Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Their Enemies
I note a certain level of confusion surrounding plug-in hybrid electric vehicles. And I can certainly understand some level of bewilderment, as there are numerous variations on the plug-hybrid theme – as well as jargon that, in my opinion, serves to make the matter even worse — BEVs, ZEVs, PHEVs, REEVs, etc. But it’s clear that the enemies of electric transportation, whose motives remain unclear to me, are capitalizing on this moment of confusion to seize the day and turn people away from an important advancement in clean transportation.
In particular, I noted the recent fracas that resulted when GM announced the specifics behind the Chevy Volt’s drivetrain. Conservative columnist George Will loudly accused GM of deceit. “It’s just a hybrid!” he and his fellow cynics screamed last week, somehow overlooking the fact that many Volt drivers will never need to put a drop of gasoline in their cars.
I have to say I was stunned. Isn’t George Will an intellectual? But here he was, sounding like one of the AM talk radio entertainer-buffoons, noisily lambasting GM and the Obama Administration for dumping public funds into a “hybrid” — as if that term somehow clarified something – or as if anyone cared exactly how the guts of the Volt operate.
We can ask ourselves: Has GM finally gotten something right? Will the Obama Administration ultimately be vindicated for keeping GM from going down? To be honest, I don’t know. But I’m pretty damn sure of this, George: deliberately confusing American car-buyers about an important new trend in automotive engineering — simply so you can throw rocks at the president of the United States — isn’t helping anyone — especially yourself.
I urge car-buyers to ignore the jargon and ultra-rightwing partisan diatribes and keep one core fact in mind: the degree to which your car’s energy comes through your wall sockets is the degree to which it offers the potential for low-cost, clean transportation. It’s that simple.
Here’s my more detailed post on Renewable Energy World.
Hyperbole and SHOUTING coupled with a contrarian viewpoint for purposes of ‘maverick’ credentials, seem to be the new normal in our media cycles. Much like the advertisements on web pages that I literally no longer see, the american people become progressively inured to the net equivalent of the schizophrenic shouters we find on the sidewalk of the inner city.
Apologies in advance for slightly altering the subject matter, but I find a much more interesting discussion to be that of the technologic complexity in the modern vehicle. That complexity manifests itself, in its genesis and its maintenance, in areas such as massive embedded energies, large post-sale cost of ownership and ever more difficult end-of-life disposal techniques. So, what about the xEV from the perspective of these factors? Are we making net progress?
I think a great deal of the media opposition comes from the fact that much of the news gathering and reporting apparatus is controlled by large corporations, especially those in the fossil fuel business. Since news is now “infotainment,” a high degree of controversy is desirable for ratings – which are more important than objectivity. George Will and commentators like him are paid to get ratings first and to be good reporters second.
I think this is exactly right. I suppose my surprise is that George Will would lower himself to those standards.
Good point. I’ve known for a while now that the Volt utilizes a power-split transmission, not too much different from what you’ll find in the Prius. From the perspective of overall driving efficiency, it was a smart move by GM’s engineers. Marketing the Volt as a “mostly all electric” or “series hybrid” vehicle may come back to bite GM in the end, but I think the real deciding factor will be vehicle performance. So far, most test-drivers seem to like the driving experience. If that trend continues, and fuel economy numbers are high for the typical driver, I think people won’t care if it’s an HEV, EV, PHEV, EREV, or anything else. Performance will speak for itself.
The reality beyond ideological and political divides is that the Volt confuses many because it allows for gas fueling. When people hear “electric vehicle”, the first image is plug-n-play, or drive, only. I blame GM as much for not making it clear, and I don’t see any evidence that George Will was deliberately distorting his grasp of facts for partisan reasons. Why would we expect any journalist who covers mostly political topics to see the technical subtleties? If the car’s promotion had been more to the point and clear, perhaps the “ultra-right wing diatribes” could not stand on their own and would be easily seen for what they are. Here in MA, I know of more than one person who couldn’t possibly qualify for the label Craig uses for Will, but they are still not clear about the Volt’s benefits, much less exactly how it works. Bad PR and advertising leaves room for everyone’s misinterpretations.
The bottom line in my opinion is that even if the Volt turns out to be a monumental step in the right direction, the fact that it CAN be confused as a hybrid is a result of the desire to oppose it AND the manufacturer’s marketing voids. Some of the best products of their time failed because they were poorly sold. For those old enough, ahem, think of how VHS became a standard over Betamax, for example.
The car makers are going into unknown territory with plug-ins, they are only sure of 3 things: A car people will buy has to look good and has to work very well and 3rd, that there are high profit margins if they get the public hooked.
The car buying public is not aware of how turbo chargers work, or why there are dual clutches in the 6 speed tranmission, or the pros and cons of different controller technologies, battery chemistries, and motor design.
The buying public will be looking at how much the features they require will cost and what other cars offer for the same payment.
I predict that technology advancements for both fossil fuel and plug-in vehicles will appear rapidly and price differientials will disappear. Fewer vehicles will be purchased, but at very good profit margins. Duration of ownership will increase, but the cars will last longer, propelling the resale business.
If the OEMs can bait the public to go for a test drive, they”ll be hooked. Then it’s just a matter of pateintly reeling them in.
I have to agree with George Will, and Mark Twain. Calling a tail a leg, doesn’t mean a dog has five legs. Calling the Volt an “Electric car,” doesn’t change it from being a Hybrid. In fact, it demeans the actual electric cars.
I agree that GM has badly handicapped itself by not busily clarifying the Volt’s rather unique engineering upfront to the public in a much broader media campaign. However, in the information they make available on the vehicle they do state that it is electric first, gasoline second. The very important data they did not share (at least that I could find in a few minutes of solid searching on their site) is fuel economy specifics with real-world scenario examples. Have they handicapped themselves because they genuinely side with their long-time ancient-sunlight-addicted carbon-spewing fossil fuel associates and would rather delay the success of alternatives in favor of their current product stream? Have they again fallen prey to the same poor management techniques that have plagued the US auto industry for decades? Both? It remains to be seen.
However, Craig’s point is well taken that Mr. Will chose to inflame rather than illuminate the issue – a tactic all too common in elements of our society and political sphere today. We need light, not heat – or we’ll all get burned, badly, and so will our progeny.
Although I am a Toyota Prius driver (getting 48 mpg in town) and a supporter of environmentally sound alternatives, I am not blind to some of the often overlooked realities associated with electric cars that “plug in”. For example, the generation of electric power in the USA is presently dominated by the combustion of fossil fuels to drive generators that employ a “Rankin-Cycle” heat-engine. Although we have improved the overall efficiency and “cleanliness” of powerplants, they still fail to covert 50% or more of the fuel energy into the clean, convenient, electric-power that we have become addicted to as a nation.
If one lives in a region where wind and/or hydro-power dominate, electric cars make more sense, but for most of us, I have mixed feelings — particularly when few parking lots offer outlets to power-up. For my part, I would like to see more attention given to electric mass-transit systems powered by waste-to-energy generators that handle leaves, tree-limbs, and combustibles.
The various marketing departments are doing the confusing in an attempt to differentiate themselves. GM called the Volt a Range Extended Electric Vehicle, which was purely a marketing description. The EPA label I saw called it a “Dual Fuel Electric – Gasoline” vehicle.
Mr. Will seems to be doing a bit of grandstanding to gain public exposure. A lot of that goes on nowadays.
I am not putting Electric Cars Down at all, but I now know since M.I.T. helping Hydrogen to have a way to store inexpensively I must wonder if utilities might need this process also. America needs to choose between giving everything to the wealthy Tax Cuts no Job Creation etc. etc.
Or do we want the Middle-class to survive ?
So as we know Saudi Arabia needs to take care of there Country. America needs to take care of us. The United States of America. Stop the nonsense Republicans in where Obama has been and is going. The Republicans must understand when I watch the meetings honestly you never showed up.
IF a way is found to produce, store, and use hydrogen efficiently, it could make wind and solar power practical. Without a practical and economical way to store power, I do not believe that wind and solar power would be a practical source for most of our power requirements.
The work that M.I.T. is doing could radically change our energy technology.
I think this is simpler than most people realize, if you’re talking about stationary applications. I’m a big fan of molten salt, used in connection with solar thermal: http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm.
From our prospective we will get about 330 miles to the gallon, in that most of the daliy driving will be in town,once the car is on the market these values will begain to be realized. GM is only covering there butts from the last electric car they put on the market, that had no backup for the electric motor.
I agree that Will is grandstanding on bogus grounds. But GW has nothing on Rush Limbaugh, who has been telling his listeners with a straight face to forget the Volt–for just a few thousand dollars more they can buy a “real car” like him, namely a high-end BMW or Mercedes. (Yes, he really said that.) How’s that for yellow-bellied “patriotism” ?
Other comments Windbag’s made recently re the Volt reveal a total ignorance of how hybrids work. These guys get paid big bucks to blather–the least they could do is at least try to be informed. IMO their empty bleating is insulting to their audience (if that’s even possible given their sheep-like nature). Pass the Pepto-Bismol.
@ Dean:
You are exactly right.
Many people mistakenly think that the purpose of the meda is to inform the public. Actually, the purpose of the media is to make money, which they do by selling advertising. To maximize advertising revenue, they need the largest possible audience and they have learned that the way to get the largest possible audience is to provide entertainment rather than information. Thus, there are two news readers: a man, and a woman. The man reads one line, and the woman reads the next line, since that increases the entertainment value. They also tell jokes. They make the news as gripping as possible. What is reported is based on how gripping and entertaining it is rather than on what we need to know to vote intelligently and make important decisions.
All this is largely the fault of the public. If the public wanted to be informed rather than to be entertained, the media would change their programming accordingly. The media are providing the hoi polloi exactly what they want and we “elitists” have to look elsewhere for information.
Chevy Volt, “It is more CAR than ELECTRIC.” It would appear that GM is trying to make the “Volt” seem more FAMILIAR to drivers who generally do not want to have to learn to drive all over again for best utilization of the new ELECTRIC Technology which does improve the vehicle.
As a former new car salesman, you get them out of the trade-in and move it out of sight, have them take a test drive, and they fall in LOVE with the new VOLT, then just do the paperwork and collect my commission. But, the News Media needs controversy to sell advertising. They are as likely to create it as discover it but they must have it or no pay!
Just a follow up to my earlier comment. I was just in a seminar on energy industry topics, my field. One speaker, whose career includes roles in transportation among other industries, spoke about electricity demand projections and transportation’s impact. Of course, EVs were the topic. He referred to the Volt as a “plug-in hybrid”. For me that is noteworthy because he is primarily an analyst and consultant now with no apparent political position on the matter. So, an educated, experienced, and potentially knowledgeable “expert” is making the same mistake. More reason for me to believe there should be equal focus on others, such as GM, and not to simply rant for partisan reasons.
Plug in cars are basicly swaping gas / oil for electric / coal, unless it is also retrieving power from hills & breaking.
When GW our who ever says you could buy a real car for a little more, they are asking you to suport your stance. Why do you want an electric / plug in car? Will it work for you? If you have good solid answers & not just following the herd, buy one.
Having a back up power source is like haveing a spare tire, you may need it.
It seems that the tech is ignoring the main reason for its development,that is to avoid the enviormentally destructive burning of fossil fuels.Recharging is currently only accomplished through traditional destructive means,oil and nuclear power generation.It is interesting how no one has taken advantage of photovoltaic paints and also the potential energy in the movement of the auto itself.The current braking charging systems are but a small contributor,borderline irrelevant.The air could be captured and used for generation,just as it is captured for burn processes today.
Personally I use a hydrogen assisted system and I disconnected the BS feedback of unburnt exhaust as it was renedered useless by the effective initial burn cycle.My old 318 passes every test required today and gets double the factory mileage without the mickey mouse tech and quick fixes the automakers have provided since the seventies to today.
As usual.the gov’t ignores the science in favor of political benefits
I feel the Volt is a wonderful concept car, but GM did not do enuff homework. First, it is too expensive to be a money saver. We may buy that for LED lights, but not a car that in the basis should be simpler and with less weight. Second, the engine is too large. Like most hybrids, GM appeals to the USA’s belief in horsepower to get your rocks off. But lats face it, in the Volt the engine is a battery charger. The electric motor drives the car, so their is not a need for overcoming acceleration. Just charge the battery and the battery is the power bank for acceleration. Less than one litre engine size, done right, would provide this, and at far less weight. Others will come along in GM’s wake and take care of this gap. The result would be a lighter car with faster acceleration, greater efficiency, and better battery utilization. A small clean diesel could fill this need because it would run steady speed under load, which a diesel can do well. Another option would be a Stirling engine. Steady running is the Stirlings forte, and I have such a design that uses nine sepaerate parts in a four cylinder configuration that may be presurized to the burst strength of the metals used with no static bearing load. Someone familiar with the Stirling knows what I mean. Then, we have a smooth running, multi-fuel, high efficiency , low polluting, low NOX, generator power. I have the design.
Without the SEEBlanc Platinium certification from TUVdotCOM is not apropriate………
It is the Internet platform for tested quality and safety. It documents all product properties, services, organisations and systems tested and personal certifications provided by the TÜV Rheinland Group. The service is available to manufacturers, purchasers, wholesalers, retailers and consumers.
A quick thought
A performance electric vehicle, such as the Tesla roadster, travelling 10,000 miles (16,000 km) per year could be powered by between 2 and 3 m² of CPV (concentrating PV) located in a suitable sunny location,e.g. the Sahara Desert. At a cost of a few hundred dollars per square metre this would mean It would cost less than $2000 to supply the vehicle With energy for its entire life! (I’ve done Calc’s)
Nick, I think it would take about 5 sq meters of concentrating PV solar to provide the power you describe, but that’s still a small amount in the scheme of things.
I will provide my Calcs: 38% efficient cells x 90% efficient optics x 95% for cell mismatch & series resistance x 92% inverter efficiency = 30% system efficiency.
If only 2.5 square meters were used, then that would provide about 650 watts (assuming 870W/m^2 direct beam component and 30% system efficiency).
If in a sunny clime providing 6 peak sun hours a day then one could assume about 3.9kWh/day of production. An electric car using about 300Wh/mile could then drive 13 miles a day or 4,745 miles per year. Therefore, about 5 square meters of concentrator PV is required for achieving almost 10,000 miles per year of driving. At $4.50 per installed watt, it would cost approximately $2,900 for the installation. That’s a pretty good deal!
And why does the press always frame the rational for purchasing a hybrid on the price of gas when Americans are spending $1 billion per day of their money directly out of their pocket on foreign oil? The reason for alternative fuels is to stop this insane transfer of wealth from America to foreign countries. This will help the economy, create American jobs and is vital for our national security.
Has GM been candid? There are some who have a recollection of the GM EV1 story. Some others may have only seen a movie about the times. But are our collective memories so short that we can’t recall a GM that was saying that the public doesn’t want electric cars… To add insult upon injury it did not simply take cars from people wanted them. It took them and crushed them and sold the most promising battery tech to an oil company which has prohibited its use in a full EV for 7 years. What is rather shocking is some seem to have no recollection? Rather than any indication that GM has changed we are constantly slopping through evidence [from their press releases] that they have not. Either GM has a serious PR problem or the public is as dim-witted as GM plays them to be.
Breath of the Wind: Thanks for this most insightful comment. All this is completely true, though I can’t imagine that George, Rush, and the boys have this motive at heart.
Well put Craig. Let’s not spoil a good recipe for recovery by adding alphabet soup. How about if we simply measured the value of each model, regardless of type, by its tail pipe emissions or lack thereof, it’s clean energy appetite and overall efficiency. To heck with semantics.
Both hybrids and electric cars are misleading ‘extend and pretend’ technologies. Both face severe resource -raw material- constraints. Just like the PLATINUM-based fuel cells that were in vogue before them. I mean, common people: crude oil, platinum, Lithium, rare-earths..think again.
I agree with you to a point, but I’ll be surprised if lithium abundance becomes a problem, per articles like this one: http://www.che.ncsu.edu/ILEET/phevs/lithium-availability/An_Abundance_of_Lithium.pdf. I’ll also be surprised is nano-technology generally does not make incredible strides in batteries’ energy density in the near future.
Here: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6228 is the estimated outcome of an EV rampup based on the analysis of Jack Lifton: a fivefold increase in battery cost due to use of LOWER GRADE Lithium-carbonate ores (a $50.000 battery lasting 10 years, instead of a $10.000 battery at present -no recycling possible). And this would have to include Bolivia. I personally do not think the rainbow coalition in Bolivia would go along with this mining scheme, as it comes with great environmental destruction.
Of course you can find reports by lithium miners and their paid consultants… I highly regard Jack as simply the best in his field, and of the highest integrity. A true independent.
The Chevy Volt is an interum solution. A study in Europe concluded that the infrastructure cost of changing vehicles to electric battery drive, plus the battery cost and recycling would actually be more than building the infrastructure for hydrogen fuel cell cars. (Germany plans 1,000 stations by 2017).
John Gotthoild
Its an irony about this world according to BAUDHA DHARMA “All knows the way, but few only walks through it” is the todays reality of us you me and all those who have given their comments to Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles and Their Enemies
By Craig Shields on November 28, 2010
If I say something more relevant about the recent findings from the ” TRANCEPERANCY INTERNATIONAL” Corruption is so much in todays finacial melt down one in four paid bribes last year is their saying.
WHY NOT? Every one should know past 100 years or before there were enough scope for mankinds evolution and it was a virgin world with no technology thus man invented many things and the same even now more relevant to solve todays worlds serious problems where we dont need twitter or the facebook per see and when I write this you all may think I am a jerk from nowhere emerging uninvited.Yes I even know that I am an JERK of no use.Why I say imagine growing gap between energy needs of this world VS the technological advancements here apart from this simple regular information sharings from the blogs to any why one need the twitter and the facebook.Its a pain of me where there even the good debates we start split into many stages there may be a links but is it not a time consuming thus we insted of giving our right voices we ste rch the debate in order people in this debate even cant decide where we all reached its my experience I can tell I am a JERK who does not knew the power of twitter or anything else.
I suffer the long commute to the work everyday and the high expense on gasoline drives me nuts. Certaintly I wish the massive production of PEV will drive down the cost and help people like me.