epirali
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:15 am
Delivery Date: 08 Oct 2013
Leaf Number: 418541
Location: Maryland

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 1:10 pm

TonyWilliams wrote:
epirali wrote:
TonyWilliams wrote:You're post, on face value, is nothing but a troll.


No, you keep using the word troll, but I don't think it means what you think! Disagreement is not trolling.


Saying something intentionally wrong to elicit a response is indeed a "troll".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

This sense of the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, but have been used more widely. Media attention in recent years has equated trolling with online harassment. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[4][5] In addition, depictions of trolling have been included in popular fictional works such as the HBO television program The Newsroom, in which a main character encounters harassing individuals online and tries to infiltrate their circles by posting negative sexual comments himself.[6][7]


What is damaging EV adoption is the purity test.



And yet, I'm not against hybrids. Buy all the hybrids you want. Heck, buy a Hummer or two. But, I am against folks that say that EV advocates are hindering EVs, like you. Once again, a troll looking for a response.


So how is this not a simple and clear example of how it hurts adoption to arbitrary reject something? As someone else posted here this may not be needed when there are affordable 200 mile BEVs, but we are still a few years away.


Holy smokes... you acknowledge what I've been saying? Something about longer range EVs and a ubiquitous DC charging infrastructure will spring board EV sales? Wow, it doesn't appear that EV advocates are that bad, after all.

Why, then, would we want hydrogen? Of hydrids? (I'm almost afraid to ask that one!)


I know the definition of a Troll, and honestly your posts and responses are a pretty good definition.

I said (and please read carefully) that people who advocate ONLY EVs, and are irrationally against Rex, or FCEVs are hindering adoption, because they are not understanding that most people will NOT adopt pure EVs anytime soon, even with spotty charging available.

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11429
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:21 pm

epirali wrote:I said (and please read carefully) that people who advocate ONLY EVs, and are irrationally against Rex, or FCEVs are hindering adoption, because they are not understanding that most people will NOT adopt pure EVs anytime soon, even with spotty charging available.

Irrationally against FCEV ? Are you kidding ? They do almost nothing to reduce carbon footprint.

The diversion of public funds and the fig leaf of FCEV that laggards like Toyota use are good enough reasons to fight FCEV at every step.
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to ?

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11429
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:37 pm

epirali wrote:Ultimately if BEVs are going to require a second ICE in each family are you thinking 50% or less max switchover?

It is a question of timeline. I'll be happy with a 50% market share for BEV by 2025.

Once we get ubiquitous QC and long range EVs (3 hours on freeway) - you can say good bye to ICE.

Between BEVx and PHEV - the only question is what happens after the battery is low. It is clear to me PHEV would be more fuel efficient than BEV - and thus my support of PHEV. If someone can implement better mileage on BEVx, I'd support that.

Unfortunately both i3 & Volt are not family friendly (for people with small kids).
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to ?

User avatar
evnow
Moderator
Posts: 11429
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 11:41 am
Delivery Date: 25 Feb 2011
Leaf Number: 303
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 5:43 pm

edatoakrun wrote:
evnow wrote:...The idea is to get a 200 mile BEV for all local travel and a PHEV for longer trips...

That may be what you want, but I'd rather drive a BEVx that cost less than either of those two cars, and had a higher percentage of its total miles driven on E than both of them put together.

And that BEVx is ... ?

There is a reason, such a bast doesn't exist.
1st Leaf : 2/28/2011 to 5/6/2013
2nd Leaf : 5/4/2013 to 3/21/2017
Volt : 3/25/2017 to ?

epirali
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:15 am
Delivery Date: 08 Oct 2013
Leaf Number: 418541
Location: Maryland

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:05 pm

evnow wrote:
epirali wrote:Between BEVx and PHEV - the only question is what happens after the battery is low. It is clear to me PHEV would be more fuel efficient than BEV - and thus my support of PHEV. If someone can implement better mileage on BEVx, I'd support that.

I guess here is where I am a little lost. If Rex can get 32 mpg it is less efficient than the best mixed mode PHEV vehicles (take 50 as best case). But the miles that would have to be driven on a typical trip to cross the point where PHEV uses less gas is very large. Even at 10 mile electric range for PHEV I can still go another 60 miles minimum before engaging Rex. So I'm up one gallon at 70 miles. The break even point is somewhere around 140 miles by my quick math.

So you are absolutely correct that if my trips between charge are greater than 140 PHEVs are better, but less and Rex is more efficient. And I used the best numbers for PHEV and typical for i3.

Am I missing something?

edatoakrun
Posts: 4709
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:05 am

epirali wrote: ...if my trips between charge are greater than 140 PHEVs are better, but less and Rex is more efficient. And I used the best numbers for PHEV and typical for i3.

Am I missing something?

What I'd say you are missing, is that a BEVx can DC charge on a trip after covering its initial electric range.

Something no US market PHEV can do.

So, while even your first generation (and somewhat deficient, IMO) i3 BEVx could make all or nearly all of 140 miles (depending on speed and other conditions) burning no gas, if you stop to DC recharge once en-route, even the second generation Volt PHEV would have to make the same trip mostly on gas, unless its driver were willing to make several very long stops for L2, en route.
no condition is permanent

epirali
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 10:15 am
Delivery Date: 08 Oct 2013
Leaf Number: 418541
Location: Maryland

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:11 am

edatoakrun wrote:
epirali wrote: ...if my trips between charge are greater than 140 PHEVs are better, but less and Rex is more efficient. And I used the best numbers for PHEV and typical for i3.

Am I missing something?

What I'd say you are missing, is that a BEVx can DC charge on a trip after covering its initial electric range.

Something no US market PHEV can do.

So, while even your first generation (and somewhat deficient, IMO) i3 BEVx could make all or nearly all of 140 miles (depending on speed and other conditions) burning no gas, if you stop to DC recharge once en-route, even the second generation Volt PHEV would have to make the same trip mostly on gas, unless its driver were willing to make several very long stops for L2, en route.


Ok so I am clear, this actually is a POSITIVE for the Rex case right? I was mainly trying to compare apples to apples, without the DC recharge in the equation. But I would also say that I could do the exact same with a pure BEV without the need for Rex. So the comparison doesn't hold as much.

edatoakrun
Posts: 4709
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Thu Aug 13, 2015 10:43 am

="epirali"
...Ok so I am clear, this actually is a POSITIVE for the Rex case right?

YES.

="epirali"...I was mainly trying to compare apples to apples, without the DC recharge in the equation. But I would also say that I could do the exact same with a pure BEV without the need for Rex. So the comparison doesn't hold as much.

A BEVx is just a BEV with a small range extending ICE.

IMO, the main benefits of A BEVx over a "pure" BEV are, that you to continue your trip If a DC charger is unavailable, that you can ski[ a charge if you are in a particular hurry or only need a few more miles to your destination, or if, in the future, grid demand management makes it preferable to use the ICE, rather than add BEV battery charging demand to the grid.

Here in California, I certainly expect an intrepid Fox newsbabe to shoot a remote at a Tesla "supercharger" site in California during our next Casio emergency, watching Teslas lined up, each sucking up enough "Free" kWh in minutes, for sweltering homeowners to keep their AC running for days.

We've been lucky the last few summers, to have had relatively few problems meeting peak demand, BTW.

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
no condition is permanent

edatoakrun
Posts: 4709
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:33 am
Delivery Date: 15 May 2011
Leaf Number: 2184
Location: Shasta County, North California

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:03 am

Some previous posts on this thread mention the possibility of using a micro-turbine as a BEVx range extending generator.

While using a turbine is not likely to be cost-effective on a BEVx, which only occasionally needs to use its generator, for heavy trucks designed to use the generator through their usual drive cycle, its another matter.

One point BMW engineers seemed to have disregard with the i3x (If I understand its ICE operation correctly) is that the generator, whether a conventional ICE or turbine, should be operated at its most efficient speed.

Range extender turbine adds up, says Tesla co-founder Ian Wright

...Wright may prove to be even smarter then Elon Musk when it comes to disrupting conventional wisdom, except he is doing it with garbage trucks rather than luxury automobiles. Why? It’s a simple matter of arithmetic, says Wright.

In an interview with the Orange County Register, he lays out his case like this. There are about 110,000 heavy duty garbage trucks currently working in the US. They only travel an average of 130 miles a day, but consumer 14,000 gallons of diesel fuel a year.

Wright says he has invented a range extender turbine engine that can slash fuel costs by 60% and is cleaner than a pure electric vehicle...

The secret to his turbine range extender is that it is not coupled to the drivetrain, so it is free to spin at its most efficient speed at all times. Wright says his design results in the most efficient combustion engine in the world. “Whether [the truck is] idling, accelerating, decelerating or running full speed, the turbine runs at the sweet spot. These engines are 10 times cleaner than the best piston engines.” Wright says.

He says his battery with range extender makes economic sense. “The problem is, you can’t carry enough battery. There isn’t room and there isn’t payload, and if you could find the room and payload, it’s a $500,000 battery, so it doesn’t pencil out.” FedEx is starting to use Wright’s trucks as are some trash haulers in northern California.

His business it gaining recognition and he likes where he thinks he will be in 5 years. He scoffs gently at those who buy Tesla’s luxury electric cars, comparing them to the people who bought Pet Rocks a generation ago. “The point is that some people will buy almost anything. For almost anything you want to try on the market, some fraction of the market will buy it just to try it out.”

Ian Wright is a most interesting fellow.

http://ecomento.com/2015/08/31/range-ex ... an-wright/

Full interview here:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/turb ... ctric.html
no condition is permanent

fooljoe
Posts: 640
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2011 10:33 am
Delivery Date: 10 Jun 2011
Location: Seal Beach, CA
Contact: Website

Re: The “range–extended” EV (BEVx) considered

Mon Aug 31, 2015 10:52 am

Sounds like Wright's turbines are designed as primary power sources rather than "range extenders". When he makes the spurious claim that these are cleaner than pure electric vehicles I take that to mean his truck batteries are too small to plug in.

So basically what he's making are natural gas hybrid trucks, and whether they're any more efficient than a "conventional" hybrid is also quite dubious. While turbines are great in term of power to weight ratio, they're not known for being particularly efficient.
RavCharge.com | 2012 Rav4-EV | 2011 Leaf SL w/QC batt replaced 11/20/15 | Clipper Creek CS-60 | EVSEupgraded 2013 Leaf EVSE | 3.84kw PV

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”