http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57...lash-ev-costs/
Finally, an EV that will meet real world expectations? Maybe just a whiff of this will help the Chevy Volt stay alive until the technology can be delivered.
Printable View
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-57...lash-ev-costs/
Finally, an EV that will meet real world expectations? Maybe just a whiff of this will help the Chevy Volt stay alive until the technology can be delivered.
LOL, I was just getting ready to post this!
It is pretty exciting, I mean, I believe that range anxiety will be SIGNIFICANTLY lessened when the EVs have 250-300 mile ranges. Especially with all of these fast chargers that are being introduced. Something like this pretty much ushers in the era of electric cars.
:toastQuote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
Interesting bit.
Loves me that data.
Looked up some basic (probably dated) information on current costs:
http://www.allaboutbatteries.com/Battery-Energy.html
That was useful in providing some conversion ratios to get to a figure of about 1.4Mj/kg in energy for the new tech in the article.
which then lets one compare it to gasoline, at 46Mj/kg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency
given that 75% of that is heat, the work energy available is closer to 12Mj/kg
From the first link the battery technology is about 3.5 times more energy dense than most conventional tech up to recently, and the cost approaches that of the cheapie lead-acid battery.
The fact that it is cost competitive (12 cents per unit of energy versus 17 cents for lead) with lead-acid batteries, says this technology will almost certainly replace that technology for gasoline cars at the very least.
It also holds the potential for knocking down battery costs for PV systems, and appears to be scalable to utility usage, if so.
Nifty.
This would be further applicable to home-charging PV schemes for the same cars that stand to benefit from the cost reductions in manufacturing.
If one is concerned about energy security, you need to be screaming for technology like this. :)
75% heat...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but modern internal combustion cars are that efficient, aren't they?
A simple carport design, with the roof of the carport made up of PV cells, and a charging station with the new tech, would be all it would take.
BAM!!
Hmmm taking wiki's figures for Mj/liter... getting that to Mj/gal, then factoring out the heat loss... (75%)
32Mj/gal of gasoline available to move the vehicle around.
Let's see, given say, 30MPG for an average small car or similar, and say 80 miles perday average total usage...
80/30*32= 85Mj/day energy requirement.
75% loss of energy through heat and 25% converted to mechanical energy is what I remember off the top of my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I think so...gas engines are somewhere in the 20-25% range.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Here ya go WC
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/atv.shtml
Quote:
Only about 14%–26% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road, depending on the drive cycle. The rest of the energy is lost to engine and driveline inefficiencies or used to power accessories. Therefore, the potential to improve fuel efficiency with advanced technologies is enormous.
no
while gasoline/diesel have much higher energy density, they don't get much above 30% efficiency.
If the heat lost could be converted by solid-state devices (engine block + exhaust chain) to electricity to charge batteries, a huge advance.
70% of imported oil goes to transport, and 70% of that oil is wasted as heat. So 50% of imported oil wasted as heat, without even considering the energy used in refining.
Close, but you can't completely factor out heat loss, or other inefficiencies.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Now 90% of battery energy goes to moving car around, so you have 1.4*.9 = 1.26 per kilogram to do work.
Now we just need to figure cost per Kg
85Mj/1.26 = 67 kilograms of batteries. (to replace one gallon of gasoline)
kilowatt hour is 1000 watt-hours... 1000/400 = 2.5 kg = $125 cost per kg 125/2.5 = $50Quote:
400 watt-hours per kilogram at a projected cost of $125 per kilowatt-hour
50*67 = $3,370 in batteries to run the car for 80 miles/day.
per miles cost = about $42 (41.875) this gives you your conversion factor if you desire more range. (assuming recharge daily)
if you want a full 300 mile range, it then goes to $12,562
A home charging system would allow daily re-fueling however.
You don't need a full 300 mile range unless you drive that much daily.
You just need a battery system that gets 99% of your usage.
I imagine one could have a spot in the trunk for a plug in spare battery for increased range for long trips, if desired.
If you want a home system that meets your needs, you can figure out your transportation usage, then double the battery need (one for the car, one for the charging system that soaks up power while you are at work), and add in cost per watt for a PV system.
My time is up, but I might work up a spreadsheet around this for fun.
~130 lbs for the battery.. damn. I just checked and the nissan leaf battery (+ control module) weighs 660 lbs. You may get increased efficiencies just off of that! Also Nissan pays 18k for their battery and control module. This is big
Do I get to mention that the research was partly funded by the government?Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
Yeah, I went there. :stirpot:
Throw that shit away.
/s
Electric Car Revolution Starts in France: Renault EVs Arrive at Dealerships
http://www.plugincars.com/sites/defa...goo-parked.jpg
Batteries Not Included
As every EV fan knows, an electric car requires little maintenance, but it's nice to know that Renault has set up an organization so that the customer will never be left to his own devices. In fact, customers will have to maintain a constant relationship with Renault, because the company has chosen not to sell its batteries. That's the trick to make the electric car cheaper. People will buy the car, without any other choice than to rent the battery. The Renault Kangoo Z.E. (the first model available) starts at 20,000 euros ($27,320) VAT not included, and government incentives for buying an EV not deducted. You must add on top of that the monthly rent for the 22-kWh (usable) battery, which varies between 72 and 125 euros ($98 to $170), depending on the mileage and the contract's length. Electricity isn't included—and neither is the charging cord pictured below, which is an option. For some reason, Renault believes most users will have access to a charging station and won't need the cord. That is probably true for the Kangoo which most often should be bought as a work vehicle.
That charging cord doesn't come free with the car, you've got to pay extra for it
That charging cord doesn't come free with the car, you've got to pay extra for it.
http://www.plugincars.com/renault-el...ce-109669.html
Mfrs need to get out of the proprietary battery business, and pool their resources in a industry battery research org, that would deliver a generic plug-in battery sold for all EVs and from 1000s of sources, just like gasoline and diesel are commodities.
Don't put too much stock in my back of the envelope calculations, but it does give one some idea as to the rough magnitude of the discovery, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
The article did talk about the fact that even if you do nothing else to the car but make it lose 500 pounds, it will get better mileage.
Given the way gas is going, one has to think about this in terms of the fact that this technology is going to be price-compared to a technology whose costs are going up.
PV and battery costs only go down, gasoline costs only go up (especially given just about all China/India/Africa growth scenarios).
It does not take a genius to see there will be a point where the total system costs of EV's with renewable charging schemes become cheaper than the gas-guzzlers.
Sounds like a nifty weekend project.
@ boutons' link.
Downside...it's a Renault.:lol
Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
http://www.uscar.org/guest/view_team.php?teams_id=12Quote:
Originally Posted by article in the OP
Members are the big three US automakers.
This is why I advocate things like fuel cells for fuel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drachen
I would guess they figure the tipping point I was talking about to be about $20/kwQuote:
Originally Posted by Goal of US battery consortium
So they are going to be at $125 per k/w, and this is down from $470 per k/w relatively recently.
This is where U.S. competitive advantage in innovation will win out in the long run, IMO.
Until China steals it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
If we get funding for it... The others have the brains and a steady stream of guaranteed Govt money coming in.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...-the-wind.html
10Q: How AES Captures and Stores the Wind
Making batteries twice as cheap means they can afford to store twice as much power.
They are talking 50MW chunks, up to 400MW storage.
An interesting point is that this capacity is instantly available, increasing the stability of the grid.
bump. Poptech missed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
This also increases overall demand for renewables, with their fixed fuel costs, i.e. zero.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Within the next decade the naysayers are going to see a lot of changes. It is interesting seeing all these new business models popping up.
next commodity boom/speculation/scarcity? lithium
Pretty good guesss, tbh.
Giving Hydrogen Fuel-Cell Cars Another Chance
http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...n_.single.html
...
Maybe asteroid mining.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
I forget, can we find it there?
We don't need subsidies there. All these makers know there is a market for a viable solution. The first to patent it will make out big. Besides, rather than hydrogen fuel cells, we need to focus on methane fuel cells. Methane is more easily stored than hydrogen.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Possibly.Quote:
Originally Posted by boutons_deux
Until they find a technology that doesn't require it. There are some interesting possibilities out there.
Oddly enough, one large stony asteroid pulled into orbit woud make hydrogen fuel cells, and their platinum catalyst plates a lot cheaper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
(have to double check about that, but I am pretty sure most fuel cell designs require platinium as a non-consumable catalyst, which is why they are not cost effective)
Heh, we will see if the asteroid miners can change the game.