May 18, 2006 — By Ken Thomas, Associated Press WASHINGTON — A group of scientists urged Congress on Wednesday to fund research for plug-in hybrid vehicles, touting the technology as another way to reduce the nation's dependence on oil through the help of a simple electrical socket. With high gas prices straining some Americans' budgets, advocates of the alternative vehicles told a House committee that plug-in hybrids could reduce gasoline consumption and reduce air emissions. And while ethanol-fueled vehicles will require a better network of fueling pumps, a plug-in hybrid car could recharge at home. http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=10484
I wonder how this will mirror the identical efforts done over 5 years ago. The published 300-page white-paper even had some references to the original model Prius, sighting that it demonstrated aspects of what they wanted to achieve. It's interesting how this administration seems to have no knowledge of that program funded by their predecessors.
Plug-ins hybrids offer greatly improved fuel economy and (with the appropriate sources of electricity) improved emissions, but I am not quite prepared yet to view them as the natural successors to hybrids like Prius. The problem is with the battery requirements to drive those 10 to 30 daily gasoline-free miles. Let's say that hybrids have these fancy drivetrains, a "unit battery", and save about 150 gallons per year (each) compared to a well-designed comparably sized conventional vehicle. The plug-ins as they are now being made have the hybrid drivetrain, at least 4 "unit batteries", and save an additional 150 gallons per year compared to hybrids. So long as unit batteries do not fall substantially in price, it appears to me that the fleet fuel consumption can be reduced more by spreading batteries "thinly" (one each) over a larger number of hybrid vehicles. I freely admit that reducing fleet fuel consumption is not the only goal, but it seems worth considering. As unit batteries become cheaper, at some point this situation will change. I doubt that nickel-based battery prices can fall enough, because of the price of that metal. Have higher hopes for lithium-based batteries. With improvements in Li batteries, they may later cost about 1/4 of what Ni batteries do now. At that point, plug-ins will beat hybrids in fuel savings per battery. Such batteries would also greatly broaden the market for pure electric vehicles, so not quite so many hybrid drivetrains would need to get built.
"The additional battery capacity can add up 500 pounds to the vehicle" Wow, now that's a battery! Isn't Lithium battery tech lighter, smaller, yet more powerful? Where does this weight issue come from? This is not your old lead-acid technology, at least from what I've read.
Scientists around the world also supported the "theory" of global warming. Did this Admin or Congress do anything? Science won't convince them!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(finman @ May 18 2006, 04:27 PM) [snapback]257668[/snapback]</div> 500 pounds of lead acid would store ~8 kWh, enough for 30-40 miles EV range. 500 pounds of lithium-ion would store ~45 kWh, enough for 180-220 miles EV range, far more than a PHEV requires. For your typical 60 mile EV range PHEV you'd only need 150 pounds of LiIon (about the same as a small passenger).
Yeah, that's what I thought about the weight issue. Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I just wonder where these stats come from. Does no-one but me use google to learn about new battery tech BEFORE stating some outrageous numbers that seem negative? I mean, C'mon, why is this so hard. Why all the nay-saying for EVs? Other than the big oil cartel. Ooops, did I say that out loud... Why can't the public (MORE of the public) get excited about no-gas vehicles? I've seen the light and find that as I educate others about the Prius and it's potential plug-in ability, they are pretty receptive to most all the advantages of it and all-EVs. No one I've talked to likes going to the gas station, especially now with pump prices so high. "Fueling" at home while the car isn't doing anything anyway makes so much sense it's maddening to hear the excuses. So a higher electrical bill is gonna happen. At least that is ABLE to be a clean, domestic source and the infrastructure is already in place!! Give me the choice to choose an EV, produce and market them normally, don't just crush them and say I need an SUV. It's past time for these types of alternatives. The market IS there and salivating at the thought of "getting off gas".
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ May 20 2006, 02:03 PM) [snapback]258492[/snapback]</div> Because 500 lbs of lead-acid would only store 8 kWh and 500 lbs of LiIon could store up to 48 kWh - you have to compare the two on a dollars per storage (kWh) basis. The lead acid you can get for maybe $300 per kWh. But for the lithium-ion you can have almost any answer you like from $250 per kWh up to $2,000 per kWh and upwards! Ask the majority of LiIon manufacturers for an EV battery and they'll grumble, say that they've not built anything like that big before, and much R&D will be required, low volume production, bespoke product etc etc and can often give prices from $2,000 per kWh upwards. BUT ask for lithium-ion in a format that is already established and in which there is volume production and an ongoing world-wide price-war, and you can do much better. For example, 18650 cells are about AA sized and are used in everything from cameras to laptops. A single LiIon 18650 cell can hold 9 Watt-hours, costs $1.90 to produce, and maybe $2.70 to buy on the wholesale market. That equates to about $300 per kWh, the same as lead-acid in terms of price per storage.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ May 20 2006, 11:57 AM) [snapback]258518[/snapback]</div> Not necessarily, if you want to know the cost of having a range of technology do exactly the same thing then absolutely, but your post mentions that 500lbs of lead acid batteries gets you 30-40 miles, while that amount of LI batteries get you 180-220 miles so it seems that you're not doing a kWh comparison when you're thinking of the broader picture of what can the technology do. So my reply was a question of how much does that additional range cost you more so than which is cheaper for the same task.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(MikeSF @ May 20 2006, 08:03 PM) [snapback]258667[/snapback]</div> It's the same thing though - they're just different parts of the same equation. The main differentiator is that something will be either 6x or 1/6, depending on which aspect you want to keep the same between them for the comparison. Same weight: 6X the range and (at least) 6X the cost. Same range and same cost: 1/6 the weight.
