A majority of auto executives still think battery electric cars will fail, survey says

The PDP-8, PDP-11, DEC 20, and VAX/VMS. Then his engineering department was taken over by those who want to make VMS 'clusters' and go after the low-end IBM systems ... 3, 2, 1, exploded.

Bob Wilson

 

If I understand the i3 correctly, it's a good idea that's hamstrung by regulations that limit the gas tank size and prevent the gas engine from coming on until the battery is all but depleted. So if you reach the bottom of a long hill climb with a depleted battery, you don't have the power from the range extender to maintain speed up the hill.

It's a great idea for local driving in urban environments. If you're trying to design a truck (pickup or commercial semi) to transport loads in mountainous terrain, you'll need to be able to sustain 100% power output for long periods. Also, since the maximum weight of a truck is regulated, every extra pound of battery/diesel/whatever is a lost pound of payload. I think ICE + biodiesel or some other renewable liquid fuel can make sense here.

So while I don't think BEVs will fail, they're not a 100% solution either. Fuel cells have been 10 years away for the last 3 decades, while both batteries and ICEs (and not to mention hybrids thereof) have been making steady progress in that time.

 

To get the maximum CARB credits, BMW put in software limits in the USA models. However, the EU versions are not limited and we can code:

• allow REx operation at battery 75% to maintain SOC
• increase usable tank capacity from 1.9 to 2.3 gallons

With the EU coding (i.e., patching EU values in our USA car), the battery has enough capacity to easily handle 1,000 ft hills in Appalachia. The REx can sustain 70 mph including hills in the 65-70 mph range. Unfortunately the CARB values make challenges on long ascending grades.

The sad thing is the CARB regulations reduce the market value of a BMW i3-REx. It is a more efficient car than any ordinary gasser and most hybrids. In the big picture, having more BMW i3-REx cars improves California air.

Bob Wilson

 

?!?!?!

ever live in a state that had to have rolling brownouts in the summer with everyone's air conditioning on?

now imagine every single car in that state needing to charge.

where's the power going to come from?

and worse, everyone will get to work and want to plug their cars in. without some sort of nationwide balancing system, they'll all try to draw simultaneously.

powering the cars is about 25% of the total electric grid, but that's averaged over the entire day. a sudden 25% increase on a super-hot day. not going to be pretty

 

No, electric cars (still) aren't crashing the grid. Again.

 

No it doesn't, it comes from steam reformation of natural gas.

 

You don't charge during the summer peak, you charge at night and during the morning, i.e. not between 17 and 21 on the plot below.

 

Pretty darned efficient, actually.

And you're missing the point, just like Bisco was. This would be a plug-in hybrid. 2/3-3/4 of the miles driven would be on Ev. The H2 is just for long trips.

 

the problem is, lee jay changed the discussion, (or point of the o/p and article) so it's no wonder we're confused.

 

I would add that even with the hypothetical "perfect" battery - small size, rapid charge - one would need a power plant to get that enormous flow of electrons into the vehicle. Not to mention if we all had those cars.

We know that a benefit of gasoline is enormous energy content per gallon. If we now say we can replace that with electricity, fine, but holy cow that is one whale of a lot of electrons. In addition we are assuming cheap elec and expensive gaso policy to force it to work out. We happen to have that combo right now...but we are lucky electric is taxed less than gaso and also we are lucky to have low cost electric in the USA right now.

 

Hopefully CARB will see the error of it's ways and revise that counterproductive rule.

Also, I'd like to take issue with one point of my own post: I sort of assumed that hills can go up indefinitely. While it may seem that way (especially when I'm trying to run in Vermont, but that's a different story), eventually there will be an equivalent downhill which can be used to recharge the battery. So as long as the battery is big enough to handle the uphill, the range extender / ICE / fuel cell only needs to be able to provide the power needed for a reasonable cruise. And given out recent weather, there should be some overhead to account for a stiff headwind on a sub-zero degree day.

 

i think too many of us are looking at current technology instead of what may be possible. while some totally new tech may come down the road, it seems to me bev is the best hope. i don't put any stock in auto executives public thoughts, they're in business to make money.

 

So you are rejecting the survey, which is of course one possibility that it is B.S.
But if you take the survey on face value, it suggests USA public attitudes may be wacky (on political sides) as usual missing the truth. We should look to see if another media outlet seems to be taking the survey seriously, in which case we would have some license to discuss further. Right now you are saying the thread should end due to BS story, which of course would not be the first time we got off discussing a bad premise.

 

Yep. They promote what they have. No exec in their right mind is going to say "our stuff is yesterday's news."

 

Right, or during they day if PV is in excess. Stories are circulating of California wholesale operators selling electricity to Arizona for under 0 cents a kWh during the day to handle excess generation. The entire business is more than a bit contrived because it only exists due to utility insistence to keep fool fuel plants operating, but the writing is on the wall: PV during day hours will be in excess.

 

...we used all of that equipment...

 

i am. no reason for any auto exec to be forthcoming in a survey like this. in my mind, the truth is that future auto tech will be based on a number of factors, too complicated to predict.
no reason to close the thread though.

 

That's what's so interesting about Tesla's "PowerWall" concept: a household LI battery which charges from solar PV during the day or from wind (or the grid) at any time. Then, because the "PowerWall" is a high-voltage DC system, it can transfer its energy rapidly to charge up the battery in an electric vehicle.

I recently came across a very interesting story published online in the Journal of Light Construction about a program in Vermont to install Tesla "PowerWall" home battery systems. The story, which includes several photographs and diagrams, shows an installation done under a program being run by Vermont's electric utility, Green Mountain Power (GMP).

The article reports that GMP is putting 500 of these units in customers' homes as an experiment to help balance the utility's loads. The idea is to smooth out demand from customers who generate solar power during the daylight hours and draw power after dark. GMP currently gets 15% of its power from solar and wind.

See: http://www.jlconline.com/how-to/electrical/tesla-powerwall-not-just-for-solar_o

And: GMP Launches New Comprehensive Energy Home Solution from Tesla to Lower Costs for Customers - Green Mountain Power

So, you could use your solar panels all day to charge up your "PowerWall" so that when you come home at night, you could use the energy stored in the "PowerWall" to charge up your Prime.

Ah, the wonders of technology!

[disclaimer: I posted much of this information in a PriusChat discussion with MollyHU last October. I apologize for being redundant, but I thought this is relevant to the current thread.]