Argonne Director: Battery electric vehicles not quite ready for prime time

"Battery electric vehicles' shortfall in range will hinder widespread commercialization for years to come. That was the bottom-line message Wednesday during a keynote address at the SAE 2010 World Congress.

Don Hillebrand, Director of the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, said plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs) are ready for prime time, but battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) are not.

The idea for the PHEV grew directly out of the EV's failure to overcome the latter's range shortcoming, Hillebrand said in an exclusive AEI interview after his speech. PHEVs are not range-handicapped."

http://www.sae.org/mags/AEI/8076

Some other bold predictions, for comparison.

Where are hybrid cars going? (2005)
"Yet, hybrid car production costs about 20 percent more than a conventional auto and requires, roughly, 6 years of gasoline purchases to break even. For this reason many research firms, including JD Power, see hybrids topping out at 500,000 cars per year by the year 2011."
http://www.soultek.com/clean_energy/hybrid_cars/where_are_hybrid_cars_going.htm

Toyota to build one million hybrids per year by 2011? (2010)
"Toyota is in the enviable position of being the market leader in hybrid production, with over 500,000 battery assisted cars and crossovers sold in 2009."
http://www.autoblog.com/2010/01/22/toyota-to-build-one-million-hybrids-per-year-by-2011/

That's the way to go I think.

Because PHEVs can be rapidly refueled, their range, like
the conventional car's, is essentially unlimited. And their
range remains essentially unlimited whether you've got the
heat, AC, headlights, or windshield wipers turned on or off.

By comparison, until there's a widespread charging infrastructure
*AND* the technological break-through that allow rapid (say, "under
ten minute") recharging, EVs will always be up against the psychological
barrier of their limited range. Oh, the problem can be made arbitrarily
small, but it's always there. If your EV has a range of (say) one
hundred miles tops, and your commute to work is a sixty mile
round-trip, you'll always worry abou running out of juice on the
way home. And if turning on your heat or AC or headlights or wipers
will cut the range of the car by a third, well, then you won't just be
worried, you'll be frequently-panicked, not to mention driving along
in the freezing dark with the heat off because you want to simply
make it home one more time.

PHEVs relieve folks of all of this.

Tesha

Once you can make a car with a 600-700 mile range, the range limitation issue becomes moot. Since battery improvements in the pipeline are set to make batteries 10 times more efficient than current ones, so I fail to see why you would say the limited range issue will "always be there"...

The market for higher density batteries has always been there.

If you invented a battery with 10x the density and similar cost how much do you think it would be for cellphone & laptop applications.

How much premium would you pay for a cellphone battery with 10-20 weeks standby time.
How much premium would you pay for a laptop battery that lasted 24+ of active use without recharging.

You could write your own check. It would be worth billions (and that is completely ignoring the auto market).


There is research into better batteries but there has been research into better batteries for decades. Battery power density has been very stubborn and only improved in tiny increments after decades of research.

It is unlikely you will see an EV with 600-700 miles of range anytime in the next decade (or maybe even decade after that). It may happen but it won't be something predictable. It will be more an unexpected breakthrough, one that may happen tomorrow or may never happen.

Do you understand what a commodity is?

"A basic good used in commerce that is interchangeable with other commodities of the same type. Commodities are most often used as inputs in the production of other goods or services. The quality of a given commodity may differ slightly, but it is essentially uniform across producers."

There are a number of advances that are dramatically increasing the suitability of batteries for automobile use. The 10X increase is the best, but there are several others that go from 3X to 8X. Each has a range of characteristics that are tradeoffs.

Your logic fails when you presuppose a total breakthrough technology that is owned by only one entity, but even then you overstate the cost of monoplistic advantage to society.

Finally your last two statements about battery improvements are wrong.

The economic value of vastly (100%, 200%, 500%, 1000%) higher energy density has existed for decades. It isn't like this is a problem that magically appeared overnight and now just recently we started researching it.

As long as we have been using portable electronic devices there has been a economic incentive to build a better battery. Even before EV were even considered as a replacement method of modern transportation there has been a huge economic incentive.

Any individual or company that developed and patented a battery with massively (100% - 1000%) higher energy densities that is still economical would have a large revenue stream. As such (since we do live in a capitalistic society) there has been tremednous research into batteries. Despite decades of research, the energy density improvement of batteries has been painfully modest.

The idea that we are just around the corner from a 500% - 1000% increase in energy density is laughable. It might happen but it also might not happen. We have been tackling this problem for decades now.

Will batteries improve over time? Of course but to think we will go from an EV with 200 mile range to one with 700 mile range in a year (or even a decades) is just as unlikely as the Prius going from 50mpg to 200mpg. While the Prius will improve the improvements will be modest.

It is far more likely we will see cost per watt fall by 50% in next decade then we will see watt per kg double. This means EV battery packs won't be lighter but they will be cheaper allowing higher mass adoption.

Fortunately that is easy to cure.

There is ample data to show that your assumptions regarding pace of historic change is overstated and that your knowledge regarding what is in the pipeline is totally lacking. This is only example among many, several following the same basic line of development.



Stanford Report, December 18, 2007
Nanowire battery can hold 10 times the charge of existing lithium-ion battery
BY DAN STOBER

Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers. "It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary development."

The breakthrough is described in a paper, "High-performance lithium battery anodes using silicon nanowires," published online Dec. 16 in Nature Nanotechnology, written by Cui, his graduate chemistry student Candace Chan and five others.

The greatly expanded storage capacity could make Li-ion batteries attractive to electric car manufacturers. Cui suggested that they could also be used in homes or offices to store electricity generated by rooftop solar panels. "Given the mature infrastructure behind silicon, this new technology can be pushed to real life quickly," Cui said.

The electrical storage capacity of a Li-ion battery is limited by how much lithium can be held in the battery's anode, which is typically made of carbon. Silicon has a much higher capacity than carbon, but also has a drawback.

Silicon placed in a battery swells as it absorbs positively charged lithium atoms during charging, then shrinks during use (i.e., when playing your iPod) as the lithium is drawn out of the silicon. This expand/shrink cycle typically causes the silicon (often in the form of particles or a thin film) to pulverize, degrading the performance of the battery.

Cui's battery gets around this problem with nanotechnology. The lithium is stored in a forest of tiny silicon nanowires, each with a diameter one-thousandth the thickness of a sheet of paper. The nanowires inflate four times their normal size as they soak up lithium. But, unlike other silicon shapes, they do not fracture.

Research on silicon in batteries began three decades ago. Chan explained: "The people kind of gave up on it because the capacity wasn't high enough and the cycle life wasn't good enough. And it was just because of the shape they were using. It was just too big, and they couldn't undergo the volume changes."

Then, along came silicon nanowires. "We just kind of put them together," Chan said. For their experiments, Chan grew the nanowires on a stainless steel substrate, providing an excellent electrical connection. "It was a fantastic moment when Candace told me it was working," Cui said. Cui said that a patent application has been filed. He is considering formation of a company or an agreement with a battery manufacturer. Manufacturing the nanowire batteries would require "one or two different steps, but the process can certainly be scaled up," he added. "It's a well understood process."

There is no gurantee that is will be cost effective. Having something in the lab is one thing getting it to the market at a price that is cost effective and on production scale capable of being useful is another.

Battery densities have grown very slowly over last 30 years. Lithium ion batteries today are only roughly 250% higher density than the first lithium-ion battery invented in 1972. That is an annualized progress of about 2.5%.

Batteries with 100% to 300% of the power density of Lithium Ion already exist.... at 50x to 2000x the cost. Something that would be drop in replaceable with current lithium ion batteries and allow an EV to go 700 miles without a charge (the metric in post I responded to) at cost that isn't prohibitive is nowhere on the horizon.

Nobody is even planning for it. Maybe it happens but likely it won't. EV can gain plenty of marketshare as commuter vehicles without some fantasy "future tech" with 1000% increase in energy density and 50% reduction in cost.

The good news is the high cost of lithium-ion is a larger impairment to mass adoption of EV than range. The likelihood of 50% reduction in lithium-ion prices over next decade is far more likely than some future 1000% increase in energy density (at competitive prices).

Instead of regrouping you just plow ahead with blatherings based on ignorance.

shagottaganai.

Edited to add: I get it. You understand the implications these advances are going to have for nuclear so you are obligated to deny it in some manner, convincing or not.

Since lithium-ion battery was invented in 1972 (by researcher at Exxon of all places) energy density has risen 250%. Current commercially available lithium-ion batteries top out at around 0.72MJ per kg. Exxon original lithium ion battery achieved 0.26MJ per kg and that was 38 years ago.

If you look at progress in batteries at annualized pace is has only been about 2.5% per year. Of course it grows in fits and starts (11% one year, nothing for a couple years, etc).

The "next big thing in batteries" has always been right around the corner.

Early laboratory research and commercial mass production at prices that are economically viable are two different things. Did you notice the date of your article "Stanford Report, December 18, 2007". Two years later no commercial applications. Exxon discovery of Lithium ion was in 1970s but it wasn't until 1990 before commercial applications appeared.

On edit: Found graph showing energy density. Now this isn't exactly accurate because it doesn't compare equivelent cost. Tesla Roadster battery pack cost nearly $10K. A future battery with 300% the range but costs $80K isn't exactly useful.

Still ignoring cost energy density doubles every decade. That is a 7% annualized increase. So batteries will get better but the idea that there is a drop in replacement with 1000% energy density is a joke. If this trend holds it would be 13 years before we had the energy density for 700 mile battery pack. Even that at what costs. Given that costs need to decline more than range needs to increase it is unlikely any time in next decade (or even two decades) we will see EV with range of 700 miles.

Be sure and forward that to the patent office so they can use it as a first-cut qualifier for patents. It will save us a lot of money.

:rofl:

A research paper or even patent doesn't equal commercially viable product that can compete with existing less efficient but mass produced technology.

Every step of the way battery tech involved hundreds of patents. Some worked out some never did but overall the progress on improving energy density has been very slow: 7% annually.

An EV with a 600-700 mile range probably will not be seen in this decade. However, it doesn't have to for BEVs to be wildly successful. The average car now lasts 17 years. It will take decades for the market to shift over to BEVs--decades which will see slow and steady improvements in battery range. In the mean time, I see no reason why BEVs will not see the same or even greater success as hybrids. The advantages of owning a BEV as a second car, even with the limitations we see today, are large enough to insure that. Every ten miles of range added will simply increase its market appeal.

What is more useful for increasing adoption of EV is lowering price of battery. While we will seem some improvement in energy density & range they will be modest. Something like 2012 version of leaf going 120 miles instead of 100 miles in 2010 version or Tesla coming out with extended range version of Roadster with 300 miles (at higher cost and slightly less performance) compared to 250 mile version.

Most households have two vehicles and while having two range limited vehicles is a concern having one EV and one hybrid or conventional ICE is best of both worlds. I think they substantially are under estimating the market for EV.

More research will be devoted to decreasing price of lithium-ion at current energy density rather than improving energy density at some potentially higher price.

A leaf 2.0 with 100 miles and battery pack that half as much is far more effective at pushing mass adoption than a leaf 2.0 with double the range and triple the battery price.

Even if someone develops a battery that could get 600 miles, the cost would still be three times more expensive than a 200 mile battery. It would also be three times heavier and take three times longer to charge.

Some people are coming at this with the idea that they can only charge at home, so they have to be able to drive their maximum distance with just that one charge. As charging stations become more prevalent and charging times get faster, range will be less and less of an issue.

I think people will opt for a range/cost compromise somewhere around 150-300 miles per charge, but also demand a network of quick charging stations. That would easily let someone do a nice road trip with a quick charge in the middle. People are already driving their Teslas from SF to LA using a network of chargers installed along the 101, if that network spread nationwide, we'd be set.

They are talking about raising the energy storage capacity by 10X for the same weight.

Since we have no idea of the production process we have no idea what a Kw/h of storage will cost. It is stated in a number of articles that the process is fairly straightforward and common.

Since we can assume that most people are not going to want an 800-1000 mile range, we should see a very large reduction in battery pack weight. Assuming a 100 mile range weighs X and we have a new chemistry that can deliver 1000 miles for X, we can cut the weight by 2/3rds and increase range to 300 miles.

No?

A 200 mile battery weighs a third of a 600 mile battery -- or, as I said, the 600 mile battery is 3 times more expensive, and also three times heavier.

Even if they make batteries 10x lighter, the 600 mile battery will still weigh and cost three times a 200 mile battery.

I think the sweet spot will be somewhere around 150-300 miles. Once you get past that range, you're paying extra for capacity you'll rarely use.

Any 600 mile battery will be three times the cost/weight of a 200 mile battery using the same technology/chemistry.

600 miles of NiMH weighs/costs 3 times more than 200 miles of NiMH (many tons)

600 miles of A123 lithium batteries weighs/costs 3 times more than 200 miles of A123 lithium batteries

600 miles of 10x lighter magic batteries from the future weighs/costs 3 times more than 200 miles of 10x lighter magic batteries from the future.

Get it?

My main point is that no matter how light/cheap batteries become, the relative costs are the same. With any battery, if you double the range, you also double the cost, weight, and charge times. So, most people will opt for a car with medium range (150-300 miles) because of cost/weight/charging times.

There is a limit to the amount of amperage you can safely transfer across connections designed for consumer (non professional use). So not only does weight and cost constrain the size of battery but the charge time eventually does too.

Use the Roadster as an example. 250 mile range on 54KWh "tank". So say you wanted to up the range to 700 miles. That would require a 150KWh battery pack.

Now home connection 120V on 30amp circuit = 3.6kW. To charge 150kWh @ 3.kKW = 41 hours.
Of course you could have an electrician install a dedicated 240V @50amp circut = 12 kW. To charge 150kWh @ 12 KW = "only 12.5 hours".

Now say eventually there is a design for some universal gas station "rapid charger" 480V DC 60 amp connector (pretty much the limit of non professional current uses) thats 28.8KW. Filling the tank is still roughly 5 hours.

So it is unlikely EV will go beyond 300 miles in battery range. Instead getting cheap, lighter, smaller battery packs will help spur adoption

Once interesting idea is vanadium redox battery. The liquid electrolyte is what holds the charge. To "charge a battery" you simply need to replace the "spent" electrolyte with one that is charged. A fueling station would essentially be one massive liquid battery constantly exchanging spent electrolyte for "fresh" electrolyte. V-R batteries though tend to have poor energy density and high costs but it is one way to bypass the amperage limit.

There are a couple of different chemistries that might support a
"flow battery" beyond the vanadium redox one. There's a zinc
chemistry that also looks promising as well as a few others.

And, of course, there's always the hydrogen fuel cell.

In any case, you make the same point that I've made elsewhere:
one simply can't move electrons fast enough to "refuel" an electric
vehicle on the road using electricity; there has to be some mechanism
to swap out bulk reactants.* Another possibility (that I think you were
alluding to) is to define a modular battery (or a very few modular
battery designs) that all vehicles then use, and allow on-the-road
battery swapping (in sort-of the same way many convenience
stores now "sell" propane tank refills by swapping your empty
for their full one).

Tesha


* I've posted calculations similar to yours more than once. It
actually turns out that if you think about it in terms of a typical
"filling station" serving, say, half a dozen or a dozen customers,
if you want a "fill" to be accomplished in less than five minutes,
you're talking multi-megawatts of utility power flowing into
your local filling station so much more than can be delivered
over a typical three-phase secondary-voltage service.

There's a whole lot of infrastructure invention, let alone
deployment that needs to be done before BEVs can refuel
practically on the road.

And then there's the problem of thermal management of the
battery as it's being recharged at megawatt power levels.
During ordinary slow charging or on-the-road operational
discharging, forced-air cooling is sufficient. But the same
*WILL NOT* be true during fast charging.

Are you REALLY making that absurd claim?

Right off the top of my head I can envision at least 3 simple, foolproof configurations that make it possible.

Does it require augmenting existing infrastructure? Of course. But compared to the alternatives you are speculating about it is hands down the least extensive and easiest to phase in.

...principles, that you can push a hundred or more kilowatt-hours
into a battery in five minutes.

Then we can talk.

Tesha

In my previous job I worked around high current. Connectors capable of handling high amperage are complex have to be inspected to ensure that are fitted properly and have very short lifespan (couple hundred connect disconnect cycles).

None of that is effective for a fill up station where the "operator" is untrained, often distracted, the connector needs to be used thousands if not tens of thousands of times.

There if a limit on how much current can be pushed to batteries
1) battery chemistry provides a hard limit. too much current will damage battery
2) connector, wiring, safety provides another limit
3) as you pointed out the "fillup station" provides a third limit.

I have no doubt EV will catch on but they will be used for short range transit. Trying to use them to replace all liquid fuels will fail.

Of course it we assume a standardized system where all cars are equipped with standard docking equipment for refueling.

The docking equipment could easily function through multiple lines, say (purely arbitrary) a 2' wide by 8' long panel that the auto parks over. When positioned the panel with several hundred individual circuits ending in male connectors elevates itself to plug into the bottom of the battery pack.

Of a similar arrangement on the front or rear bumper.

You guys are just being contrary.

As I said, if you're so sure you've got a solution, build it
and become a billionaire.

Tesha

Megawatt-level connectors are not going to be practical.

And since you won't do it, let me do some math for you.

Let's assume that nice value of 250 Watt-hours/mile. It may
or may not be realistic for a practical electric car that isn't a
two-seat sports-oriented roadster, but it makes the math
convenient so let's assume it.

If the car goes 400 Miles, you need to store 250 x 400 =
100,000 Watt-hours in the battery *ASSUMING* the energy
input/output efficiency of the battery is 100%. That's not
the case, but I'll grant that bit of magic again to keep the
math simple.

Now let's say we want to recharge in 5 minutes. That's
1/12 of an hour, so to move 100,000 Watt-hours into the
battery in 1/12 of an hour, we need to move power at a rate
of 1,200,000 Watts (1.2 Megawatts).

So what voltages and currents might we use to reach those
power levels?

Well, the threshold of "high voltage" with all of its very
specialized safety requirements is 600 volts, so let's assume
a voltage that's a smidgen under 600 volts. 1,200,000 Watts
at 600 Volts is 2,000 Amps. Have you ever *SEEN* a connector
rated for 2,000 amps?

Now I'm a bit more optimistic than Statistical. The connector
doesn't actually need to "make" or "break" any current (because
the control systems can prevent any current from flowing until
the connector is fully mated and stop any current from flowing
before the connector de-mates), but it's still non-trivial to push
2,000 amps through any *CONDUCTOR* let alone connector.
Welding cables are good for a hundred Amps or two so we're
talking 20 to 40 welding-cable sized conductors and bigger
metal structures for the connectors. And the least bit of oxidation
built up on either half of the connector (including the half of the
connector that's been running through snow, rain, salt, mud,
etc.) is likely to cause thermal run-away in a connector running
at 2,000 amps.

Alternatively, let's consider a current that's actually manageable,
say 100 Amps. What voltage level does that demand to deliver power
at 1.2 Megawatts? 12,000 Volts. That's a lot of voltage. Your local
utility puts that kind of voltage (actually, 13,000 volts) up at the very
top of the utility poles to keep it far away from you. Somehow, I don't
think anyone will ever get regulatory approval to run that kind of
voltage through a connector that a drunk may operate on a rainy
Friday night at 2:00 a.m. And then there's still the question of the
cables. Yes, we only need two welding-cable sized conductors,
but now they're insulated with at least half an inch of polyethylene
along with enough armor to keep them from ever being damaged.
(You've seen the kind of conductors that the power company
buries to deliver 13,000 volts, right? Try bending it.)

But I'm open to alternatives; your "distributed connector" alternative
is at least interesting. But I'll bet just the car-mounted half of your
hypothetical connector ends up weighing as much as the internal
combustion engine in the Chevy Volt.

Now, let's discuss the fact that batteries *AREN'T* 100% efficient
and when you run 1.2 Megawatts through a car-sized battery,
for five minutes, they tend to explode. Aww heck, on second
thought, let's not bother.

The basic problem is that people don't understand that gasoline
has enormous "energy density" and that's why you can easily
pump a Megawatt-Hour or so of equivalent power into your
gas tank in about five minutes.

Tesha

And you have not produced anything that is a constraint ruling out fast refueling with electricity.

"... so we're talking 20 to 40 welding-cable sized conductors and bigger metal structures for the connectors."

Why is that not possible?

And then there are the assumptions you use. If we double the refuel time to 10 minutes (for a 400 mile range) the we have a rather dramatic effect on the required infrastructure, no?

In short, your claim is false. I don't know why you want to pan battery electric vehicles, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the merits or deficiencies of the actual technology.

On a related side note: Do you support he widescale deployment of nuclear power as the backbone of our solution to climate change and energy security?

> "... so we're talking 20 to 40 welding-cable sized conductors and bigger metal structures for the connectors."
>
> Why is that not possible?

Because you couldn't pick it up without a crane! Are you being deliberately
obstinate or do you just want to us to allow you to use magic to accomplish
these things?


> And then there are the assumptions you use. If we double the refuel time
> to 10 minutes (for a 400 mile range) the we have a rather dramatic effect
> on the required infrastructure, no?

Great. Show me some marketing data that people will put up with a ten
minute refueling stop. But the battery still explodes.


> In short, your claim is false.

Great. Prove me wrong. It ought to be worth several billions of dollars
to you if you can do it. Otherwise, stop wasting our time with your
magical claims.

Tesha

It's so much more convenient when you can just invoke magical
inventions to solve the difficult problems.

Tesha

All you've come up with is that it requires a very heavy duty circuit. That's it. Then you claim that because the vehicle has to carry perhaps 20 pounds of connectors it isn't going to work.
You're going from silly to ridiculous to absurd.

I'm done.

Like I said; if you're so sure it can be done, *DO IT* and become
a billionaire.

Tesha

:)

I've yet to see a review where the testers actually got that kind of mileage form a charge in a Tesla. Don't get me wrong, I love that car and would own one in a heartbeat if I could afford it. However, when driven with, er, vigor, it seems to get 60-100. (Still easily enough for my daily commuting needs.)

But I do agree that, if you could get 600-700 miles range driving an EV at reasonable highway speeds, and charge it in, say, 8 hours over night, then you could have a fully usable car. That would be good for 10+ hours of road tripping per day, which is more than most peoples backsides are willing to put up with on a multi-day trip.

alternator, regulator, air filter, fuel injection, muffler, $.10/mile (vs $.02/mile)...

BEVs relieve folks of all of this. :D

My EV has a range of only 40 miles. My wife commutes 13 miles to work and plugs it in while she's there, then drives home. No worries.

And the wear-out periods of those items are all measured in tens of
thousands of miles, if not hundreds of thousands of miles.

They are not at all comparable with the risk of running out of charge
because a sudden snowstorm caused you to turn on the heat, headlights,
*AND* wipers.

Tesha

but "sudden snowstorms" are pretty rare too.

Point being that there is very little maintenance on an EV. The batteries have to be swapped every x number of years and the brushes on the motor get replaced at 80K miles. That's about it. They last a long, long time.

Unlike an ICE-powered car it also gets cleaner as you drive it (as utilities move to cleaner sources of energy).

Brushless DC motors are the only way to go nowadays.
With the advent of the extremely powerful rare-earth
permanent magnets and IGBT transistors, the trade-
offs simply became weighted way too far in the direction
of BLDC motors to even consider motors with brushes
and commutators.

Tesha

Now show me a DC brushless motor with these specs:

72-144V, dual-shaft, 19 HP, 85 HP peak (9.1")

For less than $1,500.

Nevermind - for car manufacturers nowadays, the tradeoffs simply became way too far in the direction of AC motors to even consider DC.

How primitive. :D

...synchronous motor driven by a Variable-Frequency Drive?

In fact. the Prius's electric motor/generator is of that type:

o http://hybridcarblog.net/tag/ac-synchronous-motor/

Tesha

to switch the magnets on and off; in an AC synchronous motor, a controller completely reverses the phase of the current every cycle.

I use a variable-frequency controller in my car, it's just not linked to the physical motion of the motor.

AFAIK large-format BLDCs don't exist - AC synchronous is a more efficient arrangement. In small applications like motors for CD drives, etc they're useful because they're cheaper and more dependable than DC motors with tiny, tiny brushes.

In a project with which I'm familiar, the principal air-mover
was a squirrel-cage blower that was about a foot-and-a-half
in diameter and about eight inches deep, powered by a motor
that the vendor called a BLDC. In fact, the technlogy used was
identical to a permanent-magnet three-phase motor run by a
VFD; it's just a question of what you call it.

The topology of the drive was a power-factor-correcting AC-to-DC
input convert (that produced nominal 300 VDC) followed by a
microcontroller-controlled three-phase drive that considered
inlet air temperature as well as an external speed command
and then synchronously drive the rotor using a "sensorless"
topology.

Tesha

but I couldn't make up my mind between parallel (lots of squirrels in the cage at the same time) or serial (one big motherf*cker at a time). Finding acorns proved difficult, plus...they bite (sorry, couldn't resist :D).

If you take a look at the plate on that blower motor you'll see an amp rating of maybe 10 or 15 amps. The motor in my car, on acceleration, draws momentary current of up to 1,000 amps - at 100V that's 100,000W or .1MW. Current like that would leave your blower motor in a smoldering heap.

AC vs. DC is not just a "question of what you call it". The magnets in AC motors pull and push; in DC motors they pull, then stop, then pull again.

While we're at it let's not use the word "topology" until we understand it, 'kay?

http://www.answers.com/topic/network-topology

The magnets (whether permanent magnets or electromagnets
powered through a commutator or induced current) both "push"
*AND* "pull". And synchronous designs already extend into the
"many horsepower" range even when using permanant magnets.

(Wasn't my citation of the Toyota Prius motor/generator enough
to convince you?)

Ahh well, suit yourself; believe what you want to believe. But don't
fo looking for a job in the power-engineering side of electrical
engineering; you'll find your knowledge isn't "current".

Tesha

85hp BLDC motors don't exist. Believe me, EV enthusiasts have looked for them (before Advanced DC came along people used to pillage landing-gear motors from old DC3s).

"Synchronous motors are usually large multi-kilowatt size, often with electromagnet rotors. True synchronous motors are considered to be single speed, a submultiple of the powerline frequency. Brushless DC motors tend to be small– a few watts to tens of watts, with permanent magnet rotors. The speed of a brushless DC motor is not fixed unless driven by a phased locked loop slaved to a reference frequency. The style of construction is either cylindrical or pancake."

http://www.allaboutcircuits.com/vol_2/chpt_13/6.html

http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/specs.html

Find the header marked "Electric Motor".

Read the text: "Motor type: Permanent magnet AC synchronous motor"

Read the power output: 80 hp (60 kW)

For much more detail about a slightly-older (50 kW) version of this
motor, see these reports from Oak Ridge National Laboratory:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15610245/Report-on-Toyota-Prius-Motor-Design-and-Manufacturing-Assessment 

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/921782-P6pEcS/921782.pdf
   

Then feel free to quibble that there's some difference between a "BLDC"
and a permanent-magnet AC synchronous motor connected to a VFD,
but you'll be talking to the ether because I'm done trying to convince you
of the truth.

Tesha

I've seen DUers in denial before, but you take the cake.

Ta-Ta. :hi:

My BEV has a range of about 40-50 miles, and I've never once run out of juice. I know the limitations and stay within them. I can refuel every time I park the car near an outlet -- either in my own garage, or at the (admittedly few) charging stations in this town.

As BEVs get wider adoption in the next few years, the charging infrastructure will expand to accommodate. Your range extender will not longer be a 600 pound gasoline engine (like in the Volt), but charging stations everywhere you look. So, when you run errands or go to work, you park, you charge, you go to the next place. Suddenly your 100 mile range is no longer 100 miles for the day, but 100 miles between stops.

San Diego is already planning thousands of stations over the next 2-3 years, and other cities are following very quickly behind. With that sort of infrastructure in place, it makes less and less sense to haul an internal combustion engine around with you "just in case" you go past your range.

It's a 1974 MGB that was converted to electric drive. I bought it after the conversion was done and did some additional upgrades.

It's a great little car. Fun to drive, stylish, and uses zero gas.

Also just wondering what kind of batteries does it use (lead acid, NiCad, Lithium-Ion)?

The guy who converted it owned a golf cart company, so I don't know if he had commercial intent. He did a great job on the conversion, though. The car runs great.

Right now, the batteries are flooded lead acid. When this set of batteries gives out, I'm debating an upgrade to lithium, which could easily double the range. If I don't do lithium, I'll buy a new EV like a Leaf instead.

(I used to own a '69 B)

Still using the original gearbox? How much does the total car weigh?

Haven't pushed it much over 65mph, but it could probably go a little faster.

The car is around 2800 pounds, which is a bit heavier than stock. Had to beef up the rear suspension to accommodate the extra battery weight.

Stock transmission with a clutch, no overdrive. I usually start in second gear because the electric motor has a lot of torque, so first gets a little jumpy.

or whether they can park by the side of the road for 10 minutes, and regain enough power to get home.

So glad that US automakers jumped on that bandwagon.

GM is set to release the premier PHEV.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt#Drivetrain

Right now pure BEVs are perfect as a second car for almost everyone. That market alone is huge, and by the time its saturated range will have increased to the point where it is no longer an issue for a primary or sole transportation vehicle.

It will be paid off by 2015.

So sometime around say 2016-2017 I will be looking for a "commuter vehicle" preferably a EV or fuel cell vehicle.

I will keep the truck for few times I need that cargo capacity and use the "commuter vehicle" 99% of the time. Using the truck less after 2016 means it should last even longer.

... like I do now. Maybe the same vehicle I drive now. :shrug:

It would make me unhappy to have to buy a new car. If someone gave me a new car I'd give it to someone else. I don't need that kind of hassle. I like to drive a car I don't have to worry about.

My ideal vehicle would be owned by someone else and parked at the local supermarket. I could walk down the street and rent it whenever I needed a car. For example zip cars. But we don't have those here.

Battery development news can often be confusing. With the Leaf ready to roll into dealerships and the Volt and others close behind, PHEVs are ready for the market. However, it's my understanding that vehicle cost remains the big issue with PHEVs, not battery life.

The "ready for prime time" marketing of PHEVs might need to be re-evaluated after some extensive, real, on the road testing. Hopefully the re-evaluation follows the same path that the evaluation of the hybrid market, i.e., a little tinkering and improvements over the course of a decade.

Under those circumstances, getting the PHEV range closer to the 100 mile mark would help expand the PHEV functionality from its current "commuter" or "errand" vehicle status.

The other nano battery news discussed, somewhat clouds the PHEV discussion. If there were a path for the manufacturing of batteries with 10x the life and power, it would be revolutionary for not only the automobile market, but for the entire energy market. For example, battery powered lawn care equipment (mowers, hedgers, string trimmers etc.) could totally replace their 2 and 4 stroke gas powered counterparts. I'm waiting for that because the current crop of battery lawn care tools are still second rate.

wtmusic reports: "Battery electric vehicles' shortfall in range will hinder widespread commercialization for years to come. That was the bottom-line message Wednesday during a keynote address at the SAE 2010 World Congress.

Don Hillebrand, Director of the Center for Transportation Research at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois, said plug-in hybrid-electric vehicles (PHEVs) are ready for prime time, but battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) are not.

The idea for the PHEV grew directly out of the EV's failure to overcome the latter's range shortcoming, Hillebrand said in an exclusive AEI interview after his speech. PHEVs are not range-handicapped."

Tesha notes: Because PHEVs can be rapidly refueled, their range, like the conventional car's, is essentially unlimited. And their range remains essentially unlimited whether you've got the heat, AC, headlights, or windshield wipers turned on or off.

Stanford researchers have found a way to use silicon nanowires to reinvent the rechargeable lithium-ion batteries that power laptops, iPods, video cameras, cell phones, and countless other devices.

Kristopher reports on a 2007 research note: "The new technology, developed through research led by Yi Cui, assistant professor of materials science and engineering, produces 10 times the amount of electricity of existing lithium-ion, known as Li-ion, batteries. A laptop that now runs on battery for two hours could operate for 20 hours, a boon to ocean-hopping business travelers. "It's not a small improvement," Cui said. "It's a revolutionary development."

The breakthrough is described in a paper, "High-performance lithium battery anodes using silicon nanowires," published online Dec. 16 in Nature Nanotechnology, written by Cui, his graduate chemistry student Candace Chan and five others."

The Leaf is a BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle); a PHEV (Plugin Hybrid Electric Vehicle) also has an internal combustion engine, either running in serial or parallel.

A lot of the confusion on battery development is the result of manufacturer hype, which always takes a few years to play out.

I've driven the Leaf; if Nissan's range proves accurate (100mph) it will be a game-changer at $21K (after rebates in CA, anyway).

The Leaf's 24KWh battery would get you 100 miles only if you managed to get less than 240Wh/mile efficiency. That's a tall order.

Very curious to see what the real-world numbers are. I'm predicting 70-80 miles/charge

So it certainly is possible although we won't know until it is in the real world.

On edit: Looks like Roadster data is based on "EPA combined cycle driving" while Leaf is 100% LA-4 which is moderate speed city driving".

So you might get 100 miles in city at speed less than 50mph. Likely get it out on highway going 60mph and you probably are right.... 70-80 miles.

hell we could get by with a 30 or 40 mile range for 95% or our driving. Sell us a car that can go 50 miles and we'll be happy campers and I think that would go for a lot of people too. Fuck a bunch of negatives of why we can't and get the sonsabitched on the gawddamn showroom floor.

:thumbsup:

...their driving. But because of that other 5% of their driving, people
still buy 7 passenger vans, SUVs, and trucks and then drive those
monsters the other 95% of the time as well. We've seen this millions
of times in millions of individual purchasing decisions.

They'll reject BEVs in the same way until BEVs can somehow be range-
extended. That one trip a month that goes outside the range will
prevent people from buying these vehicles.

Tesha

with access to charging. The first is sizeable enough now to make a reasonably-priced EV viable.

go back to sleep

If you have an argument, make it.

I believe the claim I made is well-demonstrated through years of
data including countless DUers telling us why they won't buy small
cars. Why on earth will they change this position to buy an even-
smaller battery electric vehicle.

Tesha

If you expand your "data" to include actual statistical analysis of people and their buying preferences under a range of circumstances (as opposed to (what "countless" Duers have told you) you'd soon note that the primary variable at work is the price of fuel.

What does the impending price of $200/bbl do to buying preferences?

It makes people want more efficient drive mechanisms. That equals EVs. And in case you haven't noticed, *all* of the auto makers are moving to battery electric drive cars. Some will be augmented with recharging engines (series hybrid) some wont be. The advances in batteries are already there on the benchtop and there are no significant obstacles to mass production.

The time for dithering and trying to figure out which basic technological path we are going to follow is over. It takes time to rotate all the vehicles in a fleet to include ANY new technology and electric drive for personal transportation is no different. But battery electric drive is what is coming and that is a settled matter barring some totally unknown technology coming down the pike.

Honestly... he cannot be allowed to express a reasoned opinion.

:evilgrin:

It's true that EVs aren't right for all drivers. Just as pickups, SUVs and other models aren't for ALL drivers either. I hope that isn't used as a bullheaded excuse to delay their release and marketing. Have they learned nothing from GM's collapse?