Plug-In Hybrids Aren't Coming, They're Here 495
Wired is running a story about the small but vocal, and growing, number of people who aren't waiting for automakers to deliver plug-in hybrids. They're shelling out big money to have already thrifty cars converted into full-on plug-in hybrids capable of triple-digit fuel economy. "The conversions aren't cheap, and top-of-the-line kits with lithium-ion batteries can set you back as much as $35,000. Even a kit with lead-acid batteries — the type under the hood of the car you drive now — starts at five grand. That explains why most converted plug-ins are in the motor pools of places like Southern California Edison... No more than 150 or so belong to people like [extreme skiing champion Alison] Gannett, who had her $30,000 Ford Escape converted in December. Yes, that's right. The conversion cost more than the truck."
A start (Score:5, Interesting)
I converted my POS gas car to a "mild" plug in hybrid: removed the alternator and added a deep cycle battery. I reduce the mechanical load on the engine by removing the alt. I have more power available for speed and acceleration and I get better mpg. I recharge the battery using solar and since I park outside at home and work, it gets plenty of time to charge. All the parts were originally for a full home solar system that I have yet to make space for, so there isn't any additional cost for the car conversion. Some data shows [metrompg.com] that you can get up to a 10% increase in efficiency by going alternatorless.
Re:I'm not sure I'd call that being here (Score:4, Interesting)
You have to start somewhere - plugin hybrids weren't really even on anyone's radar before the various Prius hackers started making their own and getting press about it
Re:A start (Score:5, Interesting)
That's a bit insane.
Batteries are meant to give you just enough power to reliably start the vehicle, for good reason. Batteries are horribly inefficient, and generating electricity on the fly is much better all-around.
Deep cycle batteries are expensive, large, heavy, etc., and no batteries last long when you're regularly charge/discharge cycling them.
And safety would be a serious problem. Your headlights will be substantially dimmer, and continue to dim throughout your drive, and would very likely drain your battery completely in perhaps 4 hours. Might not be a problem for summer-only vehicles, not too far outside the tropics, but horrible for most people.
I bet you could get comparable results, for very little money less money, by just putting a (heavy duty) diode with a 2-volt drop, on the alternator line. Then, it puts out 12V, and the battery is only maintained at about 50% charge capacity. Never any over-charging or wasted energy trickle charging.
For a bit more money (but far less than solar panels and a deep-cycle battery) you could REPLACE your alternator with a fixed-magnet generator, at least doubling electrical generation efficiency.
Re:DIY costs far less than $5k (Score:4, Interesting)
Have you seen the cost of high-power batteries?
Especially the ones that can survive the strain of driving electric-only (charge-drain-charge-drain)? try $3000,-- [about.com]
Unless you own a Hybrid, according to Car & Driver [hybridcars.com]
"battery replacement will cost $5,300 for the Toyota and Lexus hybrids, and the Ford Escape replacements run a whopping $7,200."
Also, someone needt to make room for those batteries somewhere in the car.
The required equipment (for modifying the car itself) and man-hours also cost money.
Why the absurd fixation on batteries? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Whole lot of stupidity (Score:3, Interesting)
"If you want to help save the environment you'd build a fully electric car but the problem with that is electric motors are retardedly simple and surprisingly clean to maintain"
That makes no sense - simple and easy to maintain would be win-win for everyone. The reason why pure electric cars aren't common is the pricey battery required to push a *mainstream* car a decent distance. Americans simply aren't ready to make the jump to the ultra-light tiny cars that would be viable in an all electric model.
To put it into perspective, my Altima Hybrid (which by many measures could be considered an average and desirable size for most Americans) weighs 3500 pounds and can drive about 1 mile with just its 100 pound battery. Propelling this car any decent distance would require literally a ton of batteries and cost tens of thousands of dollars. To put things in perspective, my engine weighs less than 300 pounds. You *could* start cutting out serious mass, but most Americans I know wouldn't be willing to sacrifice the comfort and safety of their sedans.
Of course, this doesn't even bring up another sticking point - most people like the freedom of being able to travel more than 50 miles without plugging their car in for hours.
the future starts now... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Automakers never want hybrids to go mainstream (Score:3, Interesting)
I didn't say they required more service, it's just that when they require service, it's more complex than your everyday gas engine check-up.
From whay I see, Toyota is very busy training mechanics to service the hybrids, but not every garage keeps up with the times as quickly as the rest.
Now that gas prices have soared everybody want a hybrid but, a few years ago, you couldn't give them away with a pack of Cheerios.
Now that some people hafe felt the sting of a battery replacement (not helped by car dealers that only want to replace the entire battery), they're not happy about paying $3000 they did not budget for.
Also, don't get me wrong, I really want to see this succeed, because this is indeed the start of the Electric revolution. ;-)
Maybe, in the future, we will get our flying car, powered by a Mr Fusion
Re:This is not a good idea (Score:1, Interesting)
Gosh, that sounds very technical.
It is however a load of crap.
Modern EECs are designed to work correctly down to 8V, and will be as happy as Larry above 11V.
Re:Efficiency (Score:5, Interesting)
It pains me that so many people drive cars larger than they really need, but consider this: A few mpg increase for a truck has much more impact than the same mpg increase in an already fuel-efficient vehicle.
For example, let's say a truck gets 20 mpg. After doing simple things like checking the tire air pressure, driving conservatively (slowly), etc, it might get 25 mpg -- that's a 25% increase.
But if you start with a car that already gets 50 mpg and you increase it to 55 mpg, that's only a 10% increase in efficiency.
Re:Efficiency (Score:4, Interesting)
Well according to environmental group ACEEE.org, an EV1 car is no more clean than a Prius or Civic Hybrid. (On a hundred-point scale, they score 52, 53, and 51 respectively.) So the grandparent poster was correct that simply switching to electric does not automatically create a cleaner car.
As for ICE efficiency, Toyota says their Prius gasoline engine achieves 40% and Volkswagen determined their 3-cylinder Lupo diesel engines are at 50%.
Re:Why the absurd fixation on batteries? (Score:2, Interesting)
Will we do nothing to escape the fantasy? (Score:2, Interesting)
The fantasy that the American automobile is the penultimate mode of transportation will be our un-doing. The fact that we cannot imagine a world with less automobiles speaks volumes our selfishness and short-sightedness.
At this point in time, America needs to be investing in other means of transportation and starting to alternative living arrangements that include, moving closer to work, building public infrastructure to move you around besides the car (subway, train, bus, street car, walking, cycling) and have all of these system interconnected.
As we enter the decline of the age of oil, which side do you want to be on? Stuck on the freeway with no gas while the train goes by on its way to NYC?
We need to examine our motivations very closely here. Why are we so attached to the automobile. I think it might just come down to classism and racism. Why, you wouldn't want to have to associate with the blacks and the poor people would you?
Re:Whole lot of stupidity (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea behind plug-in hybrids is to make the electric motor the big engine and have a small gasoline motor who's only job is to charge the batteries when they get low.
I've always wondered if having a regular gasoline engine to turn the generator is as efficient as a small turbine. Supposedly turbines are most efficient at constant speed/load, which the generator would be. Anybody have any hard numbers?
Re:Efficiency (Score:3, Interesting)
However, batteries suck and until they are better Honda and your local mechanic are both stuck using the same crap. The idea that we need to spend a lot of time and money designing hybrids is wrong because all of them operate efficiently enough that there is little room for significant improvement. It's all about the batteries at this point.
At least we know that there are some developments [slashdot.org] in the pipeline which may alleviate the crap factor of our current battery options.
Yes, I know they're still in development, but I'd like to be optimistic about all of this. More efficient storage + distributed green production (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) would probably be optimum. Well, besides the US getting some decent public transportation...
Re:Will we do nothing to escape the fantasy? (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of us already have. I've converted my crappy mountain bike to electric and have been commuting to work on it for the past year. It does 50km/hr without peddaling, uses batteries out of dewalt drill packs bought off of ebay for reasonable prices and a simple hub motor. It goes in the rain, through snow with studded tires and is much faster than driving my car in traffic to work. Costs 5 cents a charge. I save 5 bucks a day in gas and 25 bucks a day in parking. And I've got this stupid grin on my face most of the day because it really is so much damn fun! I can even pedal if I want and get some exercise.
http://www.endless-sphere.com/forums [endless-sphere.com]
Re:Efficiency (Score:2, Interesting)
Think of a truck at 20 mpg, and a geo at 40 mpg. If both drive 100 miles a week:
truck = 5 gallons
geo = 2.5 gallons
If you increase each fuel efficiency by 5 mpg, the truck now gets 25 mpg, and the geo gets 45 mpg:
truck = 4 gallons (saves 1 gallon)
geo = 2.222 gallons (saves 0.278 gallons)
If you have an overall efficiency increase of 50%, the truck now gets 30mpg, and the geo gets 60 mpg
truck = 3.333 gallons (saves 1.667 gallons)
geo = 1.667 gallons (saves 0.833 gallons)
Any fuel saving measures you put on the bulky vehicles will have faster and more realistic returns than on already small and efficient cars. It makes more sense to turn an expedition or hummer into a hybrid than a honda civic.
Re:Efficiency (Score:3, Interesting)
Or, someone who thinks it's pointless to start with a friggin truck if you're trying to be fuel efficient..?
First - I kinda object to calling a Ford Escape a 'Truck'. A Truck has a bed, normally uncovered. The Escape is a SUV.
Going on - it depends on what you need. If you need a truck, and there are people who do, does it make sense to try to punish you by restricting you to the old wasteful power systems? Or do you go ahead and come out with a hybrid truck, even a PHEV?
Consider the taxis in NYC. NYC, in all it's glory, has decided that the only vehicle that meets the needs to be a taxi is a stretched crown vic that's 6" longer than even the regular vic. Recently they decided to issue some green medallians - and the hybrid that came close enough to their ideas of acceptable storage area and leg room was the Escape. Which gets something like 5 times the mileage of the crown vic. Taxi drivers love them, and there's still room in the vehicle for 3-4 people and all their luggage for a trip to/from the airport.
I do like the idea of electric vehicles btw, I just think a standard truck is a dumb place to start. Though the Ford F150 was the best selling vehicle in the US for 23 years, so in a way trucks are a good place to start - but not with current models IMO. They would need to make them lightweight (but still strong, obviously) to get the best efficiency. Electric motors have good torque too so they'd be good for hauling, as long as they have enough charge..
Well, there's a lot to consider when you look at making a hybrid F-150(or equivalent). Still, there are a lot of potential benefits. Off the top of my head:
1. Weight - for towing capacity, you actually don't want the thing too light. Still, the battery pack, especially for a PHEV, is going to add a lot of weight. Best spot to put it would probably be right in front of the rear axle.
2. Space - Should have relatively few problems finding some space under the bed for it. Looking at my truck, I should be able to have boxes 6" deep and 24" wide on either side of the axle and still have quite a bit of room.
3. Structure - Trucks have to be designed to take more abuse and loading than cars. For example, an 08 F-150 is expected to be able to tow 3,700 pounds, and carry 1,976 pounds in the bed. Using advanced techniques, you could probably shave off almost as much weight as the batteries would add, but that'd get expensive, and maybe fragile. Elegent failure modes are a must.
4. Towing capacity- good and bad here. I've been learning a lot about towing recently, and the engine plays a large part here, and most importantly, not just for propulsion. When going downhill engine braking is important to keep from overheating the brakes. So the bad part - you're unlikely to be able to undersize the engine much in order to be able to tow that 3.7k pounds down the highway at 75, or up a 15 degree slope for a hundred miles, or down a 20 degree slope for 20 because a smaller engine can't brake as well. The good part - electric motors provide great torque at low velocities, easing starting from a stop, and with regenerative braking can save quite a load on the engine and/or brakes. Hmm... Might want to go the train route and put resisters on the roof to bleed off excess energy in case of a long hill. Maybe a tow mode sensor - traveling uphill, let the batteries drain. Travelling downhill, emphasis the regenerative braking.
5. Economy. Trucks, due to their relatively oversized engines, get horrible gas mileage as standard. Going from 15 mpg to 25 mpg isn't out of sight, and will pay back quickly enough to be an easy sell to somebody with the money to buy and operate a truck.
6. Commercial use. A commercial operater will know exactly how much he's using in gas, and will likely know individual vehicle's mileage. Even a modest gain in mpg would pay back quickly due to level of driving, and with gas prices the way they are, with even a minimal comparis
Re:Makes no economic sense? (Score:3, Interesting)
Call me back when GM is actually producing them and selling them. Your hypothetical price for the Volt strikes me as being extremely low. Wikipedia says that the price is currently unknown and could be as high as $48,000 depending on a lot of factors which simply can't be determined until it starts being sold.
Meanwhile I bought a Malibu used for $13,000 several years ago. It gets 35MPG on the highway, drives great, and has plenty of power. I also routinely make trips longer than 40 miles with it, imagine that. Seems like the right choice to me!
Re:Efficiency (Score:1, Interesting)
However, calculating the cost is not trivial either. If you look at just the sticker price, you could get screwed extremely bad. You also have to examine the long term cost - how many repairs is an electric car going to have vs a gasoline one? How much are repairs going to cost on average for each one? How long is the car going to last and what is its resale value when you sell it? How much is the cost of each fuel going to measure up?
So yes, either way you look at it, if you were making a reasoned decision, you would have to examine a lot of variables.
However, it's pretty silly to suggest that electric cars have more of an environmental impact than gasoline powered ones. Power stations, regardless of the fuel source, are far cleaner than any engine in a car, and batteries are generally more efficient at storing and retrieving energy than oil (as long as you're using the energy relatively soon enough after charging, which is most likely the case).
Same tune, different key. (Score:3, Interesting)
Whenever you can't disprove something, make it encompass so many other items that it becomes incomprehensible without the services of a complete auditing team. Then extend it just a little to include data that you probably can never collect.
We saw this with TCO studies that tried their hardest to show that Linux might not be cheaper than $800 per seat licenses of Windows. While many people saved money by switching (Sherwin Williams, Fender Gituars, etc.) most complained about the intangible losses that they couldn't prove which justified their non-action.
We saw this with global warming. Most argued about specific point data that didn't follow the average (hint there's outliers in every interesting data set), argued that costs would never be calculable for the issue, and built a model of "let's wait and see" which justified their non-action.
We're seeing this with electric (or semi-electric) vehicles. It should be enough to note that we will mostly be charging the cars during non-peak hours, when the grid's capacity is most likely to meet the demand. It should be enough to note that for the same amount of used energy, the electric company can provide it to us cheaper than the gasoline distribution chain. It should be enough to note that at least a dozen ways in which the vehicles are cheaper to maintain offset the initial costs of not having a mass market's cost structure.
Instead, we have to calculate the exact dollar of every line man, telephone pole, coal miner's life insurance plan, etc, ad infinitum. I'll give you a hint: The power company already does this, and it's called your electric bill, which is still cheaper than your gasoline bill.
Just because you don't have it itemized doesn't mean it's more expensive.
For those that enjoy these sort of games, have you even considered the operational costs of the thousands of oil tankers? How about the costs of all those oil platforms? How about the costs of the fire policies on those platforms? etc... ad infinitum.
Prove to me that my electric bill will be higher than my gas bill, and I'll go with the parent poster's observation. It is the only sensible metric. And oddly enough, it should include all of those "other" costs, because if it didn't the company would be out-of-business before you know it.