Tesla Founders Blog

I never believed that Martin would be a proponent of REEVs. However, after reading his post, it seems very logical.

Good Job, Martin. I am still a fan.

I agree there, Martin. May the Volt finally shock GM’s business model and resuscitate an industry that has been dwindling since the 70’s. This economy has suffered enough when dreams are aborted and crushed like tin cans because something like the EV1 represented an abomination to blue-blooded white-collar arm-chair imperial-capitalists. I salute you for your drive and determination. I hope I get to meet you one day and shake your hand. Until then, I’m going back to work. I have my own company/car to unveil this year. I know Tesla would be proud. And maybe even “Doc Brown”…

The Israeli government is providing tax relief on green cars. Tax varies from 10% to 60% depending on how green the car is. Without spending too much time I suspect that electric cars could be cheaper than ICE cars – TODAY.

Martin
I have been watching the Tesla progress for a while and wanted to see if my thinking was on track. A while ago you gave a blog tutorial on the state of batteries, EV’s etc. and I was hoping you could give the armchair quarterbacks out here an update on the new current technological and political state of the industry. While I am not expecting any proprietary information you must be a wealth of public information on the technical and cost topics of batteries, fast charge batteries, pure EV requirements, Range extended EV’s, fast charge stations, etc. Has the battery understanding reached a point that an accurate model is available for range/acceleration for different vehicle drag areas, rolling resistance, weight, battery pack type and size and/or genset capability?

I know you are a pure EV fan but since the Tesla range numbers are for a car with a Drag Area of 5.54 to 6.12 (this is from the comment of Elise-10% to Insight +20%) and a weight of 2900 lbs, it seems that the range and/or acceleration of a sports sedan would decrease since the BMW M3 has a Drag Area of 6.77 and a weight of 3650 lbs. Even if the batteries improved in capacity and price to overcome the weight it seems there would still be a need for either an optional Range Extending Genset or Fast Charging stations with fast charge batteries.

While there seems to be a lot of research in batteries for the PHEV and EV space, I wonder what the actual cost of the batteries is and how much of it is profit for the battery company. Would an auto/drivetrain manufacturer benefit from the acquisition of battery manufacturing ability even if they were to stay one generation behind the state of the art (ala chinese manufacturing) but concentrated on manufacturing to eliminate the profit of the battery companies from the total vehicle cost?

Has anyone thought of being a drive train supplier since attacking the electric motors/generators, compact ICE on various fuels, battery manufacturing, regen braking and software seems like a big job in itself.

Well here are a few of my thoughts and ant feedback would be appreciated. Feel free to delete stuff if it is too long, I actually know it is too long.

I think all three formats of pure EV, Range Extended EV’s and Fast Charge will coexist for a while until one of the required infrastructures begins to dominate.

Pure Electric Vehicle
The pure electric vehicle with current Li-Ion batteries and a 53 KWH pack requires about 3.5 hrs at 220 with a 70 amp special charger, about 8 hours with a 30 amp circuit, and about 29 hrs on a 110V 15 amp circuit. The pure EV also seems to requires a place to charge the vehicle at night or during the day. This would seem to be limited to people with a garage and ability to have an additional circuit installed by an electrician. I have no idea what percentage of the population has a garage, but I would think most people in the city do not have one and even if they do then they do not have free access to modify the electrical system.

Optional Range Extended Vehicles
There are some reasons like long distance travel, plain old forgetting to plug the car in, no garage, manufacturers reducing battery pack expense etc. I realize that the peak electrical needs are 185 KW for a 250 HP electric motor requiring a certain battery pack size regardless of the range unless acceleration is decreased. It would require charging and driving at the same time. If done with the proper size genset I would also think that the only requirement would be a switch for short drive, genset off, or long drive genset on. For the Tesla as an example, what is needed at most is that in the time it takes to travel the 165 mile worst case range the genset needs to generate 53 KW.

I do not know the average speed but I will guess a little (worst case range)/(average speed) to get a worst case need to have unlimited range.

165 miles/60 mph = 2.75 hrs or 53 KWatts/2.75 hrs = 19.27 KWatt RE generator
165 miles/70 mph = 2.36 hrs or 53 KWatts/2.36 hrs = 22.48 KWatt RE generator
165 miles/80 mph = 2.06 hrs or 53 KWatts/2.06 hrs = 25.70 KWatt RE generator

The generator could be the new UQM 25 KW liquid cooled compact generator which is 7.3 inches in diameter 7.75 inches in length, weighing 49 pounds. Freedom Motors and others claim engines with greater than 1 HP/lb so maybe less than 50 lbs might generate the 50 HP needed. Anyway a less than 100 lb 25 KW generator would be nice.
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071203/20071203005201.html?.v=1

Fast Charge Battery Vehicles
If an acceptable fast charge battery pack is available at the right price then fast charge stations make sense to reduce or eliminate the need for a Range Extender.

The following 9 states contain greater than 50% of the population.

California 155,959 sq. miles
Texas 261,797 sq. miles
New York 47,214 sq. miles
Florida 53,927 sq. miles
llinois 55,584 sq. miles
Pennsylvania 44,817 sq. miles
Ohio 40,948 sq. miles
Michigan 58,110 sq. miles
Georgia 57,906 sq. miles

total 775,362 sq. miles

To keep thing simple assume a Fast Charge Station on a 10 mile x 10 mile grid, in practice you would obviously take each states county population density into account.
If 7754 Fast Charge Station were deployed on the 10 mile x 10 mile grid, 50% of the population would be within 7.1 miles of a fast charge station.
What kind of fast charge stations could the new industry start with?

a) The easiest would be to have the power company supply the juice by installing a secondary unit substation. This would be the solution in the long run anyway and a premium rate for the electricity could provide an incentive to the power company if they were able to charge an electricity rate for an gasoline equivalent of 50-60 mpg. This should initially be acceptable since home charging at night should be the most economical and encouraged method.

b) Generate the power at the Fast Charge Station
I keep hearing that the power company can not supply the needed lines to allow fast charging, if they can not, an intermediate solution is to locally generate the power until the market allows the industry to become profitable for the power company. Today you can buy the Caterpillar 3516B-TA diesel Generator for about 500K. It is 19.4 ft L x 7.7 ft W x 8.8 ft H. This Generator can generate 1,825 KW continuously using 134 gal/hr of diesel fuel. For a 53 KWH battery, this translates to 34.43 full car charges per hour or if 3 cars are charged at the same time then each car would receive 608.3 KW for 5.23 minutes. The efficiency would not be too bad for this either,

(134 gal/hr)/(34.43 cars/hr) = 3.89 gals/car

165 miles range/3.89 gals = 42.4 miles/gal
200 miles range/3.89 gals = 51.4 miles/gal
221 miles range/3.89 gals = 56.8 miles/gal
267 miles range/3.89 gals = 68.6 miles/gal

As much as I hate government interference, but this would be an area where they could provide assistance to compete against the 175,000 or so gas stations in existence. An even better way for them would be to use eminent domain to grab a section of the initial 7754 stations, the fuel source is there, the area needed is about 4-6 parking spaces and this is clearly more in the public interest than the taking of private land for commercial use to raise tax revenue in a town.

Since the generator is about 500K and say another 500K for the rest of the stuff needed for a 3 vehicle station, the initial investment of 7.754 billion would allow 50% of the population to be within 7.1 miles of a Fast Charge Station. A secondary doubling of the investment would lower the distance to 5 miles. (Maybe Bill Gates or Warren buffet need to empty their mattresses of a few billion)

It seems that some important needs for the EV revolution would be
a) Battery research, both fast charge and traditional, each type addressing a different need.
b) Compact Gensets say 10 to 40 KW. Here an XPRIZE like reward could be the easiest solution awarding a prize for a genset at less 100 lbs with 5 gallons fuel, area less than 2 cubic feet etc.
c) Initial Fast Charge station deployment and expansion beyond fast charging specs in UL-2202, UL-2231, and UL-2251 as well as industry standard hookups.
d) Cost reduction on composite body manufacturing.
e) Washington and state lobbying effort to accelerate any needed infrastructure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficients
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_aerodynamics
http://www.howard-ind.com/HowardTransformers/literature/SubstationBrochure.pdf
http://www.alturdyne.com/pdf/125-2000_kw_diesel_gensets-cat.pdf

Viva la EV, if it sells better with REEV, then let it be so

Best regards,
Johan

Martin,

Excellent post! It’s not even that controversial a viewpoint among people well-grounded in technology, and it needed to be said by someone prominent and respected in the car biz. We have to take your word for it about the sincerity of Mr. Lutz, and I do. It’s great that he listened to your ideas, so is at least aware of the concepts.

You did strike a sour note, perhaps unintentionally, with the statement that the EV-1 failed. I believe GM failed the EV-1. The EV-1 succeeded in starting a major automotive revolution that’s still in the beginning stage, and it’s hard to escape the notion that it’s the most important car of at least the last 50 years. It’s the product of several geniuses like Alan and Wally and Paul, and it made it obvious that a practical electic vehicle with outstanding performance was now possible. GM has to be given a lot of credit, not for inventing the car, but for funding the concept and productionizing and manufacturing it. As Wally pointed out in the Google video Future Crush, it was a little clumsy in places because it was all so new, but it worked! The Aerovironment team had to accept the styling of a GM studio, so it’s not anywhere near as handsome as a Tesla, but it has a distinctive and honest look, and an impressive drag coefficient.

There would be no Tesla without the EV-1, or for that matter the technically brilliant but ugly
Elise. No better technical heritage for an electric sports car could be found.

Before I forget, I should mention Joseph Romm, just because he’s so brilliant, funny, and knowledgeable about climate change. And I want to point out that with the current Tesla leadership we would have been denied the marvelous Mercedes-Benz 300SL gull wing coupe, because the lightweight tubing space frame made for high door sills.

Here’s a YouTube URL about the resurrection of an EV-1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ewg8yawjn-M&feature=related

Dr. Mike Seal gives you the story right from the horse’s mouth.

GM will never be a respected company in my mind until it helps and not hinders efforts to put the few remaining EV-1s back on the road. They should embrace it, and not shun it and still try to keep it from being seen in action. It’s already been admitted by a top GM exec that killing it was the worst mistake he ever made, and GM is still making it, from a PR perspective.

Here are a couple of issues that are controversial: was CARB a major factor in all the of the crushing then and foot-dragging now? If a company offers a clean vehicle for sale, it then has to explain why the great majority of its products are poisoning the atmosphere and making kids sick, when they know how to make cars that don’t. The EV-1 probably woudn’t have been killed if CARB had kept its mouth shut. Personally, I lean toward yes, but also can imagine CARB now enforcing a more reasonable ZEV mandate that would accelerate the inevitable progress, hopefully involving significant tax relief as a carrot.

A related issue is whether a lot of the foot-dragging is related to the fact that the current administration, top-heavy with former oil company execs, still has the ability to punish companies for almost another year. I dunno about that one; I expect some of the people involved have at least considered it.

All three of your posts have been just great; it underscores what a tragedy for Tesla all this has been.

Will lithium ion batteries be able to take all of the charging and discharging that will occur with only a 50 mile range?

Martin sez:

If the new nanotech design out of Stanford pays off, then this whole landscape will change.

When I think of GM, I think of my favorite Winston Churchill quote: “Americans will always do the right thing, after they’ve exhausted all the alternatives.”

Although GM management sometimes seems a bit demonic, GM is a company with huge resources and ability to make things happen. Even though Toyota, Hyundai and other Asian carmakers are ascendant, GM will certainly survive this round of consolidation in the industry — and will be a force to be reckoned with.

Martin sez:

It’s a matter of legacy: can GM (and Ford and Chrysler) break out of their entrenched positions? Can a company that makes most of its profit from giant SUVs like the Hummer and the Tahoe figure out how to sell a vehicle like the Volt whose very existence suggests that maybe the Hummer is not the answer? I sure hope so.

Lithiun Ion describes a whole family of cell chemistries. The highest capacity cells, such as in the laptop on my lap right now, are Lithiun Cobalt cells
These are further divided down into ones with liquid electrolyte and the ones with polymer. Lithium polymer usually has higher energy density, i think mostly thanks to lack of casing. Other chemistries have been reported to be working with polymer ion carrier as well.
Theres also Bollore’s “Lithium metal polymer or LMP” but i dont know the internals.

Great blog Martin!

“Many EV owners will argue that 50 miles’ range is actually not that big of a limitation. But I am firmly convinced that the idea of such limitation is the single biggest reason past EVs never sold well. Not the reality of how far people drive, mind you, but the idea of the limitation.”

Maybe it’s both a limit to freedom and a fear of getting stranded. I never bought a diesel car for those reasons but it’s comforting they will not be problems in the future. Thanks for helping me and many others modify our thinking to be open to EV’s. At least I got rid of my gas guzzling V8 914 that happened to be “schooled” by an race EV conversion four years ago.

To support your observation about GM rethink, here’s an interesting article about some someone else who influenced change. http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/120/motorhead-messiah.html I particularly like this statement: He laughs. “Think about it: a 5,000-pound vehicle that gets 60 miles to the gallon and does zero to 60 in five seconds!”

For me, the EV dream has mostly been about the possibility of extraordinary reliability. To be sure, ICEs are today reliable, with recommended service intervals measured in months. However, electric cars are on a whole different scale. Someday, I’d like to think about my car more or less in the way I think about my refrigerator — which is to say, not at all.

As you point out, REEVs and their Prius-style hybrid cousins will probably be the primary path towards bringing traditional car buyers into the electric fold. GM and Toyota, with their engineering know-how and their vast service networks, are probably best situated to make these cars work.

Tesla Motors has made a few noises about making a REEV too. I would be curious to know how it expects to compete with the big boys in that space. All else equal, I would probably buy a Chevy Volt or some future hybrid Toyota/Lexus over a TM REEV. TM just doesn’t have the resources other manufacturers offer.

Your post is great, Martin, but I wish you wouldn’t continue contributing to the false notion that the EVs from the ZEV mandate era did not “sell well”. Of the approximately 6000 vehicles manufactured for the program, only 338 Toyota RAV4 EVs were offered for sale or open-end lease, which could be converted to a sale at the end of the lease. None of the other EVs were ever sold, only leased with language in the lease disallowing a sale at the end. We all know what happened to those.

Of the vehicles offered for sale or lease, 100% were snapped up by fleets and individuals who heard of their availability. Very little actual marketing was conducted by the OEMs.

As for the range issue, I believe there is a very strong market for a BEV with even a limited range of 100 miles. Given that people like to have choices, I see no reason why we couldn’t have 100-150-200 mile vehicles of the same model. My experience driving a RAV for 5 years suggests that 150 miles will be the highest seller. Lower battery costs than the 200 mile car, yet enough range for those trips to San Diego from LA that come up now and then.

The REEV concept is great, though, and I think it will, in combination with BEVs, suffice for virtually all driving in the future.

Paul Scott
Plug In America

Martin sez:

Big Auto’s resistance to change was certainly part of the problem, but consumer adoption was at least as big a component, and the single biggest negative in the consumer’s mind was limited driving range.

Hybrids, Plug-in or Otherwise
by Martin Eberhard – CEO
published Wednesday, September 27th, 2006
(Tesla Motors blog)

(snip)

Several of you have suggested installing a gasoline (or other fuel) generator in the trunk of a Tesla car as a range extender. Such a feature would convert the Tesla car into a form of plug-in hybrid. There are outfits like Hymotion that sell Prius modifications, filling the trunk with batteries and providing plug-in capability.

Note that the gasoline engine for such a hybrid car has to be pretty much as big as a car engine, since it ultimately must power the car by itself when the batteries are exhausted. Don’t think about that 1-cylinder, 1-kW Honda generator you can buy at Home Depot; think Prius engine, at least.

AC Propulsion built an electric VW Jetta a few years back that had a VW Lupo engine in the trunk, powering a generator. As with all AC Propulsion conversions, this was a masterpiece of craftsmanship that looked almost like it rolled off a VW assembly line. But it carried two drivetrains – electric in the front, gas in the rear – and so had no trunk space at all. The electric range was pretty low (I ran it empty in about 40 miles), and the car was kind of weird to drive because the engine would start up on its own, and would run full-speed (loud) no matter how slowly you drove.

I’m a bit conflicted about whether or not I think plug-in hybrids are a good idea. Plug-in hybrids are really a stepping stone on the road to a pure EV. Most people view them as an intermediate step. At Tesla we’d prefer to jump to the finish line and build the best pure EV possible now. Let me run through the pros and cons.

(snip)

In the end, I guess plug-in hybrids are okay as a stop-gap measure for people who really want one car that is a daily driver and also a road trip car. But it seems so much more practical to use a purely electric car for the 99% of our driving that is less than 250 miles per day, and just take our other car (or rent a car!) for the occasional road trip. That way, we don’t lug around a whole gasoline drivetrain every single day just to be ready for the rare long-distance trek.

Tesla Motors will remain focused on building the best electric cars for the foreseeable future. With each passing year, our driving range will get longer and the argument for plug-in hybrids will get weaker. To hell with gasoline
____________________________________________

I wonder what persuaded you to soften your stance on plug-in hybrids? Year after you succeed in creating pure BEV (lets disregard those transmission problems and delays)?

If we suddenly accept plug-in hybrids as acceptable solution what incentive will automakers have in extending EV range? More batteries will only mean higher price, why do it?

To hell with gasoline?

Martin sez:

I still believe that in the fullness of time, the BEV is the right answer – we are waiting for batteries to get there, and are helping get there by providing a market demand for such batteries…

Martin,

I continue to admire your dedication and brilliant mind. I also wanted to acknowledge you for continuing to push your ideas and solutions despite any setbacks, and for not spending your time criticizing anyone at Tesla instead, which is what many others naturally would have done. Anyone up to something big will run into people that will disagree and do whatever it takes to get you out. This seems to be happening at Tesla and it’s unfortunate, but it’s not worth spending time and energy over. Let’s move forward and pursue the solutions we want to see in the world. I and so many others are with you. BTW, I’m very interested in working with you and will be reading your blog on a daily basis. I’ll read all your past posts also. I love the way you write.
Thank you again for inspiring so many and for being in action.

Martin:

I support what Paul Scott states above. It is blatantly untrue that there was no “customer demand” for the EV1s, RAV4-EVs, etc. The numbers were small only because the manufacturers produced those small numbers. The demand was actually great –and still is.

Personally, I do not like the idea of PHEVs. They still have a tailpipe, and thus keep us addicted to the oil industry.

Yeah, sometimes transitions are necessary, but in reality the EV technology is already more than sufficient to meet the daily needs of at least 90% of drivers. Yes, more batteries are expensive, but so is putting two power plants in every car. What we need are not hybrid vehicles, but hybrid garages.

Come 2010, I would much rather have an EV from Subaru or Mitsubishi than a Volt, no question. Of course… I’d also pass over a Volt for an EV2 (the EV1 resurrected with lithium ion)! Too bad GM doesn’t take that hint and fire up the plant again. They’d have a hit overnight –and redeem themselves in the public eye.

Martin:

Thank you for answering my question about IC-only operation earlier. I think the other big question about REEVs is how long the battery pack would last? You addressed this earlier when discussing battery chemistry, but I’m curious what you and others reading this blog would estimate as the expected useful life of the battery pack? I can foresee a lot of customer resistance to paying $30K or more for a car that will need a $5K part in one year.

Martin sez:

No doubt. But the math does work for cycle life using Li Manganese and Li Iron Phosphate chemistries.

The Chevy Volt site claims a 10 year battery life.
Does Gasoline have a shelf life? If I use the volt solely for the commute and only fill up once every 6 months will performance/engine life suffer? It will have a 12 gallon tank.

Have you guys seen the Fisker REEV hybrid? http://www.fiskerautomotive.com
That car is gorgeous. (well except for the BMW/Aston Martin lovechild nose/grille)
Martin, I think you did it!! At the very least, you’ve sparked live into the alternative propulsion car industry!!

Compressed air motor sound like a joke to me… Why would someone want to use electricity to to run an electric generator to compress air -> to run an electric motor if you can run the electric motor directly from a battery?

What do you think Martin?

Martin:

My SV-based group is in an advanced stage of development for the key components that make mass adoption of EVs practical cost-wise. These are 1) slim, high efficiency wheel (hub) motors [70 HP each], 2) electrical power control system, and 3)lightwieght, high energy density, non-hazardous batteries. The wheel motors and control system have been working in prior prototypes and the battery design is a combination of two separate unique technologies that are being combined for the first time.

Configurations can be produced for both EV and REEV implementation. The present objective is for a new EV prototype incorporating all above elements to be available in 12 months (with funds available). The market price point objective is less than $25K retail. Battery range will be at least 250 miles for a standard sedan model.

Unfortunately the US will not be the early adopter of such vehicles. The best shorter term markets sre in China , India, SE Asia, and Europe. I believe gasoline will have to reach $6 to $7 per gallon for our countrymen to exhibit the resolve to make the break from their SUV lifestyles to a more fuel conservation-oriented one.

Our original bsiness model was to be a component supplier to EV and REEV manufacturers. However, a potential angel investor has been prompting us to have a more expanded vision into establishing manufacturing operations and/or joint ventures.

We would greatly appreciate an opportunity to receive advice from you and other experienced advocates in the pursuit of fossil fuel sanity.

Bill Soby
Sunnyvale, CA

Side thought, advantage of REEV, it doesn’t kill the dealer service networks since servicing gas engines is still needed. I think the profit in parts message in “who killed the electric car”‘goes along way in any decision for GM and others since they need healthy profitable dealers in the field. Service is HUGE revenues for dealers. Ironically, a more dependable, almost zero maintenance car makes sense but a ton of people will lose their jobs.

The challenge of leveraging all the current infrastructure (gas stations, car dealers, car mechanics, etc.) is a huge factor in acceptance and getting the “real” message out.

I’ve wondered if someday EV’s will be sold like insurance or cell phones, where the seller gets commission as long as the customer keeps using it or them as their car-agent (for lack of better term). There must be money for everyone in the sale-service-support chain for anything to work, unless something so staggering and overwhelming causes the shift by it’s own merit. Problem is, tThere’s already enough FUD on EV-anythings, that it’s confusing to the average Joe (possibly on purpose, ala. Hydrogen, Fuel cell, hybrid, BEV, REEV, etc.).

Technology is only half the EV problem. On-street buzz is essential. Prius appears still regarded as an oddity. And heaven forbid, some paid-for media like Fox news runs a lie like EV’s cause cancer, the market would be setback 10 years.

Having said all that, the new iGeneration of youth could be ready to pounce on any cool EV and would possibly be okay without a mass dealer network with service in every city, assuming the car was dependable enough.

(My two bits from left field).

The range-extended / serial hybrid config will remain dominant until a rapid recharge (less than 15 minutes) battery tech becomes economical. American car buyers will not tolerate being stranded for 4 hours to recharge, so a pure BEV is a non-starter for the mass market until then.

I offer the compressed air option as a zero emissions alternative, as opposed to gasoline / diesel. Assuming the electricity is created from a renewable source, it is yet one more step to being completely green, and can be done today.

There are electric power companies planning to use spent natural gas formations to “store” electrical energy in the form of compressed air, to be released during peak electrical usage. They have determined that a compressed air approach will be more economical and efficient than batteries, so the same would apply to autos as well. Batteries are just a very expensive capital investment, compared to compressed air, and compressed air can be recharged quickly today, whereas batteries cannot.

Great read, Martin.

I’m curious, though, how a REEV differs from a serial hybrid. As an Average Joe consumer, to me anything with a gas engine and an electric motor is a hybrid. After having done some research (and many discussions with my mechanical engineer brother – which I’m sure frustrated him), I’ve come to understand the difference between a serial hybrid and a parallel hybrid. It’s a distinction that will be lost on most consumers. But I don’t see any difference between a serial hybrid and a “range extended electric vehicle”. Bob Lutz has said that the E-Flex platform is not a hybrid, which sounds like a flat out marketing lie to me.

Is the term REEV just intended to make a distinction between what GM is doing and Toyota is doing? Maybe it’s the new shorthand for “serial hybrid”. Or is there more to it?

I’ve always respected your honesty and your ability to call a spade a spade. So it came a surprise to hear you talking about a REEV. Can you clarify?

Martin sez:

And without plug-in capability, a hybrid is just a gasoline-powered car with some fancy hardware.

Martin,
I am as passionate about REEV as one could be. I believe that has been THE solution folks are looking for. It benefits from battery technology evolution.
EV purists sure do get their undies in a knot thinking about still using any oil for transportation. Get over it, oil goes into the wrapper you just got your organic produce in. And, that wrapper will likely be going to the landfill.

I have no doubt whatsoever that the REEV is the future. It has the ability to adapt.

I would like to think someone is planning on putting in power hookup stations at truckstops across the country (USA). The long-haul truckers need plug-in power!!! Talk about saving barrels upon barrels of fuel oil RIGHT AWAY! The cost of nighttime 120v power versus an idling diesel. Spinoff is having charging stations during the day for EV travelers.

Martin – think about this one.

Jeff

Mark Tomlinson,

I understand your concern about building REEV’s in union manufacturing centers. I worked for Hydramatic, where they built transmissions and wheels for GM prior to implementing Deming’s Statistical Process Control (SPC). I don’t think any assembly will ever again be as complex as the valve body for the old automatic transmissions, yet they built countless numbers of those 20+ years ago. Today, automatic transmissions are electronically controlled and utilize solenoids to shift gears – nowhere near the complexity to build.

To make a long story short, while the software, firmware and electronic hardware may be highly sophisticated for a REEV, the assembly of all these components is not. Now that GM has had 20 years to learn SPC and DFM, I expect these vehicles will actually be much simpler to assemble – just difficult to design.

As for the unions, I am impressed that they settled with the big 3, regarding their outstanding benefits liabilities. I hope they are rewarded, when GM emerges way ahead of the field, since they were willing to take one step backwards to move two steps forward.

Hi Martin,

Thanks for starting this blog – it’s already becoming a nice forum for discussion about our energy future.

One suggestion for your next post: can you offer your opinion on the Aptera?

The idea of a car designed from the ground up for aerodynamic efficiency and low weight makes a lot of sense, and forms a great synergy for batteries. An Aptera shape either reduces the required batteries, controller, and motor needed for a given range, or, for the same equipment, yields greater performance and range.

As for styling, many successful cars from the last 10 years have had love-it-or-hate-it styling, like the Hummer H2, the Prius, and the 300M. I don’t see the Jetsons styling mattering.

Definitely check out the Aptera Popular Mechanics video or LA Times review videos if you get a chance. And no, I have no connection to them, I just get excited by elegantly designed vehicles (especially electrics).

Martin sez:

Whether or not the Jetsons-styling makes sense is one thing, but there is *no* good reason for making a 3-wheeled vehicle except the skirt the DOT safety requirements, which classify 3-wheelers as motorcycles, and thereby exempt them from requirements for bumpers, airbags, side-impact protection, etc. I personally think the DOT safety requirements are a very good thing, despite the bureaucratic red tape needed to meet the requirements. A very, very good thing.

That must have been some pretty strong kool-aid they served you there in Detroit, Martin.

—

Did you know that the Volt is actually a “Hummer” under the skin?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_J2Jx51XZs
(can someone explain to me why they spent good money on that absurd ad?)

—

By the way, GM already tried this in 1969:
http://econogics.com/ev/stirlec1.jpg
http://www.finkbuilt.com/static/images/articles/hypridpage1.jpg
http://www.finkbuilt.com/static/images/articles/hybridpage2.jpg

—

Also, Martin, please say something about Fisker already!

Martin sez:

Fisker does cool styling for cars – the Z8, the DB9. Don’t know anything about his hybrid, or the tech behind it. I am watching it though…

As a relevant note, you folks all know that GM has done serial hybrids, or REEVs as you insist is fashionable, before, right ?
Here is your GM 1998 series hybrid, which they dont want to mention much these days. Turbine powered, no less.

As for powerplants for REEVs, having a big electric drivetrain really opens up the possiblities and trade space for burning fuels more efficiently. Linear combustion engines, microturbines, Stirlings and what have you ( hey, where is my nuclear car ? ). I guess thats the reason why most of the Automotive X-Prize entrants seen to date are series hybrids.

I’m not sure how many following this site have ever actually driven a 3 wheeled car but let me assure you it is not without its problems.

I used to own a 3 wheel Morgan in the UK and driving in the snow was a nightmare because although 2 wheels followed the tracks of other vehicles the 3rd one slid and ploughed its way through the accumulated ice and snow thrown up between them.

I guess if you live in LA that’s not really an issue. But up here in Canada I think I will pass thanks all the same.

Peter J Hedge
Victoria, BC

Yeah I respect the Volt REEV concept because it will bring us a step closer, if not completely perhaps for some, to all-electric transportation. Honestly I can’t personally ever remember driving more than say 40 – 50 miles within a given day alone. On the rare instances I’d actually travel, that’s where the range extender shines or carpooling, flight or what have you. Think about this though guys. Why carry along the weight of fuel and ICE if you rarely ever use it? They should have a way to remove this generator from the vehicle as to save weight and therefore electric energy. I don’t mean a trailer, just a practical way to remove an on-board generator. It just doesn’t make any sense to lug this around if you know you won’t exceed your all-electric range until say that “planned” family trip in June say. How does everyone else feel about the benefits of having this option? How much further beyond 40 mile all-electric would the VOLT go if it didn’t have the ICE and gasoline fuel 95 % of the time? How would this affect performance?

Martin sez:

Think about gas tank placement in modern cars. Remember the Pinto? The Chevy pickup with saddlebag tanks? To be safe, you practically have to start with the gas tank and design the rest of the car around it!

##Comment by Dick January 15, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
The challenge of leveraging all the current infrastructure (gas stations, car dealers, car mechanics, etc.) is a huge factor in acceptance and getting the “real” message out.

Dick, I think all this infrastructure is going to gradually disappear…and maybe not so gradually. The reason ‘Smith’ is such a popular name is that millions of people were blacksmiths or ’smiths’ when people rode horses a lot. Now it’s kind of hard to find a blacksmith anywhere in England. As EVs take over the same thing will happen with petrol stations and most of the mechanics’ workshops. They just won’t be needed. Shell is busy franchising off its petrol stations in the UK and I assume worldwide. I guess they don’t want to be left holding the baby when the revolution happens.

Why carry along the weight of fuel and ICE if you rarely ever use it?

Another point to this. A small bit of additional weight is really a relatively small factor in EV energy consumption, in most of normal driving, compared to air drag. That is IF you have highly efficient regen system, and there is no good reason why you wouldnt.
If you have high power to weight ratio extender, like a turbine, sized for average power demand, not peak, you arent really adding much weight in the first place. Your gas tank can be empty.
The generator in EV1 prototype weighed ~100kg, in another words like a passenger plus child.
Even when you spend a few tens of wh more per kilometer this way, convenience of having the extended range available after a trip to gas station weighs it up.

>> EV’s won’t be RE free until the batteries provide range AND rapid “refill / recharge” time (under 15 mins).

Recharge time is indeed problematic if you always wait until the batteries are almost empty and then plug them in. In day to day driving this scenario shouldn’t happen. Every night is a charging time – regardless of state of charge.

Occasional long trips are another story. After a few decades there may be ways of safely routing tens of megawatts of power through pluggable interfaces but until then – tough, recharging will take some time so you could also stretch your legs a little.

How will pure EV’s BEV pay their fair share of road tax if they aren’t paying that huge gas tax per gallon? These refueling stations could charge that road tax as well as higher electric rates. Naw, I’ll just charge at home. Maybe registering a non gas car should be much more expensive? I feel bad not paying my fair share of highway taxes.

Martin sez:

Another way to look at it: Who’s going to pay to mitigate all the problems caused by global warming? Who’s going to pay for our multi-trillion dollar war in the middle-east? Seems like the big gas-guzzlers are not paying their fair share – the folks who spend $10K to $30K on solar panels, who buy cars that don’t burn petroleum products are doing their part already…

Martin: Thank you for the very informative response about the doorsills and side-impact beams! That clarifies a lot.

The more I ponder it, the more it just kills me to see what a domino effect one woman’s skirt could have in terms of money, time, blood, sweat, and tears. It is like the proverbial butterfly flapping its wings in China and causing it to rain in NYC.

I know this is a bit off topic, but thought this might interest some of you. Besides, it would make a hell of a range extender. Bussard’s work lives on (scroll to the bottom of the article). If you haven’t seen it, I also recommend watching Bussard’s presentation to Google.

>REEV, eh, it still uses gas and pollutes going down the road.

I don’t think the primary focus should be completely eliminating the use of oil. Pollution/global warming is an issue but insisting on pure EVs in order to solve pollution needlessly handicaps the movement towards less pollution and less reliance on foreign oil.

In my mind one of the greatest weaknesses/threats to this country is reliance on foreign oil (along with the trade imbalance/China artificially lowering their currency’s value).

Here’s a nifty link that estimates energy usage in the US: 2002 US Energy Flow

Roughly 60% of petroleum used in the US is imported (Top 5 countries of origin in order: Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria). The average fuel efficiency for all vehicles on American roads is roughly 21 mpg, for cars alone it’s around 25 mpg.

The current trend is towards parallel hybrids (Prius, Civic hybrid, Escape hybrid) which helps reduce the amount of petroleum being consumed (less petroleum consumed also, of course, means less CO2 emitted). Unless some huge breakthrough happens with battery technology, the next step should be an affordable serial hybrid (aka, the REEV) with plug-in capability and a larger battery capacity than current parallel hybrids. A serial hybrid accelerates the trend towards less petroleum usage because most of the energy used should come from the electrical grid and not gasoline. Also, by using power from the grid a REEV’s well to wheel efficiency will be a lot greater than pure IC’s and significantly greater than parallel hybrids (of course, it depends on the design & battery capacity).

The final step, once technology supports it, would be an inexpensive pure EV with a huge cruising radius and quick recharge times.

Martin sez:

Thanks for the link. I’ve seen this before, but couldn’t track down the source.

##Martin sez:
There is a huge gap between people who “can hardly conceive of going more than 50 miles in a day” and “those people who [actually] travel 300 miles a day on a fairly regular basis.”

I was trying to point up the two extremes. Of course there is a whole spectrum of different usage between these two and people will lean towards REEV or full EV depending on how likely they are to need that longer range. Eventually I’m sure everybody will go to full EVs but take up will depend on battery development.

Martin sez:

I got it. What I was trying to point out is that most Americans are in the middle in way that frustrates EV advocates: a 50-mile range would *actually* work for them most of the time, but they *think* they need 200 or 300 miles’ range.

Yup, that mindset is a compelling argument for REEVs but I still believe that Tesla should stick to EVs to avoid competing with the big guns.

Martin sez:

You could be right about what Tesla should do, and this is logic I will consider, should I decide to try again with EVs.

Martin had previously done a great job at Tesla of reminding everyone that infernal combustion engines are best obsoleted. Not just because of gas/oil use, but for maintenance, exhaust, complexity and other such reasons.

Tesla already has their hands full as a small company trying to meet big company safety and reliability expectations. At least they haven’t had to tackle all those ICE issues. There are so many benefits to pure EVs including the fact that the eMotor is so simple and requires no maintenance compared to an ICE. Please don’t forget that. Part of the original Tesla vision was to eschew the whole world of oil changes and emissions controls. Please do what you can to get there sooner rather than later. REEVs are half steps that will just prolong the agony.

If Tesla doesn’t get fully working cars on the road in good numbers soon I fear the world will go back to thinking that pure EVs are just a big mistake that can never work.

One of the things I wrote in the Tesla blogs back when the Michigan office was opened was my concern that the staff there would drag the company to the “old school” way of thinking. They are likely experts in ICE technology so why not convince everyone to start putting ICE generators in the Tesla cars. Perhaps REEVs are a better answer for more customers, but Tesla didn’t have designs on taking on the big auto companies with model 1, 2, or even 3. Tesla was supposed to be the “premiere BEV company” and would command a large premium to offer compromise free vehicles to customers who wanted to be “pure green”. Forgetting all the arguments for or against REEVs, it just bugs me that the company will continued to be called “Tesla”. If they morph to a hybrid company please rename it “Musk Motors” or something. Tesla Motors had re-invigorated the image of the genius of Tesla. I have avoided using the “Edison Motors” mockery, but it is apropos.

Martin wrote:
…the team Tesla hired in Rochester Hills is a totally awesome group that can engineer circles around most of Silicon Valley’s engineers.

I am surprised that the above comment hasn’t drawn more comment. Tesla was born of silicon valley. Your team did amazing things. What did the Rochester Hills team do that makes you disparage their counterparts back in the valley? Apparently they didn’t solve the transmission problem. Did they come in and solve some nagging PEM & ESS issues that were unsolved before you hired them? If all they did was wow you with their knowledge of legacy ICE technology that wouldn’t warrant such high praise from “MrTesla” in my book.
Can you give us some examples of what made that team so special to you? I feel like the SV team might be getting a raw deal here.

Martin sez:

Both teams are/were great, with strengths in very different areas. Same can be said, by the way, for the UK team and the Taiwan team.

Martin
Interesting, one other question, if fast charge batteries become cost effective, do you know if the automakers have ever considered lobbying to have infrastructure put in place or actually going into the energy business? If a big percentage of use actually charges from home, then the total infrastructure neded would be much smaller than the 175,000 fuel stations now.

Martin sez:…The relationship between the dealers and the car companies is complex and often very strained. Somebody should write a book about that one!

Hey dear, now that you are not busy…..ha, ha, ha. For those of you who do not know, I have Martin working on a four-year of backlog of projects.

One thing that i have wanted to point out: the homebrew/garage EV conversion market is suffering from very narrow component options currently.
For all intents and purposes, there are only a few controllers *somewhat* available on the market, and most of them are DC. Available AC offerings are very expensive. Same for motors. Battery market is seeing some fresh winds with LFPs increasingly becoming and option for deeper wallets, instead of lead-acid.

The companies that DO have high-performance, up-to-date motor and inverter technology like UQM, do not sell to individuals.

Some competition on that market would work miracles for better acceptance and awareness of EVs. Not a crazy money making opportunity, but a niche that wants to be filled.

Market acceptance challenge…

Selling 50 mile range for BEV is like selling jumping from a plane without an auxilary parachute. Sure you can do it, but on that odd day (stuck in traffic, you forgot to charge fully, etc.) you need a reserve. There’s no little red can to walk to a station with either. AAA tow truck.

Another possible detraction with short mileage vehicle is more charging, constant plug-ins. I don’t picture my mother pulling up to Albertsons and plug in to go shopping, just to top it off.

Should there be an automated connector or connection-less induction style charger (maybe embedded under the parking stall)?

Near as I can tell, the car companies do not make money on service. The dealers do. Some say that this is where all the dealers’ profit comes from.

Maybe the car companies don´t make “most” of the money on service but they do “some”; the spare parts are not free and switching to an “electric car” business would mean to let that “some” go away… and “some” considering the “billions” they make is a lot!

NiMH batteries had their moment in the sun, but now the industry is moving towards Lithium Ion. Yes, one or two small foreign OEM’s are using them in vehicles here and there, but it won’t be adopted on the mass scale – too bad for you.

##Comment by Peter Hedge January 16, @ 8:45 pm
##What I envision are strategically placed VCS’s at least every 200 miles or so with facilities such as sleeping accommodation, restaurants, play areas for kids etc.

Peter, don’t these exist already? They’re called hotels or motels….all that’s required is for them to add some charging facilities to each parking spot…or as many as they believe are required. Personally I think this will always be a very limited business opportunity as most people with EVs or REEVs will be able to charge at home most of the time. As range improves year by year nobody will want to pay for the charging facilities will they? People with REEVs will be happy enough to use their range extenders on a longer trip and if the electricity bought is charged on a truly commercial basis it may not offer much of a saving anyway. In any case, with REEVs, how much can you expect to charge for just 40 or 50 miles worth of juice? Certainly not enough to warrant the installation costs unless the number of users is really high. Just as you couldn’t make money offering charging facilities for mobile phones it will be very difficult to make it by offering the same for EVs. Would you invest in it? I wouldn’t.

Andrew,

I believe, as batteries energy storage capacity improves and improves, automakers will just use fewer and fewer of them, to drive down the price / weight of their vehicles. Only when batteries have rapid recharge capability will automakers start offering pure EV’s (assuming infrasture is available – I suspect the rollout plan will parallel the fuel cell roll out plan, start in urban areas, etc.).

Martin sez:

I hope you are right. Then, when a 600-mile EV is feasible, I will make them and crush ALL the car companies like bugs.

##Malcolm Wilson said: Just to pass the time, how about a survey of weekly mileage?

About 60 miles/day so ~300 miles/week (assuming no out of the way errands). I’m actually working on an EV conversion project. I’m hoping I can get enough batteries in the vehicle to get me to and from work each day. I should be able to charge during the day. Driving home will be the hard part; it’s all uphill. Who knows, maybe EEstor will pan out and I’ll be able to get some affordable range (not holding my breathe). Martin, do you think therer would be a market for selling Li-ion battery packs for conversion projects?

Hopefully other up and coming companies can learn from this blunder!

Hi Andrew,

My point is that someone has to physically make and install the necessary equipment at the motels (or wherever) that the EV’s can utilize (Not too many places have them ready and waiting as yet). That is where the money would be made by the company who got that contract.

The other attraction would be luring EV customers. By that I mean if I am travelling cross country with my dog I will choose a motel that permits pets and avoid those that don’t. Similarly if I have an EV I will stay at one that has a charging facility as opposed to one that doesn’t.

Anyway, its all a pipe dream at the moment so we will have to wait and see.

Peter J Hedge
Victoria, BC

Andrew,

Great question about making money with a rapid charging station.

First of all, I disagree with the $5 for a “fill-up” with the REEV. I suspect that they would have at least a $5 gallon tank, if not 10, which means a person would fill up with $15 to $30 worth of gas / diesel / hydrogen.

Now that you have people used to spending $15 – $30 for a top-off, at a minimum, the station could / should charge $30 bucks. Now that the minimum has been established, think of the 7/11 business model, remember when people said you couldn’t charge $2 for milk someone could buy for $.50 down the road? What a rapid refill station would be selling is convenience to those with a long range BEV. Some people (those with the means) would rather spend $30 – $50 for a rapid refill, then spend all night recharging. Others, when they simply don’t have time to take the cheap route, will pay a premium for convenience. It’s no different from 7/11.

Timo,

I wonder how well an REEV would have done in place of the EV1 pure BEV. I suspect that an REEV would have sold then, although the economic and political reasons were less compelling as they are today.

Does anyone know the ratio of production cars on the road with NiMH batteries to those with lithium ion in all its variants? My guess is about a million to one, or maybe a million to zero. Both battery types are great!

Steve S.

Martin said:

Not too sure about the vanadium formulation. I read about it a while back, but can’t find the reference.

From http://www.teslamotors.com/blog5/?p=48
———————————————
I wrote on January 31st, 2007 at 11:52 pm
“…If anyone reading this hasn’t heard of them check this out:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery
http://www.vrbpower.com/technology/index.html
http://www.vanadiumbattery.com/technology/technology.asp
Vanadium redox seems like it would make most sense for a stationary power buffer at home (take from the grid cheaply at night and feed it back for more $ during the day)… Still, I have heard that small versions have been considered to power EVs directly….”

Martin wrote:
…the team Tesla hired in Rochester Hills is a totally awesome group that can engineer circles around most of Silicon Valley’s engineers.

Did you notice what “AllenParkPete” said over here?:
http://jalopnik.com/346165/tesla-whitestar-rip
…”I can tell you that the Rochester Hills group was (and some still are) a tight, experienced group with tons of good engineering and design experience. As bright as the Californians are……and yes, they are very smart people……they are not automotive people. Brain power….yes. Experience ..no. If Darkstar had trouble………why would Whitestar have a chance? One thing I got feedback wise was that even the Silicon Valley folks were staggered by the costs of developing a vehicle and the regulations imposed by the federal and state governments to get a car on the road. Nothing that any car company does not encounter but for an upstart company with great ambitions….its a cold shower par excellance.”…

The rumor mill really has gone into overdrive this week.

i think so. the wording is ambiguous: the RH team comprises exclusively automotive people.

The rest of the quote is pretty hyperbolic. Remember that very early on, we began hiring auto talent in the UK – engineers with direct experience with the Elise design, no less.

I do not see how a charging station away from makes any sense without fast charge battery packs except as a novelty at hotels, etc. You would need someone with the time to wait and a reason to wait. A hotel makes sense but I doubt if anyone would want to build a significant infrastructure just for business people and people on travel.

Without taking cost/current technology into account it seems that
a)Fast Charge Batteries and Fast Charge stations seem to make sense
b)REEV with existing infrastructure seems to make sense,
c)Pure EV like Tesla’s for people with garages seems to make sense.

I think there will be a combination of all three for a while but I think a) is the long term winner unless you get everyone having an overnight place to charge.

The REEV seems to be the most economical short term solution since the manufacturing cost of an ICE compared to a battery pack is heavily skewed in the ICE direction.

Recall Martins comment on a $20,000 battery pack (I assume for a 53 KW Tesla like pack) compared to a 75 HP $1000 ICE. It seems that you have a performance/range spec coupled with a cost spec that must be met, start with an ICE engine at a certain HP, increase the size of the latest appropriate battery pack while shrinking the ICE performance until you hit your cost budget. In the case of the Tesla this was achieved at 100% battery and 0% ICE and you still have to have a garage (but for the Roadster volume and customer base this is not a problem). Don’t forget to subtract out the profit and labor/benefits/overhead costs from the car. If Martin knows and is willing to tell the percentage of cost that is labor/benefits/overhead to assemble a 25K car using UAW labor I think most people would be surprised.

All the commentary is interesting, but what I want to know iz: what iz Martin going to do next? -any ideas in mind yet (or no, or is it secret?). I also want to know the unknowable-since Martin is ” enthusiastic, smart and all of that” why did Musk & Co. fire him (and also not fire original co-founder Marc?). We need a mole in Tesla (Mr. X) to ferret out the answer and get back to us. Bob Lutz may be o.k., but his job is nothing any auto enthusiast couldn’t do for half the salary. “Of course” GM should do the Volt-it shouldn’t have taken Tesla to cause them to do this, Toyota Prius, etc. would have been enough for me, if I were him. So what’s so unusually great about Putz? (advertent typo). I prefer Henry Ford & E.L. Cord. Also, GM & Detroit are a bunch of cabbages for killng the EV-1, conning the Calif. CARB (with their pre-mediated hydrogen fool cell lies) into allowing it, and for fighting tooth & nail for decades any increase in car fuel mileage standards. This kind of cabbage it what makes many over-paid Corp. America honchos so cabbaging great (not).

Martin sez:

Even I want to know what Martin will do next! I have been studying that question for several weeks now.

Glad to see your softened stance toward the REEV…errr series hybrid. Many people were initially concerned that the Volt was merely marketing candy to take advantage of the current social climate and win back good will with the consumer. I have also been convinced that GM is making a legitimate effort to develop the car and more importantly the e-flex platform. It is comforting to hear it from your perspective and from your experiences. I still do have concerns about when they will produce the vehicle and the path they chose was not the shortest or best path to market, but it is A path. The Volt as a $45,000 or $50,000 Cadillac would have been a lot easier target to hit. Fitting an 8-10 year battery life, 40+ mile battery range, and 52KW generator into a good quality $30,000 sedan is a greater achievement than it needed to be. Funny, I was about to write about sticking to their 2010 production date and that cost would probably be the first to give way in order to achieve this, then I went to http://www.gm-volt.com to check the target date and saw that it may cost more. It says there that the cost might be $40,000 instead of $30,000 (by the way, there is some decent info on this site, albeit Volt-centric). Like Martin, if this was available today I’d buy it, even at $. But, I would be happier buying a Cadillac for $50,000 as long as the quality, fit and finish were to the Caddy standards. The premium for the e-flex platform would be similar but the percentage of total cost would be less.

My understanding of the Volt’s intended battery-generator operation is to maintain 30%-80% state of charge. The Volt will only charge to 80% and will run only on battery power to 30%. Once at 30%, the generator will kick for “charge sustaining mode” (http://www.gm-volt.com/2007/08/29/latest-chevy-volt-battery-pack-and-generator-details-and-clarifications/). This has the benefit of not charging more than needed from the ICE and getting maximum power from the plug, but it has the downside of not operating the ICE at peak performance at all times. I’m hoping there is a good engineering reason behind this, but it seems odd to make this decision before deciding on the ICE technology. This approach also requires a more complex system.

One common complaint about Tesla having an REEV option is that it puts them in direct competition with the Volt. Perhaps I’m being too simple, but I just don’t get this argument. Every car is in competition with the other available cars. The ones that best meet the consumer’s needs and desires get bought. I don’t see a White Star RE version addressing very similar needs and desires as the Volt. If BMW, Mercedes, etc had announced a 100 mile electric range REEV then I would definitely see an increased competition concern. I am not aware of Tesla saying that the White Star would have a drastically reduced range to accommodate this option. It makes sense that they may offer a slightly reduced range version of the White Star with and without a RE, but this hasn’t been announced either. To Martin’s point in another post, the more you incorporate into the design, the more “risk” you take. This is the biggest issue to incorporating an RE option and multiple range options. I think the answer is in the production goal and market assessment. If you feel there is ample market to support a single range BEV at the price you want to charge, why take the risk? Personally, I don’t think it is worth incorporating an ICE into the White Star at this point. I do think designing a plug into the rear, control logic, generator specs, and a trailer hitch is worth a long hard look. A trailer mounted RE would certainly be more trouble and more limiting than an internal RE, but I believe it would make sense for a reasonable amount of the market if the EV range is 100 miles or greater. One wouldn’t even need to own the trailer yet you would still have the ability to make long trips without major compromises. It would be a shame and a mistake for Tesla to change the concept of the White Star to a minimal size battery that requires an internal RE. This would put them squarely in competition with the Volt and stray far from Tesla’s doctrine. As much as Elon has changed the company, I don’t believe this fits within his ideology.

Hybrid, REEV, PHEV, etc? Does it really matter? The important factors are can it receive power from an external source or not and how much of this power can it store. If a Volt was used but never had a drop of gas put into it, would it be a BEV, hybrid, REEV? One could argue any one of these, but regardless of the name you use, the car functioned as a BEV. This person obviously would have been best served by a vehicle built as a BEV, but there aren’t any of these currently mass produced. Unless Tesla or another announced BEV gets to production beforehand, the Volt or like will be the best option for many wannabee BEV customers.

Battery range, life, and cost are the biggest issues facing BEV’s, but I think market awareness is important too. I am not just referring to the buyers awareness of what BEV’s are and can do, but also the car manufacturers awareness of what the BEV means to the market and where it fits. I agree with other posters that judging the 90’s BEV market by actual sales and leases is a bit misleading, but I believe Martin’s comments were only intended emphasis the real difficulties that existed (especially for Big Auto). I’m not making excuses for major car companies, but want to clearly evaluate the past to better understand the present and future markets. I think that shame in the 90’s debacle is that there was a viable market for Hybrid that could have been developed for the available technology at that time. GM has admitted as much. If hybrids were committed to and developed as they could have been, think how much further along battery and other technologies would be now. Perhaps more importantly, where would available outlets for plugging in be? Back to the present and what can be done now. Clearly, the interest in BEV’s, Hybrids, and PHEV’s has blossomed in the last couple of years. Martin and Tesla deserve a lot of credit, along with rapidly rising gas prices, global warming, Iraq conflict, dwindling easily accessible petroleum resources, public “green” awareness and technology development. There is a convergence of a lot of elements to make for a very ripe market for efficient vehicles. This is partly why Tesla has been so wildly popular and GM got such tremendous feedback and press when they dipped their toe in by announcing the Volt. Remember they first announce it as concept vehicle that they probably wanted to build. It wasn’t long, certainly not enough time for much technical validation, before GM strengthened their conviction. There WILL be electric drive trains with batteries and plugs this time. This is what is most important, battery with plug, not whether they are BEV or REEV or whatever else they may be called. The best part is the market will feed itself with lower battery costs, improved electronics; and most importantly better battery technology and outlets. All of these benefits kept talked about a lot except for available outlets. Even a 500 mile battery pack at ¼ of today’s cost will only bring BEV’s to those with an available outlet at home. We need outlets in parking garages, rest stops, places of work, malls, hotels, highway-side restaurants, etc. These outlets won’t come in meaningful numbers until enough plugs are on the road and/or the government steps in big time. Personally, I’m glad it looks like we won’t have to wait for the government. Everybody who wants electric drivetrains with batteries and plugs of any sort should be cheering as loudly as possible for any and all variations!

They cannot come soon enough!

Sorry, blogarrhea again. I’ll consult a specialist tomorrow.

I often state that, rather than hybrid vehicles like the Volt, what we should aim for are “hybrid garages,” i.e., a pure EV for, say, 80% of our driving (commuting, errands, shopping, taking kids to school, etc.) and a “workhorse” vehicle for the other 20% (cross-country trips, towing, hauling, snow, etc.).

To illustrate my point, I decided to try and calculate a quick-and-dirty comparison of the costs in our household over a year’s time with ICE (ugh!), PHEV (a Volt, with 40 mile EV range), and EV+ICE “hybrid garage” (a 120 mile range EV and a “workhorse” that gets 22 mpg).

The calculations cover our fairly long commute together to work (104 miles round-trip, but we only go to the office 2-to-3 times per week), several “snow days” per year, three vacations towing our sailboat to our favorite lakes (could a Volt even tow it?), two trips to visit the in-laws in Sacramento, local driving during those visits in California, and at least one “date” per week in the nearest city (50 miles round-trip).

This is what it would cost us per year:

ICE = $2,617
PHEV = $1,382
EV+ICE = $827.19

You can see why, at least in our case, a hybrid garage makes much more sense. And these calculations only add up the dollars: I haven’t yet tallied the differences in terms of our carbon footprint!

I know that people think they need an “extended-range” vehicle like the Volt, but I purport that if they would just do the calculations… they would clearly see that keeping their ICE as a “workhorse,” but buying an EV for their everyday driving, would prove a much better alternative in the long run.

Here’s a career concept for Martin to ponder: become The Gerald Hines Company of the green development world. That firm, based in Texas, has done mega developments for years, they’ve done master plans for vast tracts of cities, like Barcelona & Paris even. The biggest source of c02 this country (& world?) is energy use by buildings. Maybe in exchange for MegaGreen urban design, cities would give such a company incentives (foreign cities maybe in particular-Asia & Europe especially-India too) There’s all sorts of great things happening in the green building world: glass like HeatMirror glass, ground source HVAC, green roofs, Nanosolar now. There could be two parts to the company: the urban new developments side, which would look to do large new projects, and the “non profit” urban rehab side-which would take some of the money from the new stuff and bascially put Nanosolar, etc. on existing buildings at such a low price the owners couldn’t refuse .This makes sure that big new developments happen that are green, and then starts to “paint the (existing urban world) town green”.

Yanquetino wrote:
I often state that, rather than hybrid vehicles like the Volt, what we should aim for are “hybrid garages,” i.e., a pure EV for, say, 80% of our driving (commuting, errands, shopping, taking kids to school, etc.) and a “workhorse” vehicle for the other 20% (cross-country trips, towing, hauling, snow, etc.).

Don’t forget all the ideas people have thrown out about “add-ons” you could consider putting in the vehicle only when needed.

Tesla clearly hasn’t embraced the idea, and said repeatedly that the Roadster ESS is NOT designed for quick removal. “Project Better Place” has mentioned battery swaps, but I don’t see any real plans from anyone else.

Imagine some scenarios:

#1: You have a shorter range “commuter pack” that is lighter and you can have a spare ready (and charged) for quick replacement.
#2: You have a bigger, heavier longer range pack that you use only when you want to go on long trips. Perhaps even that one you just rent when needed.
#3: You have a drop in range extending generator you only put in the vehicle when you are planning a long trip.
#4: You have some trailer you hook up for long trips. Either it has more batteries, or an ICE powered generator.

ACP got pretty far along with #4. I don’t know if any of these options are really what people want. Perhaps average joe car buyer doesn’t want to ever think about swapping major parts based on how they plan to drive that day. Many people have never driven a vehicle with a trailer attached.

Backing up a bit, I have heard the suggestion that people just need to rent ICE vehicles for road trips and learn that it is OK to have a BEV that is regionally limited because the rental option is always available.

Alternate to the MegaGreen Urban Development Corp. idea (corp. theme song by Booker T. & the “MG’s”, music fans- “Green” Onions, but of course) idea: make each MegaProject so energy efficient and slap so much extra Nanosolar (wind turbines too?) ALL over it – roofs, walls, carports, plaza fabric sunshades (and solar plaza paving?-though I haven’t heard of that yet)- that it becomes a “solar/wind urban power station” for the surrounding area: mucho extra power going back into the grid from an outpost of green in a decidedly ungreen cityscape. This should garner some development incentive considerations from the local govts. It should also garner hip tenants/residents to the project, willing to spend some extra green to be in a very happening/far out/groovy/John Denver-like location (in real estate it all being: location X 3).

Martin
It feel fortunate to actually get a response from you although you missed my actual question of percentage of people.

Anywho as for the Fast Charge, You probably have to go beyond 220V.

AeroViroment already makes a 250 KW system and there are already power cables for 600V 600 A that are less than 1.5 inches in diameter and I guess you would need 2-4 bundled depending on how fast Fast Charge is. The weight can be controlled with a counterweight cable like they use today in existing gas stations. So I think it is solvable. Phoenix Motors also has shown something as well.

Here are a few links.
http://www.okonite.com/Product%5FCatalog/section3/sheet1.html
http://www.avinc.com/PowerProcessing_products.asp
http://www.pcti.com/project_profiles_dcps1.htm

charlie

##Jason Hendler said: Now that you have people used to spending $15 – $30 for a top-off, at a minimum, the station could / should charge $30 bucks.

Jason I’m sorry to say this but this just doesn’t make sense. Why would anybody with an REEV, that has say a 50 mile capability on battery alone, pay $30 for a battery top-up? That would be a much higher cost than simply running their range extender for the next 50 miles (say $5). The amount of gas held in the tank is irrelevant, it’s how much you use per mile that is important. Evs are expected to be much cheaper to run than gasoline cars not much more expensive!

Andrew,

Oh, now I see what you are saying. Yes, you are right, if someone HAS an RE, they will opt to fill up the tank with a minimum of gas they need until they can recharge (which I still say they will top off the tank for $15 – $30, but it doens’t matter).

I was thinking of the case where people have a long range BEV, with no time to charge at home and the ability for a quick-charge.

I suppose there are always those franchises that will sell quick charge electricity as a loss leader to bring people to their establishment (Sam’s Club sells cheap gas now).

Sheesh! We don’t put gasoline pumps at every hotel, parking spot and workplace, so they aren’t going to put slow or fast chargers there either.

We will have REEV’s until either hydrogen or fast charge batteries emerge as the final config. I suspect it may even be a hybrid of both – a long range fast charge BEV with a fuel cell range extender in the event a fast charge station isn’t available (I expect all gas stations will install hydrogen pumps).

There’s another way to range extend an EV. Have it get charged by the road/electric guideline (ie. slotcar). You might run off of peak power but you can unlock many of the other problems with the right design. And infrastructure cost would be less than future ICE infrastructure. It opens up the flood gates of possibilities (mostly in our cities at first, then branching out).

By the time fast charge batteries do become available,
Lots of folks arent paying attention. For all intents and purposes, they are available. Battery is not the limiting factor, and in fact quite a few companies are implementing fast charge EVs and the required infrastructure.

Martin zez:
By “available” and “implementing” do mean I could go buy a fast-charging EV now, and find fast-charging stations along the roads I travel? Please provide a map of the charging stations for me.

Jason Hendler

I agree that in the long term the power companies will provide either fast charge or trickle charge, whatever makes sense you still have the chicken and egg problem of why would they do it until they can make money, which is when there are millions of people actually in need.

REEV is good for the short term but still soes not gice the power company any reason to invest, use gasoline for your REEV when you need it for long trips or charge at home most of the time.

Fast Charge Batteries without an infrastructure boost from a public works point of view will be forever in the chicken and egg problem.

Slow charge of standard EV’s seems to me to be an even bigger infrastructure problem since you are limted to locations where the vehicle will be for long periods of time.

Don A,

Regardless of how convenient the power lines may be to hotels, public parking and workplaces (I could waste time arguing that gasoline trucks could stop at each of these places as easily as they do gas stations, but I digress), there is still a phenominal infrastructure cost to installing the equipment everywhere. That approach is simply not practical. I predict some large corporations may offer some number of charging ports for their execs, but a fast recharge battery will be available long before that happens.

For all practical purposes I think we’re going to be on our own for charging for a long time. This is why large batteries with a lot of storage (a la Tesla) are a great option. The REEV crowd….and they will no doubt be quite a crowd…will charge when at home and use their range extenders on longer trips away from home. There is simply no profit in offering 50 miles worth of electricity to them on the odd occasion, so nobody will do it. For the foreseeable future Tesla owners and other BEV owners will charge at home 99% of the time and think themselves very lucky if they manage to pick up a connection somewhere while they are out. Long trips will require careful planning and special hotel reservations.

While we’re on this subject, does anybody understand the logic behind Shai Agassi’s project? He is such a smart guy…..much smarter than me, for sure….but I just don’t see how he expects to be able to set up a charging infrastructure when, even if the users existed, they would have the option of charging cheaply at home. I don’t get it….but I’m willing to listen if anybody can explain.

Andrew,

I think the REEV will pre-empt the BEV / Shai Agassi battery swap approach. It may be tried somewhere, but won’t catch, because REEV leverages existing infrastructure, and capital investment is always the first / greatest hurdle.

Ah, that’s right Jason…it’s a battery swap system…not fast charging. I can’t see that catching on without somebody huge like GE behind it and they wouldn’t risk it because it only takes a bit of battery development to destroy your investment. For example, if the Stanford nano battery works out nobody will every need to swap their battery or charge away from home.

Andrew,

I don’t think rapid charge systems will be allowed in resilential areas. You will be able to slow charge at home, but not rapid charge, because that is too much power to put into someone’s home, and requires too much infrastructure.

Essentially, you are building an electrical substation to facilitate rapid charging, so that will end up being a power station you drive into, and an attendent will hook you up (probably while you stand outside the vehicle, like oil change places, in the event of a short / fire), then send you on your way.

#I don’t think rapid charge systems will be
#allowed in resilential areas. You will be able
# to slow charge at home, but not rapid charge,
# because that is too much power to put into
# someone’s home, and requires too much
# infrastructure.

Basically what you need is another full-size battery pack for home. Nothing more.

# Essentially, you are building an electrical
# substation to facilitate rapid charging,

That is only with direct grid connection. You can use energy storage to avoid that. You need only grid connection big enough to maintain average consumption / day.

# so
# that will end up being a power station you
# drive into, and an attendent will hook you up
# (probably while you stand outside the vehicle,
# like oil change places, in the event of a short
# / fire), then send you on your way.

This can be avoided with inductive charging. More specifically using magnetic resonator. That is both safe and easy to use. Magnetic resonator has only about 50-60% efficiency, but electricity is cheap enough that this kind of energy loss for fast charge is acceptable. Unfortunately this tech is still theoretical, even that it will work once someone builds it.

Martin sez:

We already know how to make electrical wires and connections safe. A dog chewing through your dryer cord will be exactly as dead as one chewing through your car charging cord. It doesn’t happen much, though does it? Darwinism? Good electrical cord design? You decide.

Martin,
I’ve seen a lot of REEV and BEV discussion but I haven’t seen any on PHEV and REEV.

The Volt might spearhead the industry with a successful REEV but a comparison to a regular Prius doesn’t make sense. It’s the plug-in Prius.
Toyota has said it’ll have fleet cars ready for 2010, around the same time the Volt will have a test car.

If the Plug-in Prius can get 40 miles per charge, it rivals the Volt and frankly the system inside although different wouldn’t be a difference in the gas outcome.

In terms of CAFE, will a REEV be classified as a ZEV because it only uses electricity to run the motor?

What is your take on the plug-in Prius(already driven by conversion kits) and the Volt?

Martin sez (edited version):

Hope this helps…

There is an energy company here in the UK that pumps water up inside a mountain all night so that they can release that energy during the day. I don’t know if the economics of that really work out though. I guess it works for them.

Martin sez:

I understand this method of storing energy works well in places where you have water and a convenient hill. I have seen several such installations around the world.

“There is an energy company here in the UK that pumps water up inside a mountain all night so that they can release that energy during the day. I don’t know if the economics of that really work out though. I guess it works for them.”

This is a way not to WASTE all the energy that is produced at night by baseline units that run at full tilt 24×7.

There are a lot of losses involved here.

It would be a lot more efficient if we actually were able to use this power to charge our vehicles at night!

BTW. The Racoon Mtn system operated by TVA near Chattanooga TN was the first such system.

Martin sez:

I have heard recently of a large-scale compressed-air installation for the same purpose. If find the time, I’d like to do the math for both to see which is better and where the sensitivities are. Unless one of you out there in the blog-o-sphere wants to help me out?

All the people discussing the charging infrastructures and future of electics, i invite you once more to read this strategy presentation. ( if the link got botched, then its the first hit on google for “ishitani.pdf” )

Also dont forget that there is already a sizable bunch of EVs on the roads, conversions and NEVs, and they all mostly get by with various slow charging solutions.

##Basically what you need is another full-size ##battery pack for home. Nothing more.

#This would mean we need a 20K battery pack at
# home at todays price.

Only if you use lithium ion storage. For home installation you can use cheaper and bigger systems, even lead-acid (OTOH lead-acid ESS would be really big one). I don’t know how cheap flywheels are, but I think that would be perfect for home installation.

I just noticed that “Stealth Bloodbath” blog category has been destroyed by orders of the Tesla/Romulan/Klingon Empire-including some conspiracy type posts that “in theory” were not related to the Empire at all-or were they after all…..!?

I’d like to know if anyone has any ideas on what Martin could do next-in re. to Green Energy or otherwise.

Kert said: All the people discussing the charging infrastructures and future of electics, I invite you once more to read this strategy presentation.

Thanks Kert. The Ishitani paper is interesting but it still amounts to a very well presented guess and it’s subject to alteration as new battery technology comes along and makes some of its conclusions redundant. Would you invest in all that charging infrastructure with the permanent threat of some new battery technology (like the Stanford thing) making it all unnecessary?

##Charlie said:The Fast Charge really only only seems to be the alternative/complement to REEV.

I don’t see why you would need fast charge with an REEV. You’ll never be stuck anywhere as you’ll have the range extender to keep you going. There will be no possible profit in offering 50 miles worth of electricity. You can use gasoline for that fifty miles for no more than $5. As REEVs reduce our need for gasoline my guess is that gas prices will go down rather than up. So your charge would have to cost much less than $5. What would be the point for the provider?

##Martin said: So a series hybrid is really designed as a way to boost gasoline mileage on a car meant to run on gasoline — a laudable goal for sure.

Am I right in thinking you meant to say ‘parallel hybrid’ here?

Regarding Martin’s question about compressed air versus pumping water:

There are several factors to consider to determine the overall efficiency. First, you have the pump/compressor. It is much more efficient to pump a liquid than a gas. This is due to the thermodynamic properties (mainly compressability) of the gas. This is why power plants use the Rankine cycle which expels heat (often to a near by body of water) after moving through the turbine. This condenses the steam before it is pumped back into the heat source (coal furnace, nuclear reactor, etc.).

The next factor to consider is the pipe losses. This depends on the properties of the fluid (Reynolds number), the length of the pipe, and any bends and irregularities in the pipe. The fluid properties benefit air over water. For the compressed air storage, the compressor can be placed near the storage facility but the water must be pumped a significant elevation to store energy, so compressed air is better here, too. The irregularities in this case are negligible.

Next, we consider how the stored energy is converted back into electricity. For both a turbine would be used but like with the pump the efficiency is very different. Water turbines approach efficiencies of 90% while air turbines are significantly lower (sorry, I don’t have a reliable number).

Other losses than can have an impact are evaporation of water for pumped storage, and loss of heat in compressed air storage.

To recap: water is more efficient for pumping and extracting energy and compressed air has less pipe friction. As a whole pipe friction is much less of a factor, so in terms of pure mechanical efficiency pumped storage is much better. Wikipedia puts the overall efficiency of pumped storage at 70-85% while it claims the efficiency of compressed air energy storage “can be less than 25%.” You can find more info on the two at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_air_energy_storage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped_storage

The most important job out there now is for someone to find a way to win the Richard Branson prize for removing c02 from the atmosphere. The following info. is in the latest issue of National Geographic Magazine: precipitation in the southwest will steadily decline until by mid-century Dust Bowl conditions will be the norm. Temperatures in the southwest have risen 4 degrees F. in the last 30 years. Pinon pines are dying off, between 2002 and 2004 2.5 million acres died off in the four corners region alone: immediate cause of death often bark beetle-which multiplies when trees are weak from drought and winter temperatures are warm (same thing in Canada & Colorado happening to lodgepole pines, and large tracts of the cedar trees in Cedar Breaks National Park in Utah).Forests in the west are dying also, most impressively, by burning. Climate models predict that on about half the earth’s surface, something different will be growing in 2100 than is growing there now. Projections are that Joshua trees may not survive in Joshua Tree National Monument. Sequoias may not survive in Sequoia National Park.

Just to pass the time, how about a survey of weekly mileage?
Martin sez: Cool idea.
Comment by Malcolm Wilson

Agreed. How ’bout making phase 2 a vehicle evaluation app? Allow user to select vehicle and alter assumptions from defaults for yrs of ownership, today’s gas price, annual rise in gas price, kWh price, annual rise in kWh price, average trips per week less than x (X= battery only range of selected vehicle or Martin’s range of interest if non-EV capable vehicle), trips > x, etc. App would show cost/yr and total cost of ownership. With nearly 50,000 hits already, car manufacturers may be interested in supplying their cars specs (or at least the cars they consider their “green” vehicles). Perhaps they’ll even pay, especially it you provide an area for them to show marketing info for their selected vehicle. Of course they may not want to be involved with a future major competitor worst case you get some very meaningful marketing info.

Battery leasing: Doesn’t have much inherent financial value. The value is in decoupling the cost of the battery from the cost of the base vehicle, but a lease is not the only way to do this. The biggest problem for today’s hybrids is inaccurate comparisons to ICE only cars. This will only be worse for larger battery vehicles where more of the value is in fuel Savings.

Been meaning to ask what opinions people have of Firefly.

Their first commercial product is now under final development and it is targeting the stored energy market for long haul trucks. I believe California’s regulation limiting long term engine idling for auxiliary is kicking in soon. Outlets at rest stops are a better solution but it will be a while before they are widespread. Utilities already supply a large portion of roadway lighting and maintenance. They are perfectly suited to install outlets at highway rest stops.

Martin, thank you for your response and for this blog which has been far more educational and informative than any blog I have seen.

I do have another question since infrastructure is an issue:

What do you think about Project Better Place starting up in Israel? Is swapping batteries really feasible (warranty and business-wise)? I was thinking a quick charger is much more practical. No storage or new structure needs to be built.

Martin sez:

I will write more about this next week when I am not writing from a Blackberry

Jeff was talking about the problem of big rigs running their diesel engines at night. It made me wonder does anybody believe there’s a future for an REEV for large trucks? Maybe that’s a project Martin could get his teeth into. These rigs are already very expensive so it might be easier to absorb the cost of the large battery they would need even for an REEV solution. Electric motors have great characteristics for the load lugging requirements of trucks. Against that, most big rigs are used for long trips where the REEV might not be as economical as a regular diesel. The benefits I see would be:
1. Trucks using electric around town so less diesel pollution.
2. No need for overnight idling of engines.
3. Economical local deliveries – not all large trucks run on long haul.
4. Smaller engines meeting only average drain with the battery dealing with peak requirements.
5. Simpler engines running at a single speed.
6. Less maintenance.

What say you Martin?

A Kelsey Sez:

“Do any of the technical people here see any problem for REEVs on long uphill trips, into the mountains for example? I’m imagining a scenario where the home charge in the battery has been run down and the car is running on its range extender and using the residual battery power for peak requirements. If it starts climbing and just keeps on climbing for an hour or two, will say a 75 bhp generator be able to cope in a loaded, Volt-sized vehicle or will you have to stop occasionally and allow the generator to charge up the battery? That could be a concept killer for GM who have to sell a car for all purposes.

Apologies for putting up 3 successive posts. You guys are asleep over there and ideas just keep coming into my head!”

I keep wondering this myself actually. Does anyone know?

## Andrew Kelsey said: The Ishitani paper is interesting but it still amounts to a very well presented guess and it’s subject to alteration as new battery technology comes along and makes some of its conclusions redundant. Would you invest in all that charging infrastructure with the permanent threat of some new battery technology (like the Stanford thing) making it all unnecessary?

This is a good point. We need to keep an eye on the bigger picture when looking for the next big thing in EVs.
With this in mind, I would put my money on the EV company that put in place infrastructure that can meet or beat the Stanford battery project and that provided an extra benefit- like reducing traffic congestion by ~40%(using a different method then Miastrada’s). By looking at the bigger picture, the cost of lost time stuck in traffic, the company can achieve no compromises and charge a premium.

“If it starts climbing and just keeps on climbing for an hour or two, will say a 75 bhp generator be able to cope in a loaded, Volt-sized vehicle or will you have to stop occasionally and allow the generator to charge up the battery? That could be a concept killer for GM who have to sell a car for all purposes.”

Well the 75hp would be delivered at ~3000 rpm, which is the point of maximum thermodynamic efficiency for most ICE’s, and thus the rpm for cruising@55mph. MAX hp would probably be more than 75. A GM person once told me they were thinking of doing a “fast recharge” off the ICE running at high speed, so maybe that high power mode could be useful for climbing mountains as well.

Yet another fast charging comment.

I think charging stations will appear, but they will not appear for family saloons. They appear for long-haul EV trucks and buses. For them those are necessity. And family saloons benefit of them as well. There is no reason why you couldn’t charge your car in the same spot trucks charge their ESS. It is same electricity in both.

Fast charging time is just a plus to charging station in general. You pay for service and speed of the charging is one part of that service. So you pay more than just for electricity.

Note that there will a lot less of those than there are gasoline stations. There is no need of very many because family cars will be charged 80-90% of time at home. Many now gasoline station get converted to just restaurants.

I don’t think there is going to be “the next big thing” technically, and it will all have to be federal / state and local policy to resolve market inequities:

1) energy – only need to achieve energy independence of foreign sources for now – no need for 100% renewable or carbon-free energy in near term

2) housing – too much speculation in housing market hurt everyone – get rid of sub-prime lending, adjustible rate mortgages, reduce 30 year mortgage to 20 year mortgage mad and add stiffer penalties to owning additional homes – that will keep home prices low for everyone who needs a home, as well as keeping rents low

##vfxx said: Far cheaper than buying or burning gas. Not as cheap as home, but neither is the coffee she’s carrying.

vfxx, if it’s far cheaper than buying gas (for 30 or 40 miles of electricity) you mean to say it’s far cheaper than 3 or 4 bucks. What are we talking here 50 cents or a dollar? Nobody will ever make any money selling mum or anybody else 30 or 40 miles of electricity. It just ain’t gonna happen! A few places will install chargers as a courtesy service to their customers but not many places will bother unless it’s mandated by federal or local government. But nobody needs it if they have an REEV….they have gasoline for extra miles…that’s the whole point of the design. By the time EVs become really popular the batteries will have enough mileage so that charging stations will not be required. We have to plan for this electric revolution without all the expensive infrastrcture.

…hit some stray key my mistake and posted above, as I was saying: 4000 people showed up at Jackson’s White House party, and were spilling out the windows-and maybe only 2% were “fat cats as usual”. The point is: if Martin starts a new company, forget the “corp. structure as usual”, none of this “board of directors” crap, with these board members being tied to outside fat cat companies, as usual. This is a jackass business model-but of course very preferred by the powers that be, so they can all intermingle and control the action from outside, if need be: witness the firing of Martin by Tesla. Did Henry Ford need this halibut ,with cabbage on the side ? No ! A Martin style co. should be run by people of that company alone, who are also not tied into the powers that be in society and who have no past, shall we say “suspicious” octopus tentacle-like connections” to these powers.

TJ,

That’s sounds like a great Marxist institution you want to create – will the janitor get a vote on product design and executive pay?

I assume every member of this bureau comes with their own capital to support a kibbutz? or are you going au naturale and fetching your own well water and growing your own crops?

No, Jason-I’m talking about the set-up Henry Ford started with: a few key co-investors, no outside corp. board of “big banking financers” or anyone else. Henry didn’t even have an accounting dept. at Ford until years later when his son set it up. Without all this “corp. encumberance” he was free to decide to pay his workers $5 per day, when the going industry rate was half that. He was also free to institute the 5 day work week,when the American standard everywhere was 6 days. Wall St. hated him for “these trends”. He was also free, while on a visit to Ireland, to see the extreme poverty there (in the land of his father) and decide to build his first European plant in Cork-employing something like 7000 in short order. Specifically he said he wanted to do it mainly ” for social advancement reasons”-like his U.S. $5 pay rate. He was also free to say that “wars are a complete waste of time” and he did and said everything he could to stop them-and the” financers with their boards of directors” behind them. Wall St. and the financers no doubt didn’t like that either. Tesla is a private company with no “Wall St.” to answer to, but they have a board of “financial interests” of the same class as Wall St. types to answer to. I’m talking a situation of individual investors who think the same and have the cash to bypass the board of directors set-up. This wouldn’t include janitors-except maybe one who owns “We-Clean International” (known in France as” Oui-Clean”) -which has contracts to clean all Fortune 500 office complexes worldwide. What does the concept of a bunch of individual, like minded guys and no outside board have to do with Marxism ?-sounds like old style Americanism at its finest to me. As for well water & crop growing- the plant facilities will utilize the green concept of “ground source HVAC”, if they hit a well (very possible) they’ll save big on not having to pay for Sparkletts delivery ( and Sparkletts trucks put out a lot of c02). The plant will also have a “green roof”. Depending on the climate they would allow a local organic farming co. to grow vegetables and flowers up there as well, for sale to local Whole Foods Markets. The whole concept is win/win-and no outside board of dubious character hanging around to be in on firing Martin.

T.J.—wow!
Seems like you are a well-read historian. What a significant wealth of knowledge. Example ssuch as that are a good basis for learning – another definition of wisdom.
What activities are you engaged in currently?
This is a great forum for exploring and even brainstorming on what the future of “green” should be.
I would really like to read about what others are ACTUALLY doing with all these great ideas. Small steps are a source of celebration.

Anyone care to contribute in that fashion?

I’d dare say, Martin was a catalyst in a movement that we will see for our lifetime. Time for some to ante in?

…thoughts?

##Comment by James G January 19, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
It’s a question of what you consider expensive, how you allocate the money and where you’re at.

Exactly. To me any amount of money is expensive if it is spent unnecessarily. I don’t want to see wasted money whether it be private or government money. If we start off with mostly REEVs no infrastrucure is needed. That’s why GM can independently plan to produce the Volt. Everybody agrees that most of these cars will run on electric say 9 days out of 10 (or even 99 days out of 100). If they go a little further on the tenth or hundredth day that small amount of gas is not going to be a problem. As batteries improve and people naturally gravitate towards EVs the range will be sufficient so that charging away from home will still be a very rare requirement.

What I believe is important is that the basic architecture of REEVs should be set up so that conversion from REEV to full EV is a relatively simple matter of changing the battery for a much more powerful one as soon as these are available at a reasonable price.

To sum up, I see no real need for an extensive charging infrastructure and no way of implementing it short of wasting public money.

Here’s the way things usually change:

1) Somebody makes a product that supports a new way of doing things, but also supports the old way as well.

2) If the new way is better, the old way quickly phases out.

3) After a few years, the vast majority of people use the new way of doing things, but the old way never dies out completely. See here for examples:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8353239&st=floppy&lp=6&type=product&cp=1&id=1176507038000
http://www.jr.com/JRProductPage.process?Product=4013533

So I really believe that the fastest way to significantly decrease our petroleum usage is with a gas/E85 range extended EV. If you make something that forces people to change, they will resist it. If you make something that supports the new way and the old way, people will rapidly embrace it.

Wow! there are soo many posts that I can’t read them all. I read the first few lines of each and all of a few that catch my interest.

I agree with Timo’s post that fast charge will first be usefull at truck stops on the highways. Furthermore I believe this is the ONLY reasonable location for fast charge stations. Slow charge will satisfy all other needs.

Someone wanted to see a list of battery technologies compared. Click on my name. Unfortunately I use MS Publisher and it only works with Explorer, my apologies to FireFox users.

To those who still think swapping batteries is a good idea I point out that the ESS is very heavy, nobody would want to swap their new battery for one near the end of its life and the idea of small ones for users with limited requirements I remind you that they are very heavy so the car suspension/handeling characteristics would have to be redesigned for the different battery capacities.

I do not think EEStor is vapourware as they have now signed a marketing deal with Lockheed/Martin. Zenn is supposed to recieve product this year. Soon we will have proof and if the performance is up to EEStor’s claims and prices, then the EV market will expand much faster. A Tesla Roadster equiped with EEStor would be cheaper and have over 600 mile range! With other benefits like almost infinite cycle life.

Andrew, good to See you come around a little to the away from home charging. Nobody likes to see waste, but I think governments and the public should view changing as an enabling technology. The more availability of charging, the more practical all plugin capable vehicles become. Outlets at work, mean someone with >40 mile commute can drive a Volt and not need to use gas. Outlets at rest stops and highway-side restaurants mean a 350 mile BEV can drive up to 450 miles a day with one 1 1/2 hour stop. So, eventhough the dollars and cents (euro and pence(?)) of charging outlets itself may not work out, it would enable plugging-in that is for the public good. Just think, if the governments had recognized the benefits of EV’s and they manadated or incentivized putting outlets into rest stops, parking garages, etc years ago; BEV’s and REEV’s would be much more practical to many more people today. Currently, most houses uses less than 35 KWh a day, yet the power companies have found a way to make $ at this. It is a lot less expensive to setup outlets (1 120V 20A and 1 240V 50A or 70A) at parking spots. Also, I believe the private sector will follow in certain places. They are already installed in RV parks and Marinas at a much higher cost and lower utilization because they help attract customers that purchase other services too. The sand incentive will be there for hotels I restaurants near highway exists, shopping malls, etc. I think governments should recognize this now and incentivise private enterprise to install outlets, much like solar and other public good technologies. I know some people will say it’s not just outlets, it needs to be chargers. I believe the chargers should be in the car, like Tesla’s onboard option except capable of 120V and 240V. It’s much more cost effective for the chargers to be in the cars, since there should be many outlets per car.

Perhaps Martin can speak to the difficulties of an onboard 120-240 charger.

Martin sez:

Needless to say, you can charge the car with a lot less gear outside the car, and that describes the Mobile Charge Kit, designed to allow you to charge from existing 120V or 240V sockets. This device. Signals to the car what the max charge rate is (based on the type of plug adapter you connect), and monitors a few safety items, most notably the temperature of the wall plug pins. (I invented this little safety feature after finding several public RV-style 240V sockets that were so beat up that they over-heated if you pulled any significant current from them.) Because of size and weight, the MCK does not contain a contactor, but instead simply signals the car to stop charging when it detects a problem.

David,
My RangerEV has an on-board charger, but it still requires a custom cable to hook to the grid to recharge. I suspect they did this because of a number of factors including:

They want the charge plug to have auto-shutdown mechanisms to disconnect power when the batteries are full and if there are any detected faults with the wiring.

They want to make sure the charge spots are used for EV charging and not other purposes (such as random RVs coming by and hooking up).

They want a connector that is more safe for quick disconnect and reconnect. Better duty cycle, and moisture resistance.

I have worked at companies that had an overly collective, democratic decision-making structure, and cannot recommend that approach for companies that have more than a dozen or so participants — about as many people as might live together in a big house.

I have long thought that a citizen’s co-op structure might work for something like an energy utility, and from what I have read this may even have been tried successfully in places such as Oregon. I think that EV afficionados or Tesla owners might create a successful co-op to generate electricity for the grid via green methods.

Isn’t there logic to both Roy’s and James’ positions? People will probably not want to swap batteries they own, but modular packs would allow the owner to buy what they need on a regular basis and rent additional modules for rare occasions. Users could also purchase additional modules if their driving needs change. A modular pack would be more complex to implement and perhaps be to costly, but does anyone forsee functionality concerns that make them impractical?

My take on this….(after getting over the embarrassment of forgetting that REEVs need to plug in!) ….is that there are so many different ways to skin this cat that nobody will want to invest big bucks until the technology is more mature and they can be sure the system they’ve invested in will win out. There could be swappable battery packs….you could have on-street slow charging or fast charging at special sites or charging only at home because range has increased a lot. Nobody can be certain how it will pan out because there are too many variables, so nobody will invest. Personally I believe REEVs will catch on really fast and will dominate the electric vehicle market until full EVs have batteries good enough and cheap enough to attract a lot of buyers. I hope the architecture used for REEVs will allow for their batteries to be replaced by much-improved batteries 5 years down the line. So REEVs could become full EVs. Some people may remove the generator, while others will keep it, just in case. I think EV and REEV adoption will be according to ease of home charging, more or less as follows:

1. Those with garages at home or their own off-street parking spot.
2. Condo owners and those who live in apartment buildings with dedicated parking.
3. City dwellers with residents’ reserved parking spaces on-street.
4. Rural communities with little or no competition for on-street parking spots.
5. City dwellers who have no allocated parking spot of their own but pay to use local car parks.
6. City dwellers who have no allocated parking spot and compete on a daily basis for on-street parking spots.

One and two could buy an EV or an REEV right now and install their charger beside their parking spot. Three would have to get the agreement of the local authority but if all the residents agree it shouldn’t present any real problem. Four, five and six will be much tougher and I wouldn’t expect to see people in category six driving EVs or REEVs for many years to come. But just categories one two and three should account for a large percentage of the population. Most of those people will buy REEVs because they will be much cheaper than an equivalent EV but that’s okay because most of the miles driven will be electric miles. Why will they buy REEVs and not EVs? Imagine you could buy the Tesla Whitestar now in two options. Option one is the full EV and costs $50,000. Option two is the REEV version selling at $40,000 with the exact same motor and performance but a much better range, provided by the range extender. Which car would you buy?

##Comment by David Kosowsky January 20, 2008 @ 8:25 am
It’s much more cost effective for the chargers to be in the cars, since there should be many outlets per car.

Amen to that. If we must have some public charging points they should be as dumb and thus as cheap as is humanly possible within safety constraints and the need to have a credit card charging system. But will it be worthwhile processing the charge if somebody unplugs after just 15 miles of juice has transferred? It’s bound to happen. I suppose there’ll be a minimum charge of $5 or something, but that will make those 15 miles very expensive. If you had an REEV it would certainly be much cheaper to use gas for those miles.

Martin sez:

I don’t agree about the minimum charge comment. Why should they? Even if it’s about the credit card charge, you can always pay cash. But cretit card companies (and businesseswho let you pay with credit cards) are a lot less inclined to insist on a minimum payment today than even 5 years ago.

“it seems odd to make this decision before deciding on the ICE technology.”
TEG wrote: “I made some comments about this design on the Tesla blog a while back. I think the reason is because they want to market the REEVs as a 40+ mile range BEV, and the ICE is supposedly only for “emergency range extension”.”

I didn’t express my concern clearly enough. My comment was regarding their decision to design around a charging scheme of 30% maintainance charge wihtout deciding on their ICE. I agree that Fisker’s approach seems better on the surface. Costs, engineering limitations, or charging efficiencies may favor GM’s approach. It just seems logical that using a simpler constant ROM optimized ICE would be the most cost effective and efficient choice.

The concerns about encountering a long climb with a depleted battery are a valid. This is a good driven scenario to discuss in figuring out how to get from here to there. Start with the assumptions: 4000lbs fully loaded with 4 adults, cargo and 5000 foot climb, 10% internal losses, average 37KW from generator, and 65 mph average speed using 20KW on level ground. This works out to about 26 minutes to make the climb with just over 2 degree ave slope, which is a greater average slope than Pike’s peek road. So you won’t have to stop to charge the battery, but it’s possible you will be performance impaired if the Volt doesn’t let you dip below 30% SOC a little. This is more of a rough estimate than a detailed analysis. Perhaps someone is interested in doing that.

Martin sez:

One other annoyingly important factor for a REEV is the sound as you drive (NVH=Noise, Vibration, and Harshness). Driving the AC Propulsion Jetta REEV was very disconcerting as the engine came on and revved up on its own accord. (This problem was especially obvious at stoplights. An engine – any engine – is pretty danged loud whenrunning at 5,000 rpm and with full load!) I would guess that this factor drives some of GM’s decisions as to the algorithm for running their engine.

If Martin wants to be remembered as a visionary his next mission, should he decide to accept it, will be to win the Branson prize for c02 removal and also find a way radically change building power use to green power worldwide. CBS “60 Minutes” show just did hour on global warming. Not anything we don’t know already, just says again that the world is really going to be messed up if “this all keeps going on” as fast as it is now. Elect. cars are coming-but how many and how long will it take for them to displace ICE’s to any real degree? (not to mention trucks & busses problem). India is making a really cheap new ICE car now, the “Tata” I believe it was called, price around $2500, I believe. China has been building one coal power plant a week with India not far behind. It’s all a total disaster. Of course who’s really most at fault is the cabal of cabbages who really run the world-like I said, we had our warning about all of this around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970. So we’ve had almost 38 “glorious” years of basically “business as usual”- 38 very important years basically wasted in terms of real impact on any of the problem. Now that we finally have the tech. to start making bigger changes (solar plants, Nanosolar type PV) we find the same sloth-like attitude in the U.S. govt. at least, not to mention China, India. The Germans are doing it right, but they always were known for efficiency, no? Even they no doubt aren’t pushing enough.

Martin sez:

Hey, I am doing the best I can. My goal, however, is not to be remembered for doing one thing or another. Rather, my goal is actually to do the thing in the first place.

Just get a LONG extension cord and put a cord-cover over it by the sidewalk. Run it out your apartment window if you need to, but sometimes there is an outside GFCI outlet. There’s some low tech infrastructure. Also, lightpoles, streetlights are perfect for installing metered outlets. Don’t some wal/kmarts have outlets in their parking lots already? Most churches/bldgs have an outlet out back by the loading dock. Lets move that out front so I’m less likely to get mugged.
If we are going to all this trouble to get around it almost seems easier to build a mag lev train or super train that runs on electricity, but there goes our freedom.
I think the REEV might hurt chances for the EV (although I’m hopeing not). Making electricity from gas isn’t very efficient, the serial hybrid, instead of driving the wheels. People will say hey this car has no better gas mileage (36mpg or so?), plus it has no uphill performance. You can almost say that now about Prius. Not talking about short trips here but like Donner pass, the world is not flat. I too have to drive back home UPhill and pulling weight up hill really takes a toll, I burned out a controller learning about motor RPM’s. This is why 18 wheelers won’t be electric, unless it becomes a desiel locomotive which of course is electric hub motors all the way. Stick to that red hot fast Roadster and when the indicator blinks red call speedy Triple AAA roadside charging service.

Martin, your next product could be that temperature sensing plug idea, brilliant. You could sell it like a Killawatt unit that reads out the temp or a little safety plug box at hardware stores or as an extension cord protector for A/C units and the like. OF course, designed slightly different than your first one.

Roy,

## A Tesla Roadster equiped with EEStor would
## be cheaper and have over 600 mile range!

That is not true. It would only have about 300-440 mile range. EEStor has only about 1/3-1/2 better energy density than current lithium ion. And when that Silicon nanowire gets made it again loses five times the range.

Martin sez:

Despite the LM announcement, I remain skeptical that they will ever deliver an automotomotive energy storage pack…

Yeah Martin- you’ve already done a lot with Tesla and kicking GM into doing the Volt, which is kicking Chrysler, with its “Zeo” EV announcement, and others. What we need is world govt. action-why aren’t they funding research into c02 removal instead of Branson’s meager “funding”?-it’s really stupid that this isn’t being looked at seriously (I haven’t heard that it is)-but what the cabbage else is new anyway !? I just read news story online that said 2007 was a very bad year for arctic and Greenland ice melt-unexpected & unprojected by scientists. One said that before 2007 data the projection was for no sea ice in the arctic in the summers by 2040, now the projection is by 2012. I also forgot to mention Russia-their economic boom is based on oil (oil & more oil)-and they won’t be giving up on that scenario any time soon, ditto for every other oil producing country. The Don Quiote / Branson ideal in the face of all of this is to find ways to get c02 out of the atmosphere, at great cost no doubt. Whatever the cost, it should be “the price of doing business on overpopulated overindustrialized planet earth” . Where’s Gore in office when you need him? The electorate in this country has the attention span of a gerbil.He beat Bush the first time and on top of it since then he has been proven right on just about everything he said, therefore by rights he should now be dragged kicking and screaming into the White House by popular demand. But of course as a country, on the whole, we’re far,far too stupid for that scenario.Polls have come out showing that even if he ran he’d get only like 15% of the vote-absolutely incredible. I read where 61% of Americans believe in “creationism”. I couldn’t believe that number, but it is in line with other rampant stupidity going on- 8 years of Bush indicated that.

75 Hp engine is not going to weigh under 100lbs, that 25Kw generator in Charlie’s earlier link still needs to be turned by something, the gas or diesel engine. It’s going to weigh 1/2 ton. It’s going to make between 8-13 Kwh/gallon burned. Your charger gets warm, it’s 90% efficient, your batteries get warm when charging, they are 90% efficient (good luck there),engine Running at 75% load:
75Hp*.75=56Hp
56Hp*746W/Hp=42Kw
This will use between 3.5 to 5 gallons of fuel to run for 1 hour. Multiply the efficiencies:
.9*.9*42=34Kwh power being produced.
Zooming along at 320 Watts/mile (more if radio, fans, heater is on), 60 mph 320w/mile*60mile=19Kw
34hwh available-19kwh to drive =15kwh available to charge your pack all per hour. While in this mode you are getting (60miles/3.5gal)12mpg-17mpg. That’s Miles per gallon folks. No wonder the auto company likes this idea. Even if you add in the 50 free miles from your initial charge it still sux maybe 30 mpg. Are you going to get 320w/mile carrying that engine around? Maybe I made a mistake somewhere?

Patman

What kind of 75 hp engine are you thinking of that weight 1000 LBs?

The Williams Micro APU for the EV-1 was 40 KW, 220 lbs complete, 20 inches in diameter and 22 inches long. This could be much lighter now.

As for efficiency of 12-17 mpg, this also does not make alot of sense.

Using your numbers of 34 kWH requiring 3.5 gallons of gas is off, just take an existing diesel generator like a caterpillar delivering 1825 kHW for 134 gallons of fuel. This is scales to 134*34/1825 = 2.5 gallons per hour. The mpg equivalent would be based on average power required to drive, you are only charging batteries after all.

Your case of 19 kWH to drive means you have 15 kWH extra capacity. This means the genset only needs to operate 19/34 of the hour to generate the entire 19 kWH used. This means the equivilent mpg using your 60 miles is actually

(60 miles)/(19/34 hr * 2.5 gallons/hr) = 43 MPG.

This is with your numbers.

By the way the tesla has worst case range of 165 miles and best case of 267 miles. If you use your case of 60 miles/hr average (this is not actually stated) then you get

Worst Case
60*53000/165 = 19.27 kW/hr
(60 miles)/(19.27/34 hr*2.5 gallons/hr) = 42.3 MPG

Best Case
60*53000/267 = 11.9 kW/hr.
(60 miles)/(11.9/34 hr*2.5 gallons/hr) = 68.8 MPG

Both of these are still poor compared to charging at home.

##TEG said: You could charge a stationary pack at “normal” recharge rates, then use that pack to dump to the vehicle pack.

You could, but that would mean you have double the outlay for batteries and cost of batteries is one of the main reasons we can’t get EVs now. If you are prepared to spend double the amount on batteries why not put that extra battery in the car and get double the range? Frustrating though it is I think we have to accept that slow charging overnight is likely to be the main method of charging for many years to come. Most buyers are going to go for REEVs to avoid the range issue completely. That way they don’t have to think about it and they’re still ‘being green’ if that’s their objective.

You could, but that would mean you have double the outlay for batteries
No, because stationary energy storage $/KWh does not need to be anywhere close to movable $/KWh.
Like i said, flywheels are completely impractical for cars, but they are already used for grid balancing in large installation. Even ye old lead-acid batteries can provide a sizeable chunk of recharge, while taking up some significant underground space.
Also, normally you dont NEED a full tank recharge, fast charging is mostly for situations where you are in pickle, so just a good ~50 miles recharge burst would often save the day.

Kert, I take your point about cheaper stationary power and I could see EV enthusiasts going for this method of fast charge at home, but not the general public. I think all these various fast-charging ideas are solutions looking for a problem. The problem has already been solved by REEVs hasn’t it? I’m not religious about any of this. My objective is simply to get the maximum number of electric miles in a practical way, as soon as possible. With REEVs alone we can probably reduce ‘non-electric’ miles driven by 80-90%. That’s pretty good. I would hate to see any of this delayed by dickering over what may be a completely unnecessary network of charging outlets in order to go 100% gas-free with EVs. I honestly believe EVs will ultimately rule the world but not by doing it the hard way. They’ll be widely adopted when they’re the best and cheapest solution with the best current technology and no need for massive infrastructure changes. In other words, when batteries have improved a lot.

##Charlie said: I still do not see where a huge portion of people without garages charge at night.

It’s a good point….the one I missed earlier!
Even with REEVs the need for a regular nightly top-up is there. Somebody mentioned lighting poles as being a good place to install a connection. If you could get agreement to do this it sounds like a pretty good solution to me in the early days when there are not so many cars looking for power. Early adopters will mostly be garage owners or at least will have some private parking space where they can install their own connection. As sales increase apartment blocks will come under pressure from residents committees to provide charging points. Many of those cars you see on the street are second or third cars anyway….Americans have a lot of cars! I’d guess that at least 50% of the driving population would be able to install a connection somewhere. The others will adopt REEVs or EVs more gradually as local solutions are found to the charging problem.

##Martin said. Hey, I am doing the best I can. My goal, however, is not to be remembered for doing one thing or another. Rather, my goal is actually to do the thing in the first place.

That’s a great point. Whatever we may think of the Chinese they’re currently churning out millions of electric bicycles and I’m sure they will very soon be making millions of electric cars. They won’t be Teslas or anything like them but they may well be acceptable solutions and we have to be pleased that a nation with their population is at least trying to make some EVs. I’m sure India’s Tata won’t be far behind and with their pricing structure don’t rule them out as a future competitor.

##Martin sez:

I don’t agree about the minimum charge comment. Why should they? Even if it’s about the credit card charge, you can always pay cash. But credit card companies (and businesses who let you pay with credit cards) are a lot less inclined to insist on a minimum payment today than even 5 years ago.

My main point is that, especially with REEVs, away-from-home charging is unnecessary and impossible to make a profit from. Imagining the unplugged-at-15 miles scenario the equivalent cost in gas would be what $1.50, so the electricity reseller has to make his profit from a figure less than this, take off his costs for electricity and capital, overhead etc. It’s just such a lousy proposition I can’t see why any businessman would do it. I could believe that charging points might be set up, but not to make money and not by entrepreneurs.

Martin sez:

I agree with your basic point, and I think GM agrees. The REEV is a way to solve the EV chicken-and-egg problem, since no new infrastructure is required. Note that the Volt charges from a 120V plug only.

patman3

Why would you choose to use an inefficient honda home generator for a high volume application like a car? There is no need to be fuel efficient or save weight with a home generator. Also the fuel consumption was rate at delivered power, the only loss is the actual battery charging.

Also why are you predetermining a charging strategy? What happens in your case when the car gets to 80% full at 42.5 kWH? The generator goes off until 30% full at 15.9 kWH?

You need to subtract out the time the genset in the REEV is not needed or you are calculating that after 1000 hrs of driving the vehicle needs 19kWH*1000 but needs to generate 34kWH*1000 to allow that.

I think all these various fast-charging ideas are solutions looking for a problem. The problem has already been solved by REEVs hasn’t it?

The future, most definitely is not a single solution. You ARE going to see fuel cells, sooner or later, PHEVs, REEVs and pure electrics, also fast charge.
REEVs have a problem, they add complexity. They also trade some space away from the car interior, and still keep dependency on various fuels, be it biofuel or hydrogen or whatever.

Other people will come up with different solutions. Like i said, fast charge is already being implemen