing the bulk of the approximately 250 million cars on the roads in the United States with new cars will take a decade or more. As with PCs, the work of advocates and hobbyists shows the way out of this dilemma. There are enterprising folks who have experimented with converting existing gasoline cars into electric cars by removing the gasoline engine and replacing it with an electric engine. Some are working to devise ways in which existing gasoline cars would be converted to dual-fuel cars. As with the new dual-fuel cars, these cars would give first priority to the electric power stored on board, and switch to gasoline only after the electric power is exhausted.
Not all vehicles have the space and design that allow this process to happen easily. Luckily, it is the most gasoline-hungry cars that do. Pickups, SUVs, vans, and the like represent about 80 million vehicles, with mileage of perhaps 13 to 16 miles per gallon. Converting these should be our first priority. The instincts of conservationists have been to improve what is already pretty good—compact cars with decent fuel efficiency. Our national priority to decrease the amount of oil-based energy dictates that we go after the low-mileage part of the fleet first.
Estimates show that converting these vehicles to dual-fuel operation, even with electricity providing no more than 50 miles of driving range between daily recharging, could cut petroleum imports by 50 to 60 percent—a stunning opportunity.
A task of this magnitude requires major effort and investment. We may need to apply tax incentives to offset the cost of the retrofit and couple them with deep discounts on the cost of electricity used by the vehicle over some initial period, such as one to two years.
Posted by: Polly | Jul 23, 2008 8:34:24 PM
Randell Mills is a Harvard medical graduate who developed a "Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics" that claims that electrons can exist in stable states below the "ground state" in atoms. He has also claimed to have discovered processes using catalysts that can induce hydrogen atoms to convert into such states below ground state (and such converted hydrogen atoms he terms "hydrinos"), along with significant releases of energy. In fact, his company BlackLight Power claims to have made numerous devices that generate electricity from the energy released by hydrino formation - eventually (he says) as cheaply as 2 cents per kWh:
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/01/smallbusiness/blacklight.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2008070210
http://www.blacklightpower.com/
I’ve had some curiosity about Mills and his outlandish theories since the early 1990’s. He now has a substantial company with very well-qualified and highly-regarded personnel. His theories may be invalid but his company now claims to have practical working devices no matter what theory was applied. I consider it very unlikely that his company is a unique mass-delusion, or a massive fraudulent conspiracy. BlackLight Power’s devices may still be fraudulent though if just a few are conspiring…but for what purpose – money, propaganda, anti-espionage ?? And if in the unlikely case that this technology is for real – isn’t it more likely to be a greater threat to humanity than a net benefit ??
Posted by: Jay Dee | Jul 23, 2008 9:11:11 PM
BlackLight sounds like EEstor to me!
Posted by: Berserker | Jul 23, 2008 11:09:08 PM
http://www.99mpg.com/ProjectCars/ewheelforanyvehicl/
Have a look at the above link for a review of the practical issues involved in adding a universal electric 5th wheel to a Dodge Caravan.
75 mpg idling to provide power steering, power brakes and winter heat sounds like a cost effective option.
Posted by: Polly | Jul 24, 2008 7:29:03 AM
@ Jay Dee,
Mills looks like he's set to commercialize the plasma technology that's been on the shelf for a while. Good for him.
"isn’t it more likely to be a greater threat to humanity than a net benefit ??"
This kind of technology is only a threat if it is the source of greed-based conflict. The technology appears to be perfectly benign. The people attempting to control it are a source of concern. Since there may be multiple trillions of $$ at stake - and the process of disclosure - the threat arises from power struggle, not the science.
Posted by: Sulleny | Jul 24, 2008 9:56:15 AM
I can see fuel efficient cars being converted this way, but to add PSV 40+ mile electrical loads to our already overloaded national grid makes no sense. We need to establish significant carbon taxes with a proportional cut in income taxes, which will reduce the number of PSVs on the road today.
Trying to simply find a different heroin for the addict does not break the addiction.
Posted by: Will | Jul 25, 2008 4:29:19 AM
In some areas, off peak night charging may work. However, there is a lifeline energy usage that would need to be adjusted. If you install an all electric kitchen and you were using natural gas, the utility company should adjust your lifeline. The same principle should apply here as well. If not, you will be paying the 2nd or 3rd tier rates when you exceed the lifeline levels and that is much more expensive. This is why AC raises your bill so much in the summer time. If you have a 300 kwh lifeline, you could exceed that in the first 10 days of the month.
Posted by: sjc | Jul 25, 2008 7:41:21 AM
There is a simple and inexpensive way to get 20 to 40% improvement in mileage and that is by installing an after-market supplemental hydrogen (HHO) system in automobiles. If all of the autos in the US had HHO systems we wouldn't need any oil from the middle east.
Supplemental, on demand hydrogen systems are well proven, inexpensive and safe. A small percentage of hydrogen injected in to the intake manifold improves combustion tremendously and reduces emissions to the point where a catalytic converter is not necessary.
There are a couple of new vehicles (not in the US) that are going to HHO systems, and on this website is an article today mentioning a 20/80% mix of hydrogen and natural gas for internal combustion engines for improved emissions and mileage.
Posted by: Gyroguy | Jul 25, 2008 9:33:08 AM
America needs to stay FOCUSED, AWARE and EDUCATED.
History reminds us that every time oil prices peak and the North American market/consumers start to discuss alternative energy sources, the oil exporting countries start to trim down their prices. History also tells us that the oil exporting nations have been very successful in the past and in fact, we have lost our enthusiasm and dropped many of our alternative energy initiatives after oil prices are reduced.
WE need to stay focused this time.
1) Al Gore and his energy initiative is on course.
2) T. Boone Pickens and his wind power initiative is on course.
3) The BG Automotive Group mass production electric vehicle program is on
course along with their solar charging stations.
4) Richard Branson from the UK is on course.
5) The Gas Reduction Act of 2008 might not be the most environmentally sound
solution, but yet it shows that Congress has finally realized that we have an
energy crisis (again), and a real threat to our national security.
The continued dependence on foreign oil is a threat to our long term democratic values. We must become an energy independent nation, and with this, some sacrifices will have to be made by the American consumer.
Be aware!!
We are exporting approximately USD $700 Billion dollars per year of U.S. currency. The majority of this money is being transferred to the Trillion dollar “sovereign wealth funds”. This is USD $700 Billion not being spent on America’s educational system, health care and security.
The “sovereign wealth funds” are directly buying major interests (large blocks of stock) in U.S. companies, including most of the major banks. Also, billions of dollars of “sovereign wealth fund” money is being invested in our hedge funds, private equity firms, and the investment banking industry. A few of these firms are directly and indirectly investing large sums of money into our “gas combustion” automobile industry. Do we want our auto industry in the direct or indirect control of the firms that are supplying us oil? This is an interesting topic for an investigative reporter.
There are automotive consulting companies in Michigan (heart of our auto industry), lobbying States and our Federal Government, NOT to subsidize the Electric Vehicle industry. The latter seems to be contradictory to what the American public would like to see from our automobile industry. After the billions (excess of $20 billion) the automotive companies have lost in the past 6 months producing gas combustion vehicles, you would think they too would change course. Changing course is not adding 2-4 miles per gallon w/Hybrids. Drastic measures in our auto industry must take place and NOW!
Do not let the temporary reduction in oil prices push us off course….AGAIN.
Read, Read, Read- Stay on top of the issues. Let’s not be fooled again.
STAY FOCUSED, AWARE and EDUCATED!
Posted by: BeGreen | Jul 25, 2008 10:50:10 AM
I like the water-powered cars. I can afford water.
I suppose though, when they say that the water car really works, there'll be a 30% spike on my water bill, like
the 30% spike the electric companies are trying to push since they found out electric cars are viable.
Posted by: swen | Jul 27, 2008 8:55:08 PM
This is not about global warming. This is about peak oil. There is evidence to suggest that we may have peaked in late 2006 and the lack of new production coming online suggests we will definitely be at risk of global depletion sometime around 2015. THAT my friends is the urgency.
As to whether it's a good idea to retrofit, I'll reserve judgement on that one. What I will say is that we need all the critical transport infrastructure off of oil ASAP.
My personal plan if I were a big honcho in the DOE would be this:
1. No new gas or diesel powered heavy vehicles to be purchased by the Federal Government from no on in
2. All heavy trucks to be replaced by fully electric trucks with acceptable range (200 mile+) such as the 12 ton electric trucks made by Smith Electric Vehicles
3. US Federal Government buildings to be heated and lighted by renewables to free up nat gas or heating oil for the private market
4. Private logistics and transportation fleets should be "persuaded" to start converting their delivery vehicles to all electric on a phased basis. (UPS in the UK is already doing this)
5. Feebate program similar to that in France to get the mass market to start to adopt electric vehicles
The poster who said that people who "need" pickup trucks are not going to buy vehicles that don't have the performance they "need" is just plain wrong.
If said person can't afford gasoline because of a massive global imbalance in supply and demand of oil then performance is a moot point. The worker will be taking the bus or out of work. Viewed from that angle "underpowered" electric vehicles would be very acceptable. In any case, from what I have read, electric trucks have BETTER performance than gasoline trucks.
Posted by: DB | Jul 31, 2008 12:31:33 AM
