A reality check on plug-n hybrids

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jkash @ Sep 25 2006, 08:15 AM) [snapback]324613[/snapback]</div>

This particular publication has a history of twist, routinely attempting to cast a shadow on hybrids. I can deal with that. But that specific quote really bothered me. He didn't "aquire" it, his group built it. They make it sound as though there is a production design already available, but only offered to a select few. That's not the case.

The "exclusively on stored electricity" quote contributes to the rapidly growing misconception about how "full" hybrids actually operate. So I'm not thrilled about that either.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 25 2006, 07:46 AM) [snapback]324624[/snapback]</div>

Ah yes. The 'Leather Seat Premium' that no one ever writes articles about. It's funny how that is. The implication is that it's foolish to spend extra money on things like "The Greater Good", "Energy Security", and efficiency. You should be spending that money on selfish creature comforts like heated leather seats. Of course, that's probably the stuff that has the biggest price markup.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Sep 25 2006, 06:28 PM) [snapback]324701[/snapback]</div>

That's the most ennoying part if people see your Prius. The question: "I've heard it's more expensive than a conventional car. Does it make sense to buy that car? Does it pay back?"

I don't care a $hit if it pays back or not. I bought it because I like the car and the concept. Why does nobody ask that question if you drive a BMW?
Personally, I would love to have a plugin hybrid, and I'm willing to pay a premium for that. Even if it never pays fully back. The feeling of driving on electricity gives me a thrill, just as some people get a kick by driving a car with 300hp.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 25 2006, 09:46 AM) [snapback]324624[/snapback]</div>

Agreed! I wonder if they had these same arguements over whether the automobile would ever replace a horse? "Well, hay is cheaper than gasoline, and when you add in the additional expense of oil changes and maintenance, these new-fangled things will never pay you back."
When will they figure out that not every invention was successful just because it was cheaper? There is such a thing as value-added, and for me the Prius has alot of added value. B)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 25 2006, 09:46 AM) [snapback]324624[/snapback]</div>

I agree about the intangible benefits completely, but I would like to point out that there are substantial additional PHEV cost advantages that nobody bothers to mention, perhaps because they are not obvious at first glance. Here goes.

If you get a (say) 30 mile battery pack (30 mile PHEV), and your driving pattern matches the US average, then your ICE would last twice as long as it would have otherwise, because you'd use it only half as much as you do now. (That's the obvious flip side of the 100+ MPG claims for the existing PHEV Prius.)

In this thread, post #43
http://priuschat.com/index.php?showtopic=2...=phev&st=20

I started from US average travel patterns (based on a Federal survey) and figure that, even with a required engine warmup with every start, a 30 mile PHEV would displace just over half of all gasoline-powered Prius miles with electrical Prius miles. (Because -- most US trips are in fact short trips.)

I could do the calculation better, and yes there are some assumptions underlying it, but the main point is that the average driver would run the gas engine in a Prius about half as much as now. Give or take.

Roughly speaking, that would then mean:

Half as much routine maintenance per year.
Twice the engine life.


In that thread cited above, the consensus was that wear and tear on the electrical components would not be a limiting factor. So, reduced ICE use amounts to slower total wear and tear.

Maybe I'm biased here, because I tend to keep my cars until they are fairly worn out, but I think most cars eventually get scrapped due to a worn-out engine. No hard data on that, just my bias. Somebody will drive it if it will still run. If that's right, then educed ICE use per mile means cars will last a lot longer from manufacture to scrap, on average.

It's the same concept as long-lasting Prius brake pads, but applied to the ICE. And by association, to the vehicle as a whole.

Pretend that twice the engine life actually translates into twice the working life (from manufacture to scrap). (Clearly not correct -- rust kills some cars, accidents kill others, malfunction of other major parts like transmissions kills some, and so on.) But pretend.

That would means that average annual depreciation over the life of the car (from purchase to scrap) is halved. I believe that for the Prius now, for the typical driver, average annual depreciation exceeds typical average annual gas cost. So halving the lifetime average annual depreciation is not negligible.

It also means that ultimately, you'd need to make half as many cars to satisfy US transport needs, due to (assumed) doubled average working life. I believe that about half the total energy cost of the typical car is in the manufacture (and half in the gas you use). For a Prius, the balance must be more like three-quarters/one-quarer due to thrifty use of gasoline. So, doubling the life of the average car would substantially reduce total (manufacture and use) energy demand associated with automobiles, even more so for total energy used to manufacture and drive a Prius.

In a nutshell, a 30 mile PHEV would make a car last a lot longer. If miles on the ICE were the sole determining factor for car life, it would last twice as long, at US average travel patterns. And that, by and of itself, saves substantial cost and energy. And that does not seem to get factored into anybody's calculations yet.

In fact, having thought about this some, I wonder that even if battery prices fall significantly, manufacturers might be reluctant to do PHEV for this reason. For example, surveys show that about half of car dealer profits are from parts and service. Sellling fewer cars that need fewer repairs might not be an ideal corporate goal. Surely a monolpoly supplier wouldn't do it. We can hope that the auto manufacture market remains competive enough to force this option to proceed if and when it makes (narrow) economic sense to adopt it.

 

Does Felix Kramer ever lurk around PriusChat?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(chogan @ Sep 25 2006, 12:00 PM) [snapback]324761[/snapback]</div>

Well, this is pretty analogous to the position that the light bulb mfgs are in right now. CF bulbs are going to cut into their profits because they last so much longer than incandescent bulbs. However, GE has teamed up with Walmart to really push CF bulbs hard. Basically they're trying to bring CF bulbs into the mainstream. Why? Because as a GE spokesman said "If we don't do it, then someone else will." So really as these new car techs become more cost competetive in the average consumer's eye the Auto Mfgs will have no choice for the same reason.

 

At the bottom of the article is a link, that brings you to a page to email the editor, which is what I did.
Here is the exact message I sent.

FWIW, I don't hide behind aliases. I am who I am, not afraid to talk, debate, be heard and listen.
I suggest everyone put in their own 2 cents, with intelligent reply to that article. LINK

Let the debates begin! :lol:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 25 2006, 01:02 PM) [snapback]324725[/snapback]</div>

AMEN. I couldn't say i better my self. But time is changing, I get less and less of these questions and my friend who always drive a pick-up (2 hours commute everyday, by himself on the freeway) finally confessed that his next car will be a hybrid. He made the math and realized that he and the wife could go to dinner one time/week on the saving of driving a sensible car (for hos commute). He also started to realize that he could fill up gas 1/week instead of 3 times.
It will be slow but more people will realize the benefits of plug-ins. They are not all 'environmental'. Having a full tank of gas each morning 'magically' appear is appealing to me. Not having to do go to my mechanic as often is tempting as well (another friend in a Mazda 6 just spen 400+$ on brake repairs after 30.000 miles).... I also enjoy the queitness of it and the power

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Sep 25 2006, 02:46 PM) [snapback]324779[/snapback]</div>

Shows you how far out of the mainstream I am -- I thought CF bulbs were mainstream. Who would buy an old-fashioned incandescent light bulb these days? Other than for mood lighting or an appliance bulb? The itty-bitty ones (14W) seem to fit anwhere and I seem to recall my last pack costing me $8 for 4 bulbs at Home Depot.

Oh, yikes. I justed Googled it, and several sources seem to agree that about 5% of US (what I take to be home-consumption) light bulb sales are CFs. Do people really not grasp how vastly more expensive it is to light with incandescents? Or not care? Or don't know about it? That's 5% of sales, and CF's last longer, so the installed base may be a higher percentage, but I concede the point -- CFs are not (yet) mainstream.

Maybe I'll try to start a craze where every time you buy a CF, you pull a $20 out of you wallet and burn it at the cash register. Just to stay on a par with the folks buying incandescent.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(jkash @ Sep 25 2006, 06:15 AM) [snapback]324613[/snapback]</div>

Ah yes... All about the price at the pump, isn't it? With all the emphasis on the pump price of gas, I REALLY think it is time to actually have people pay what gas costs us.

Reminds me of back when we decided to remove the lead from gasoline. The auto industry was against it because of the cost that would be passed onto consumers to change the way the engines were made. "We'll go out of business, blah, blah." It was determined that it would cost the auto industry $100 million in the first year to make these changes. The study then expanded to find out the *other* financial effects of this change. The *savings* to society for removing lead from gasoline was counted in the $Billions - for reduced health costs and environmental damage. So we balance $100Million against something like $4Billion, and realize that spending all that extra money that we "won't get back at the pump" and it seems like a bargain! The $100M seemed pretty expensive when we ignored the other costs though, huh?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(etyler88 @ Sep 25 2006, 11:06 AM) [snapback]324762[/snapback]</div>

Yes.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vtie @ Sep 25 2006, 10:02 AM) [snapback]324725[/snapback]</div>

Yay! Imagine how giddy you'd be to drive an EV WITH 300hp....

I can confidently tell you that you'd probably squeal like a little girl - like I did.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(darelldd @ Sep 25 2006, 04:49 PM) [snapback]324883[/snapback]</div>

I'm with you on the overall cost, but I'll try to clarify my earlier point, that people are grossly understating the private cost savings of PHEV by failing to include the savings from longer vehicle life.

Suppose a Prius costs $25K, and normally lasts 150K miles/10 years. Suppose a 30 mile PHEV extends that to 225K/15 years, due to displacement of gasoline miles with electric. Let me take straight-line physical depreciation on the cars, and calculate gas savings at national average travel patterns as I did earlier. Then, at 150K miles/10 years, for the PHEV 30 Prius compared to the stock Prius:
Net gas savings (net of electric cost) = $3400
Depreciation savings = $8333 (ie., you still have one-third of a car life left).

By failing to consider the reduced capital costs due to lower wear&tear rates on the ICE (= longer car lifetime) I think people are not merely understating private savings from a PHEV option, I think they are grossly understating the private savings from a PHEV option.

It's not a question of spending more of your money to aid the environment, in all likelihood, over the long run, it's a question of spending less of your money, to aid the environment.

There is no tradeoff. It's exactly like the CF lightbulb above -- just a whole lot bigger.

My field is health economics, and this issue comes up all the time there. People evaluate the cost of health care treatments assuming a fixed lifetime. But where treatments extend life, that tends to give a wildly incorrect estimate of total cost.

I realize most of you trade your cars more often than every 15 years, but that doesn't fundamentally alter the argument. The resale value at each re-sale should reflect the expected further useful life of the vehicle (and ... yeah, the fact that you're driving a crappy old car instead of a nice new one, but I sluffed that off with the straight line depreciation assumtion above).

Let me put it this way: a utility fleet owner solely interested in total cost of maintaing a fleet, ought to be willing, under the assumptions above, to pay up to $11.7K each to convert stock fleet Prii to PHEV 30 Prii. Solely from profit-and-loss considerations. And mostly due to reduced capital consumption, and only secondarily from reduced gasoline consumption.

I'd like to have more data, I'd like to do a more accurate projection, but given my current state of knowledge, and given a little margin for error, I'd guess that a $10K PHEV conversion of a Prius would reduce total cost of ownership over the lifetime of the car. AND be better for the environment. And would mean I'd have to buy a new car less often, and I hate (loathe, despise, abhor) buying a car.

At this point, I believe I'm going to get an aftermarket PHEV conversion as soon as the market and cost look stable, assuming the cost is under $10K or so (and the convert is available here in VA.) If I believe my own numbers, doing otherwise would be analogous to lighting with incandescent. Except I'd be burning piles of $20s instead of one at a time.

 

>> Does Felix Kramer ever lurk around PriusChat?
.
He spams it with developments or event announcements periodically,
but never responds to anything or answer his email. He's a one-way
text diode, and after they sold the whole mess to EnergyCS/EDrive
the content became significantly less worth following.
.
I told a couple of hundred people last weekend, in response to the
FIRST question I always get about my car which is "do you plug it
in?", that if I was going to think about a PHEV conversion that I
would want it easily REMOVABLE, such as when I'm going to take a
long highway trip and would rather replace the dead weight with
my luggage/payload. I also pointed out that this "100 mpg" needs
a *serious* reality check and be expressed as GGE or miles/KWh
pushed into the car, whereupon the numbers drop right back down
to something more realistic. Unless that plug-in energy comes from
renewables exclusively, anyone spouting three-digit normal driving
FE is flat-out lying. This is not what the industry needs to
advance and gain credibility.
.
_H*

 

In the future, a lot of people will charge up their PHEVs from renewable home-generated electricity. Electricity from home-mounted wind turbines is already cheaper than from the grid and solar will be that way soon once nanosolar get their products out. So that would be CO2 free EV motoring (in terms of fuel at least).

As for the costs of a PHEV, a factory PHEV could be built for about the same price as a Prius today. For a 20 mile EV range you'd need 5 kWh of batteries, about $1,500 worth of LiIon 18650s. However a lot of that extra premium can be made up by using a much smaller engine - 600 cc or so - which you can employ without any loss of real-world performance with a series-hybrid architecture.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(clett @ Sep 28 2006, 05:46 AM) [snapback]324996[/snapback]</div>

Well, I'm just putting in my 2 cents at the end of all previoius comments.

I probably won't be converting to plug-in until the next generation of batteries comes out. I don't want to add the weight of a second set of batteries. Besides, I want to get my Prius paid off first (in a little under 4 years).

For me environmental issues aren't a deterrent. I live in Washington State, where most of our grid is run off hydroelectric. The environmental impact of that occurred many decades ago. Even with the nuclear power that is still used (I don't know how much), most of the damage is already done.

But a question.

With plug-ins charged at home, how does that affect battery life? Aren't the batteries being overcharged?
I know that all 8 bars showing is still well below full charge, but in normal driving (around town, less than 2 miles per trip) I rarely get above 6 bars. That's enough to take me a mile to a mile and a half home if on level ground running in EV mode (CoastalTech's kit). That's enough to bring up my mileage close to what it was when I left (which was lost when traveling away from home using the initially cold ICE). It seems like a boost to 5 kW-hr isn't nearly enough to let you go 20 miles without kicking on the ICE.

OTOH, if I never drove more than 5 miles between recharges I know I could get more than 100 mpg in around town driving.

Oh, and yes I know that if the car is warmed up I can get more that 70 mpg driving around the same town. That includes up and down hills, with speed ranging between (except for stoplights) 25 and 45 mph., etc. But to do that requires running continuously for at least 30 minutes. So the ICE never gets a chance to cool off.

Does anyone have hard data available here on actual miles travelled with a full plug-in conversion in EV mode?

Dave M.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hobbit @ Sep 25 2006, 06:49 PM) [snapback]324979[/snapback]</div>

I realize people can and will overstate mileage by not including all the energy input, but whether or not 100 MPG is a fair statement may depend both on your driving patterns and on whether your point of view is (private, out-of-pocket) cost or carbon produced.

Look at the EPA rating of the RAV4 EV. The EPA gave the 2003 RAV4 EV an overall MPG of 112, and says it produces slight more than half as much C02 as the gas RAV4. See here:
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19296.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymake/Toyota2003.shtml

I have never found a detailed description of the EPA method for generating that gas-MPG-equivalent for electric vehicles, but the numbers suggest that the calculation of gas-MPG-equivalent is at root a cost calculation. I think the EPA is saying that, at then-current prices, the RAV4 EV fuel costs are equivalent to those of a gas-fueled car getting 112 MPG.

The RAV4 is modestly heavier and certainly less aerodynamic than a Prius. You might conservatively guess 120 gas-MPG-cost-equivalent for an elecric Prius, extrapolating from the RAV4 EV data? Let me run with that.

With that assumption, you'd be on solid ground to say that the electric-only portion of Prius PHEV transportation will cost you about the same as a gas car getting (say) 120 MPG, by assumption. The weighted average of gas and electric modes will depend on how you drive. By my calculation the threshold to reach the magic 100 MPG (cost-equivalent) is 75%: if you displaced 75% of your current mixed gas-electric (normal Prius) driving with electricity from the wall socket, and figure the normal Prius mileage at a nice round 50 MPG, then, from a cost standpoint, you'd reach that eye-appeal 100 MPG goal, as the EPA calculates it.

From a carbon standpoint, no, that doesn't get you the same carbon as a 100 MPG gas car. if the EPA is about right (that an electric mile produces about half the carbon of a gas-powered mile - at US average generation mix, I think) then at the same 75% wall-electric assumption used above to hit the 100 MPG cost-equivalent threshold, (displacing 75% of your normal Prius miles with wall-socket-electricty miles), at national average generation mix, you'd produce as much carbon as an unmodified Prius getting 85 MPG.

But that wouldn't reflect typical driving. My calculation based on the US national average mix of trips by US drivers (National Household Trip Survey) suggests that a PHEV 30 Prius would displace just over half of current miles with wall-socket-electric miles. At that rate, accepting my assumptions above, the cost-equivalent gas MPG would be 85, the carbon-equivalent gas MPG would be 75.

So, by my calculation, the US average driver with a PHEV 30 Prius would get the same total (gas+wall-socket-electric) fuel cost per mile as an 85 MPG gas car, and produce the same carbon per mile as a 75 MPG gas car. If somebody wants to oversell that as 100 MPG, in the context of all the other car hype, that doesn't really fuss me much. I'd call it bad science but OK marketing.

 

Ok, here is my two cents.

PEV30's could get their extra electricity from hydro, wind, or solar. That is the point. You can't get gasoline from the air. That being said, converting to PEV30 and putting up several solar panels would cost you far less then not converting to PEV30 and even far less then converting to PEV30 and getting your power from the local power utility.

We are all looking for improvement. We are never satisfied with good enough. We strive to do better for ourselves and our families. We will always look at ways to improve upon current technologies. So we sit around discussing what can and can't be done. Well here is something that can be done. Convert your car to a PEV30 with cheap batteries or go for the new lithium-ions to save weight. Any way you cut it you will come out ahead. Money upfront now means savings later. Your solar array will most likely last 40 years and not just the 20-25 years they are warranted for.

So what is holding me back from a conversion?
Well to be honest lack of funds, and a homeowners association that won't let me put panels up. I'll get there one day and one day soon. For now I am working slowly on aero-mods for my car to improve its FE. Maybe if I get a tax deduction, that I am not even sure I will get because it is too confusing for me to understand, I will be able to use that money to do a PEV30 conversion.

Simple stuff everyone can do would be to really look at this issue and figure out where you want your fuel dollars to go, and work on a federal mandate allowing solar electric and solar thermal panels on private one family home regardless of what home owners associations think.

Does anyone have the cost per mile for the Prius and the cost per mile for the grid-tied Prius PEV30?