calculation details of Volt's 230mpg city estimate

Anybody think GM has provided enough data to conclude that current EPA testing protocols applied to the Volt in CS mode will return 50 mpg ?

NOT. Therein lies the difference between GM hype, and GM skeptics.

 

I think SageBrush is right about this. The chances are that in any given region all stations get their oil from the same refineries. The only difference is the additives mixed in later.

And the refineries get their oil wherever it happens to be available that day.

 

By fungible, I mean that there is a common market that determines price based on world-wide supply and demand. America's demand influences Iranian oil profits, without buying an ml. of Iranian oil.

This is a very hard concept for Ms. Palin and her tea bagging friends to grasp.

 

I was told there would be no math. But anyway, I am doing my part. When possible I give my $$ to companies that source 100% of their oil from within North America. I also do this for other products that are not just assembled in the USA, but also with those parts that are assembled sourced here.

When we send our $$ to other countries, we are also sending our jobs there.

 

This is true. But in addition, oil gets mixed. Oil tankers set out from exporting countries, and go wherever a refinery needs crude. Often they are re-routed as demand patterns change from one day to the next. Then gasoline is shipped from the refinery to wherever it is wanted. Your source is determined more by your location than by the name of the station you stop at. Additives may differ, and practices for keeping tanks clean may differ, but the actual gasoline is all jumbled together.

This is a good practice. Unfortunately, for gasoline you can never tell where it's coming from. Thus, the only way to be sure of domestic energy is with electricity (if you live in an area that does not generate its electricity from oil) and local generation from renewables. Best of all is your own wind, solar, or mini-hydro. Fortunately, most U.S. electricity is generated from domestic sources. Here in WA it's mostly hydro.

 

you're kidding about hydrogen for cars, right? I mean, you'd actually throw away almost 4 times the energy to move u the same distance an EV would? Why?

evnut.com has alot of great numbers and info that all the hydrogen people need to read. or even the tesla.com site.

it takes alot of electricity to get that hydrogen to move your car. it's very inefficient versus charging an EV to transport you. the data is there and laws of physics and thermodynamics, etc. can't be changed.

 

You're a sucker (and NOT doing your part), at least as far as oil goes... N. America produces only a tiny fraction of it's demand, so that oil (all of it) is going to be consumed here anyway - since there is a common market and a worldwide price, no N.A producer will go to the expense of shipping it elsewhere.

And insisting that you're at the front of the line doesn't change the price for those at the end of the line buying from Nigeria or Venezuela or Iran. It also doesn't reduce how much we import - it just means that the barrels get shuffled around, you take the pink ones and someone else gets the brown ones, but the number of barrels and where they come from does NOT change.

If you want to do your part, CONSUME LESS. That way the tiny fraction we produce here goes a little bit further, and we (as a whole) get less from overseas.

 

The whole hyrdrogen thing was a distraction from "BO" (Big Oil) so that George Bush could kill the "supercar" project.

also it has been shown that installing a hyrdogen infrastructure will cost more than 10 Billion US$, way way more than installing an EV charging infrastructure.

 

"Many people have therefore asked whether GM will use the Atkinson cycle for the Volt’s generator.

"GM-Volt has learned from reliable sources it will not. The generation one Volt engine is an Otto engine."

Exclusive: Chevy Volt Generator Does Not Use the Atkinson Cycle

Of course that was four months ago, so GM have probably changed it again by now...

 

From an engineering standpoint Atkinson cycle makes the most sense to me. They could use a direct injection Otto cycle but I just don't see how it could be a standard fuel injection Otto cycle.

HCCI yet another option, but is probably not ready yet.

 

I have seen many people quote evnut.com as their only source of information of how and why hydrogen will work. tesla.com is a new one thus far.

The goal is a 100% pure EV vehicle that burns no oil. This is simply not possible right now as the technology to quick charge does not exist.

This would leave Gas/hybrid or hydrogen fuel cell as the only options to extend past 100-120 miles.

EVEN IF HYDROGEN IS 4X LESS EFFICIENT than just charging from the power grid (which it is not, your source at evnut.com is the only one I have ever seen claim that), I would rather use 4x the electricity to drive an oil-free vehicle over a gas powered range extender.

Why do I say this?? Is it because I am crazy?? No, because of a list of reasons.

1) Gas stations can produce hydrogen from solar and wind energy sources on site. Yes this is a large investment initially along with the hydrogen pump, but it is well worth it in a 30 year use cycle.

2) This would eliminate the entire supply chain for oil/gas. Reducing the amount pumped out of the ground (demand dropping), oil tankers shipping, refineries needed, and trucks over the road moving refined fuel to every gas station. This is a much larger environmental impact than most people would like to believe. BECAUSE the fuel could be produced at the pump. An electrical outlet and water line is all that is needed.

3) This would give us much cheaper per-mile rates for fuel on extended distances. You could also just plug in and charge the car at home for short commutes. My best guess would be something like $0.35-$1.10 per gallon or the equivalent in hydrogen, and that's mostly taxes. The rate would also be either fixed or attached to the cost of power from the grid, and could be offset by solar/wind energy produced on-site.

4) The vehicles would have 25% of the parts of normal gasoline powered cars have now. This would decrease cost and increase dependability over time. The amount of moving parts would also decrease by huge amount. Any mechanic can tell you that less moving parts make for a more dependable vehicle on average.

5) The physical makeup of a car would change overnight. You would no longer need a "hood" or "trunk". Watch the show about the "skateboard car" and you will get a glimpse at what this technology could start out as and imagine where it could go from there. The entire power train system could be in the base of the car with a depth of 6 inches. This would make cars safer due to the extremely low center of gravity. You could have 6-10 passengers in a car the size of a Prius.

6) Another argument that could be made is that there are no pumps and installing the infrastructure would cost too much. This could be easily offset by the pure profit of removing the supply chain and producing fuel on site, along with reducing the power usage from the grid via solar/wind power. Ask any businessman if he could make 4x the profit, produce his product on site, and eliminate his supply chain, but at a start up cost of $300k per store and they will jump on it, if it is a sure thing to take off. (basically the same as the ice dispenser machines I see popping up around now.)

7) All of this technology exists right now, it is not vaporware and it can be produced cheaply enough to make a profit. It is the best way I have seen purposed to get us through the next 20 years until the full EV with quick charge is available.

With all of those points the only thing anyone has ever said about the argument against hydrogen is the "it will take 4x the energy to charge." Please find more than one source of information (or two for that matter) to base your opinion. Without being too political, this is the same mistake some people make with only listening to one news network and declaring the rest evil and lies. Read up on the programs in Iceland, the Honda, Toyota, or GM projects with functioning hydrogen prototypes.

Why exactly do you drive a Prius?? Is it to save money on fuel? A hydrogen fuel cell car would do that and more. Is it to be environmentally conscious? Zero emissions and the extended range blows away a gas/electric hybrid, even of the plug-in verity. Is it for a cool looking car? Imagine if you could pick several car types to run off of the same power train and change them like my wife does shoes?

Also hydrogen is not propaganda put out by "big oil" as Iceland has already embraced this technology and proved it can and will work. If anything the gas/electric hybrid is more highly endorsed by big oil as they still stand to gain from it.

 

Boycott Foreign Oil - BreakTheChain.org

I have read many articles stating the same thing in the one linked above. It is not the only source, but first one that came up in google as an example.

I have also lowered my consumption as far as I can with a prius, but my goal is to make my lawn mower use more gas than my weekly commute, a goal I have not achieved yet.

 

One question for you.
How much electricity does it take to produce enough Hydrogen to move a car 200 miles? (number picked out of the air to represent 1 week's use, feel free to replace with 10 gallons)?

 

misread

 

The short answer would be between 243kwh and 32kwh depending on the equipment used. Real world and on paper are two different things, and most of these numbers are extremely hard to find, when they are even available. For daily commute estimates you could use the "GM 230mpg fuzzy math" and plug-in charge the fuel cell batteries at home because the fuel cell is just a range extender for the base EV, much like the Volt.

The problem with this is that there is no real standard yet, everyone is going with their own method of producing hydrogen, storing, fueling, storing in the vehicle, and of course patented fuel cells.

This source states normal transportation hydrogen fuel cell would be 50% efficiency. Remember this is the starting point of the technology. The model T wasn't as efficient as a Prius is today. Hoestly though you could throw this number out the window because and just use mpg for gas and mp/kg for hydrogen, because each manufacturer has patents that will yield different efficiencies, just like the models of gas powered cars out there. It would be like asking how much gas a car uses... You could use a drag racer or a prius to give the answer.

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/doe_h2_fuelcell_factsheet.pdf

This test vehicle averages 41mi/kg with a 4.5kg tank (will obviously be larger for production) not to mention there could be a plug-in version to extend the normal commute on EV power, which this car does not have. Also this is a small SUV so the mpkg here should be taken as such.

Hydrogen Powered Cars - GM Chevy Equinox Test Drive of Hydrogen Cars - Popularmechanics.com

Another source is a bit more general and shows 58 mi/kg at a cost of about $1.10 per kg (roughly 1/3 the fuel cost of a Prius).

I see the same data at EVnut.com is on the wiki page. When your source claims -% efficiency in hydrogen due to the supply chain, but not for gas, it shows their bias. Hydrogen can be produced on site, heck it can even be made in your garage with a water hose and power outlet. We could throw in efficiency % for gas due to you having to drive to the station to pump, vs having a hydrogen pump in your house. Oil has to be pumped, shipped, and trucked halfway across the world to be burned in your engine. That trip is not free, and contributes to its efficiency from being in the ground to actually driving miles.

It also claims 40% efficency of the fuel cell across the board, and as stated above it is actually 50% and improving with technology. Their 80% of gas efficiency could also be killed by the example above of using it in a Hummer vs a Prius.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy"]Hydrogen economy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

Replying to Stratosplay:

While H2 can be produced with electricity, these days it is commonly produced from natural gas. Thus it is at root a fossil fuel. And while it can be produced from electricity generated sustainably, a gas station does not have enough incident light to produce enough H2 to supply a steady stream of cars. It is ridiculous to assert that because PVs can produce electricity to make H2, a city gas station, with its limited area, could produce an essentially limitless quantity of H2.

As for the car, an added problem is that fuel cells are massively expensive and do not last very long. Of course, you can burn H2 in an ICE, but then you've got all the complexity and weight of the ICE. After a decade of development, fuel cell cars have gone nowhere and still cost millions of dollars to build, whereas a BEV can now be built in the price range of a conventional car.

Fuel cell cars are a concept invented for the sole purpose of distracting public attention away from BEVs and delaying the eventual adoption of cars that are powered from the electric grid rather than from petroleum. The promoters of fuel cells are oil companies and car companies intimately linked to oil companies. They do not want to lose business to the electric utility companies.

 

That's exactly correct - natural gas producers would LOVE to get a piece of the transportation market, thus the hydrogen hype.

Setting aside the expense of fuel cells, hydrogen has the disadvantage of being a gas, with only 2 atoms per molecule. Traditional fuels are liquids, and therefore FAR more dense, plus they have many more atoms per molecule.

So simple physics says that to get any sort of range from a hydrogen vehicle, you will need an enormous gas tank. Prime example: the space shuttle, which has an H2 tank larger than itself, and still needs two massive solid-fuel boosters to get into orbit. Granted, it's all uphill at full acceleration, but the return trip is all glide.

And we've seen what happens when the tank has problems...

 

The 'hydrogen economy' makes about as much sense as the 'Etoh economy'

Hydrogen may have niches as yet undiscovered. Just a thought -- and an irony at that -- perhaps as a storage medium for wind generated electricity when supply exceeds demand.

 

So you are saying because it is easier right now to produce hydrogen with natural gas, that is how they will always do it?

When the Model T was created how many gas stations were there in the US? All it takes is a few companies to get behind the technology to make it real.

Its sad that even environmentally conscious people want to give up on what is a zero emission vehicle in favor of burning gasoline.


Please source (other than some crazy conspiracy theory website) where big oil is behind hydrogen fuel cells.

Also to anyone who ignores hydrogen as the next step, please tell me what is. Pure EV's are not, because the technology is not there to quick charge, and will not be in the near future (20 years). The only other option is gas, which it makes much more since that big oil would be behind that option.

All major car companies have made test vehicles with hydrogen, only Ford has stopped their programs that I am aware of.

 

Discovery channel had a show that had a man who used his pv array to charge his battery bank, when it was full, he put the excess power into running an electrolyzer and then stored the hydrogen in tanks, he would then run the hydrogen through a generator ( at night for example ), he could have used fuel cells, had they been available (seems they are now with the "bloom box")

even though this is not all that efficient,it does show one thing: hydrogen is an energy carrier, more than an energy source

btw, this gentleman had spent over $600,000 on this pet project of his so far