http://www.economist.com/printedition/disp...tory_id=3422941 If the link doesn't work, the entire text of the story without graphics is posted below. WHY THE FUTURE IS HYBRID Dec 2nd 2004 Automotive technology: Hybrid petrol-electric cars such as the Toyota Prius are becoming increasingly popular. But are they any more than a rest-stop on the road to the hydrogen car? WHY has the Toyota Prius become the car industry's most talked about product? Since 1997, only about 250,000 have been sold, a paltry number by the industry's standards. The Prius is hardly big, fast or beautiful--the attributes that usually appeal to commentators, aficionados or, for that matter, buyers. And yet it is significant because it is the world's first mass-produced petrol-electric hybrid car, powered by both an internal-combustion engine and an electric motor. The second-generation Prius, launched in 2003, won some of the industry's most prestigious awards--it has just been named European Car of the Year 2005--and generated a buzz out of all proportion to the car's prevalence on the roads. By choosing to drive a Prius, buyers can demonstrate how green they are without paying any penalty other than a slightly higher purchase price. Compared with a new American car of the same size, the Prius consumes roughly half as much petrol, and so releases half as much climate-changing carbon dioxide. Moreover, its emissions of smog-forming pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons, are 90% lower. Yet the Prius still manages to deliver the comfort and performance of a conventional car. The success of the Prius has taken Toyota by surprise. The average wait at American dealerships is currently six months, even though the company increased its sales target for North America from its initial estimate of 36,000 units to 47,000 for 2004. To meet demand, Toyota announced another increase in August, saying it would push monthly global production up next year by 50% to 15,000 cars, and double its allotment for America to 100,000 units. While that number is still only one-quarter of last year's sales for America's most popular Toyota model, the Camry, it shows that consumers are willing to pay a premium for clean, environmentally friendly cars--as long as there is no need to compromise on performance. Other carmakers are scurrying to catch up. CSM Worldwide, an automotive research firm, reckons that at least 20 new hybrid models will appear in America by 2007. Besides this year's new Ford Escape and Honda Accord hybrids, Toyota will add two sport-utility vehicles (SUVs) to its hybrid line-up early next year. DaimlerChrysler recently announced that it will introduce a Mercedes hybrid within the next five years, and Porsche is considering a hybrid version of its Cayenne SUV. Even General Motors, one of the strongest proponents of hydrogen fuel-cell cars, has jumped on the hybrid bandwagon with two pick-up trucks, a sedan and several SUVs to follow. Thanks to the convergence of geopolitics, technology and fashion, hybrids are picking up speed. AN OLD NEW IDEA While the arrival of mass-produced hybrids is new, the idea itself is not. Indeed, it dates back to early automotive history when cars powered by electric motors, steam or internal-combustion engines all accounted for significant shares of the market. Why hybrids failed then is best illustrated by the example of an American engineer named H. Piper, who filed a patent for a petrol-electric hybrid vehicle in 1905. His idea was to use an electric motor to assist an internal-combustion engine, enabling it to achieve a thrilling 40kph (25mph). Unfortunately for Mr Piper, petrol-powered internal-combustion engines achieved those speeds on their own just a few years later, undermining the more complex and expensive hybrid approach. Petrol engines soon ruled the roost. Priorities began to change in the early 1970s, when the oil crisis increased demand for less fuel-thirsty cars. As a result, the overall fuel efficiency of cars and trucks improved dramatically (though it stalled in America in the late 1980s as cheap petrol and a regulatory loophole encouraged sales of SUVs and light trucks). Moreover, in the 1990s, concern began to grow over the impact of fossil-fuel consumption on climate change. During the 1990s, all of the big three American carmakers developed diesel-electric hybrid concept cars, though none made it into production. Instead, the focus shifted to pure-electric vehicles, which are technologically simpler than hybrids. But their high cost and limited range deterred consumers. Even the most advanced models could only go about 100 miles before they needed to be plugged in and recharged for several hours. By 2000, most electric cars had been taken out of production. Meanwhile, Toyota released its first Earth Charter in 1992, setting the goal of minimising its overall environmental impact. In September 1993, the company began to plan the development of a car for the next century, dubbed Globe 21st Century, or G21. Originally, the plan was to produce a car with 50% better fuel economy than existing vehicles. But over the course of the project this target was raised to 100%, at which point it became clear that tweaking a petrol engine would not suffice. Instead, a more radical solution would be needed: a hybrid. Despite the higher cost and complexity of a hybrid system, Toyota decided to press ahead with a massive research and development effort. Improved technology--such as better batteries and cheaper, more powerful control electronics to co-ordinate the two propulsion systems--meant that a mass-produced hybrid was now feasible. In 1997, the Prius was launched in Japan. It was followed by Honda's Insight hybrid in 1999. When the Prius went on sale in America in 2000, it did not cause much of a stir. Indeed, even last year, Honda and Toyota sold about the same number of hybrids in America. This year, however, Toyota will sell about twice as many as Honda. The Prius took off thanks to the combination of rising petrol prices, celebrity endorsements and a futuristic redesign. (There is no petrol version of the Prius, so the car makes a statement in a way that the Honda Civic, which is available in both petrol and hybrid versions, does not.) It is the first hybrid to become a hit. HYBRID ANATOMY There is more to the Prius than clever marketing, however. To understand why, it is necessary to look under the bonnet at the way different kinds of hybrids work--for not all hybrids are the same. The simplest kind is the "stop-start" or "micro" hybrid, which is not generally regarded as a true hybrid because it relies solely on an internal-combustion engine for propulsion. As the "stop-start" name implies, the engine shuts off when the vehicle comes to a halt. An integrated starter-generator restarts the engine instantly when the driver steps on the accelerator. All of this increases fuel efficiency only slightly, typically by around 10%. But few modifications to a conventional design are required, so it costs very little. In Europe, PSA Peugeot Citroen has just introduced a stop-start version of the Citroen C3, which sells for roughly the same price as a similarly equipped conventional C3. Next come so-called "mild" hybrid designs, such as Honda's Integrated Motor Assist (IMA)--the hybrid configuration found in the Insight, the Civic and the new Accord. In addition to a stop-start function, an electric motor gives the engine a boost during acceleration. During braking, the same motor doubles up as a generator, capturing energy that would otherwise be lost as heat and using it to recharge the car's batteries. Since the electric motor is coupled to the engine, it never drives the wheels by itself. That is why this system is called a mild hybrid, much to Honda's dismay. The design is less expensive than Toyota's more elaborate approach, but can provide many of the same benefits, says Dan Benjamin of ABI Research, a consultancy based in Oyster Bay, New York. The hybrid version of the Civic achieves 48 miles per gallon, a 37% improvement over a comparable conventional Civic. Toyota's Hybrid Synergy Drive, a "full" hybrid system, is much more complex. (The Ford Escape hybrid uses a similar system; Ford licenses a number of patents from Toyota.) Using a "power split" device, the output from the petrol engine is divided and used both to drive the wheels directly and to turn the generator, which in turn drives the electric motor and also drives the wheels. The distribution of power is continuously variable, explains David Hermance of Toyota, allowing the engine to run efficiently at all times. When its full power is not needed to drive the wheels, it can spin the generator to recharge the batteries. The batteries also get replenished when the car is coasting or braking. During stop-and-go traffic and at low speeds, when the petrol engine would be most inefficient, it shuts off and the electric motor, powered by the battery, takes over. That explains why the Prius has a better fuel economy rating for urban driving (60 miles per gallon) than for motorway driving (51 miles per gallon)--the opposite of a conventional vehicle. The next step may be the "plug-in" hybrid, which is not the backwards step its name suggests. Unlike the electric cars of the 1990s, none of today's hybrids needs to be plugged in--but if plugging were an option it would be a good idea. Andrew Frank and his team at the University of California Davis' Hybrid Electric Vehicle Centre are working exclusively on plug-in hybrids, which can operate as pure-electric vehicles over short distances (up to 60 miles, with a large enough battery pack) but can switch to a hybrid system when needed. Since the average American driver travels about 30 miles a day, plug-in hybrids could be recharged overnight, when electricity is cheaper to produce, and need never use petrol at all, except on longer trips. According to studies carried out by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), a non-profit organisation based in Palo Alto, California, plug-in hybrids could be one of the cleanest and most efficient kinds of car. In 2002, the EPRI teamed up with DaimlerChrysler to build five plug-in hybrid vans, the first of which was unveiled at a trade show in September. The larger battery packs make the upfront costs for plug-ins higher than for other hybrids. But Bob Graham of the EPRI says the added costs could be more than recouped over the vehicle's life. Not everyone is bothered by high fuel consumption, however, as the current enthusiasm for enormous SUVs demonstrates. So hybrids seem likely to remain a niche: ABI Research predicts that by 2010, less than 5% of all cars sold in America will be hybrids, assuming current petrol prices persist. But if Alan Lloyd has his way, hybrids and other low-emission vehicles will become far more commonplace. Dr Lloyd is head of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), a state agency that enforces arguably the most stringent air quality rules in the world. California recently passed landmark legislation to curb the emissions of greenhouse gases by 30% beginning in 2009. Since carbon-dioxide emissions are directly linked to a car's fuel consumption, critics charge that the new rules are in effect a way to legislate fuel economy, which is supposed to be regulated by the federal government, not the states. As a result, carmakers are expected to challenge the new rules in court. Sales of hybrids in Europe are a fraction of those in America. Instead, diesel cars have become Europe's answer to reduce fuel consumption, curb greenhouse emissions and save money at the pump. Because diesel fuel contains more energy per unit, the fuel economy of diesel cars is roughly 30% better than that of petrol-powered cars. Moreover, diesel cars are not as loud or dirty as they once were, thanks to technologies such as electronically controlled "common rail" fuel-injection systems. Diesels now make up about 45% of all newly registered cars in Europe. Even so, they still lag behind petrol engines in terms of cleanliness. In the process of combustion, diesels create a lot of pollution, including nitrogen oxides which cause smog, and particulate matter that can cause respiratory problems. That said, some carmakers have begun to equip their cars with particulate filters, notably PSA Peugeot Citroen. Together with two British firms, Ricardo and QinetiQ, the company is building a diesel-hybrid based on the family-sized Citroen Berlingo. The aim is to achieve a combined fuel economy of 70 miles per gallon with carbon-dioxide emissions of only 90 grams per kilometre. (In comparison, the Prius delivers 55 miles per gallon with carbon-dioxide emissions of 104 grams per kilometre.) While it is uncertain whether the car will be mass produced, it is clear that a diesel-electric hybrid would make for an extremely frugal vehicle. A study by the Laboratory for Energy and the Environment at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which looked at energy use over the course of a vehicle's life, predicts that by 2020, diesel hybrids could achieve the same energy-efficiency and greenhouse-gas emissions as fuel-cell cars powered by hydrogen made from natural gas. The difference is that diesel-hybrid technology is available today. So why are diesel hybrids taking so long to appear on the roads? Hybrid diesels impose a double price premium, explains Lindsay Brooke, an analyst at CSM Worldwide. Combining a diesel engine, (which costs around $2,000 more than a petrol engine) with a hybrid powertrain (which adds another $3,000 or so) would make for an expensive proposition. Systems to treat the exhaust would impose further costs. The prospects for diesels and diesel hybrids are particularly dim in America, where regulations in California (and, from 2007, nationwide) require diesels to be as clean as petrol-driven cars. Some progress has been made: particulate filters can now eliminate more than 90% of diesel soot. But traps for nitrogen oxides remain a challenge. THE CAR OF THE FUTURE, TODAY Hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles promise to be the cleanest mode of transportation, eliminating harmful tailpipe emissions altogether. But despite much publicity, and the fact that most carmakers are working on the technology, fuel-cell cars will not appear in significant quantities any time soon. America's National Academy of Sciences, which advises the government on new technologies, recently estimated that the transition to a "hydrogen economy" will probably take decades, since many challenges remain--in particular, how to produce, store and distribute hydrogen in sufficient quantities. Hybrid cars, however, offer many of the benefits of fuel-cell vehicles, with the huge advantage that they are available now. Moreover, as the success of the Prius shows, people will actually buy them. The beauty of petrol-electric hybrids is that they do not require any changes in driver behaviour or the fuel-delivery infrastructure. Rather than being mere stepping-stones on the way to the hydrogen cars of the future, petrol-electric hybrids are likely to be around for years, if not decades, to come. When and if fuel-cell cars become available down the road, they may not replace hybrids, but instead are likely to be descended from them, since they require many of the same components, from control systems to motors. As Joseph Romm, director of the Centre for Energy & Climate Solutions, a non-profit organisation based in Arlington, Virginia, puts it, "hybrids are almost certainly the platform from which all future clean vehicles will evolve."
It makes a little sense to use the ICE as a back-up when the batteries run dry. This would, of course, reduce the driving population's overall reliance on gasoline. The article says: "plug-in hybrids could be recharged overnight, when electricity is cheaper to produce". Electricity is cheaper for the consumer to purchase during non-peak hours but the utility still has to burn fuel to generate the electricity. It's just a question of offsetting the burning of fossil fuels from one point to another.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer\";p=\"58518)</div> Well, not always...what about hydroelectric or nuclear plants? ;-)
I personal think a plug-in hybrid is a great idea with extra weight and cost as the down side. Tony, not all electricity comes from fuel burning. For one, the Sterling engines that utilize solar energy is gaining momentum.
If a chargeable electric hybrid is to be charged at home, the home might conceivably get power from solar panels, or wind generators. With enough solar panels a homeowner might be able to generate all the electricity need to power both their home and their daily commute. Less than 5 miles from my home there is a mountain pass that separates the greater LA basin from the Sonoran desert, there must be 5,000 wind turbines in the area. This idea of a rechargeable electric-gas hybrid sounds great. I wonder if Coastal Tech has a kit for that yet? GreenSteve
Also, keep in mind that our cars require highly refined gasoline, where power plants (with scrubbers) that aren't hydro-electric or wind sourced can use coal or lightly refined fuel oil, thus the lower cost. Great article though. Thanks!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer\";p=\"58518)</div> Not quite. The cost of producing electricity has two components: the energy source (oil, coal, wind, solar, etc.) and the capital cost of the physical plant (wind turbine, solar panel, generator, etc.). Electricity produced at peak times requires building more plant to meet the increased demand. Electricity produced at off-peak times makes more efficient use of the existing plant, and does not require building more plant. Thus, electricity consumed at off-peak times is cheaper to produce, even though it uses the same amount of fuel, because it places less demand on the physical plant. This would change if we were getting enough of our energy from solar, which would increase daytime electrical production.
Thank you for bringing this excellent article to our attention! Most of the proposed new power plants near or in New York City are natural gas fueled power plants...while I am not a proponent of new plants and took note of Daniel's point on off-peak power generation, this is the same fuel noted as the probable starting point for hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicles, in a distributed power source via the electric transmission lines. Not as efficient in terms of utilization of the energy, but much more efficient in terms of distribution? wildplaces
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TonyPSchaefer\";p=\"58518)</div> I think that the other point that Tony was making that seem to have been generally missed is that during off peak hours, power plant turbines can not and are not just shut down. They must be run at some minimum level at all times. Again why off-peak electricity is less expensive. And it represents energy that is otherwise being wasted.
[soapbox] et al, I was making a generality. In the same vein that if someone said automobiles emit particulates and pollutants, I would not spend an hour explaining that I drive a Prius. I wouldn't bother because I understand that ultra-low emission and zero emission vehicles constitute only a very small portion of the entire global population of vehicles currently in service. And God I hope this changes in my lifetime. I actually know quite a bit about utility companies and power plants. This is because I work for a building automation corporation and specialize in promoting energy management in large-scale residential and commercial structures. I have spent many hours explaining how utility companies generate and distribute electrical power. From from coal to nuclear, from primary plants to peaker plants, I have studied and taught them all. On occasions I have sat with CFOs to explain how their utility company has set up their rachet structure and how to address their peaking issues. I truly did not intend to detract from the main point of the thread. Though I have to admit that I'm pleased with the responses you have all provided. It is good to see people clambering for the promotion of cleaner power plants and alternative fuel sources. And if I am responsible for initiating this discussion, I'm somewhat proud. However, every fuel source has its proponents and critics: some people don't like spent nuclear fuel rods being buried in their state while others argue that hydroelectric dams dramatically alter entire ecosystems. Here was the crux of my point. And perhaps I should have been more clear in the first place. If the average power plant produces an average 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution for every megawatt produced (Scientific American, Dec. 2004, pg 52), the charging of an electric car is just as responsible for producing the pollution as is leaving all your house lights on when you're not home. Electricity leads to demand for mW which leads to an average 1,500 pounds of carbon dioxide pollution. Studies have well established that the amount of energy you retrieve from batteries is less than that amount of energy plus the energy spent charging the batteries plus the energy spent drawing the energy from he batteries. So, in fact, its possible that electric lights (with a near 100% efficiency) would draw less power than the battery-operated vehicle. Especially if you are going to be charging the car every 2 or 3 nights. It's just that I get bothered when I hear people proclaiming that you are getting something for nothing. People think that you can create electricity without burning fuels, or damming rivers, or killing bats (yes, I swear). I was just attempting to keep things into perspective. [/soapbox]
There is a problem with the theory of driving on battery for 30 or so miles and then switching to hybrid system - and recharging overnight. If fully discharged, the batteries allow for significantly lower amount of charging cycles. That's why Prius charge / discharge is confined to pretty small window of total battery capacity, I think it's less than 10%. Then and only then can Toyota guarantee longevity of the expensive battery pack.
Charging a hybrid battery from the grid is NOT the same thing as leaving a light burning when someone is not at home. The charging goes toward a good use. The burning light when nobody is home does NOT go toward a good use. Futhermore, 50% of the power from plants comes from clean-burning natural gas. It is a lot less polluting than coal or oil. Or gasoline in a car engine. So I have no problem with charging a hybrid from a power plant using natural gas as a significant component.
I our neck of the woods, much of the power generated originates in coal or nuclear fired plants...natural gas does not come close to 50%, perhaps 20 to 30% at most on a standard energy supply program. I will be subscribing to a 100% green plan for approximately $1.50 more per KWh, 40% regional wind, 30% small regional hydro and 30% regional green biomass (landfill methane, otherwise unused wood chips, etc.) wildplaces
Tony: I was responding to your use of the word "cost." I agree with you that energy is consumed either way and that batteries are inefficient. If there was even one ounce of total combined brain matter in our national policy makers' heads, we would cut the military budget by 90% and invest all the savings in a National Security Energy Independence project to move to clean renewable energy in the minimum possible time. Our leaders are either complete morons, or criminal psychopaths, or both. Personally, I suspect both.
I think it's more like 20%, but your point is valid regardless. However, does anyone know if this is generally true of all batteries? Or is it just the NiMH batteries used in the Prius? Is the same true of lithium batteries? Lots of folks seem to think that the next generation will be lithium. Some even advocate capacitors, which presumably have no such issue.
Was that a typo? I think I pay around 6 cents per kwh for regular electricity. A premium of $1.50 per kwh would boost my monthly electric bill from $30 to $610 per month. And I don't think I'd trust my electric utility. Since all the electricity goes onto the same lines, and my neighbors and I are fed from the same lines, the utility could easily sell the same kwh of green electricity to a thousand different people. The only way to know would be for an accountant to see their books and verify that for every customer who subscribes to the green plan they had actually added that much green capacity. And the green and dirty electricity is still all mixed together and distributed mixed to everyone, unless you are on a totally separate grid.
Daniel, Thanks for pointing out that my "added cost" for green energy is off by only a couple orders of magnitude!;>) <ooops> Yes, it is +1.5 cents (NOT dollars) per KwH! I agree with you about accounting for it, BUT I pay an additional 1.5 cents per KwH to show that consumers are willing to pay for it, even if it means an increase of a penny or two per KwH on my electric bill. Apparently they are audited by the Public Service Commission (another government agency that perhaps can not to be trusted to audit the energy suppliers, but I've met some of their biologists and know that their environmental people at least TRY to do their job, even if the powers that be direct them to do otherwise) to attain their green supplier rating. Its a consumer vote in a marketplace dominated by coal, nuclear & natural gas. wildplaces
Well, sure: most of the people who vote for them are, at some times and on some subjects, morons or psychopaths. Plug-in hybrids are a fine idea but they will only help increase global warming unless supplied by nuclear, wind, hydro, or Solar power stations. (I will take this opportunity to boast that our house has used 100% wind-generated electricity from Green Mountain for nearly a year now.) We should remember this when next some NIMBY opposes a nearby wind turbine farm or some well-meaning ignoramus rants about the horrors of nuclear power, and do the right thing.